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

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

Published

6 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

8 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

11 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.