Connect with us

Love And Marriage: Hate Groups, Racism, Anti-Semitism, And Lies

Published

on

It was a week that began with a yawn, thanks to one of the most boring, least gay, and least political Oscar shows in memory –then rapidly descended into ugly days rife with hate speech and hate groups, free speech and lies, racism and anti-semitism. And throughout it all, I kept having to remind myself that oddly, as a writer chronicling the politics of equality, this is supposed to be all about love and marriage.

In an historic first amendment free speech case, the Supreme Court this week ruled that the “God Hates Fags” folks — also known as the Westboro Baptist Church — have the right to picket at or near funerals and say anything they want, including “God hates fags,” “Thank God for 9/11,” “Thank God for AIDS,” and “U R going to hell.”

(The Westboro Baptist Church may have the right to say whatever they want, but since Anonymous took down their Internet sites almost two weeks ago, they’re having issues saying it online. But have no fear; they are promising to quadruple their anti-gay protesting.)

Just because no one likes what the “God Hates Fags” folks have to say, they have the right to say it. As do you. In America, we pay a steep but necessary price for free speech, even when it’s hate speech.

Compare that to Europe, where those who practice hate speech pay a steep price for it.

Especially anti-semitic speech.

The gay, now-former head designer for Christian Dior, John Galliano, was fired after saying in a bar last week, “I love Hitler” … “People like you would be dead. Your mothers, your forefathers would all be fucking gassed,” which was reportedly followed by, “Dirty Jewish face, you should be dead … Fucking Asian bastard, I will kill you.”

Mr. Galliano has apologized, but is facing possible jail time for his anti-semitic hate speech.

Back in America, not facing jail time, but reportedly facing a $10 million defamation lawsuit is anti-union, anti-left and anti-Islam blogger Pamela Geller, and John Stemberger of the Florida Family Policy Council. Geller is now wearing proudly a self-described “badge of honor” –the designation of her organization, Stop Islamization of America, as a hate group, thanks to the good folks at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

The lawsuit against Geller and Stemberger has motivated Stemberger to join forces with none other than (“exploratory”) GOP presidential candidate, the twice divorced, three-time married serial adulterer and anti-gay politician (and Pope film maker!) Newt Gingrich, along with Southern Baptist ordained minister and liar-about-anything-about-Obama, the devoutly anti-gay GOP presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee. If that weren’t enough theocrats for you, joining them is the intensely homophobic gay-bubble fearing GOP possible presidential aspirant Michele Bachmann.

Gingrich, Huckabee, Bachmann — along with Republican Governor Haley Barbour, and Tony Perkins, president of the certified hate group the Family Research Council (FRC), along with a cast of other extreme right-wing anti-gay conservatives — are hosting a church-based fundraiser for Stemberger that proclaims it will help you “Rediscover God in America.”

Curiously, (perhaps they’ve rediscovered God?), another anti-gay hate group this week actually acknowledged that DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional!

Pat Vaughn, general counsel for the American Family Association — a certified hate group — who describes itself as “a Christian organization promoting the biblical ethic of decency in American society with primary emphasis on TV and other media,” said, “the Defense of Marriage Act is probably unconstitutional, particularly … if you attempt to apply it so that to say that a marriage conducted in one state is not in effect in another. That clearly violates the Constitution.”

Hallelujah!

But guess who’s not saying DOMA is unconstitutional? That’s right, liar-about-anything-about-Obama, the devoutly anti-gay GOP presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee, and GOP possible presidential aspirant, the former reality TV show star, former Republican Vice Presidential candidate, former Alaska Governor, former chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, former Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, former “Miss Congeniality,” (seriously,) former sportscaster, and former head of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Sarah Palin.

Not only did Huckabee lie about Obama growing up in Kenya (he did not,) surrounded by Madrasas (he was not,) he, along with Sarah Palin, lied about then-presidential candidate Barack Obama’s stance on DOMA.

Obama, who last month announced he will enforce — but no longer defend — DOMA in court, has been consistent (except for that 1996 letter in which he claimed to support marriage equality,) in his position on DOMA, including in August 2007, when Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said, “He supports the complete repeal of DOMA which is the same position he has held since early 2004.”

But Palin told NOM’s Maggie Gallagher this week, “It’s appalling, but not surprising that the President has flip-flopped on yet another issue from his stated position as a candidate to a seemingly opposite position once he was elected.”

And Huckabee last month said Obama “himself didn’t take this position [against DOMA] when he ran for president. I think if he had, he wouldn’t be president,” adding, ”I think he owes the people of America an explanation – was he being disingenuous and dishonest then, is he being dishonest now, or did he change his view and if he did, when and why?”

Um, no. Just no.

You know who else lied about Obama’s DOMA position? Pat Vaughn, general counsel for the American Family Association, who clearly said Obama “lied to people [about DOMA] when he ran.”

As I said in the beginning, this week has been filled with ugly days. And anti-semitism. And charges of it. (And don’t get me started on Charlie Sheen!)

Earlier this week, celebrated Russian gay activist Nikolai Alekseev came to America to discuss, all across the country, the state of the LGBT equality movement in Russia. Alekseev is best-known for suing for, and winning, the right to hold gay pride parades in Moscow. But a discredited detractor claimed that Alekseev made comments that could be seen as anti-semitic.

(You can see Alekseev deny the charges in a speech he made at Columbia University in New York City this week, and hear his interview with veteran writer and radio host Michelangelo Signorile.)

Anti-semitism, like racism, is ugly, and an ugly charge if not true, and all deserve to be examined and discussed.

But the folks on the west coast who were sponsoring Alekseev’s trip didn’t want much of a discussion, and canceled his appearances. Long story short, Alekseev denied the charges several times. And probably isn’t too keen on some of his American counterparts now.

Just when you thought the marriage equality debate in Maryland was over, and the House was ready to vote (the Senate already did, and this should be the final step,) one Maryland state delegate, Sam Arora, flip-flopped his position on marriage equality.

Arora ran on a platform of full equality, and took a lot of money from the LGBT community. Needless to say, they were non-too pleased, and this became a national event.

Fortunately, Arora at the last minute has changed his mind. A bit. He now says he will vote for the bill, but wants a public referendum on marriage equality in Maryland. (For the record, civil rights are inalienable. No one should ever be allowed to vote on your rights.)

But before Arora switched back, NOM’s Maggie Gallagher got into the mix. And played the race card. Maggie claims she did not mean anything racist. You’ll have to decide for yourself.

In response to an op-ed by veteran Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart, Maggie wrote,

“I have two reactions to reading this WaPo columnist’s comments.

“First, if Sam Arora is wavering under this media firestorm, he must be hearing from hundreds of constitutents who do not want him to vote for gay marriage.

“Secondly, as someone married to an Indian-American, I find it interesting that the gay marriage machine appears to be re-focusing its attacks from Black Democrats who oppose gay marriage to an easier target: Indian-Americans.”

Now, who knew (I certainly hadn’t) but it seems that Arora is Indian-American. What difference that makes on anything is unbeknownst to me. Not did I know anyone was attacking Black Democrats. Nor did I know there was a “gay marriage machine.” (Where does one buy that?)

This entire situation came to light when well-known columnist, LGBT activist, and Media Matters guy Karl Frisch — who happens to be a friend of Arora — wrote an open letter demanding his campaign contribution back.

Evidently, a very effective tactic, especially when it’s that personal.

Others followed. Many others. And then word got out and comments on Arora’s Facebook page went into overdrive.

As I’ve said, it’s been an ugly week. But change is sometimes ugly. Battles can be ugly.

But it’s all for a good cause. Love, and marriage. And the civil right to have both. Whatever bumps we feel along the way, no other reward, no other success, will be as sweet.

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.

IMPEACH HIM AGAIN

Rep. Al Green Files Impeachment Article Against Trump Over Iran: ‘Threat to Democracy’

Published

on

Tuesday morning, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) filed an article of impeachment against President Donald Trump over the United States’ strike on three sites in Iran this weekend.

Green’s article of impeachment alleges that Trump violated Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. That section says only Congress can declare war.

“In starting his illegal and unconstitutional war with Iran without the constitutionally-mandated consent of Congress or appropriate notice to Congress, President Trump acted in direct violation of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution. President Trump has devolved and continues to devolve American democracy into authoritarianism by disregarding the separation of powers and now, usurping congressional war powers,” Green wrote.

READ MORE: Just 100 Days in and Trump White House Is Already Prepping for Impeachment: Report

Though the meat of the impeachment article is about Iran, Green also calls out other objectionable things done by Trump.

“President Trump’s unilateral, unprovoked use of force without congressional authorization or notice constitutes an abuse of power when there was no imminent threat to the United States, which facilitates the devolution of American democracy into authoritarianism, with an authoritarian president who has instigated an attack on the United States Capitol, denied persons due process of the law, and called for the impeachment of federal judges who ruled against him—making Donald J. Trump a threat to American democracy,” he said.

Green’s article of impeachment is unlikely to go anywhere. The House is controlled 220-212 by the Republican party. Even though some House Republicans like Thomas Massie (R-WV) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) have criticized Trump’s action in Iran, even if every Democrat voted in favor of impeachment, it would be a tall order for nine Republicans to flip. An article of impeachment only needs a simple majority in the House before going to the Senate.

Trump is the only president to be successfully impeached twice. However, he has never been convicted.

Though Trump did not have Congressional approval to order the U.S. to attack Iran—and, according to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, they were only informed afterward—the Constitution isn’t as clear as it might sound. The last time Congress declared war was in 1942, but there have been many wars since then, but by different names; the Korean War was officially a “police action.”

The president is officially Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military, and as such, can order a response to attacks, or other limited military actions without the approval of Congress. During the Vietnam War (another “police action”), President Richard Nixon ordered the secret bombings of Cambodia without informing Congress. Once this was revealed, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which puts limits on what the president can do without Congressional approval.

Under the War Powers Resolution, a president can order a military action, but must inform Congress within 48 hours. Armed forces cannot stay in an area for over 60 days, though they can have a window of an additional 30 days to withdraw.

Trump has been accused of violating the War Powers Resolution twice before. The first was in 2017, when Trump ordered a missile strike in Syria over allegations the country had used chemical weapons. Next was in 2020 when the U.S. killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in a drone strike. Neither of these accusations, however, resulted in anything.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

CRIME

DOJ Sues Washington State Over Law Requiring Catholic Priests to Report Child Abuse

Published

on

The Department of Justice has filed suit against Washington state over a new law requiring Catholic priests to report child abuse even if knowledge of the abuse was obtained during confession.

The law, Senate Bill 5375, was signed by Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson on May 2, and would go into effect on July 27. The bill makes clergy mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect, much like doctors and teachers. Catholic bishops in Washington have condemned the law because it does not address the sacred rite of confession.

Under the law, if abuse is revealed during confession, the priest must report it to police or the state’s Department of Children, Youth and Families. However, in the Catholic faith, the Seal of Confession directs priests to keep anything they learn during confession secret—even under the threat of imprisonment or death. Should a priest fail to do so, they would be excommunicated.

“I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession – even to the point of going to jail. The Sacrament of Penance is sacred,” Bishop Thomas A. Daly of the Spokane, Washington diocese wrote in a statement.

READ MORE: Pedophile Priest Sex Abuse: Catholic Churches Settle For $102 Million

A previous version of the bill did include a provision protecting priests from revealing anything learned during confession. Catholic bishops and Republicans in the state senate argued for the provision, but it was ultimately removed. All Republicans voted against the final version of the bill, along with two Democrats; it passed 28-20. Though the law requires priests to report abuse, it does not compel them to testify in court.

In response, a number of bishops filed a lawsuit, Etienne v. Ferguson, to stop the law. On June 16, a group of Orthodox churches in Washington state filed a similar lawsuit.

Gov. Ferguson, a Catholic, said he was dismayed by the suit.

“I’m disappointed my Church is filing a federal lawsuit to protect individuals who abuse kids,” Ferguson said.

The Department of Justice joined the fray on Monday. The DOJ called the law “anti-Catholic,” saying it violates the First Amendment. Monday’s suit is a motion to intervene in Etienne v. Ferguson.

“Senate Bill 5375 unconstitutionally forces Catholic priests in Washington to choose between their obligations to the Catholic Church and their penitents or face criminal consequences, while treating the priest-penitent privilege differently than other well-settled privileges. The Justice Department will not sit idly by when States mount attacks on the free exercise of religion,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a statement.

Senate Bill 5375 is the third time the Washington senate was asked to make clergy mandatory reporters. The bill’s prime sponsor was Sen. Noel Frame (D-Seattle), who told KING-TV she brought the newest version before the Senate after hearing that three different Catholic archdioceses in the state were under investigation over allegations of covering up abuse.

“Quite frankly, that made it hard for me to stomach any argument about religious freedom being more important than preventing the abuse, including the sexual abuse of children,” Frame said in January. “I really wonder about all the children who have been abused and neglected and have gone unprotected by the adults in their lives because we didn’t have a mandated reporter law and that we continue to try to protect this in the name of religious freedom.”

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

'VERY COOL VERY NORMAL'

FTC Blocks Advertising Company From Boycotting Media Outlets Based on Political Views

Published

on

The Federal Trade Commission announced a strange condition of the merger between two giant advertising companies. The FTC allowed the merger, but blocked the new company from being able to boycott media outlets based on political viewpoints.

The FTC announced Monday that Omnicom Group would be able to go ahead with its $13.5 billion purchase of The Interpublic Group of Companies. The merger faced antitrust concerns as the two companies are major players in the advertising industry. Currently, Omnicom is the third-largest ad agency in the United States, and IPG is fourth-largest.

Assuming the acquisition continues as planned, the enlarged Omnicom would be blocked from “engaging in collusion or coordination to direct advertising away from media publishers based on the publishers’ political or ideological viewpoints,” the FTC said.

READ MORE: Right Wing Lobbying Organization Pushing States to Shield Companies From Political Boycotts

“Websites and other publications that rely on advertising are critical to the flow of our nation’s commerce and communication,” Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said. “Coordination among advertising agencies to suppress advertising spending on publications with disfavored political or ideological viewpoints threatens to distort not only competition between ad agencies, but also public discussion and debate. The FTC’s action today prevents unlawful coordination that targets specific political or ideological viewpoints while preserving individual advertisers’ ability to choose where their ads are placed.”

The new rule comes after Elon Musk, the owner of the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, complained that advertisers were boycotting the platform. Last August, X filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a coalition of advertisers, for boycotting X following Musk’s purchase of the company. Founding members of GARM include both Omnicom and IPG.

GARM was originally formed in response to the mass shooting in a Christchurch, New Zealand mosque by a white supremacist. The shooting was livestreamed on Facebook, and as such, advertisements appeared on the platform alongside the livestream. GARM aimed to block members’ advertisements from appearing on platforms that didn’t have safeguards prohibiting what the organization called “illegal or harmful content, such as promoting terrorism or child pornography.”

Days after the X lawsuit, GARM disbanded.

“GARM has disbanded under a cloud of litigation and congressional investigation. The Commission has not been a party to those actions, and I take no position on any possible violation of the antitrust laws by GARM. The factual allegations, however, if true, paint a troubling picture of a history of coordination—that the group sought to marshal its members into collective boycotts to destroy publishers of content of which they disapproved,” FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said Monday.

“GARM was neither the beginning nor the end of harmful and potentially unlawful collusion in this industry. Numerous other industry groups and private organizations have publicly sought to use the chokepoint of the advertising industry to effect political or ideological goals. Clandestine pressure campaigns and private dealings among these parties are less well documented but pose the serious risk of harm and illegality,” he added.

The proviso to the Omnicom merger is not the FTC’s only foray into this issue. This May, the FTC opened an investigation to determine whether or not advertisers coming together in agreement to not buy ads on certain websites due to political content constituted an illegal boycott, according to the New York Times.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.