Apologists Need Not Apply
My, how far we’ve come! Time was, a hundred years ago, being labeled a homosexual gave you a free pass – to go directly to jail. In New York City’s 1903, seven men went to prison for up to twenty years after police raided a bath house. A decade later, the term “faggot†was first used in print. Then, in 1920, the word “gay†was first used to describe, well, gays.
Speed through much of the twentieth century. We had our day in the sun in the 60’s, and the 70’s a bit. The 80’s were not kind to us – and then in the late 90’s and the early part of this decade, we started to gain some support. But all of a sudden, now, it seems, we’re the most popular game in town! Why, even the President wants to hang out with us!
Yes, President Obama is trying to get a little more hip to the gay thing. He’s invited some top-notch gays to the White House for cocktails. And just days before the DNC’s flailing $1000-a-plate LGBT fundraiser! (Hosted by that bastion of gay rights himself, Joe Biden, whom HRC gave all of a 78% on gay rights last year, and whom the ACLU gave a “mixed record†rating of 60% on civil rights…)
Seems they’re dropping like flies (well, no flies dare enter the White House anymore, but) at DNC fundraising headquarters, ever since that nasty business with the Department of Justice’s DOMA brief invoking incest and under-age marriages to support the Defense of Marriage Act. Can you believe that the Bush version of the DOMA brief was worse? My word, yes, how far we’ve come!
So, do we support Obama? Or oppose him? There are so many sides to this argument.
There’s the radical left, who supposedly think (according to the radical right) that Obama was going to hand down gay rights to everyone on Day One. Of course, no one thought that at all, but the Right likes to say, “Finally, gays realize Obama is keeping his campaign promises!†Never mind they claim that he’s not on any other issue, but the Right is funny that way. (Funny that way, as in, the Right spent the weekend complaining about Obama taking his daughters out for custard for fifteen minutes the day before Father’s Day.)
Then there are the gay-supporting centrist liberals, who think Obama should keep his promises as soon as possible, repeal DOMA and DADT, get Hate Crimes passed, and ENDA too. Not all at once, but they want to see some sort of a plan, a vision, a nod, a hint that it’s somewhere not-too-far back in Obama’s mind. They recognize that there are other things on Obama’s plate, but they also are cognizant of opportunities, not to mention the fact that civil rights should be a priority for any democracy.
And then there are the apologists. You know them. The gays who don’t think gays should be married, or who think gays can’t handle marriage, or that marriage would be nice, but, not right now, honey, I have a headache. Oh, I mean, you know, when you can fit it into your busy schedule, dear. Did you remember your umbrella, sweetie?
The apologists think everyone else should come first. Our President is, after all, a busy man. He’s got the economy, which seems to be entering another downward spiral (and just when things seemed to be going so well!) He’s got that messy business in Iran (not that he has anything to do with it really, but the Right likes to think he does,) and he’s got the upcoming health care legislation battle (because lord knows a few Democrats woke up with amnesia last week and thought they were Republicans.) He’s far too busy to spend his time on messy things like civil rights for gays!
The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart, in Sunday’s “For Obama, a Hit and a Miss On Gay Rights,†wrote that “… the Obama administration bungled the politics surrounding its filing of a brief in a case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act…†So, it was the politics that were bungled? Not the entire brief, I suppose? He then goes on to write, “On Wednesday, he signed a memorandum extending a number of benefits to the partners of gay federal employees. This was the culmination of work that began in December.†Culmination of work that began in December? More like Monday when it was clear things were getting choppy on the SS DNC Fundraiser. Capehart describes the criticism Obama is getting as “searing,†and says “it borders on a blind rage.†(I hate that word “rage,” like when Michelle Malkin uses it to describe gays: “The insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob.”)
The apologists like to think if they wait just long enough, are polite just long enough, are the good boys and girls their mothers taught them to be, that their government will see them waiting on the corner and reward them with a goody basket full of gay rights. Well, I have some bad news. Waiting and being polite, as much as I personally like those things, aren’t going to get us what we deserve, what we want, what we need. As much as I like being chivalrous, I know that it takes some pushing and some name-calling and a lot, a lot of speaking truth to power to make things move.
I don’t know about you, but, while I like my president, I like equal rights more. I value equal rights more. And I need them, more. Sorry to say, I’m not sorry any longer. And just as I no longer have any need to make apologies for who I am, I no longer have any need to make apologies for what my president, or my Congress, does – or does not do – any longer.
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.
 |
Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.
Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”
“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”
In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”
He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”
“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”
“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”
“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”
The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.
“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”
Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”
Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.
Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) July 6, 2026
President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.
“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”
The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”
Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”
TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”
Critics blasted Trump.
“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.
One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”
Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”
The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.
According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.
Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”
“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”
Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”
Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.
Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.
The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.
“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.
The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.
“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”
Image via Reuters
Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation
Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs
One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won
Inside the Group Helping MAGA Voters Walk Away — And What Finally Pushed Them
