Connect with us

An Embarrassing Reconciliation On Gay Marriage

Published

on

The Internet is abuzz today with an Op-Ed in Sunday’s New York Times entitled, “A Reconciliation On Gay Marriage.” Co-authored by two men on opposite sides of the camp, David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values, and Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution, the piece supposes a lot, offers a little, and ignores much. An analysis.

From the very beginning of reading “A Reconciliation On Gay Marriage“, one can’t help but notice the title feels a bit odd. “A Treaty On Gay Marriage”, or “A Bridge To Gay Marriage” would make more sense. The authors’ attempt at “reconciliation” is, at best, shrouded in sectarian mischief, and at worst, is no attempt at all. One wonders of their true motivation. As you know, a word used by the church, “reconciliation” is,

“A sacrament in some Christian churches that includes contrition, confession to a priest, acceptance of punishment, and absolution.”

So, from the very beginning, we realize this piece has a deep religious undertone and is written in service to the church. How? Once you read the article thoroughly you realize the authors have written it so delicately that it leads the reader to assume the church actually has a deciding vote in the battle on gay marriage. They do it from the start. And there need be no contrition, no absolution, and no apologies for the need for gay marriage. Certainly none from the church.

The authors pre-suppose a few items and need to be called on them. First, this is a country of laws. The Church, indeed any religious entity, has no say whatsoever in the law.

Second, going back to our earlier experiment in “separate but equal”, the vast majority of Americans were against equality for blacks when President Johnson convinced Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “Majority rules” has never been an acceptable argument or principle where the Constitution, the law, and human rights are concerned. “Separate but equal” gave us five decades of separate not equal. It was insufficient then, it is insufficient now.

Overall, my conversations with members of the gay community, whether in person, or on social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook, are that, as authors Blankenhorn and Rauch write, yes, “most, of course, want the right to marry, and nothing less.” In fact, the vast majority tell me their outrage at being treated as second-class citizens, and, while civil union is a step in the right direction, they feel it is but a step. Equal marriage, with the word marriage, is the goal of the vast majority.

Ignored is the fact that still, only two states offer same-sex marriage. So, the statement “Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level” really doesn’t do much for the millions of gays who don’t live in, or don’t want to, or can’t, travel to Connecticut or Massachusetts. The authors should have proposed an avenue to the repeal of DOMA and federal encouragement to the states to ensure an offer of same-sex civil unions.

The authors also ignore the elephant in the room. Gays could care less about the sectarian position on same-sex marriage. In fact, I took a poll recently on the social networking site “Twitter”. In response to my question, “Acceptable definition of legalized gay marriage: must it include religious marriage recognition? Is being married by “the church” a must?”, 74% chose the answer, “Hell, who cares? As long as you call it marriage and we get all the benefits, I don’t care who marries us!” 26% chose “It would be nice, but the religious aspect of marriage is not a deal-breaker.” And no one voted for, “Absolutely. If I can’t get married in a church/synagogue/mosque, etc., then I wouldn’t consider myself married.” Me thinks the church doth protest too much.

The authors’ solution, “federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level”? Yes. “Religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will”? Yes.

But make no mistake. The Church has no say in the matter of same-sex marriage. It is not a sectarian issue but a secular one. Gays have no desire to get into bed with the church and are happy to leave the church out of our business. But civil unions and domestic partnerships are merely the final steps to our rightful goal, full and equal marriage, called marriage, and not sanctioned by the church, but by man himself. No contrition, confession to a priest, acceptance of punishment, or absolution for that which is rightfully ours, necessary.

 


Also, take a look at these posts on Gay Marriage, here, at The New Civil Rights Movement.


Elsewhere, these pieces on the Times’ Op-Ed are interesting:

Aw cute, some people still think the church opposes gay marriage in good faith

The Worst Op-Ed, Ever

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

‘What First Amendment?’: 140 EPA Workers Suspended After Opposing Trump Agenda

Published

on

Roughly 140 Environmental Protection Agency employees have been placed on administrative leave after signing a letter warning of political interference in the agency’s work—prompting critics to accuse the Trump administration of ignoring their First Amendment rights.

Calling the letter “a remarkable rebuke of the agency’s political leadership,” The New York Times reported on Monday that more than 270 EPA employees had signed the public letter “denouncing what they described as the Trump administration’s efforts to politicize, dismantle and sideline the main federal agency tasked with protecting the environment and public health.”

On Thursday, the Times reported that 144 workers had been suspended, other news outlets put the number at 139.

In that public letter, signatories said they are joining in “solidarity with employees across the federal government in opposing this administration’s policies,” and that they “stand together in dissent against the current administration’s focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise.”

READ MORE: ‘Stop Talking’: Johnson Suggests Jeffries Is Lying in Marathon Budget Speech

They detailed their five primary concerns, including, “Undermining public trust,” “Ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters,” “Reversing EPA’s progress in America’s most vulnerable communities,” “Dismantling the Office of Research and Development,” and “Promoting a culture of fear, forcing staff to choose between their livelihood and well-being.”

On Thursday, the 140 or so employees who allegedly had signed the letter with their official titles received emails saying they had been placed on leave for two weeks “pending an administrative investigation,” The New York Times reported.

“The Environmental Protection Agency has a zero-tolerance policy for career bureaucrats unlawfully undermining, sabotaging, and undercutting the administration’s agenda as voted for by the great people of this country last November,” Brigit Hirsch, an EPA spokesperson, said in a statement, according to Bloomberg Law News.

“The letter, addressed to EPA head Lee Zeldin, alleged the agency has used its communication platforms to ‘promote misinformation and overtly partisan rhetoric,'” Bloomberg added. “One example the signatories cited was a March statement laying out the administration’s deregulatory agenda, in which Zeldin referred to ‘the climate change religion.'”

READ MORE: Democratic Strategist Warns Trump Could Try to Impose Martial Law Before 2026 Midterms

Nicole Cantello, president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 704, called the move “blatant retaliation,” The Hill reported.

“We don’t swear an oath to the Trump administration, we swear an oath to the Constitution and so we don’t feel like we violated that oath or that we did anything wrong by signing this letter,” she said.

Cantello, on social media, wrote that EPA workers “have the right to freedom of speech, just like every other American.”

Addressing EPA Administrator Zeldin directly, she said: “See you in court.”

Some denounced the administration’s move.

Attorney Mark Zaid, who handles national security and whistleblower cases, wrote: “Apparently retaliation has already begun. This is what defines this Administration.”

He also offered to “provide pro bono consultation to examine current situation.”

The New York Times’ Trip Gabriel asked, “What First Amendment?”

READ MORE: Trump Appeared Unaware His Budget Bill Cuts $1T From Medicaid: Report

 

Image of Lee Zeldin via Shutterstock

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Stop Talking’: Johnson Suggests Jeffries Is Lying in Marathon Budget Speech

Published

on

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, in an apparent attempt to prevent the Republican Speaker, Mike Johnson, from passing President Donald Trump’s massive budget bill in the dead of night, has been delivering a speech on the floor for over six hours, and may break the record of 8 hours and 32 minutes set in 2021 by then GOP Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

Speaker Johnson reportedly allowed minimal time for debate on what Trump calls his “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” which cuts Medicaid by about $1 trillion, and forces cuts to Medicare and SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, by hundreds of billions of dollars while carving out tax breaks that largely favor the wealthy. An estimated 17 million people could lose insurance as a result of the legislation.

Once Leader Jeffries concludes his remarks—which he began around 5 AM—Johnson will put the bill to a final vote, and he’s anxious to get the legislation to the President’s desk before Trump’s arbitrary July 4 deadline.

READ MORE: Democratic Strategist Warns Trump Could Try to Impose Martial Law Before 2026 Midterms

“What is contemplated in this one big, ugly bill is wrong,” Leader Jeffries said, as NBC News reported. “It’s dangerous, and it’s cruel, and cruelty should not be either the objective or the outcome of legislation that we consider here in the United States House of Representatives.”

Jeffries also called it “cruel” to cut Medicaid.

“Republicans are trying to take a chain saw to Social Security, a chain saw to Medicare, a chain saw to Medicaid, a chain saw to the health care of the American people, a chain saw to nutritional assistance for hungry children, a chain saw to farm country and a chain saw to vulnerable Americans,” Jeffries added.

Speaker Johnson, speaking to reporters, appeared displeased.

“If Hakeem will stop talking, we’ll, we’ll get the job done for the American people,” Johnson, using the Democratic Leader’s first name, told reporters.

“It takes a lot longer to build a lie than to tell the truth,” Johnson claimed. “So he’s really spinning a long tale in there, but we’re excited. The people will see the effect of this bill—the extraordinary legislation.”

Johnson offered no evidence to support his accusation.

READ MORE: Trump Appeared Unaware His Budget Bill Cuts $1T From Medicaid: Report

“It’s going to get the economy humming again, really, at a record pace, and it will help every American,” he added.

“So the sooner we can get to it, the sooner the Democrats will stop talking, we’ll get this bill done for the people, and we’re really excited about it.”

Critics blasted Speaker Johnson.

Walter Kimbrough, a three-time HBCU president, responded by posting a meme quoting the famous historian Alexis de Tocqueville, that reads: “It is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Special Place in Hell’: Top Dem Slams ‘Cult’ of ‘People Who Take Food Away’ From Kids

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Democratic Strategist Warns Trump Could Try to Impose Martial Law Before 2026 Midterms

Published

on

Well-known veteran Democratic strategist James Carville is out with a second dire warning about President Donald Trump and the 2026 midterm elections.

Earlier this week, Carville, a political consultant and strategist since the 1970s and now a political commentator, warned that Trump might try to rig the 2026 elections in one way or another—including, he suggested, by possibly trying to cancel them.

On Wednesday night, he offered up another possibility: martial law.

On NewsNation (video below), Carville predicted a “Democratic blowout” in this November’s gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, and that President Trump will be forced to see the writing on the wall.

READ MORE: Trump Appeared Unaware His Budget Bill Cuts $1T From Medicaid: Report

“I think he’s gonna read the election,” Carville said. “And I think he’s going to see this big, beautiful bill, is about 25 points underwater. It’s going to be 30 points underwater,” Carville added, referring to the Republican budget bill that guts Medicaid and Medicare, and is likely to pass the House and head to Trump’s desk for a July 4 signing.

“He’s going to see a massive defeat coming, and he’s going to try to do anything he can to extricate himself in that defeat,” Carville warned.

“And I would not put it at all past him to try to call martial law or declare that there’s some kind of national emergency in the country, or anything like that, because the hoofprints are coming, you can hear ’em, and they’re gonna get a shellacking in November of ’26.”

READ MORE: ‘Special Place in Hell’: Top Dem Slams ‘Cult’ of ‘People Who Take Food Away’ From Kids

Mediaite noted that “Bill O’Reilly and Stephen A. Smith also joined the panel discussion, with O’Reilly mocking Carville’s mention of ‘martial law,’ calling it a ‘scare tactic’ and arguing the economy will dictate the midterms.”

On Tuesday, Carville spoke about Trump with former CNN journalist Jim Acosta.

“I don’t put anything past him, nothing,” Carville warned. “To try to call the election off, to do anything he can. He can think of things like that that we can’t because we’re not accustomed to thinking like that.”

“You know people come up to me all the time and say, ‘James. I’m really scared,’” Carville told Acosta on “The Jim Acosta Show.”

“I said, ‘you should be, you have every reason to be scared. Don’t kid yourself,’” Carville added.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Threatens to Block NYC Democratic Mayoral Nominee He Calls a ‘Communist Lunatic’

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.