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.

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

Trump Doubles Down Calling Egg Prices ‘Too Low’ as Costs Soar to Record Highs

Published

3 days ago

on

April 18, 2025

By

In the days leading up to Easter, President Donald Trump has repeatedly—and falsely—claimed that egg prices have plummeted to the point of being “too low,” baselessly citing steep double-digit declines—even as Americans face record-high prices at the grocery store.

“The egg prices are down 87 percent, but nobody talks about that,” the President said on Friday. “You can have all the eggs you want, we have too many eggs, in fact, if anything the prices are getting too low.”

Trump campaigned on the promise he would lower the price of groceries “on day one,” a promise that three months later is not only unfulfilled, but in some cases reversed: overall grocery prices have risen.

READ MORE: ‘Taunting SCOTUS’: Concerns Mount Over ‘Openly Contemptuous’ White House

On Thursday, Trump claimed the price of eggs had dropped 92%, while berating a reporter and his Federal Reserve Chairman.

“The price of groceries are substantially down,” the president falsely claimed.

The price of eggs, you know, when I came in, they hit me with eggs. I just got there, I was here for one week, and they started screaming, ‘Eggs have gone through the roof.’ I said, ‘I just got here.’

“They went up 87%, and you couldn’t get them,” Trump told reporters. “They said, ‘You won’t have eggs for Easter,’ which is coming up. Happy Easter, everybody.You won’t have eggs for Easter.”

“And we did an unbelievable job, and now eggs are all over the place and the price went down 92 percent,” he claimed.

READ MORE: Trump’s Latest Target: The Watchdog That Keeps Suing Him

Last week on Monday, Trump had claimed, falsely, that egg prices had dropped 79%.

Egg prices, Newsweek reported on Wednesday, “continued to climb despite recent efforts by the Trump administration to combat the shortage brought about by the ongoing bird flu with imports of Turkish eggs. The CPI egg index jumped by 5.9 percent from February and was up 60.4 percent compared to March 2024, and the average price for a dozen grade A large eggs climbed 5.6 percent to a record $6.23.”

Moe Davis, the well-known retired U.S. Air Force colonel, attorney, and former administrative law judge, posted to social media a federal government chart of egg prices.

“According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,” Davis wrote, “the price of a dozen eggs in March was $6.23, the highest price ever recorded and 26% higher than in January when Trump took office. Of course if Trump says egg prices are down then the MAGA cult is obliged to say egg prices are down.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Things Like This Take Place’: Trump Shrugs Off Mass Shooting Despite Once Being a Target

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Taunting SCOTUS’: Concerns Mount Over ‘Openly Contemptuous’ White House

Published

3 days ago

on

April 18, 2025

By

The Trump White House is coming under fire for what appears to be an attempt to mock the U.S. Supreme Court, the facts in the case of a Maryland man wrongly deported to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, and The New York Times.

The White House’s official account on the social media platform X posted a “corrected” version of a New York Times story—corrections that have drawn concern and scorn from the legal community and political commentators.

“Senator Meets With Wrongly Deported Maryland Man in El Salvador,” read a screenshot of the Times’ headline.

But the White House’s version (below), complete with red ink and cross outs, reads: “Senator Meets With MS-13 Illegal Alien in El Salvador Who Is Never Coming Back.”

The White House added remarks saying, “Fixed it for you, @NYTimes. Oh, and by the way, @ChrisVanHollen — he’s NOT coming back.”

Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) traveled to El Salvador this week and, after several days, was finally permitted to meet with Kilmar Abrego Garcia—the legal U.S. resident whom the Trump administration has admitted in court it wrongly deported. Multiple courts, including the Supreme Court, have ordered the administration to “facilitate” his return. Yet the Trump administration appears to be refusing.

Friday’s claim that Abrego Garcia is “never coming back” was taken as a serious statement of intent by some.

Attorney Aaron Regunberg wrote: “The White House is saying he’s ‘never coming back’ — they are explicitly declaring they will violate a unanimous Supreme Court order.” Calling out Senate Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Regunberg wrote: “you said this was your red line that would trigger ‘extraordinary action.’ So…where the f— are you?”

“2 telling things here,” offered The Washington Post’s senior political reporter Aaron Blake. “1) White House crosses out ‘wrongly,’ despite repeatedly acknowledging its error in court. 2) ‘who’s never coming back’ is basically taunting SCOTUS. Signals the opposite of any intent to ‘facilitate’ his return.”

“The White House press shop lies and claims Mr. Abrego was not wrongfully deported, despite having acknowledged that fact at every single stage of the court process; at the district court, the circuit court, and the Supreme Court,” noted attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick. “They are openly contemptuous of the truth.”

Civil rights attorney Patrick Jaicomo, replying to the White House, wrote: “There is a mistake in the headline. You didn’t wrongly deport Garcia. You wrongly imprisoned him without due process. So, fix your mistake, as the courts have ordered. You don’t have to keep doubling down on bad decisions.”

Attorney Dilan Esper added, “I’ll remind you that the federal judges issuing orders see this.”

Veteran journalist John Harwoood called it, “disgusting fascism,” and wrote that “the Trump WH is garbage from top to bottom.”

Opinion writer Magdi Jacobs noted, “They’re moving from evading the judiciary to openly mocking it. This is very dangerous territory.”

Some others addressed what they appeared to suggest was the juvenile nature of the White House’s post.

“When you graduate from 4chan and land your first job at the White House,” wrote Talking Points Memo publisher Josh Marshall.

“The Trump admin really wants to distract people from the fact that it illegally sent someone to El Salvador in violation of a court order & binding law, either out of malice or sheer incompetence. No amount of s—posting will change that,” said Reason magazine’s Billy Binion.

“This is the evil of the Trump White House,” remarked Fred Wellman, an Army veteran, political consultant, and the host of the podcast “On Democracy.”

Journalist and author Robert Lusetich observed: “The White House, an ever-lasting symbol of the power, dignity and greatness of the United States. Now, a trolling meme account.”

Anti-gun-violence activist Fred Guttenberg declared the White House is “staffed by pathetic punk 2nd grade pre pubescent children.”

Journalist James Surowiecki commented, “Your tax dollars are paying for this childish cr–.”

See the White House’s social media post above or at this link.

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s Latest Target: The Watchdog That Keeps Suing Him

Published

3 days ago

on

April 18, 2025

By

From the outset of his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump signaled that a central focus of his presidency would be targeting and exacting retribution against his critics.

“In 2016, I declared, ‘I am your voice,’” Trump told attendees at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference in March 2023. “Today, I add: I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.”

In keeping his retribution vow, Trump in just three months—often with the use of the power of his executive orders—has targeted for retribution numerous top law firms, revoked the security clearances of dozens of top national security experts, former government officials, and former political opponents. He has targeted top universities, threaten to defund millions of dollars or more in critical research grants, and declared top news outlets CNN and MSNBC “corrupt” and “illegal.”

Just days after the 2024 election, NPR reported that during the campaign, “Trump made more than 100 threats to investigate, prosecute, imprison or otherwise punish his perceived enemies, including political opponents and private citizens.”

READ MORE: ‘Things Like This Take Place’: Trump Shrugs Off Mass Shooting Despite Once Being a Target

On Thursday, Trump threatened to go after one of his top legal critics: CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit legal and ethics watchdog that has been working for years to hold him (and others) to account, often by suing.

Asked by a reporter what group he would like to see have their tax exempt status removed, Trump replied, “Well, we’ll be making some statements, but it’s a big deal.”

“They’re so rich and so strong, and then they go so bad, they’ve earned so much by being a member of this country, you know, a member of this group, this beautiful group of people in this country, and then they go and they abuse their power like that,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Thursday afternoon. “I think it’s, you know, I think it’s very sad.”

“I have a group named CREW,” he continued. “CREW. You ever hear of it? I think it’s CREW, and they have a guy that heads CREW. It’s supposed to be a charitable organization. The only charity they had is going after Donald Trump. So we’re looking at that.”

“We’re looking at a lot of things, but if you take a look at CREW, what they’ve done, and I think it was a very big abuse, but we’re going to be finding out pretty soon.”

During Trump’s first and second terms, CREW sued Trump or his administration for alleged emoluments clause violations, alleged Presidential Records Act noncompliance, and challenged some of his executive orders. It also represented voters in a lawsuit attempting to use the 14th Amendment to remove him from the ballot, claiming his role in the January 6, 2021 insurrection was constitutionally disqualifying.

READ MORE: ‘Full Time Babysitter’: Treasury Secretary Urges Caution After Trump Fed Chair Threat

In January, CREW was part of a lawsuit suing to “block Trump’s illegal plan to fire government workers,” and in February, CREW sued the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) “to compel transparency.”

CREW, in a statement to NCRM, vowed to continue its work.

“For more than 20 years, CREW has exposed government corruption from politicians of both parties who violate the public trust and has worked to promote an ethical, transparent government,” CREW Vice President of Communications Jordan Libowitz said. “Good governance groups are the heart of a healthy democracy. We will continue to do our work to ensure Americans have an ethical and accountable government.”

Legal experts are blasting Trump’s threat.

“It is literally a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison for the President, VP, or any senior White House employee, to ‘request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the IRS to conduct … an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer,'” wrote attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council.

“The Trump administration has gone after law firms, they’ve gone after universities, and they’re now going after civil society, including groups like @CREWcrew. They want to silence any opposition to their extreme agenda,” added the National Women’s Law Center.

“President Trump is now threatening to weaponize the IRS against nonprofit organizations like @CREWcrew,” wrote Public Citizen. “He is attacking our most basic right: to say what we believe without fear of government prosecution. We proudly stand in solidarity with our friends at CREW.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Stunning Admission’: GOP Senator Says Colleagues ‘Are All Afraid’ of ‘Retaliation’

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.