Connect with us

Mailbag: “Same Gender Marriage” and “The New Civil Rights Movement”

Published

on

Today I’m responding to a few emails we’ve recently received. You’re always welcome to email me or leave a comment in the contact section. And please know that I do read all the comments you make on the blog!

Ken writes,

“Please consider using same gender marriage. This term helps outsiders with confusion of sexual orientation, transgender and gender identity. It humanizes us more thanks.”

Thanks, Ken, it’s a valid and interesting point.

Back in February, I explained my choice to stop using the term “gay marriage,” in most situations.

Ideally, I would just use “marriage,” but that has drawbacks, primarily because many people, especially those who arrive here via the Google, search for “gay marriage” a lot. It’s actually one of the top search terms for this site. (Some others the past few weeks? “god hates fags,” “westboro baptist church,” “doma,”fox news,” and “cpac.” Go figure.)

We rely on search engines, along with social media — like Facebook and Twitter — and your kind remembering to visit us a few times a day, to get our information and our message out, and to pick up a few bucks (and I mean a very, very few bucks!) along the way. So, the terms “gay marriage,” “same-sex marriage,” and even “marriage equality” have to take a front seat sometimes, or folks won’t know we’re here.

(While we’re on the topic, forgive me for asking, but I do want you to know that every time you share our work via Twitter and Facebook, it means a great deal to us here. Every re-tweet, every Facebook posting keeps us motivated and re-affirms our efforts. The more you share us with your friends and family and co-workers, the more motivated to keep bringing you our original content we become! And the more folks who join our Facebook page, the more our work gets into the right hands. You have no idea how powerful each of you are.)

I’ve tried to not use the term “gay marriage,” except in an occasional title, to remain as clear as possible. After all, we’re fighting for marriage, not something else.

As far as the term “same gender marriage,” I have no desire to use it any more than I have a desire to use “gay marriage,” or even “same-sex marriage.” While I understand and appreciate the desire to be as accurate and affirming as possible, I’d like to try to use just “marriage.”

But, since that’s not yet possible, I will add “same gender marriage,” to our lexicon, and use it interchangeably, but I won’t revert to it entirely, and I hope some day soon, to be able to stop using modifiers all together.

Thoughts?

# # #

Richard writes a long, very kind email, (Many, many thanks for the kind words! Here’s just part of it,) but has an issue:

“I really love your blog.  It manages to be comprehensive and thorough, which takes a lot of energy and dedication.  So thanks for that.  The only thing that has bugged me since I’ve been reading this blog is the title.  I happen to be both Gay and African-American.  I’ve made it my business to be out, and to do more than my part to help achieve equality for my fellow queers.  I’ve even worked as an organizer on a local LGBT rights campaign…

“Getting to the point, the title of your blog bugs me because it makes me tense. It reminds me of the implicit division between the civil rights movement for LGBT people, and the civil rights movement(s) for people of color.  If one is considered new, then the others must be old, right?  Why do we need to differentiate these movements?  Why can’t we see these seemingly disparate efforts as part of a larger struggle for human rights?”

Well, Richard, here’s the thing.

First, I have a confession: I never really loved the title of the blog. When I started it, just days after Prop 8 passed, I “crowd-sourced” the name, and had my friends on Twitter vote. This was their favorite.

But it is a valid name, and here’s why.

After Prop 8, the term, “new civil rights movement” was everywhere. (So was the phrase, “Is gay the new black,” which I never liked either.)

And we are fighting a new civil rights battle. And we are a movement.

The battle for marriage equality has never really been fought like this before, by so many people before, and so successfully before.

Some members of the black or African-American community take issue with the term, and some claim we’ve co-opted it. I disagree. Here’s someone whose words should ring loud and clear. New Jersey Senator Nia Gill, who happens to be African-American, and who, in December of 2009, during New Jersey’s marriage equality debate, spoke so eloquently of marriage equality, saying,

“When we get to the issue of the constitution […] History shows you could never have contemplated that marriage is between a man and a woman. If you look at the constitution, at its intent, the constitution intended that African-Americans would never be full participants.

“The legislators – the female ones – would not be here, because the constitution never intended for a woman to have the right to vote. And if we looked further at what the constitution intended – as if it is a stagnant body – then we know that disabled people would have no rights, under the equal protection clause, that they have access to public buildings.

“It is a civil rights issue – not because African-Americans own the copyright to civil rights, it is a civil rights issue in the analysis of the equal protection of the fourteenth amendment in the constitution. And maybe some in my community want to hold on to it, because it’s ours. Because our blood has been shed for the right to vote, and we jealously guard that as a re-affirmation of being American. And so we hold it, because no one can do civil rights and have civil rights better than we do. That’s emotional, but it is certainly not an analysis of the constitutional imperatives that face us. It’s a civil rights issue.

“Each side has an emotional story to tell. So I am not involved in that. But I am involved in how does this strip people of the equality under the law. And as an African-American and as a woman who would jealously guard all the civil rights struggles, this is a civil rights struggle on the magnitude and importance for the people who have died for the right to vote, for the people who have died to allow women the right to vote. And if I took a different stand, which would be a more traditional stand, that the community that identifies with me wants me to take, then I will have breached the tradition and the trust of the elders and the ancestors. And so I vote for the equality of marriage because I believe in the constitution.”

(emphasis mine.)

But I want to stress that I do believe in building coalitions. I also want to point you to two pieces here that say just that. One, by Tanya Domi, titled, “Wisconsin Union Uprising: Why This Is The LGBT Community’s Moment,” and the other, which will be published tomorrow morning, by Jay Morris, titled, “Building Coalitions: Is the Enemy Of My Enemy My Friend?”

I think the black or African-American community has so much to teach us, and I am sad there is often division between our communities. We should rally and fight together, not fight each other.

And I want to stress that the title of the blog was never meant to be about exclusion, it was meant to let people know, because far fewer people two and a half years ago did, that our quest for marriage equality and equality in general is a civil rights issue, and we have every intention of fighting for equality and our civil rights until we get them. Along the way, we all should be fighting for everyone’s civil rights. That’s why I don’t limit my work here to LGBTQ issues.

# # #

So, dear readers and writers, what say you? Please, keep the comments, thoughts, ideas, along with the retweets and Facebook messages coming!

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

‘If It Is the Last Thing I Do’: Musk Vows to Unseat Lawmakers Voting for Budget Bill

Published

3 hours ago

on

June 30, 2025

By

Billionaire Elon Musk is threatening to target members of Congress for defeat if they support President Donald Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill” after campaigning on promises to cut government spending. Although Musk did not specifically name a party, no Democrat is expected to back the budget measure.

“Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame!” Musk wrote late Monday afternoon, as the Senate began voting on the legislation. “And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.”

Musk’s threat comes after his numerous attacks on the bill—which is critical to Trump’s agenda—based largely on its massive increases to the federal debt.

READ MORE: ‘Stunning Incoherence’: Fox Host Mocked for Spinning Trump’s Work Visa Flip-Flop

“It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!!” Musk declared one hour earlier. “Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people.”

New York magazine’s Intelligencer reported on Monday that Musk is “not done” fighting Trump.

“How can you call yourself the Freedom Caucus if you vote for a DEBT SLAVERY bill with the biggest debt ceiling increase in history?” Musk also wrote, lashing out at the far-right caucus, and mentioning two Members by name: U.S. Reps. Andy Harris of Maryland, the group’s chairman, and Chip Roy of Texas.

On Saturday, Musk had warned, “The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country! Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.”

“Polls show that this bill is political suicide for the Republican Party,” he also warned.

New York magazine noted that “Trump, presumably, isn’t thrilled about Musk’s last-minute attempt to sink his signature legislative package. But so far he’s refrained from hitting back.”

READ MORE: Despite Bill’s $1T Cut Trump Official Insists ‘We’re Not Taking Away Anybody’s Medicaid’

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Stunning Incoherence’: Fox Host Mocked for Spinning Trump’s Work Visa Flip-Flop

Published

4 hours ago

on

June 30, 2025

By

Fox News host Maria Bartiromo is facing criticism for calling President Donald Trump’s latest reversal on undocumented immigrant workers “big news,” after the President floated creating “temporary passes.”

Earlier this month, Trump announced ICE would back off from detaining and deporting undocumented immigrants working on farms and in hotels, only to announce just days later an apparent reversal to that policy, by declaring he would enact “the single largest Mass Deportation Program in History.”

Bartiromo, in a White House interview on Sunday (video below), told Trump that he had “said, let’s ease up on, you know, taking in people that are working hardworking, like, in farms and hotels,” while ignoring his statement from days later.

“I don’t back away,” Trump insisted. “What I do, I cherish our farmers, and when we go into a farm and we take away people that have been working there for 15 and 20 years who who are good, who possibly came in incorrectly, and what we’re gonna do is we’re gonna do something for farmers where we can let the farmers sort of be in charge.”

READ MORE: Despite Bill’s $1T Cut Trump Official Insists ‘We’re Not Taking Away Anybody’s Medicaid’

“The farmer knows, he’s not gonna hire a murderer, but, you know, when you go into a farmer and he’s had somebody working with him for nine years doing this kind of work, which is hard work to do, and a lot of people aren’t gonna do it, and you end up destroying a farmer because you took all the people away,” Trump explained. “It’s a problem.”

Trump announced the White House is “gonna work it so that,” there is “some kind of a temporary pass, where people pay taxes, with a farmer can have a little control as opposed to you walk in and take everybody away.”

On social media, Bartiromo trumpeted: “Big news on the border from my interview @realDonaldTrump is working on a ‘temporary pass’ for workers on farms and in hotels where they pay taxes but it’s up to the farmer for a temporary pass even if they came into the country ‘incorrectly.'”

What Trump described sounds similar to the existing H-2A temporary visa program for agricultural workers.

“The H-2A program allows U.S. employers or U.S. agents who meet specific regulatory requirements to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary agricultural jobs,” according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

READ MORE: American Pride Plunges to New Low, Again, Again Under Trump

Critics mocked the Fox News host.

“So a work permit?” snarked U.S. Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ).

“They just invented the work visa,” mocked retired intelligence officer Travis Akers.

“But wait,” urged former Fox News contributor Julie Roginsky, “we were told Americans would be doing these jobs and that everyone who came into this country illegally would be deported. What could have possibly changed?”

“Donald Trump has no idea what his immigration policy is,” noted Democratic strategist Max Burns.

“Stunning incoherence on his signature policy issue,” observed Gregg Nunziata, executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Democratic Reps Say FEMA Cuts Are Leading to Hurricane Katrina-Level Disaster

Continue Reading

News

Despite Bill’s $1T Cut Trump Official Insists ‘We’re Not Taking Away Anybody’s Medicaid’

Published

7 hours ago

on

June 30, 2025

By

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds that the Senate Republicans’ budget bill will slash $1 trillion from Medicaid, but according to Kevin Hassett, the White House Director of the National Economic Council, no one’s Medicaid is being taken away.

The CBO projects the current Republican Senate budget bill will cut $930 billion from Medicaid, but an amendment from Florida GOP Senator Rick Scott would make additional cuts of $313 billion, for a total of $1.24 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, according to The Hill.

But according to the White House’s Kevin Hassett, “we’re not taking away anybody’s Medicaid.”

After Fox News host Bill Hemmer told Hassett on Monday that the White House is “getting hammered on these Medicaid cuts,” Hassett, chuckling, said: “The bottom line is that we’re just, we’re not taking away anybody’s Medicaid. We’re definitely not taking away anybody’s Medicare.”

READ MORE: American Pride Plunges to New Low, Again, Again Under Trump

Hassett insisted that Republicans are merely “going after waste, fraud, and abuse,” and claimed “there’s a heck of a lot of it out there.”

Some experts put the waste, fraud, and abuse numbers—which can include improper payments and errors—at about five percent of Medicaid spending.

Hassett appears to disagree.

“A lot of budget savings have been found by people really in the House, in the Senate—not just conservatives—moderates agree that there’s a lot of money that can be saved. And the bottom line is that we’re, in the end going to balance this budget, and we’ve got to balance this budget by getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse, and we’re going to do it.”

The Congressional Budget Office, according to KFF, has also estimated that by 2034 there will be an additional 16 million more uninsured people if the bill is signed into law.

READ MORE: Democratic Reps Say FEMA Cuts Are Leading to Hurricane Katrina-Level Disaster

“The scale of the proposed reductions in Medicaid is unprecedented in the history of the program, which has tended to expand coverage over time since its creation in 1965,” The New York Times reports.

Calling the cuts “savings,” the Times reports the bill in part “would establish a new, strict national work requirement for some people on the program, who would need to demonstrate they had worked at least 80 hours the month before they sign up, or qualified for an exemption.”

More cuts to Medicaid in the bill could be coming. The Times also reports that U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) on Sunday “told reporters that he would propose an amendment that would cut Medicaid even further.”

Watch the video below or at this link.


READ MORE: Ketanji Brown Jackson Compares SCOTUS Planned Parenthood Ruling to Jim Crow in Dissent

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.