Connect with us

The Internet Responds To The Times’ Gay Marriage Op-Ed: “Reconciliation”



As I said, “the Internet is abuzz today“. There were many, many commentaries, including mine, below, on the Tmes’ Op-Ed, “A Reconciliation On Gay Marriage“. What I found fascinating is there were so few in favor of it. My own piece, An Embarrassing Reconciliation On Gay Marriage, has some strong misgivings and questions the authors’ motives. It seems I’m not alone. Here are some excellent responses to the piece, both from blogs and from comments to blogs. An assortment.

Over at Episcopal Cafe, the Rev. Sarah Flynn leaves this comment:

“What this proposal is is really a surrender. Conservatives know they are losing the battle even in spite of Prop 8, and are suing for the best terms possible in the face of inevitable defeat. … Gay and lesbian people should not bargain away their right to full equality in this society for the sake of a false and unjust peace. There is no need to make a bargain with the devil for the sake of second hand citizenship in our own country. We should see this proposal as really a recognition by the Right that they are ultimately going to lose this issue, and not be deterred from finishing what we have begun at such cost and effort.”

Josh Becker at NYU Local writes,

“…ignorant assumptions about broad swaths of American minorities is equally dangerous, as is the arrogant assumption that your own prescription for what’s proven to be a thorny legal and moral issue is the only “reasonable accommodation” available.”

Georgetown Law Professor Nan Hunter adds these important observations,

“…if federal law is going to continue to follow state law for the purpose of defining who is eligible when a federal program requires marriage, then it should recognize as marriages  – not as civil unions – the Mass and CT and other same-sex marriages that are legal under state law.  Following the status recognized by the state has always been the federal approach.”

It was  striking to me that the op-ed completely omitted any discussion of the impact when non-church (etc) entities – like charities or hospitals with a religious affiliation –  accept public funds. When all of our tax dollars are supporting these organizations, then all of us have a legitimate concern about the services they provide.”

And, this, from Doug Mataconis at The Liberty Papers:

“Modern marriage is a civil institution governed by the state, so long as that is the case then the state has no right to discriminate against people when it decides who is and is not entitled to claim the benefits of that relationship.”

Rottin’ in Denmark writes,

“First they hated you because you were going to molest their kids. Then they hated you because being gay was a choice and a sin. Then they hated you because you were promiscuous. Then they hated you because you wanted to settle down. Now they hate you because you’re the bigot, potentially restricting their freedom to teach their kids that your nature makes you a cancer on the human race. Tomorrow they will hate you because you put mustard on your French fries, or because you pushed ‘Avenue Q’ into profitability.”

Pam Spaulding at Pam’s House Blend makes an excellent point, one that I have been espousing here as well. “The law leads”. Well, it should.

“…the law leads, not follows the people when it is a contentious issue. And even when the law extends civil rights, that doesn’t mean the public is ready to or willing to accept that change. We’re clearly still fighting race-based civil rights issues, and that reflects a society that has not fully matured on the matter. It will be no different as LGBTs win civil rights, one by one.

In making compromises to tamp down the conflict that make Blankenhorn and Rauch so uncomfortable, we all must go in with our eyes open that the impact of compromise may have unintended consequences that may take years to extract ourselves from by creating a separate and unequal system. Is it worth the price?  In Blankenhorn’s and Rauch’s compromise, it brings a host of rights to couples unable to obtain them because of the laws in their states. By rejecting compromise and working incrementally, those in states with few or no rights remain second-class citizens at any level for who knows how long (before the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately decides the matter).”

Lastly, SanFranCal via Topix commented, 

“Reread the entire article, substituting the adjectives “same-sex” and “gay” with “inter-racial,” and you’ll see how insulting and blatantly discriminatory this so-called compromise is.”

**Late Edition Update!**

I really liked what Good As You had to say as well:

“Here again, we have church fears and desires casually tossed around as if they, in terms of American government, are interchangeable with testaments toward civil fairness. And once again the tone suggests that just because churchesdesire something, that they are automatically deserved of it. That’s a very dangerous concept. And not only for LGBT people, but also for any group that might at any time find themselves within cross-wielding crosshairs.”

“Yes, we still have work to do to get the president and the American public fully on our side. But you know how not to do that? By ceding ground on a matter that we know within our loving hearts and learned minds is nothing short of right!”

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.


Trump Indicted by Grand Jury: Reports



Donald Trump’s attorneys have been notified a grand jury has voted to indict the ex-president on numerous federal charges and ordered to appear in a Miami court next Tuesday, according to ABC News, CNN, and NBC News. Trump on his Truth Social account made a similar claim..

“Former President Donald Trump has been indicted in the special counsel’s classified documents probe, sources familiar with the matter tells CNN,” the network reports. “Trump has been charged with seven counts in the indictment, according to another source familiar with the matter.”

“We’re learning from our sources that there appears to be at least seven counts here,” ABC News’ Katherine Faulders reported on-air, ABC News online reports.. “This ranges from everything from the willful retention of national defense information to conspiracy to a scheme to conceal to false statements and representations.”

MSNBC on-air reports NBC News has confirmed the Trump indictment, and NBC News online reports the indictment is “in connection with his mishandling of more than 100 classified documents that were discovered last year at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, making the twice-impeached former commander-in-chief the first former president to face federal criminal charges.”

Watch this currently ongoing ABC News live streaming video:

In three separate entries on his Truth Social platform, Trump writes: “The corrupt Biden Administration has informed my attorneys that I have been Indicted,” along with several false allegations NCRM will not publish.

“I have been summoned to appear at the Federal Courthouse in Miami on Tuesday, at 3 PM,” he adds.

He also declares he is “innocent.”

This is a breaking news and developing story. Details may change.

Continue Reading


‘Where’s the Money?’: Biden Laughs Out Loud, Mocks GOP’s Allegations



Just as his press conference with the U.K. Prime Minister was coming to a close and reporters were asked to remain seated, a jovial President Joe Biden stayed and took several questions from reporters desperate to ask about Republicans’ baseless and unsubstantiated claims he accepted millions in bribe money when he was vice president.

Shouting “bribery allegations,” one reporter told the President, “Congresswoman Nancy Mace says there’s damning evidence in an FBI file that you sold out the country.”

As a smile worked its way across the President’s face, the reporter continued saying: “Do you have a response to congressional Republicans?”

The President did.

“Where’s the money?” he deadpanned.

“I’m joking,” he added.

READ MORE: Watch: Stunned Bill Barr Speechless After Fox Host Asks Why DOJ Is Pursuing Trump ‘In the Middle’ of an Election

“That’s a bunch of malarkey,” Biden ultimately responded, denying the claims which were fueled by FBI Director Chris Wray’s decision to allow the entire House Oversight Committee, in eluding far-right Republicans, access to an old FBI form documenting a second-hand tip alleging bribery.

NBC News Peter Alexander then threw a curious question at the President.

“Mr. President, what do you say to Americans to convince them that they should trust the independence and fairness of the Justice Department when your predecessor, Donald Trump, repeatedly attacks it?”

Biden quickly became less jovial.

READ MORE: SCOTUS ‘Surprise’ Voting Rights Decision Could – and Did – Have Big Implications for Democrats, Legal Experts Say

“Because you notice,” he said very seriously, pointing his finger at the reporter, “I have never once, not one single time, suggested to the Justice Department what they should do or not do relative bringing a charge or not bringing a charge.”

“I’m honest,” he stressed.

Foreign policy, national security, and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf responded to the video clip, stating: “Questions like these are not serious journalism.”

Watch below or at this link.


Continue Reading


Watch: Stunned Bill Barr Speechless After Fox Host Asks Why DOJ Is Pursuing Trump ‘In the Middle’ of an Election



Former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr, once one of the ex-president’s top defenders, appeared stunned and speechless Thursday afternoon when a Fox News host surprised him by asking why the U.S. Dept. of Justice is pursuing a criminal investigation against Trump over classified documents while he is running again for president.

“Why is this process happening so quickly in the middle of a presidential election?” Fox’s Martha MacCallum asked. She neglected to mention that Donald Trump reportedly announced his presidential campaign to avoid being charged.

Barr, who is on record stating he opposes Trump’s actions surrounding the hundreds of classified and top secret documents he likely unlawfully removed from the White House and refused to return, paused for several seconds before replying.

“Uh,” Barr finally replied, “This, this was a fairly simple case,” he said, appearing to defend DOJ.

READ MORE: SCOTUS ‘Surprise’ Voting Rights Decision Could – and Did – Have Big Implications for Democrats, Legal Experts Say

“The Mar-a-Lago case. This is a case that can be done relatively quickly, and that’s why I thought, it’s the main – because it’s a very limited question,” Barr explained, shifting gears. “It relates to, ah, one collection of documents and and why they weren’t given to the government once they were subpoenaed. And it’s a pretty simple case.”

Moving on, MacCallum asked, “And you believe that the charge will be obstruction, based on what you’ve said before?”

“Yeah, yeah,” Barr responded, seeming to not want to bet pinned down to an answer, “if I had to bet I think that that there’s going to be an indictment here on that basis, but it’s not going to be because he took the documents, or even had the documents for a while. I think it’s because they believe that he acted deceitfully once the government tried to get the documents back.”

On Tuesday, Barr spoke with CBS News to refute his ex-boss’s “witch hunt” claims, said the ex-president had “jerked” DOJ around over the hundreds of classified and top secret documents he refused to return, and added there was “no excuse” to do so.

READ MORE: Biden Launches Major Initiative to Protect LGBTQ Community Ahead of Massive White House Pride Celebration

Watch Barr below or at this link.

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.