Connect with us

“As Maine Goes, So Goes The Nation?” Bull. Part Two.

Published

on

The Tyranny Of The Majority Is Unacceptable

This is Part II. You can read Part I here.

So, the results in Maine suck.

I need you to take a deep breath and stay with me for a minute.

If someone came up to you and said, “Hi! I’m going to give you this fabulous prize – which you already deserve – and all you have to do is jump fifty hurdles, which no one has ever cleared even one of before, what do you think? Are you ready?” You’d say, bullshit.

Right?

“Hi! I’m going to give you marriage equality – which you already deserve – and all you have to do is get the majority of voters to say yes in each of our fifty states, which no one has ever won even once before, what do you think? Are you ready?”

That’s right.

Bullshit.

Take another deep breath.

There are several truths I need you to accept.

Marriage is a civil right. Disagree? The U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t. It’s already stated marriage is a civil right.

The United States was designed to protect the rights of all people, and to free them from the “tyranny of the majority.” Think it doesn’t exist? Plato did. He first floated the concept back in 380 B.C. Disagree that America was designed to protect minorities? Founding Father James Madison thought it was. So did did Alexis de Tocqueville – he coined the term in 1835 when he wrote “Democracy in America.”

If you live in this country and do not identify 100% as heterosexual, you are oppressed. You are automatically and effectively judged and treated differently than those who do. To what degree depends on your socio-economic status and geographic location.

David Mixner yesterday called this “Gay Apartheid.” I have struggled with the term all day. While I agree we share many of the same challenges in theory as Blacks in South Africa, the practices against us are not so blatant. That’s the beauty of oppression executed well – accomplishing it so the oppressed do not recognize their own oppression. In the end, the term doesn’t help us win hearts and minds, and that is still a battle I’m struggling with as well.

While we’re on the subject of the LGBTQ community’s relationship with the African American community, let me say this. Our struggle is similar. Our challenges were and continue to be similar. African Americans in this country are in terrible straits, and they, too, have every right to be angry. Just as we say no one is equal if we’re not, we must say no one is equal if they’re not. And they – African Americans – are not treated equally. We all can learn so much from each other. And we must.

It’s time to partner with the African American community. It’s time to understand their anger and their pain and realize that they are us in a few short decades if we don’t work together to solve the problem of class and inequality.

One of the “perks,” if you will, of being gay was that we were indoctrinated almost from birth with the supposition that we couldn’t possibly get married and have families. We ended up working a lot and making a lot of money. It’s true, the disposable income of gays and lesbians in America was the focus of marketing studies and every CEO ten years ago.

But now we’re forming families and raising children and you know what? That “perk,” that extra disposable income factor is slipping away. I was talking yesterday with Justin Elzie, the first Marine to come out under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 1993. He asked me, “Are we going to be able to afford all these marriage battles?” The answer, quite frankly, is, “No.”

We’re not going to win marriage equality at the ballot box. Nor should we be forced to try. Nor should we ever have agreed to it. It is morally reprehensible to ever have asked us to offer our rights up for a vote. No other group in this country ever had to try to secure equality at the ballot box. It has always come from the judicial or legislative branches of government, not from the people. As former governor Jesse Ventura said election night, “If you put it up to the vote of the people, we’d have slavery again.”

So should we, as I wrote the Washington Blade mused yesterday, “make the more pragmatic push for civil unions?” Hell no.

Can you imagine if African Americans or interracial couples had been offered domestic partnerships but not full marriage equality, in essence and in name? Can you imagine, for example, Asians, banding together to secure “everything but marriage,” as we did on Tuesday in Washington state? What if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” were applied to Hispanics? Or if you could be fired in twenty-nine states just because you were blond?

Americans today would never stand for that. Nor should we.

It is time for this country to cease half-measured attempts at solving full-measured crises. As I wrote in Part I, this Rumsfeldian battle-on-the-cheap didn’t work in Iraq, it didn’t work in California, and it didn’t work in Maine.

It’s time to demand full equality, in essence and in name, in every aspect of our lives. And it’s time to look at our leaders and say, “We’ve grown up. We’re not playing your games anymore.”

Oh, I know. “Be patient.” “Work with your elected representatives.” “No battle for civil rights was ever easy.” “It’s a long hard slog.” (Sorry, that “Rumsfeldian” thread is still in my head.)

I disagree.

We can no longer continue to buy into the concept of incrementalism, getting and giving up and getting and giving up our rights, slowly but surely, for decades to come. Win marriage in California. Lose marriage in California. Win marriage in Maine. Lose marriage in Maine. And yes, forces are forming now to repeal New Hampshire’s hard-won gay marriage law.

The time has come to say to Uncle Sam, enough.

Civil rights are federal.

Who investigates civil rights abuses? The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Because civil rights are federally protected. And marriage is a civil right.

In a country that tells us from the moment we’re born that we can be fired in twenty-nine states – just for being gay, that you cannot marry in forty-five states, that your government will not recognize your marriage at the federal level, that you cannot serve in the military, well, tell me that is a free society that offers full equality for all its citizens?

There is a difference between society not accepting groups of people (which is wrong to begin with,) and the government actively making laws against a group of people, taking away rights from them – rights enjoyed by the majority. And that’s what has happened here. Laws have been made that take away rights that exist because we are human beings. Inherent rights all humans possess, by virtue of their being. We cannot allow this to continue. We must find a different path to secure our equality.

So, you will ask, will I continue to fight for marriage? Yes. Will I continue to fight for marriage state by state? Yes. Because to not would be unfair to us all. Will I continue to fight for repeal of DADT and DOMA, and enactment of ENDA? Yes. Will I continue to fight to have the LGBTQ community included in the Civil Rights Act of 1969? Yes.

But will I work to take us out of what I call the “whack-a-mole marriage machine?” Will I work to get us to the point where we decide what the game is and how we’re going to play it? Hell yes.

This is Part II. You can read Part I here.

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

Stephen Miller’s Latest Rant Prompts Priest to Cite Goebbels Propaganda

Published

17 hours ago

on

July 11, 2025

By

Stephen Miller’s latest anti-immigrant rant is drawing attention, including from a well-known Catholic Jesuit priest, who appeared to liken the White House Deputy Chief of Staff’s remarks to those made by Hitler’s notorious Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, in 1941.

Miller, one of the most powerful members of the Trump administration, is seen as the principal architect of the President’s anti-immigration and deportation policies.

“U.S. Marines on the streets of Los Angeles. Masked immigration officers at courthouses and popular restaurants. Bans on travelers from more than a dozen countries,” Reuters reported on Friday. “For senior White House aide Stephen Miller, the architect of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, things were going according to plan.”

READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz

Denouncing the city government of Los Angeles as “waging a campaign of insurrection against the federal government,” Miller on Friday painted a scenario without undocumented immigrants in remarks made to Fox News.

“Let’s be very clear,” he said. “What would Los Angeles look like without illegal aliens?”

“Here’s what it would look like: You would be able to see a doctor in the emergency room right away, no wait time, no problem. Your kids would go to a public school that had more money than they know what to do with. Classrooms would be half the size. Students who had special needs would get all the attention that they needed.”

“There would be no violent transnational gangs. There would be no cartels. There would be no Mexican Mafia. There would be no Sureños. There would be no MS-13 There would be no TdA.”

“You would be living in a city that would be safe, that would be clean, there would be no fentanyl, there would be no drug dens,” he alleged. “That could be the future Los Angeles could have, but the leaders in Los Angeles have formed an alliance with the cartels and their criminal aliens.”

READ MORE: Record Majority of Americans Support Immigration in Massive Blow to Trump Agenda

Some of Miller’s claims are incorrect. For example, public schools often receive state funding in part based on the number of students and their attendance rate. Fewer students in classrooms means fewer dollars. And federal funding is tied to the number of low-income students and students with disabilities.

Miller’s claims about fentanyl and “drug dens” also don’t hold up. Most fentanyl comes into the U.S. via U.S. citizens, according to the Cato Institute.

Father James Martin, editor-at-large for America Magazine, which is published by the Jesuits, responded to Miller’s remarks by posting a quote from Goebbels:

“The enemy is in our midst. What makes more sense than to at least make this plainly visible to our citizens?”

It’s not the first time Father Martin has responded to Miller’s anti-immigrant rants with a quote.

In April, he quoted the Bible:

“‘I was a stranger and you did not welcome me’ (Matthew 25).”

See Martin’s post and video of Miller’s remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Record Majority of Americans Support Immigration in Massive Blow to Trump Agenda

Published

19 hours ago

on

July 11, 2025

By

A record-high majority—nearly eight in ten Americans—now view immigration positively, with similarly strong support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants—particularly those brought to the U.S. as children. The Gallup poll also found that most Americans favor maintaining or increasing current immigration levels.

Meanwhile, large segments of the public oppose expanding the number of immigration enforcement agents—a cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. Overall, just 35% of Americans approve of Trump’s immigration policies, while 65% disapprove.

Gallup’s report deals a major blow to the very core of President Donald Trump’s agenda, and his “One Big, Beautiful Bill” that dramatically increases spending on immigration enforcement, including detention camps, deportations, and removal, even to third-party countries.

RELATED: ‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’

“Americans have grown markedly more positive toward immigration over the past year, with the share wanting immigration reduced dropping from 55% in 2024 to 30% today,” Gallup reported on Friday. “At the same time, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country.”

“These shifts reverse a four-year trend of rising concern about immigration that began in 2021 and reflect changes among all major party groups,” the top-rated pollster also reported.

Now, just 38% of Americans support deporting all undocumented immigrants, in vast contrast to the stated Trump agenda. That’s down from 47% last year.

In what could be seen as a warning to the GOP, Gallup notes that “the desire for less immigration has fallen among all party groups, but it is most pronounced among Republicans, down 40 percentage points over the past year to 48%.”

Just this week, several top Trump administration officials have continued to promote his anti-immigrant policies.

READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins this week told reporters there will be “no amnesty” for undocumented farm workers while insisting adults on Medicaid could replace them.

“There will be no amnesty, the mass deportations continue, but in a strategic way, and we move the workforce towards automation and 100% American participation,” Secretary Rollins said.

Republican Senators have been promoting the Trump anti-immigrant agenda as well. On Thursday, U.S. Senator Ashley Moody (R-FL) called Democrats who oppose the often warrantless raids and tactics used by the DHS’s frequently masked ICE agents, “ignorant pawns of a subversive anarchist agenda.”

President Donald Trump’s and the Republican Party’s budget, which Trump signed into law last weekend, is tremendously unpopular, including his exponential expansion of immigration enforcement budgets, as well as aspects that gut vital social safety net programs like Medicaid and Medicare.

Critics praised Gallup’s findings.

“Nativism had its 6 months and now it’s clear that it’s not the answer,” wrote Cato Institute Director of Immigration Studies David J. Bier.

NBC News senior national political reporter Sahil Kapur, pointing to the Gallup statistics, called it “backlash politics.”

“Turns out, mass kidnappings and deportations are deeply unpopular when put into practice,” observed New York State Democratic Assemblywoman Emily Gallagher.

See the social media post above or at this link.

READ MORE: Luxury Air Force One, Rose Garden Reno? ‘Priorities’ Says Trump Budget Chief

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’

Published

22 hours ago

on

July 11, 2025

By

President Donald Trump’s hand-picked border czar, Tom Homan, is facing backlash from legal and political experts after asserting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents do not need “probable cause” to detain individuals—and can do so based on factors like “personal appearance.”

“Look, people need to understand,” Homan told Fox News on Friday. ICE officers “don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain and question them.”

“They just need to tally the circumstances, right?” he claimed. “They just go through their observation, you know, get out typical facts based on the location, the occupation, their physical appearance, their actions.”

“A uniformed border police officer walks up to them, for instance, at a Home Depot. And they got all these … facts, plus the person walks away or runs away,” Homan said, offering one scenario. “Agents are trained. What they need to detain somebody temporarily and question them.”

READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz

“It’s not probable cause,” he insisted. “It’s reasonable suspicion.”

“We’re trained on that. Every agent, every six months, gets Fourth Amendment training over and over again,” Homan said.

Legal experts blasted Homan’s remarks.

Professor of Law, former U.S. Attorney and MSNBC/NBC News legal analyst Joyce Vance summed up Homan’s remarks: “Racial profiling.”

“This is patently false,” declared U.S. Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY), also an attorney, “DHS has authority to question and search people coming into the country at points of entry. But ICE may not detain and question anyone without reasonable suspicion — and certainly not based on their physical appearance alone. This lawlessness must stop.”

Attorney and California Democratic state Senator Scott Wiener charged, “This is literally the definition of a white nationalist police state.”

U.S. Rep. Yvette Clark (D-NY) warned, “Trump’s thugs will racially profile you, then go on national television to brag about getting away with it.”

READ MORE: Luxury Air Force One, Rose Garden Reno? ‘Priorities’ Says Trump Budget Chief

Attorney and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold explained, “Walking up to people (without threatening) is legal. But ‘detaining’ people without ‘reasonable suspicion’ of criminal or quasi-criminal activity is illegal. Racial profiling is not cause for the required reasonable suspicion. ‘Let me see your papers’ is un-American.”

U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA), who, in a highly-publicized incident was forcibly removed and handcuffed by federal agents at a DHS press conference, wrote: “And there you have it. Under the Trump Administration, ICE and Border Patrol are being empowered to stop and question you based solely on how you look. No probable cause. No real reason. Just your ‘physical appearance.’ That’s not justice—it’s profiling.”

“They’re saying the quiet part out loud now,” wrote New York Democratic State Senator Gustavo Rivera. “Don’t get it twisted: if we let them keep doing this, they’ll find a reason to come for ANY ONE OF US soon enough.”

“THEY ARE ADMITTING IT,” wrote David J. Bier, Cato Institute Director of Immigration Studies and an expert on legal immigration, border security, and interior enforcement. “Homan is admitting to participating in a criminal conspiracy against the Constitution of the United States,” he alleged.

Max Flugrath, communications director for Fair Fight Action, wrote: “Trump’s Border Czar and Project 2025 contributor says ICE can detain anyone based on ‘suspicion’ and physical ‘appearance.’ That’s not immigration policy, it’s fascism.”

Watch the video below or at this link:

READ MORE: Trump Dodges, Denies and Deflects Questions as Ukraine Weapons Scandal Grows

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.