Connect with us

Yes, Brendan O’Neill, Anti-Gay Voters Are ‘Ill-Informed,’ And So Are You

Published

on

In a ridiculous, poorly-researched opinion hatchet job examining the aftermath of Amendment One, titled, “The bile being spat at the people of North Carolina exposes the ugly elitism of the gay-marriage lobby,” Brendan O’Neill, a writer for the U.K.’s conservative broadsheet, The Telegraph, writes that “the message coming out of liberal circles in America this week” is that, “[a]pparently if you oppose gay marriage you are a dumb, ill-informed, brainwashed, knuckle-dragging hick and bigot.”

Well, yes, pretty much, that’s true.

But let’s remove the “knuckle-dragging” part — because racism has no place in this discussion, and I abhor when people spout racist rhetoric. Homophobia and racism are ugly and evil, and I’ll have no part of either.

That said, O’Neill has done his U.K. readers a true disservice.

Aside from the fact that if you oppose same-sex marriage, you are a bigot — for there is no valid reason to oppose same-sex marriage, just as there is no valid reason to oppose interracial marriage — what O’Neill fails to address is the fact that, as polls found, the vast majority of North Carolina voters had no real idea what they were voting for.

Polls found the majority of North Carolina voters do oppose same-sex marriage. But they don’t oppose civil unions or other vehicles to legally recognize same-sex unions — or opposite-sex unions — and had they known Amendment One would make civil unions illegal they would not have voted for it. That is a fact conspicuously missing from O’Neill’s liberal-bashing diatribe.

A constitutional ballot initiative, Amendment One would change North Carolina’s constitution by permanently banning same-sex marriage and any other relationship that is not “one-man, one-woman” marriage, remove orders of protection from domestic violence victims, and even remove children from their parents’ insurance policies.

Chances are good that even the most rabidly anti-gay voter does not want to rip away protections from their straight neighbors down the street, or their children. Amendment One will have that effect, essentially, in the eyes of the law, divorcing 185,000 North Carolina heterosexual cohabitating couples.

For O’Neill to ignore this huge fact shows his ignorance — willful or otherwise. To use his words, yes, he is “ill-informed,” and has now, like America’s Fox News, injected his audience with mis-information. Congratulations, Mr. O’Neill. Welcome to America.

Frankly, it’s offensive when writers don’t do their homework, but it’s exponentially offensive when they are from another country and wade into matters that they don’t understand.

And let me be clear. We have authors at The New Civil Rights Movement from other countries, and we value their work, in part because they bring a unique perspective to the discussion. Brendan O’Neill brought nothing to his readers in his piece trashing pro-gay media that, at times, rightfully lambasted anti-gay voters.

But worse, O’Neill — in typical Michelle Malkin fashion – also focused on the comments of anonymous Twitter and social media users, and anonymous commenters on blogs, as the evidence of the “bile” of the “gay-marriage lobby.” I assure you, whatever the “gay-marriage lobby” is — if it even exists — it has far better things to do than troll Twitter and Facebook and blogs and leave anonymous comments. And those who do leave ugly anonymous comments don’t deserve to have them amplified. If you don’t have the courage to sign your name, what you have to say isn’t really worthwhile, is it?

So, dear reader, bear with me and take a moment to read a central portion of O’Neill’s complete lack of understanding of the anti-gay animus of North Carolina’s Amendment One:

The media says they’re all “bigots”. Apparently they were driven by a typically Southern hatefulness. In fact, according to the LA Times, “even by Southern standards, [this was a] remarkably mean-spirited initiative”. The LA Times went so far as to argue that President Obama’s newly stated support for gay marriage is “similar” to Abraham Lincoln’s support for the emancipation of slaves, the implication being that it is massively disappointing that modern-day blacks in North Carolina, those ungrateful beneficiaries of Lincoln’s stance, did not vote to “liberate” gays today. Maybe they’ve been brainwashed into hating homos. According to the New Civil Rights Movement, one of the main pro-gay marriage groups in America, in North Carolina “ignorance and hate has enveloped ordinary citizens”, and the support for Amendment 1 shows how “ill-informed, mis-informed and just plain ignorant the citizenry… truly are”.

The idea that hatred and ignorance have “enveloped” the people of North Carolina is widespread. The gay advocacy group Faith in America said voters had been “duped” by religious leaders; they were “uninformed or deceived”. The only reason Amendment 1 passed, says Faith in America, is because of “the populace’s misunderstanding about sexual orientation”. Of course it isn’t possible that voters simply had a considered moral objection to gay marriage – no, they were clearly all brainwashed by religious crazies. The passing of Amendment 1 shows that voters should not be trusted to rule on sensitive moral matters, says the LA Times. Apparently these kind of “anti-gay” votes will continue until “people of conscience put a stop to it by asserting that tyranny of the majority is wrong”. In short, let’s leave the creation of morality to those good people who act on “conscience” rather than to those “ordinary citizens” who have been enveloped by “hate and ignorance”.

(And thanks for the kind mention about The New Civil Rights Movement — we’ve worked hard here. I’m glad it’s paying off.)

O’Neill writes, “Maybe they’ve been brainwashed into hating homos,” but then leaves out the fact that on April 29, thanks to the radical religious right, churches across North Carolina were instructed to preach about the evils of same-sex marriage, and to ensure their parishioners came out in full force to vote for Amendment One.

The essence of that day’s gay-bashing by North Carolina’s pastors and priests was embodied in a sermon — we use that term lightly — by Pastor Sean Harris, now the infamous Pastor Sean Harris, who instructed his flock to beat the gay out of children as young as four years old (audio) should they exhibit any signs of homosexuality.

Can I make it any clearer? Dads, the second you see that son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give them a good punch. OK? You’re not going to act like that — you were made by God to be a male and you’re going to be a male.

And when your daughter starts acting too ‘butch,’ you rein her in. And you say, ‘Oh no. Oh no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play ‘em, play ‘em to the glory of God, but sometimes you’re going to act like a girl and talk like a girl and talk like a girl, and smell like a girl, and that means you’re going to be beautiful, you’re going to be attractive, you’re going to dress yourself up’.

“Maybe they’ve been brainwashed into hating homos”? Well, perhaps.

“In short, let’s leave the creation of morality to those good people who act on ‘conscience’ rather than to those ‘ordinary citizens’ who have been enveloped by ‘hate and ignorance’,” O’Neill sarcastically concludes.

Well, Mr. O’Neill, “morality” has nothing to do with the issue. America, a constitutionally secular society, is not supposed to take the Bible into account when making laws. And same-sex marriage is a civil matter, not a religious one. We’re not asking churches or other houses of worship to marry us if they don’t want to. We’re asking for equal rights to civil law, under the law.

Frankly, it’s a bit disappointing to read these words, especially from a (former?) communist. And frankly, Mr. O’Neill, you sound like the radical right wing of America’s Republican Party. And that is rather ugly.

Lastly, as I mentioned in my last piece about Brendan O’Neill, for those readers unfamiliar with him, let’s remember who he is.

Brendan O’Neill is the editor of Spiked — which used to be called Living Marxism, the journal of the Revolutionary Communist Party, but is no longer in existence only because it had to close after being sued for libel. O’Neill has been described as “an alumnus of some Trotskyist group or other, and like other leftie turned righties (or Euston Manifesto Decent Lefties), has remembered how to use his time honoured bag of rhetorical tricks.” Also, the comment, “I don’t suspect many people will be taking lessons from Brendan O’Neill – editor at Spiked Online – on journalism ethics,” was written about him last year regarding a U.K. press freedoms issue.

I suppose we should now wait for another fact-wanting op-ed blasting American gay rights activists and “the gay-marriage lobby” as bile-filled ugly elitists who attack poor U.K. journalists…

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

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves Dismisses ‘Real Small, Minor Number’ of Rapes Requiring Abortions

Published

on

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R) declined to say on Sunday if he would sign a bill removing abortion exceptions for rape because they only represent a “real small, minor number” of cases.

During an interview on Fox News, host Mike Emmanuel asked Reeves if he would remove the abortion exceptions for rape in Mississippi.

Reeves sidestepped the question by insisting that the bill would never make it through the legislature.

“There’s a lot of effort, particularly in Washington and other places mainly by the Democrats, to try to talk only about the real small, minor number of exceptions that may exist,” he complained. “Over 90% of all abortions that are done in America, some 63 million babies aborted since Roe was wrongly decided in 1973, over 90% of those are elective abortions.”

Reeves argued that the “far-left” should not be talking about “all these exceptions and minor numbers.”

Watch the video below from Fox News.

 

Continue Reading

News

Trump Hinted Jan. 6 Would Be His ‘Last-Ditch’ Attempt to Overturn the Election Results: Filmmaker Alex Holder

Published

on

In an interview with the Guardian’s Hugo Lowell, a British documentary maker who was filming behind-the-scenes footage in Donald Trump’s White House on Jan 6th claimed he knew something bad was about to happen before supporters of the former president stormed the Capitol and sent lawmakers fleeing for their lives.

Alex Holder, whose film crew was on hand and filming Trump and his children Don Jr, Eric and Ivanka on Jan 6th, stated there was a feeling among his people that something momentous was about to happen.

According to Lowell, “Holder was there for it all: three sit-down interviews with Trump, including one at the White House, numerous other interviews with Trump’s adult children, private conversations among top aides and advisers before the election, and around the Capitol itself as it got stormed.” adding, “The access to Trump, and listening to him and his inner circle, led him to suspect that the former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election would somehow culminate in some event at the Capitol on 6 January.”

Asked about what his feeling was prior to the riot that engulfed the Capitol building, Holder explained, “I wasn’t 100% sure, but it was sort of a feeling, so we prepared for that thing to happen. The reason we thought January 6 was because, in Trump’s mind, the last-ditch effort was to stop the process” of the vote certification by Congress.

RELATED: Man behind J6 documentary needs ‘two armed guards’ due to Trump supporters’ threats: BBC

He elaborated, “That ceremonial process that takes place in Congress on January 6, he felt, was the last time where he could, in his mind, stop the election going to the wrong person, as it were. The rhetoric that was coming out was that the election was rigged, [that] we need to fight.”

According to the Guardian report, Holder has, “testified for about four hours behind closed doors last week about his roughly 100 hours of footage, used for an upcoming documentary titled Unprecedented, and turned over to House investigators the parts demanded in a subpoena compelling his cooperation.”

Lowell added, “Holder said he additionally did a one-to-one interview with then-vice president Mike Pence, including a scene where Pence briefly reviews an email about the 25th amendment – which concerns the removal of a US president – which was privately discussed among senior White House officials in the wake of the Capitol attack.”

You can read more here.

Continue Reading

News

Meadows Allegedly Behind Possible Attempt at Witness Intimidation of Cassidy Hutchinson: Reports

Published

on

Cassidy Hutchinson, the former aide and advisor to Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, may be the victim of attempted witness intimidation, and the person who may have attempted to intimidate her may be her former boss.

The Guardian on Friday reports “Hutchinson received at least one message tacitly warning her not to cooperate with the House January 6 select committee from an associate of former chief of staff Mark Meadows.”

That message, according to both CNN and The Guardian, was delivered at the direction of Mark Meadows, according to sources both news outlets cite.

READ MORE: Secret Service Agents Confirm Details Hutchinson Shared About Trump Demanding to Be Taken to US Capitol Jan. 6

One of the messages that the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack posted at the end of Hutchinson’s testimony read: “[A person] let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know that he’s thinking about you. He knows you’re loyal, and you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.”

According to The Guardian, “The redaction was ‘Meadows,’ the sources said.”

READ MORE: Trump Declares Hutchinson ‘Totally Discredited’ as Former Aide Says Someone in His Orbit Tried to Influence Her Testimony

CNN similarly reports: “One of [the] people who may have been trying to influence Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony did so at the behest of former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, according to multiple sources familiar with information gathered by the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection.”

Citing multiple sources CNN reports “the ‘person’ referred to in the message, which was redacted in the version projected on a screen during the hearing, was Meadows.”

Former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence Frank Figliuzzi Friday afternoon on MSNBC said there is “no question” that message constitutes “an attempt to intimidate a witness. No question about it,” he stressed.

“When you then add that to the fact that it appears that they provided, her initial attorney to her, Cassidy Hutchinson, you now have a without a doubt, predication to open a federal witness tampering investigation,” Figliuzzi added.

Thursday on Twitter Figliuzzi wrote: “This is witness tampering. Cassidy Hutchinson was the target. They picked the wrong young woman.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.