Connect with us

DOMA: Maggie Gallagher Needs To Actually Read The First Amendment

Published

on

Maggie Gallagher, Chuck Grassley, heck, maybe all conservatives (including Sarah Palin!) and anti-equality fear-mongers need to actually read the First Amendment. I’m sure if you’re reading this, you have, but since Gallagher has been known to stop by here, I’ll post it here for her to see:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

See? It’s short — only 45 words. Not hard to read, right? How long did it just take you?

So why is it that Maggie Gallagher — certainly a learned woman — felt the need yesterday to pen, “The Chilling of Our First Amendment Rights,” over at the National Review, in response to Senator Chuck Grassley’s mistaken testimony? (A great deal of the senior Senator from Iowa’s testimony Wednesday at the DOMA hearing was mistaken.)

“I’d like to note that one of our witnesses describes the serious threats that were made against ordinary citizens who exercise their First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances when California judges forced that state to adopt same-sex marriage,” Grassley said at Wednesday’s DOMA hearing. “The minority very much hoped to call a witness today, at this hearing, to testify in support of DOMA. I’m sure she would have done an excellent job. She declined, however, citing as one reason the threats and intimidation that have been leveled against not only her but her family as a result of her support of DOMA. She will continue to write on the subject but will no longer speak publicly. This chilling of the First Amendment rights is unacceptable.”

Clever how Grassley sticks First Amendment in there, first plausibly, since it states, as you well know now, that,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,”

then totally incorrectly.

If someone is invited by Congress to testify in front of Congress, are their First Amendment rights violated if they choose to not testify, for whatever reason — be  it fear, perceived threats or perceived intimidation? No.

Is it wrong — possibly a crime — if someone is threatened to not speak in front of Congress? Of course!

But is this a “chilling of their First Amendment rights?” No.

Gallagher, and Grassley, should know better, just as should Sarah Palin, who infamous claimed in 2008,

“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”

And just as Palin was sadly mistaken in 2010, when she defended Dr. Laura’s right to be a hate monger, saying, via Twitter, “Dr.Laura:don’t retreat…reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence”isn’t American,not fair”)”

(Dr. Laura herself needs to read the First Amendment. The embattled conservative radio show host, explaining her resignation, stated she was quitting to “regain my First Amendment rights.” She never lost them — just the good sense to treat people well, and to tell the truth. Sadly, those two attributes make for popular conservative talk show hosts.)

But Maggie Gallagher, the Chairman of NOM  — the National Organization for Marriage that works hard not to save or protect marriage, but to ensure same-sex couples are unable to be included in the institution — gets around all this, (just as she gets around anything she doesn’t like, by creating a false narrative,) stating,

“The First Amendment is more than a legal guarantee. It is a culture — a key American value — which holds that in a decent and free society, law-abiding citizens should not face reprisals for speaking up with civility for the moral good as they see it.”

See, just like Grassley sneaks the First Amendment reference into his comments, Gallagher likes to redefine the meaning — when it suits her purpose.

(Why is it conservatives, who generally claim to be strict Constitutionalists when it comes to the Constitution — and the Bible — like to interpret when it’s convenient? Redefine the First Amendment? Go ahead! “Redefine” marriage? Hell no!)

I certainly agree that Americans “should not face reprisals for speaking up with civility for the moral good as they see it,” as long as their “speaking up” doesn’t incite violence, or create a culture of fear and hate — which is what Gallagher’s pals like Bryan Fischer do, almost daily.

And yes, I’m aware courts disagree, most recently in fact, stating it’s OK to level a death threat on a presidential candidate under the guise of “free speech.”

“Sen. Chuck Grassley’s remarkable opening statement in today’s Senate hearing on a bill to repeal DOMA called attention to a very serious and growing intolerance directed at Americans who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife,” Gallagher claimed yesterday.

Is there “a very serious and growing intolerance directed at Americans who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife?”

There certainly is a growing embrace of same-sex marriage — now that we have six major nationwide polls over the past twelve months that find that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage.

Is it intolerant to be intolerant of the Right’s intolerance?

(Speaking of tolerance and intolerance, I’ll take a moment to direct your attention to “I Do Not Deserve Your Tolerance,” my post years back on the very subject.)

“An unfortunate aspect of the church’s opposition to same-sex marriage in the civil forum is that it carries aspects of intolerance,” writes Roman Catholic canon lawyer and professor Nicholas P. Cafardi in the National Catholic Reporter. “Yes, I realize that the opposite is true. The church could say that those pushing same-sex civil marriage on those of us who, because of our faith, are unalterably opposed to it are also intolerant of our religious beliefs. But in the scales of intolerance, the weight will always go against those who would prevent rather than those who would permit.”

And make no mistake. Gallagher’s NOM may downplay its religious roots, but they’re deep — in culture and in finance. NOM states it is “a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it.” Those faith communities —  widely-believed to be both the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church — have sustained NOM, financially.

Gallagher has the audacity to state,

“The death threats and hateful mail New York state senator Rev. Ruben Diaz says he has received are not unusual. Whole professions are in the process of being closed to anyone who espouses — and acts — on the view that marriage is the union of husband and wife.”

New York State Senator and Reverend Rubén Díaz is the man who stood idly by while Maggie Gallagher’s NOM-sponsored anti-gay hate rally — prior to the New York State marriage equality win last month — featured a preacher who actually advocated for the genocide of the LGBT community.

“Gays are worthy of death,” Reverend Ariel Torres Ortega preached, in Spanish, back in May.

Gallagher, whose organization sponsored the event, said little more than, “I whole-heartedly and unreservedly denounce any suggestion of violence against gay people, or anyone in the gay marriage debate,” — on my site, in the comments section, not in a press release — far the the eyes of most.

New York State Senator and Reverend Rubén Díaz refused to even acknowledge the genocidal raving, much less denounce it.

Like so many conservatives, Gallagher sees what she wants to see, ignorant of the concept of cause and effect.

Have there been incidents of angry verbal and written attacks on those who voted for Prop 8? Of course. Have there been incidents of angry verbal and written attacks on those who speak for or against equslity? Of course.

In a nation that embraces the right of a man to suggest he will put a .50 calibre bullet into the head of the nation’s first African-American president, and chalk it up to free speech, surely no one should be surprised if those on both sides of any question get verbally hostile. (Let me make perfectly clear, I find disgusting and morally offensive both someone threatening violence, and a ruling that says it’s OK to do so.)

But no one is “chilling” the First Amendment rights of anyone in the battle for marriage equality. To say so is just another of the right’s orchestrated campaign of falsehoods.

The bottom line is simple. You probably figured this out by now. Gallagher and Grassley and Palin, and Dr. Laura, and all the others, all claim First Amendment rights are being compromised, because they don’t like what their critics have to say — or because there are fewer people who are saying what they want to hear.

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

‘When She Is Already Governor and Senator?’: Kari Lake Mocked Over Possible Ambassador Nom

Published

12 hours ago

on

December 9, 2024

By

Failed ultra-MAGA GOP nominee for Arizona governor and U.S. Senator, Kari Lake, is being mocked after a report detailed that she has emerged as a “leading contender” to be President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. Ambassador to Mexico.

Semafor published the “scoop” late Monday afternoon, noting also that “Lake has echoed Trump in backing strict limits on immigration. On the campaign trail, Lake described the influx of migrants entering the US as an ‘invasion.’”

“She campaigned on finishing the wall at the US southern border, increasing the number of judges who hear asylum claims, stepping up quick deportations of undocumented immigrants who cross outside official ports of entry and building additional border detention facilities,” Semafor reports.

READ MORE: ‘I Love His Charisma’: Republican Lauds ‘Man of Integrity’ Hegseth Who Will ‘Get Rid of DEI’

Notably, like Trump, she refused to concede her election loss in the 2022 race for Arizona governor.

Mexico is a critical trading partner and the health of the U.S. economy hinges in part on America’s relationship with our neighbor to the south.

In September, the U.S. Dept. of State noted that “Mexico remains one of the United States’ closest and most valued partners, with a 2,000-mile shared border containing 47 active land ports of entry, and a shared history that has established deep cultural and people-to-people ties over 200 years of diplomatic relations. This bilateral relationship directly impacts the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans on issues as varied as trade and economic development, education exchange, citizen security, drug control, migration, human trafficking, entrepreneurship, innovation, environmental protection, climate change, and public health.”

“Each day, hundreds of thousands of people cross both sides of the border legally to work, live, or visit close relatives and friends. In addition, an estimated 1.6 million U.S. citizens live in Mexico and Mexico is the top foreign destination for U.S. travelers.”

READ MORE: ‘You Have to’: Trump Confirms Plan to Deport US Citizens With Undocumented Parents

If nominated and confirmed, Lake would be responsible for maintaining and, presumably, improving this relationship.

Critics expressed largely negative responses.

Eric Boehm, a reporter at the libertarian magazine Reason commented, “Tell me you’re not serious about negotiating with Mexico over trade or immigration without telling me….”

Bridgeport, Pennsylvania Councilman Tony Heyl sarcastically asked, “How is she going to have time to do this when she is already Governor and Senator from Arizona?”

Another critic, mocking Trump’s 2015 presidential campaign launch speech, wrote: “When America sends its people, they’re not sending their best.”

READ MORE: Butker’s ‘Traditional Values’ PAC Took Retiree Cash, Spent Most on Fundraising: Report

 

 

Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading

News

‘I Love His Charisma’: Republican Lauds ‘Man of Integrity’ Hegseth Who Will ‘Get Rid of DEI’

Published

14 hours ago

on

December 9, 2024

By

Republican Senators are starting to circle the wagons around President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be Secretary of Defense, former Fox News weekend co-host Pete Hegseth, with one particularly loyal ultra-MAGA lawmaker praising him as a “man of integrity.”

Hegseth has faced criticism for a wide variety of allegations, including tattoos that reflect an affinity for Christian nationalism, alleged “aggressive drunkenness,” possible alcohol intoxication on the job, alleged sexual assault of a woman who attended a Republican conference with her husband and children and says she was trapped by Hegseth in his room, and alleged financial mismanagement of two charities that support veterans.

The alleged sexual assault victim “had texted her husband about her dislike for Hegseth, saying he gave off ‘creeper’ vibes,” USA TODAY reported. “Hotel footage showed them in a verbal altercation at the pool area before she led Hegseth towards his room. She later told police she didn’t know how she ended up in Hegseth’s room, but she remembered he blocked the door and took her phone, she told police. Hegseth told police at the time he was ‘buzzed’ but not drunk, though his lawyer recently claimed he was ‘visibly intoxicated’ and the woman was the ‘the aggressor in the encounter.'”

READ MORE: Jason Miller Tries to Spin Trump

The New Yorker alleged Hegseth that at one of the veterans’ charities, Hegseth “was frequently intoxicated on the job and contributed to a hostile workplace due to sexual misconduct,” USA Today also reported.

“A previously undisclosed whistle-blower report on Hegseth’s tenure as the president of Concerned Veterans for America, from 2013 until 2016, describes him as being repeatedly intoxicated while acting in his official capacity—to the point of needing to be carried out of the organization’s events,” The New Yorker also reported. “The detailed seven-page report—which was compiled by multiple former C.V.A. employees and sent to the organization’s senior management in February, 2015—states that, at one point, Hegseth had to be restrained while drunk from joining the dancers on the stage of a Louisiana strip club, where he had brought his team.”

“The report also says that Hegseth, who was married at the time, and other members of his management team sexually pursued the organization’s female staffers, whom they divided into two groups—the ‘party girls’ and the ‘not party girls.’ In addition, the report asserts that, under Hegseth’s leadership, the organization became a hostile workplace that ignored serious accusations of impropriety, including an allegation made by a female employee that another employee on Hegseth’s staff had attempted to sexually assault her at the Louisiana strip club. In a separate letter of complaint, which was sent to the organization in late 2015, a different former employee described Hegseth being at a bar in the early-morning hours of May 29, 2015, while on an official tour through Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, drunkenly chanting ‘Kill All Muslims! Kill All Muslims!’ ”

One Republican U.S. Senator, Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, on Sunday said he did not see Hegseth’s drinking as a problem.

Monday afternoon, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) declared that Hegseth is a “good man,” and a “man of integrity” who absolutely has his support.

“I think that these anonymous character assassinations by the media are way over-reported,” Marshall insisted.

Fox News host John Roberts interjected, saying, “but some of them weren’t anonymous.”

“Well, the ones that I’ve seen are anonymous,” Marshall claimed, before insisting Hegseth will be a good Secretary of Defense.

“The people elected President Trump for transformational changes,” Marshall claimed. “Pete is gonna get rid of the DEI business going on in the military. He’s going to reward people for their merits that our warfighters out there aren’t afraid who’s standing beside them when the bullets are pouring down.”

READ MORE: ‘You Have to’: Trump Confirms Plan to Deport US Citizens With Undocumented Parents

“Look, Pete has my full throated support,” Marshall also said. “I think that what I love about Pete, first of all, is his heart, that he has a heart of a warfighter and he’s more focused on those enlisted soldiers than he is on this industrial military complex of Washington, D.C.”

“I love his charisma,” he continued. “I love his ability to communicate.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: Butker’s ‘Traditional Values’ PAC Took Retiree Cash, Spent Most on Fundraising: Report

Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading

News

Jason Miller Tries to Spin Trump

Published

16 hours ago

on

December 9, 2024

By

Trump senior adviser Jason Miller appeared on camera Monday morning, attempting to explain remarks made by the President-elect on Sunday. Miller explained that when Donald Trump said Republican former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney, the vice chair of the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, should be imprisoned, it was not intended as a literal call for her incarceration. Instead, Miller suggested that the statement was meant to promote the equal application of the rule of law in America.

“For what they did, honestly, they should go to jail,” Trump told NBC News’ “Meet the Press” in an interview that aired Sunday (video below). He was referring to Cheney, the committee’s vice chair, and its chairman, Democrat Bennie Thompson.

Trump, The New York Times reported, falsely claimed that the committee had destroyed all the evidence it had collected.

“Cheney did something that’s inexcusable, along with Thompson and the people on the un-select committee of political thugs and, you know, creeps,” he said. “They deleted and destroyed all evidence.”

READ MORE: ‘You Have to’: Trump Confirms Plan to Deport US Citizens With Undocumented Parents

“And Cheney was behind it. And so was Bennie Thompson and everybody on that committee,” Trump alleged.

The Times reports, “In fact, the committee did not destroy all evidence. It released an 800-page report as well as 140 transcripts of testimony and various memos, emails and voice mail messages. The evidence remains online. Mr. Thompson explained in a letter last year that the committee had asked the executive branch to go through some material first to protect ‘law enforcement sensitive operational details and private, personal information that, if released, could endanger the safety of witnesses.’”

Cheney “said the incoming president ‘lied about the Jan. 6 select committee’ and that there would be ‘no conceivably appropriate factual or constitutional basis’ to prosecute its members,” The Times adds.

“Here is the truth: Donald Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election and seize power,” she said in a statement, according to The Times. “He mobilized an angry mob and sent them to the United States Capitol, where they attacked police officers, invaded the building and halted the official counting of electoral votes. Trump watched on television as police officers were brutally beaten and the Capitol was assaulted, refusing for hours to tell the mob to leave.”

“This was the worst breach of our Constitution by any president in our nation’s history,” Cheney also said in her statement. “Donald Trump’s suggestion that members of Congress who later investigated his illegal and unconstitutional actions should be jailed is a continuation of his assault on the rule of law and the foundations of our republic.”

But Miller, who has been with Trump for much of the time since his 2016 presidential campaign, suggested the President-elect did not call for Cheney to be imprisoned.

READ MORE: Butker’s ‘Traditional Values’ PAC Took Retiree Cash, Spent Most on Fundraising: Report

“Look, Liz Cheney is someone who lost her primary, who got bounced out by a very good Republican who’s been bitter and attacking President Trump ever since,” Miller told CNN’s Pamela Brown Monday morning. “I think Liz Cheney, quite frankly, for what she did, I have my own personal opinions about Liz Cheney, but what President Trump said, if you listen to the entire ‘Meet the Press’ interview, is he wants everyone who he puts in the key positions of leadership … to apply the law equally to everybody.”

“Now,” Miller continued, “that means if you’re somebody who’s committed some very serious crimes, who’s committed very serious felonies, who’s, for example, confidential information and direct violation of laws that are in place, well, then obviously that sets you up for different things, but as far as the politics aspect, if you listen to the entire interview with President Trump, he said he’s gonna leave that up to the law enforcement agents in charge.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Melania Grift’: Incoming First Lady Hawks Her Christmas ‘Collectibles’ in Fox Interview

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.