Connect with us

Gay Marriage, Abortion Aren’t Problems. Child Homelessness, Poverty Are.

Published

on

Throughout the year in the United States, an estimated two million children will be homeless, over three million will be living without either of their parents. 40% of homeless youth are LGBTQ. At least half a million U.S. children live in foster homes. States that offer marriage equality also have the lowest rates of child homelessness.

Republicans and social conservatives — including the Tea Party — spent the better part of the past year railing against President Obama’s fiscal and social policies, and crowing about “jobs, jobs jobs!” Perhaps rightly so, as the Congress last year did little directly to create jobs programs. But at least they didn’t pretend they were.

In the run up to the 2010 election, the Republican mantra was “jobs, jobs jobs!,” and Republican and Tea Party candidates and incumbents all promised the American people once they were in charge they would focus solely on “jobs, jobs jobs!” They used the term “jobs-killing” as an adjective attached to anything-Obama more times than Sarah Palin has Facebook friends.

Yet, here we are, almost one-quarter of the way through 2011, and the GOP has passed not a single bill that will create a single job. Not one. Instead, Republicans at the local, state, and federal level have spent their time focused on making it as difficult as possible for a woman to get an abortion or any reproductive health services, they have focused on union-busting, making creationism the law of the land in schools, ending federal coverage for low-income child immunizations, taking families who go on strike off food stamps, defunding “Obamacare,” defunding NPR, defunding Planned Parenthood, supporting DOMA in court, voting to take away rights of LGBT public employees and their spouses, voting to ban same-sex marriages, and killing the EPA.

Read: “The GOP’s War On Women And Children“

The past seven days must have held considerable angst for social conservatives, religious leaders, and the politicians who pander to these extremists. Polls and studies have rolled in, finding great majorities and pluralities supporting marriage equality and the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), even among conservatives. Even among Catholics and Christians and Protestants. Even among almost every single demographic group in the country.

Old, young, white, non-white, college-educated, high school educated, men, women, northern, eastern, southern, western, you name it — the American people have spoken and they have said not only do they want the government to repeal DOMA, but they want the government to allow same-sex marriage, and to stop addressing social issues and focus on jobs. And they want their religious leaders out of their bedrooms, doctor’s offices, pharmacies, and classrooms.

(What is also staggering is the vast disparity between what the American people in general actually want, and what their political representatives and religious leaders are actually doing.)

Here, at The New Civil Rights Movement, we posted the news about the Vatican’s speech to the United Nations this week, during which the Holy See bemoaned what it classifies as the “vilification” of people who speak out against same-sex marriage. Interestingly, this prompted a rather curious debate in the comments section, fueled by one conservative and several regular readers.

Some of the comments from the anti-marriage equality conservative were about “traditional marriage” creating “socially licensed male/female homes,” and another curious one about marriage: “A marriage license equates children like a fishing license equates fish. The requirements for a fishing license doesn’t require you to catch fish, but people who apply for one hope to catch fish. Most people who get married hope to have children.”

You can imagine what followed.

When I started to jump in to defend my position, it dawned on me, much as it dawned on me earlier in the week when I decried our bombing Libya, in a tweet, “Great. Shock and awe in #Libya. America again steps in. Where are the jobs, Mr. Gaddafi?,” what the hell are we doing?

My point is simply this.

Much like the overwhelmed employee who is so far in over his head he doesn’t know what part of his job to do first, America is playing whack-a-mole — and losing, badly, I might add — in her job of caring for her people, and making their lives, and the world, better.

And so, the time has come to say this: Don’t talk to me about the “evils” of what conservatives call “gay marriage,” or the “evils” of abortion, until you have solved the problems of child homelessness, child hunger, child poverty, education, and jobs.

Republicans are now doing everything they can to constrict a woman’s right to abortion and reproductive services. What do they think will happen to all those unwanted children? They’re not thinking, but you and I know many of these children will end up unwanted, and become wards of the state, at an increased cost to taxpayers.

How is it that the same people in Congress who want to end abortion are the same people who want to take away food stamps, education, and health care from children? Does the so-called “sanctity of life” only exist in the womb? Could there be anything less responsible that this?

Call it GOP logic. Make it your sole goal to cut taxes and end abortion and see what you get.

Nevermind the increased costs of human suffering that goes along with all this. Never mind that it’s just plain wrong.

Add to this lunacy the conservative’s desire to end the teaching of evolution, and substitute “creationism,” as well as reduce spending, by the billions, on children’s education, and what will we have in a decade? In two decades?

A lot more unwanted children, poor, sick, and ignorant.

Who is forced to care for unwanted poor, sick, and ignorant children?

The taxpayers.

And what do Republicans want to do? Cut taxes.

Do you see where we’re going here?

Now, on top of all this illogical, inhumane stupidity, the GOP, the Tea Party, and social conservatives want to stop same-sex couples from marrying, and adopting children.

Why?

Because homosexuality, according to them, is “evil,” unnatural,” and against the will of God. (Bull, but this is their “thinking.”)

I’m pretty certain those same Bible-thumpers who are against same-sex couples marrying and raising children are the same ones who are all for cutting taxes, reducing the amount of money spent on schools, education, unionized teaching professionals, healthcare, and so on, and so on, and so on.

(Now, back to all those polls. Just a reminder: The majority of Americans, no matter how you slice it, want DOMA dead and same-sex couples to be able to marry. Sadly, no one’s been able to get politicians to understand what the American people want.)

So, let me recap.

There’s a group of people in America who’s life’s mission is to:

  • Cut taxes
  • Cut government spending on healthcare
  • Cut government spending on education
  • Cut government spending on the arts
  • Cut government spending on news and information services
  • Stop the government from regulating pollution-causing industries
  • Stop the government from reacting to climate change
  • Stop the government from regulating food, toys, business in general
  • Teach creationism
  • Teach abstinence-only sex education
  • End abortion
  • End teenagers’ access to contraception
  • Stop same-sex couples from marrying
  • Stop same-sex couples from adopting

And I’m sure a great many more things.

What will we get from all this?

Sadly, many unwanted children, who will not be immunized, who will not receive proper health care, who will not be properly fed, who will not be properly educated, who will end up having more sick, un-educated, and unwanted children of their own, all of whom will not be cared for at all because the state won’t pay for them because Republicans want to cut taxes.

And yet, we have loving, willing, desperately-wanting same-sex couples ready and able to raise children, create families, and get married.

See my point?

Conservatives talk about the “fact” that children must be raised in a family headed by a mother and a father. Well, first of all that’s not necessarily true.

Two long-term studies recently published found just the opposite. In fact, one of them, a twenty-five year-long and vigorously peer-reviewed study published in the journal Pediatrics, found that adopted children raised by lesbian parents are better-adjusted and do better in school than their opposite-parented peers. Add to this the fact that we now have, “a study of gay dads that finds they are more likely than straight ones to focus on parenting over career, at least when their children are young.”

Children deserve to to be raised in a loving home by adults who can teach and raise them well, provide for their material, social, educational, and emotional needs and development. Whatever that looks like, I know that as a stipulation it far exceeds what possibly a majority of children face today.

Now, look at these clips from recent news stories:

“Four years ago, 1 in 10 Americans struggled with hunger. A year later, it rose to 1 in 8. Today, it’s 1 in 6. That’s 50 million Americans, including 17 million children — and contrary to popular opinion, only 10 percent of these people are homeless.”

“Families with children make up 47 percent of the homeless population in the Dallas metropolitan area.”

“Almost 50 million Americans are without health insurance– 3 million more than a year ago, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  The report finds one in five people were uninsured during some portion of the last 12 months.”

“Nearly two-thirds of all the inmates interviewed on Feb. 25 said they dropped out of high school before they graduated, and fewer than half of those dropouts have a diploma or a GED.”

“Evangelicals are the only major religious group where a majority opposes the federal government’s efforts to reduce childhood obesity, a Pew Research Center survey shows.”

“Over 20 percent of children live in poverty, and over 36 percent of the extremely poor are children. Also, over half of the children in this country under age 6 who live in a household where there’s a single mom are poor.”

“Air Pollution as an Emerging Global Risk Factor for Stroke”

“Air Pollution Called Health Peril. Linked To Cancer, Other Diseases.”

(Oh that last one? It’s from 1962, the year I was born. I guess we haven’t learned much in 49 years.)

Even if conservatives succeed at denying same-sex couples the right to marry (don’t worry, they won’t!) same-sex couples are still going to be raising children, forming families, and living our lives. And there’s nothing those anti-marriage equality social conservatives can do about it.

But the fact remains. There’s a new war in America. I don’t mean Libya. Right here at home, the Republican war on women and children, on gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people, on minorities, on Muslims… the list goes on. So does the evil of the GOP. Until we vote them out of office and make damn sure, in the mean time, they know they can’t get away with their social agenda of hate any longer.

Republicans are waging war on the wrong targets. The LGBTQ community, women, and children aren’t the enemy, they’re the solution.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

CNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial

Published

6 mins ago

on

April 26, 2024

By

Donald Trump’s Friday morning claim Manhattan’s Criminal Courts Building is “heavily guarded” so his supporters cannot attend his trial was torched by a top CNN anchor. The ex-president, facing 34 felony charges in New York, had been urging his followers to show up and protest on the courthouse steps, but few have.

“I’m at the heavily guarded Courthouse. Security is that of Fort Knox, all so that MAGA will not be able to attend this trial, presided over by a highly conflicted pawn of the Democrat Party. It is a sight to behold! Getting ready to do my Courthouse presser. Two minutes!” Trump wrote Friday morning on his Truth Social account.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins supplied a different view.

“Again, the courthouse is open the public. The park outside, where a handful of his supporters have gathered on trials days, is easily accessible,” she wrote minutes after his post.

READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Trump has tried to rile up his followers to come out and make a strong showing.

On Monday Trump urged his supporters to “rally behind MAGA” and “go out and peacefully protest” at courthouses across the country, while complaining that “people who truly LOVE our Country, and want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, are not allowed to ‘Peacefully Protest,’ and are rudely and systematically shut down and ushered off to far away ‘holding areas,’ essentially denying them their Constitutional Rights.”

On Wednesday Trump claimed, “The Courthouse area in Lower Manhattan is in a COMPLETE LOCKDOWN mode, not for reasons of safety, but because they don’t want any of the thousands of MAGA supporters to be present. If they did the same thing at Columbia, and other locations, there would be no problem with the protesters!”

After detailing several of his false claims about security measures prohibiting his followers from being able to show their support and protest, CNN published a fact-check on Wednesday:

“Trump’s claims are all false. The police have not turned away ‘thousands of people’ from the courthouse during his trial; only a handful of Trump supporters have shown up to demonstrate near the building,” CNN reported.

“And while there are various security measures in place in the area, including some street closures enforced by police officers and barricades, it’s not true that ‘for blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.’ In reality, the designated protest zone for the trial is at a park directly across the street from the courthouse – and, in addition, people are permitted to drive right up to the front of the courthouse and walk into the building, which remains open to the public. If people show up early enough in the morning, they can even get into the trial courtroom itself or the overflow room that shows near-live video of the proceedings.”

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

17 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

20 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.