Connect with us

Gay Marriage: David Remnick, Journalists Chat About Obama’s Evolution

Published

on

The New Yorker’s editor-in-chief David Remnick held an on-line chat Tuesday on New York’s marriage equality victory that was joined by journalists Steve Silberman, Johanna Nublat and this reporter. Remnick also authored a “Talk of the Town ” opinion piece titled “It Get’s Better” about the passage of the marriage equality bill in the New York State legislature. Here is an abridged version featuring questions and comments by journalists during the chat with Remnick:


2:57
David Remnick:

Good afternoon, it’s David Remnick here, and welcome to anyone taking an e-break to talk about Comment this week on gay marriage — or about the New Yorker, if you like. All questions welcome…

3:00
David Remnick:

Steve, Thank you. I think the best piece we published at length was Margaret Talbot’s, and there has been a lot on newyorker.com from Rick Hertzberg, Hilton Als, and others.

3:00
Comment From Steve Silberman

Thank you for your insightful writing on the subject, David. I’m a legally married gay man in California, and I appreciate the humane coverage that the New Yorker has been giving to this issue.

3:02
Comment From Guest

What role do you think the gay-marriage issue will play in the 2012 election cycle?

3:04
David Remnick:

I think we are already seeing the issue of gay marriage play a role, especially in the Republican party race, which is just now starting to launch. At the first debate, the candidates were all quick to distance themselves from anything resembling a pro-gay-marriage position: hence the urge to express support for a marriage amendment to the Constitution that would be even more crushing than the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). But when it comes to the final race, between Obama and the Republican nominee, I doubt that gay marriage or any other so-called social issue will be as crucial as the state of the economy.

3:06
Comment From Johanna Nublat

Hello, David. As a brazilian journalist, I’ve been writing about the gay marriage in Brazil (the first one happended just last week). Why do you think this same subject is getting on in Brazil and USA?

3:09
David Remnick:

Johanna, I can hardly speak about Brazil, but I think the issue is getting the attention that it is because, above all, gay men and lesbians rightly feel that their right to marry, to be married in the eyes of the state, is a basic human right, one that confirms their equality under the law. What’s fascinating is that as recently as the nineties, this was a fairly marginal issue; it has accelerated into the mainstream only recently. But we should also realize that, as the terrific historian George Chauncey points out, at the margins of society, gay men and lesbians were getting married in storefront churches in Harlem and elsewhere. But without the sanction of the state, of course.

3:09
Comment From Guest

Do you think that, in time, gay marriage might actually become a conservative position? It’s the Republicans who often push the couples-should-be-married view, after all.

3:12
David Remnick:

That is a terrific question, and we should point out that Andrew Sullivan — a gay, Catholic, who also sees himself as a conservative in so many ways—made the “conservative case” for gay marriage in The New Republic in the midd-nineties. (He expands on that argument in his book called “Virtually Normal.) The argument, simplified, is that marriage is a socially stabilizing institution. Of course, even to this day, some gay men and lesbians find such an argument false, and argue that much of what they value about being gay is difference. It’s a long argument and a long story….

3:16
Comment From Josh Barone

Hello, David. First, I’m a huge fan of your work. As far as the “legal situation” in California goes, what impact do you think its result might have for or against same-sex marriage nation-wide?

3:17
David Remnick:

Josh, so far as I know, the legal situation in California is stuck; there is a stay on that case for now — to the great frustration of the liberal-conservative legal tandem of David Boies and Theodore Olson, to say nothing of the thousands and thousands of people depending on that decision.

3:20
David Remnick:

Michael, I would be careful about stereotyping the view of an entire racial group or clergy. It’s interesting to me that President Obama’s old church on the South Side of Chicago, led in those days by Jeremiah Wright, was quite liberal on gay issues. I don’t know the poll numbers, but they are hardly unanimous. And when you read George Chauncey’s “Gay New York,” you realize that counting the African-American community as uniformly anything on this issue is a mistake, then or now.

3:20
Comment From Steve Silberman

One question, David. One of the reasons that some people seem to find it hard to wrap their heads around gay marriage is that, in the case of male couples, marriage proposes the very basic idea that men can fall in love with one another — so much that they want to spend the rest of their lives together. This is a challenging idea for some people. When I was growing up in the ’70s, gay liberation was proposed as primarily *sexual* liberation, to be sought in bars and bathhouses. For people with very strict ideas about gender, obviously, the idea of two men falling in love goes against traditionally limited roles. Gay-marriage opponents often frame the issue as if gay people are incapable of the same enduring love that they feel for their own spouses. How much do you think the inability to imagine love between men (gay or straight) is driving the prejudices against gay marriage?

3:21
David Remnick:

Steve, It’s hard to take a survey of the collective imagination, but it’s probably pretty easy to say that promiscuity is not unheard of among heterosexuals, either!

 

3:28
David Remnick:

Gerrard, it’s a great question, and Rick Hertzberg and I disagree. (You should read his terrific blog post on this on newyorker.com) Rick is sympathetic with the President’s decision to wink at everyone (signalling that he is for gay marriage) but not quite saying the words. I think it’s really late in the game to be playing this rhetorical game. Where Rick and I agree, and maybe you do too, is that Obama has done a lot by getting rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (and he brought Congress and the Pentagon with him, no small thing) and by undermining DOMA (he told the Justice Department to stop prosecuting any cases based on that act). Clearly, Obama had — and has — no problem with gay marriage; he said so in 1996. But he feels he cannot get out too far ahead of the country on such an emotional issue. I wish he would. I wish he would, you know, lead.

 

3:32
David Remnick:

Graham, Again, I am not a pollster. But I would assume so, yes. And I think it also had an effect on the general population. It was beyond outrageous to witness the Reagan Administration’s belatedness on AIDS, its indifference to the deaths of so many; and it was beyond outrageous to see homophobia be a tenet of the Moral Majority movement at precisely the moment when so many were dying. That outrage, among homosexuals and heterosexuals, had to play a role on insisting on legislation that assured gay men and lesbians their humanity, their equality, their rights under the law.

3:32
Comment From Tanya Domi

David, all of you should know that DADT has not been completely repealed. It is a two-step process and the certification notification has yet to take place while Republicans are attempting to amend the requirements for certification. So, Obama has not finished DADT to date.

3:33
David Remnick:

Tanya, no it has not been repealed.

3:34
Comment From Tanya Domi

About the legal situation–what do you make of the Obama Administration decision not to defend DOMA and juxtapose that with Obama’s “evolving” position on marriage equality? After NY’s adoption of marriage equality, it seems Obama’s position is untenable..

3:36
David Remnick:

Tanya, Again, I agree with you. It seems awfully late in the day for the President to cling to this highly political balancing act, and all to do what? Is he running for the Republican nomination? Does he think he is fooling anyone? So while he should be given a lot of credit, and while a lot of liberal Democrats are giving him a winking pass on this, all in the name of practical politics, I think he is going to regret it.

3:36
Comment From Steve Silberman

My last comment, David: I’m surprised that there’s been so little investigative reporting on NOM in general, its secret donors, and Maggie Gallagher in specific. They’ve become a very powerful, well-moneyed force in blocking civil liberties for millions of Americans, and yet Gallagher has somehow flown beneath the radar, though she’s quoted all the time. It’s worth noting that even the co-author of Gallagher’s book “The Case for Marriage” – sociologist Linda Waite — remarked in a footnote that she and Gallagher parted company on whether or not the benefits of marriage should be extended to gay couples. Gallagher also has a husband named Raman Srivastav with whom she is never seen in public. There are no pictures of them together on the Net, which is odd for someone who claims to lead a “pro-marriage” group (though NOM is clearly not that). As a journalist myself (though I’m working on a book and couldn’t do this right now), I feel that there’s a deeper story there that would be worth pursuing. Please think about assigning a story like that to one of your great writers in the future. Thanks.

3:40
David Remnick:

Steve, I don’t know the details here and I don’t think her marriage (and I know nothing about it, and, with respect, don’t much care) is the issue. What does seem clear to me is that the actual arguments against gay marriage are awfully hollow, at best, whether as espoused by Maggie Gallagher or the Republican candidates. I think that their arguments, when we listen to them years from now, will sound as sad and empty and, often, as angry as the rhetoric of those who stood against civil rights in the late fifties and sixties.

3:40
Comment From Tanya Domi

The polling data is very good on this issue for a progressive position–53 percent nationally approve now; 59 percent of independent voters approve; 70 percent of 18-34 year olds approve. What is the down side for Obama supporting marriage equality before the election?

3:41
David Remnick:

Tanya, That poll, from Gallup, is very recent, and it is, to my knowledge, the first time that any poll has shown that a majority is in favor of gay marriage. The 70 percent figure is even more interesting, as it shows where the tide of opinion—and history—is heading.

 

3:45
Comment From Guest

Hello David,I was sitting in church in a state outside of NY (a church I don’t generally attend but was in the neighborhood) over the weekend. During the homily, I couldn’t believe my ears when the pastor mentioned how gay marriage is “morally polluting society.” That it is “biologically unproductive” for our nation. Obviously, not all churches preach this message, but my boyfriend and I were so pained by these harsh words, we had to get up and leave. What are your thoughts on the reaction of the Catholic church system in NY towards recognizing gay marriage?

3:48
David Remnick:

Part of what was so interesting about Andrew Cuomo’s political maneuvering on this issue was his capacity to get the local Church leadership to play only a modest opposing role. The Church has a lot of other issues to tend to, and the leadership, while opposing gay marriage for all the obvious reasons, can clearly see that many in the flock do not agree. The greatest oppositional base is among evangelical Protestants, not Catholics.

 

Tanya L. Domi is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, who teaches about human rights in Eurasia and is a Harriman Institute affiliated faculty member. Prior to teaching at Columbia, Domi worked internationally for more than a decade on issues related to democratic transitional development, including political and media development, human rights, gender issues, sex trafficking, and media freedom.

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

‘Giddily Bouncing Off the Walls’: Legal Experts Predict Trump Conviction

Published

on

With the jury dismissed for the day after more than four hours of deliberations and a series of notes to Judge Juan Merchan, legal experts are predicting Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will win his case against Donald Trump, and see jurors convict the ex-president on 34 criminal counts. The ex-president is on trial for allegedly falsifying  business records as a means to cover-up a conspiracy scheme to promote his election to the Presidency by “unlawful means.”

“If I were in the DA’s office I’d be giddily bouncing off the walls right now,” attorney George Conway wrote on social media late Wednesday afternoon.

Minutes later attorney Tristan Snell, who helped secure the New York Attorney General’s $25 million settlement in the Trump University civil case, also predicted a likely Trump conviction:

“BREAKING: Trump jury asks for testimony transcripts, including 3 sections from David Pecker and 1 section from Michael Cohen. VERY bad sign for Trump that David Pecker’s testimony landed with the jury and is something they want to focus on. Jury is likely leaning toward GUILTY.”

READ MORE: ‘No Moral Compass’: Legal Experts Call for Intervention After Alito Refuses to Recuse

National security attorney Brad Moss, appearing on CNN Wednesday afternoon said, “I don’t expect a hung jury but if we get into Friday, or even next week Monday, it certainly would appear that would be more likely what’s going on. But if we have a decision tomorrow, my expectation is it will be a guilty verdict.”

Yale Law School professor of law and professor of philosophy Scott Shapiro offered this short statement:

If Donald Trump is convicted he may be the least surprised, as he appeared to predict a conviction Wednesday morning: “Mother Theresa could not beat these charges,” he told reporters.

The jury returns Thursday at 9:30 AM.

See the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Biggest Felony in American History’: Prosecutor’s Closing Argument Against Trump Praised

Image via Shutterstock

 

Continue Reading

News

‘No Moral Compass’: Legal Experts Call for Intervention After Alito Refuses to Recuse

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has formally refused to recuse from any and all cases involving indicted ex-president Donald Trump or the January 6, 2021 attack on the seat of the American government and American democracy itself. Legal experts and elected Democrats, including the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has oversight responsibility of the nation’s highest court, have demanded the George W. Bush-appointed jurist’s recusal. Now, some legal experts say either the Chief Justice or the Senate Judiciary Committee must intervene.

Justice Alito is standing by his now thoroughly debunked story about why a flag associated with the insurrection and the “Stop the Steal” conspiracy was flying at his home just three days before Joe Biden was inaugurated president, and a different, Christian nationalist flag also associated with those efforts to overthrow the government and disenfranchise 81 million Americans was flying at another of his homes.

Responding to a letter sent to Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Alito in his own letter wrote he was “required” to reject Democrats’ request and not recuse himself, despite numerous legal experts citing both law and precedent, declaring he at least should, or must, recuse himself.

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who writes about the courts and the law, pushed back on Justice Alito’s claim.

READ MORE: ‘Biggest Felony in American History’: Prosecutor’s Closing Argument Against Trump Praised

“Alito reads the Supreme Court’s totally voluntary, non-binding ethics guidelines to impose a seemingly mandatory ‘obligation’ that he sit on any case he’s not recused from.”

Professor of law Steve Vladeck, a CNN contributor, appeared to take that one strep further: “Justice Alito’s insistence in his letters to Congress that he has an ‘obligation to sit’ in the January 6 cases *because* the Code of Conduct says so is an interesting data point for those who have insisted that the Code doesn’t impose *any* requirements on the justices.”

Journalist, author, and foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed, “Alito, by saying he should not recuse, demonstrates clearly why he should not be on the court in the first place.”

The New York Times’ Michael Barbaro notes, “As with his statement to the NYT, Alito in his response to Congress never disavows the meaning of the upside down flag that flew over his house for days or its link to the Jan 6th riot/Stop The Steal movement that was at its height during this period. Notably, Alito does deny that link with the Appeal To Heaven flag, but not the upside down flag.”

Saying Alito is “really is a piece of work,” attorney and former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa suggested the justice is flipping the script: “Alito does a Reverse Uno, suggesting that people calling for his recusal are trying to influence the outcome of cases before the Court.”

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a government watchdog, noted: “That Justice Alito responded *at all* to the demand that he recuse from these cases shows the gravity of his misconduct. But this response changes nothing about the ethical issue here. Since he will not recuse on his own, Chief Justice Roberts should intervene.”

READ MORE: Supreme Court ‘Puppetmaster’ Slammed Over Report He’s Flying Alito’s ‘Theocratic’ Flag Again

Constitutional law scholar and professor of law Eric Segall served up a scathing assessment: “To be clear, if we found a love letter written to Donald Trump from Sam Alito saying, ‘Can’t wait till you’re back in office,’ Alito still would not recuse. He has no moral compass at all.”

The Atlantic’s Ronald Brownstein suggests Democrats will need to take further action: “Alito’s dismissive response, which [Chief Justice John] Roberts is unlikely to challenge in any way, has placed the ball squarely in the court of @SenatorDurbin, @SenSchumer and Senate Democrats.”

CNN’s Edward-Isaac Dovere, posting a screenshot of Donald Trump’s response to the justice’s decision to not recuse, writes: “Trump thanks Alito for not recusing himself from cases pending about Trump after Alito’s being criticized for a flag flying at his house that has been interpreted as a sign of support for Trump.”

See the social media post above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Wildly Lawless’: Judge Cannon’s Removal Predicted by Top Legal Scholar

Continue Reading

News

‘Doesn’t Know Most Basic Rule’: Conway Blasts Cannon Over ‘Perplexed’ Reaction

Published

on

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon suffered more strong criticism, this time from attorney George Conway who blasted the Trump-appointed jurist over a New York Times report in which, he said, she appeared to not understand the basics of a criminal rule.

Judge Cannon is already under fire after likely delaying until after the 2024 presidential election one of the most important cases in American jurisprudence – an ex-president, his party’s presumptive nominee, running again for the White House, charged under the Espionage Act with unlawful removal and retention of some of the nation’s top classified documents, including nuclear secrets.

On Tuesday, a top legal scholar declared a recent Cannon ruling against Special Counsel Jack Smith’s motion to expand the limits on the ex-president’s release, “wildly lawless.” He also predicted it would result in her removal from the Trump Espionage Act case, also known as the classified documents case.

On Wednesday, attorney Conway responded to a portion of that New York Times profile of Judge Cannon.

READ MORE: ‘Liar’: Critics Question Alito’s Integrity After His Insurrection Flag Story Disintegrates

“The portrait that has emerged so far,” The Times reported, “is that of an industrious but inexperienced and often insecure judge whose reluctance to rule decisively even on minor matters has permitted one of the country’s most important criminal cases to become bogged down in a logjam of unresolved issues.”

“Regardless of her motives, Judge Cannon has effectively imperiled the future of a criminal prosecution that once seemed the most straightforward of the four Mr. Trump is facing,” The Times continued. “She has largely accomplished this by granting a serious hearing to almost every issue — no matter how far-fetched — that Mr. Trump’s lawyers have raised, playing directly into the former president’s strategy of delaying the case from reaching trial.”

Conway was responding to an exchange “that occurred last week when Judge Cannon was debating with Jay Bratt, one of the prosecutors, about a common theory of legal liability called the Pinkerton rule. The rule holds that all members of a conspiracy can be held accountable for any crimes committed by their co-conspirators.”

“Mr. Bratt said the rule would likely apply to Mr. Trump’s dealings with his two co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, employees of Mar-a-Lago who have been accused of conspiring with the former president to obstruct the government’s repeated efforts to retrieve the classified materials,” The Times’ story stated. “Judge Cannon seemed a bit perplexed and asked Mr. Bratt what authority he intended to rely on in applying the Pinkerton rule. Mr. Bratt seemed almost sheepish in having to lay things out for her so simply.”

READ MORE: Supreme Court ‘Puppetmaster’ Slammed Over Report He’s Flying Alito’s ‘Theocratic’ Flag Again

“’So the authority is Pinkerton,’ he said, and launched into a quick explanation.”

Conway, appearing to express shock, wrote: “There are no words for this. Judge Cannon doesn’t know the most basic rule governing criminal conspiracies.”

See the social media post above or at this link.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.