Connect with us

New Jersey: Just Say “Yes” To Gay Marriage, and “No” To George Berkin

Published

on

An Open Letter To The Editor Of NJ.com

To The Editor:

Late Saturday night I came across an “editorial” by George Berkin, titled, “Say no to gay marriage.” I confess, my outrage was palpable, and, reading his one thousand four hundred ninety-one words of ignorance, bigotry, illogic, and just plain, old-fashioned hatred, I slept little and contemplated lots.

I decided, rather than blame Mr. Berkin for his ignorance, I should blame you. After all, you provide his platform. It’s obvious, were he actually someone of any intellect or importance, his only claim to fame wouldn’t be NJ.com – he would have a book, or a talk show, or published works elsewhere, or speaking engagements, or even a large following on Twitter! - something other than a column in your publication. Best I can tell, he was a reporter who got a column, which is more than honorable, yet, in this case, an obvious error in your judgment.

After all, anyone with any logic will tell you that Mr. Berkin’s words, for instance, “I love my dog, but no rational person hears wedding bells for me and Spot” are illogical, and ill-informed.

Mr. Berkin, “traditional” marriage’s self-anointed protector in the Garden State, should be the first to know that, among other things, marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. Unless Mr. Berkin can prove that his dog is equally “in love” with him, and can sign a marriage license, and it is to the benefit of society that they be wed, and his dog is of sound mind to make such a decision, and that his dog is a human being, the “man-dog” marriage argument is, as it has always been, fallacious and idiotic.

Speaking of ill-informed and just plain wrong, let’s take his statement, “So-called gay ‘marriage’ makes a mockery of traditional marriage because ‘gay’ sexual relations do not hold to the monogamous behavior that traditional marriages hold to, or strive for.”

Really?

How would Mr. Berkin know what “gay sexual relations” “hold to or strive for?” The fact is that there are millions of gay Americans who desperately want nothing more than a monogamous relationship, “til death do we part.” One that is recognized equally by the state and equal to all other marriages. You can put me down as one.

But perhaps Mr. Berkin thinks that all those “traditional” marriages that are troubled by infidelity are OK. Most recently of note, Tiger Woods’ marriage. Senator Ensign’s. Governor Sanford’s. Oh, so very many more.

But back to you, the Editor. How can you in good conscience allow lies and mis-information to be published, as opinion or not, under your masthead? Mis-information, like Berkin’s statement, “…researchers found that more than 40 percent of homosexuals said that they have had more than 500 sexual partners. Only 1 percent had fewer than four sexual partners.”

Well, those “researchers” are the “Family Research Council.” Any credible scientist or researcher will tell you that those studies are just plain fiction and without merit – and long since disproved. It does your readers and the citizens of your state a true injustice and disservice for you  to allow those lies to be published in NJ.com. Shame on you!

Then there’s his flat-out lie: “…so-called gay “marriage” would destroy religious freedom, because churches would not be allowed to act on traditional (or biblical) standards of sexual conduct.”

(At this point, one is forced to ask if Mr. Berkin is willing to include the decades of priest sexual abuse of children as “traditional (or biblical) standards of sexual conduct?”)

And then there’s this “gem” from your columnist:

“…if a gay marriage law goes into effect in New Jersey, pastors across the state could face legal sanctions if they preach the clear meaning of the text. The sanctions will likely be cast in terms of ‘anti-discrimination’ laws.”

The only way a gay marriage law would force “pastors across the state [to] face legal sanctions if they preach the clear meaning of the [bible’s] text” is if they also somehow compelled their congregations into stoning same sex couples. Considering the Church’s lack of ability over the past few decades to compel their congregations to follow less-controversial tenets of the bible, such as forgoing birth control methods, I doubt any pastor who advocated stoning would be arrested, as no one who listen.

The laws of this country, right or wrong, have always supported religion’s “right” to discriminate. Same sex marriage would have no effect on the Church’s right to continue to discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community.

Therefore, “Bull,” sir, is all I have to say!

I’ve taken up enough of your time. There is a difference between publishing a wide-range of differing opinions, and publishing lies. You have, time and time again when it comes to Mr. Berkin, chosen the latter. Bottom line: George Berkin’s writings are ill-informed, illogical, and misdirected. You, as the Editor, have no business allowing him a platform to preach his hate to your readers.

Fortunately, it appears your readers are smarter than you: In this one piece, “Say no to gay marriage,” there are as of this writing, twenty-five comments; twenty-three are entirely against George Berkin. Those who believe (as I do not) that marriage should be put to a vote, would surely be voting against George Berkin.

The citizens of the fine state of New Jersey deserve better from him and from you.

God willing, I trust this week they will get it – sadly, not from NJ.com, but from the New Jersey Senate.

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

Liz Cheney Predicts Many Republicans Will Secretly Vote For Kamala Harris

Published

on

Former Republican Representative Liz Cheney predicted Sunday many Republicans will actually end up voting for Vice President Kamala Harris.

The former Wyoming representative appeared on ABC’s This Week to urge her fellow Republicans to dump former President Donald Trump and endorse Harris as she has.

“Given the closeness of this election, particularly if you’re going to find yourself voting in a swing state, you’ve got to take the extra step if you really do recognize the threat that Donald Trump poses. Then it’s not enough to simply say, ‘I’m not going to vote for him,’” she said.

READ MORE: Liz Cheney Stomps Mitch McConnell for ‘Political Calculation’ to Ignore Trump’s Election Crimes

But she also said that even if many Republicans don’t follow her lead and denounce the former president, they’ll take advantage of the privacy of the polls to secretly support the Democratic candidate.

“It’s a secret ballot,” Cheney said. “At the end of the day, you just have to wrestle with your own conscience when you’re there in the voting booth. And I would expect that you will see far more Republicans and independents, you know, when the time comes, and they’ve got to make that decision, make the right decision.”

This would be the opposite of what some believe happened in 2016. Polls at the time generally showed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the lead over Trump. But when the election happened, though Clinton won the popular vote, it wasn’t enough to tip the Electoral College in her favor.

Over 70% of Republican insiders felt the polls underestimated Trump’s support, according to a Politico article from October 2016.

“I personally know many Republicans that won’t admit that they are voting for Trump. I don’t like admitting it myself. It won’t matter if Hillary is up more than 5 points, but we might be in for a surprise if Hillary’s lead is less than 5 points on Election Day,” an unnamed Virginia Republican told the outlet at the time.

In a 2016 interview conducted before the election, Trump’s then-campaign manager Kellyanne Conway pointed out that Trump polled better in anonymous online polls than in more traditional polling, according to WJLA.

“It’s become socially desirable, especially if you’re a college-educated person in the United States of America, to say that you’re against Donald Trump,” she said.

A 2019 study found that this was indeed the case. The study found that 54% of those polled voted for Trump but kept their preference a secret publicly. When broken out by gender, 57% of men and 50% of women polled kept their Trump vote a secret.

Continue Reading

News

Trump Calls for Government Shutdown: ‘CLOSE IT DOWN!!!’

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump urged House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to cause a government shutdown unless the House passes the SAVE Act.

“If Republicans in the House, and Senate, don’t get absolute assurances on Election Security, THEY SHOULD, IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, GO FORWARD WITH A CONTINUING RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET. THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO ‘STUFF’ VOTER REGISTRATIONS WITH ILLEGAL ALIENS. DON’T LET IT HAPPEN – CLOSE IT DOWN!!!” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social Tuesday.

Johnson has paired the continuing resolution, which would fund the government for another six months, with the SAVE Act, which would require proof of citizenship in order to become a registered voter. The SAVE Act was originally introduced by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) and passed in the House on its own in July. Every Republican voted for the SAVE Act, along with five Democrats.

READ MORE: GOP Congressman Admits ‘Most of What We Do Is Bad’ as McCarthy’s Republicans Push for Federal Government Shutdown

The standalone version of the SAVE act is stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate. It is unlikely to pass, and has yet to be brought to a vote in that chamber. President Joe Biden has promised to veto it should the bill make it out of the Senate.

Attaching the SAVE Act to the continuing resolution has not made it any more popular outside of the House. In fact, at least five House Republicans said they’re against the pairing, according to Roll Call. Republicans’ majority in the House is slim, meaning that providing no absences and a united front against it from Democrats, five Republicans are all that are needed to sink the resolution.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said in the House Monday that even if the continuing resolution passes as-is, the Senate would remove the SAVE Act and send it back to the House. Even in the unlikely situation where the Senate lets the SAVE Act part stand, Biden’s reiterated that he would veto it, according to The Hill.

Critics of the SAVE Act point out that it’s irrelevant. Only American citizens are allowed to vote by law, and it’s very rare for noncitizens to try to vote illegally.

“This is a crime where not only are the consequences really high and the payoff really low — you’re not getting millions of dollars, it’s not robbing a bank, you get to cast one ballot,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, a lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice, told MSNBC. “But what also makes this somewhat unique is that committing this crime actually entails the creation of a government record of your crime.

“It’s very easy to catch, and you will get caught.”

Morales-Doyle said that on the other hand, the SAVE Act would make it more difficult for actual citizens to vote because many do not have passports or access to their birth certificates. There is also a law against requiring proof of citizenship in federal elections, MSNBC reported.

Threatening government shutdowns has become a common ploy from the Republicans, and there have been 10 shutdowns since 1981, according to History.com. All but three of the 10 shutdowns were led by Republicans. One exception was in 1982, when both parties of Congress missed the deadline despite agreeing on terms. In confusion, some agencies sent employees home, but the shutdown only lasted three days, between September 30 and October 2.

The remaining two shutdowns were the result of Democrats protesting Trump’s policies. In January 2018, there was a four-day shutdown over Trump’s plans to phase out the DACA program allowing children of undocumented people to remain in the United States. The end of 2018 saw the longest shutdown in history. The issue was over funding Trump’s planned wall along the border of Mexico. The shutdown lasted over a month, until Republicans backed down.

Continue Reading

CORRUPTION

JD Vance Says in 2020 He Wouldn’t Certify Election: ‘Let the Country Have the Debate’

Published

on

Ohio Senator JD Vance, the Republican vice presidential candidate, said Monday that if he were in former Vice President Mike Pence’s place, he would not have certified the election on January 6, 2021.

Speaking as part of a panel on the All-In Podcast, Vance told cohost Jason Calacanis the issue wasn’t necessarily Pence deciding not to “overturn the election results,” but rather that “Mike Pence could have done more to sort of surface some problems.”‘

Calacanis replied by asking Vance directly if he would have certified the election.

READ MORE: ‘BadgerPundit’: Top Trump Attorney in Fake Electors Plot Hid Secret Twitter Account

“I happen to think that there were issues back in 2020, particularly in Pennsylvania. Even some of the courts that refused to throw out certified ballots did say that there were ballots that were cast in an illegal way. They just refused to actually decertify the election results in Pennsylvania,” Vance said. “Do I think that we could have had a much more rational conversation about how to ensure that only legal ballots are cast? Yes. And do I think that Mike Pence could have played a better role? Yes.”

Calacanis asked Vance again if he’d have certified the election, and Vance appears to back the plan to send fake electors to cause confusion in the certification process.

“I would have asked the states to submit alternative slates of electors and let the country have the debate about what actually matters and what kind of an election that we have. That’s what I would have done,” Vance said. “The important part is we would have had a big debate. And it doesn’t necessarily mean the results would have been any different, but we would, at least, have had the debate in Pennsylvania and Georgia about how to better have a rational election system where legal ballots are cast.”

Democrats heavily criticized Vance’s statement.

“Donald Trump picked JD Vance as his running mate because he knows that Vance will do what his last vice president wouldn’t—undermine our democracy and help him try to overturn election results. Now, Vance is making it clear: instead of certifying the 2020 election, Vance ‘would have asked the states’ to send slates of fake electors and throw our election into chaos to help Trump stay in power. Vance is clearly laying out the stakes of this election for our democracy and our basic freedoms, and showing voters that if given the chance, he’ll try to replace the rule of law with the rule of Trump,” Alex Floyd, the rapid response director for the DNC, said in a statement.

Vance’s claims of there being illegal ballots in Pennsylvania appears to be based on a claim from former President Donald Trump in 2022. Trump said that a then-recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that ballots sent in undated envelopes will not be counted in that year’s election meant that the 2020 election was “rigged, but they’ll let that result stand.”

The Associated Press debunked Trump’s claim, reporting that not only did Trump misrepresent the court’s ruling, but even if his claim was accurate, throwing out these ballots would not have mattered in the election.

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.