Connect with us

Socialism? And Gay Marriage? And Civil Unions? Oh My!

Published

on

Remember that classic moment when Joe The Plumber first met Barack Obama? It was back in October, just a few days before the final presidential debate, although it seems like years ago. Obama made the mistake of speaking intelligently to then-Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, now, Mr. The Plumber, I guess. Here’s what Obama said,

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success, too… My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off […] if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Republicans cried “Socialism!” And despite the fact that Obama’s tax plan would have benefitted Joe, and despite the fact that Obama’s plan wasn’t evenly closely “socialism“, Joe used his mighty wit, and hit for the other team. The rest, as they say, is history.

Just a few weeks on the heels of the now famous New York Times’ Op-Ed by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch, today, Time Magazine’s Michael Lindenberger reports on another tactic, this time, a lot closer to the essence of socialism, being batted about to solve the issue of gay marriage.

“Two law professors from Pepperdine University issued a call to re-examine the role the government plays in marriage in a paper published March 2 in the San Francisco Chronicle. The authors — one of who voted for and one against Prop 8, which successfully ended gay marriage in California — say the best way out of the intractable legal wars over gay marriage is to take marriage out of the hands of the government altogether.

Instead, give gay and straight couples alike the same license — a certificate confirming them as a family, and call it a “civil union” — anything, really, other than “marriage.” For those for whom the word marriage is important, the next stop after the courthouse could be the church, where they could bless their union with all the religious ceremony they could want. The Church itself would lose nothing of its role in sanctioning the kinds of unions that it finds in keeping with its tenets. And for non-believers or those for whom the word marriage is less important, the civil union license issued by the state would be all they needed to unlock the benefits reserved in most states, and in federal law, for “married” couples.”

It’s an interesting argument, and one that is actually starting to take place, for better or worse, right now in the hotbed of gay marriage. Patt Morrison writes,

“Two college students want to put on the ballot an initiative to change the word ”marriage” to ”civil union” in California’s laws.

Not … so … fast … Robin Tyler is the executive director of Equality Campaign and one of the first to be married in California in that June-to-November 2008 window when gay marriage was legal. Taking away the civil institution of marriage from everyone diminishes everyone, she thinks. But a lot of you called and blogged to disagree. Many of you think it’s a great idea; it delineates a brighter line between church and state. A couple of you in heterosexual relationships even said you refuse to get married because the word is fraught with religious connotations.”

And that is the crux of this argument: Does reducing everyone’s status to make everyone equal, (the “taking from some to make everyone equal” part is a lot closer to the essence of socialism,) solve the problem? If one of us is diminished, aren’t we all? And isn’t that what gay-marriage bans, like Prop 8, do in the first place?

These are the big questions in this issue. We are a nation of laws, with the often opposing tenets of “majority rules” confronting “justice for all” and “all men are created equal”. The question is, how much are we willing to give up to ensure these philosophies that are etched in our DNA are honored?

The answer is, today, most legally-married straight couples probably aren’t willing to give up the term “marriage”. And why should they? They’ve earned it. The problem is, they didn’t have to fight for it. We do. And we’ve earned it too. 

I agree with the idea of keeping the state and religion out of the bedroom. But I don’t agree with the idea of letting the state offer only civil unions and the church, marriage, because the fact is that neither God nor religion created marriage. And because we know that calling it something else diminishes its members. Studies show that children in families headed by gay parents who aren’t legally married are perceived differently. It’s not fair to them, or to their parents. The state can, and does, legislate morality. 

Marriage is an institution created by man. Relegating it to the Church serves only the Church, not man. It’s time to give marriage to all, and it’s time to call it marriage. Let the state marry everyone, and let those who choose to reinforce their religious beliefs are welcome to do so again in whatever house of worship, and in whatever manner, they, and their church, choose. 

The word marriage is being fought for by all sides, and the battle is fierce. With good reason. “Marriage” has meaning. If it were just a word, no one would be fighting for it. I agree with Robin Tyler. Don’t diminish everyone’s rights to appease all sides. This is not a zero-sum game. There’s no need to rob Peter to pay for Paul and Steve’s marriage. That’s the beauty of love, and of marriage. There’s enough of it to go around.

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.

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

‘Disgraceful’: ICE Slammed After Allegedly Pepper-Spraying US Congresswoman

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) is accusing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents of pepper-spraying her in her face while she was at a local Tucson, Arizona restaurant.

Rep. Grijalva in a video on social media said she saw about 40 mostly-masked ICE agents at a restaurant she frequents weekly.

The agents were “in several vehicles that the community had stopped right here, right in the middle of the street, because they were afraid that they were taking people without due process, without any kind of notice.”

READ MORE: Warning Signs Flash as Trump Slump Raises Fears of 2018 Blue Wave Rerun: Conservative

She said that the community was “protecting their people” when she was “sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent,” and “pushed around by others when I literally was not being aggressive.”

“I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress,” she continued. “So, once I introduced myself, once I did, I assumed that it would be a little calmer, but there was literally only one person that was trying to speak to me in any kind of civil tone, and everyone else was being rude and disrespectful, and I just can only imagine if they’re going to treat me like that, how they’re treating everybody else.”

Congresswoman Grijalva said she saw “people directly sprayed,” including “members of our press” and staff members.

She blasted President Donald Trump, saying that he “has no regard for any due process, the rule of law, the Constitution — they’re literally disappearing people from the streets.”

Critics slammed the agents’ action.

READ MORE: Trump: Democrats Are Plotting ‘Total Obliteration’ of Supreme Court

U.S. Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) wrote that Rep. Grijalva “was doing her job, standing up for her community.”

“Pepper-spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for. Period,” he added.

“This is unacceptable and outrageous,” observed Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes. “Enforcing the rule [of] law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression.”

The Bulwark’s Sam Stein noted, “quite the beginning for Grijalva, who wasn’t seated for weeks, [cast] the decisive vote to get the Epstein files, and now has apparently been pepper sprayed in the face by immigration agents.”

Also calling the action “outrageous,” U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) wrote: “We are Members of Congress with oversight authority of ICE. Rep Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents. ICE is completely lawless.”

“First they tackle a sitting Senator,” noted U.S. Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY). “Now they’re pepper spraying a Representative. It’s clear ICE is spinning out of control. We will hold the agency accountable.”

READ MORE: Trump’s Ballroom Seen as ‘Key Evidence’ He’s Out of Touch as Cost of Living Spikes

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Warning Signs Flash as Trump Slump Raises Fears of 2018 Blue Wave Rerun: Conservative

Published

on

A well-known conservative commentator has a warning for the Republican Party: take action now or face a repeat of the 2018 midterms when the GOP lost 41 House seats in a landslide. And this time, he says, the Senate could go to the Democrats as well.

Award-winning writer and journalist Bernard Goldberg reminded readers at The Hill that in 2018, during President Donald Trump’s first term, “Republicans got walloped … and a good chunk of that had President Trump’s name written all over it.”

Trump’s “approval ratings were in the low 40s, and independents — the folks who usually decide elections — had seen enough. They broke hard for the Democrats,” Goldberg noted. “Now here we are, staring down 2026, and you can almost hear history clearing its throat, getting ready to repeat itself.”

READ MORE: Trump: Democrats Are Plotting ‘Total Obliteration’ of Supreme Court

Goldberg noted that Trump’s approval rating is currently the lowest it’s been this term.

“Among Republicans, his support dropped from 91 percent right after the 2024 election to 84 percent last month. Among independents, it cratered — from 42 percent to just 25 percent.”

“If the trend continues,” he warned, “Republicans could be headed for another blue wave — and this time, it could wash away not just the House majority, but control of the Senate too.”

Why?

“It’s the economy — still,” he wrote.

“Trump is out there saying the economy is humming. Biden said the same thing before him. But voters didn’t buy it then, and they’re not buying it now. Why? Because it’s not GDP numbers that matter. It’s affordability,” Goldberg noted.

READ MORE: Trump’s Ballroom Seen as ‘Key Evidence’ He’s Out of Touch as Cost of Living Spikes

That’s a word that President Trump continues to call a “con job,” while his own administration tries to claim he is focused on.

He pointed to a Karl Rove Wall Street Journal column and wrote: “The Republicans may have ‘avoided disaster’ in Tennessee, but the result should be a wake-up call for Republicans. He’s right.”

Goldberg asked: “will anyone in the Republican Party actually pick up the phone?”

“Because if Republicans don’t wake up — and fast — they’re going to find out the hard way what happens when you keep rerunning the same movie and expecting a different ending. To lose in 2026, all they have to do is nothing. And right now, that’s pretty much what they’re doing.”

READ MORE: Trump Urges Judge Aileen Cannon to Keep Jack Smith Report Secret

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Trump: Democrats Are Plotting ‘Total Obliteration’ of Supreme Court

Published

on

President Donald Trump is claiming that the top priority of Democrats is the “total obliteration” of the U.S. Supreme Court. His remarks came just hours after SCOTUS gave Republicans a 6-3 win along partisan lines, in the form of approving Texas’s redrawn mid-decade congressional maps that could help add five GOP-held seats to the U.S. House of Representatives. A lower court had ruled the redrawn Texas maps were likely racially biased.

Although there are different ways to measure, one study by Court Accountability this fall found that the Supreme Court has ruled in Trump’s favor 90% of the time.

“Most of these wins for the president came from the court’s ‘shadow docket’ slate of opinions — where the court has typically, in the past, only ruled on administrative measures,” according to Truthout. “However, in recent years, the Supreme Court has been making announcements on cases, issuing injunctions or allowances of actions to remain in place, that have the same effect, essentially, as a final decision.”

READ MORE: White House Touts Trump’s ‘Track Record’ on Affordability

On Friday, the president declared that the “Democrats number one policy push is the complete and total OBLITERATION of our great United States Supreme Court.”

“They will do this on their very first day in office, through the simple Termination of the Filibuster, SHOULD THEY WIN THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS,” he wrote.

Trump has strongly advocated for Republicans to eliminate the Senate filibuster.

“The Radical Left Democrats are looking at 21 Justices, with immediate ascension,” he wrote, claiming that Democrats would more than double the current size of the court.

“This would be terrible for our Country. Fear not, however, Republicans will not let it, or any of their other catastrophic policies, happen. Our Country is now in very good hands. MAGA!!!”

Some court reform advocates have suggested the Supreme Court be expanded to 13 justices, one for each of the thirteen U.S. Courts of Appeals.

READ MORE: Trump’s Ballroom Seen as ‘Key Evidence’ He’s Out of Touch as Cost of Living Spikes

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.