Connect with us

Love And Marriage: Hate Groups, Racism, Anti-Semitism, And Lies

Published

on

It was a week that began with a yawn, thanks to one of the most boring, least gay, and least political Oscar shows in memory –then rapidly descended into ugly days rife with hate speech and hate groups, free speech and lies, racism and anti-semitism. And throughout it all, I kept having to remind myself that oddly, as a writer chronicling the politics of equality, this is supposed to be all about love and marriage.

In an historic first amendment free speech case, the Supreme Court this week ruled that the “God Hates Fags” folks — also known as the Westboro Baptist Church — have the right to picket at or near funerals and say anything they want, including “God hates fags,” “Thank God for 9/11,” “Thank God for AIDS,” and “U R going to hell.”

(The Westboro Baptist Church may have the right to say whatever they want, but since Anonymous took down their Internet sites almost two weeks ago, they’re having issues saying it online. But have no fear; they are promising to quadruple their anti-gay protesting.)

Just because no one likes what the “God Hates Fags” folks have to say, they have the right to say it. As do you. In America, we pay a steep but necessary price for free speech, even when it’s hate speech.

Compare that to Europe, where those who practice hate speech pay a steep price for it.

Especially anti-semitic speech.

The gay, now-former head designer for Christian Dior, John Galliano, was fired after saying in a bar last week, “I love Hitler” … “People like you would be dead. Your mothers, your forefathers would all be fucking gassed,” which was reportedly followed by, “Dirty Jewish face, you should be dead … Fucking Asian bastard, I will kill you.”

Mr. Galliano has apologized, but is facing possible jail time for his anti-semitic hate speech.

Back in America, not facing jail time, but reportedly facing a $10 million defamation lawsuit is anti-union, anti-left and anti-Islam blogger Pamela Geller, and John Stemberger of the Florida Family Policy Council. Geller is now wearing proudly a self-described “badge of honor” –the designation of her organization, Stop Islamization of America, as a hate group, thanks to the good folks at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

The lawsuit against Geller and Stemberger has motivated Stemberger to join forces with none other than (“exploratory”) GOP presidential candidate, the twice divorced, three-time married serial adulterer and anti-gay politician (and Pope film maker!) Newt Gingrich, along with Southern Baptist ordained minister and liar-about-anything-about-Obama, the devoutly anti-gay GOP presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee. If that weren’t enough theocrats for you, joining them is the intensely homophobic gay-bubble fearing GOP possible presidential aspirant Michele Bachmann.

Gingrich, Huckabee, Bachmann — along with Republican Governor Haley Barbour, and Tony Perkins, president of the certified hate group the Family Research Council (FRC), along with a cast of other extreme right-wing anti-gay conservatives — are hosting a church-based fundraiser for Stemberger that proclaims it will help you “Rediscover God in America.”

Curiously, (perhaps they’ve rediscovered God?), another anti-gay hate group this week actually acknowledged that DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional!

Pat Vaughn, general counsel for the American Family Association — a certified hate group — who describes itself as “a Christian organization promoting the biblical ethic of decency in American society with primary emphasis on TV and other media,” said, “the Defense of Marriage Act is probably unconstitutional, particularly … if you attempt to apply it so that to say that a marriage conducted in one state is not in effect in another. That clearly violates the Constitution.”

Hallelujah!

But guess who’s not saying DOMA is unconstitutional? That’s right, liar-about-anything-about-Obama, the devoutly anti-gay GOP presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee, and GOP possible presidential aspirant, the former reality TV show star, former Republican Vice Presidential candidate, former Alaska Governor, former chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, former Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, former “Miss Congeniality,” (seriously,) former sportscaster, and former head of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Sarah Palin.

Not only did Huckabee lie about Obama growing up in Kenya (he did not,) surrounded by Madrasas (he was not,) he, along with Sarah Palin, lied about then-presidential candidate Barack Obama’s stance on DOMA.

Obama, who last month announced he will enforce — but no longer defend — DOMA in court, has been consistent (except for that 1996 letter in which he claimed to support marriage equality,) in his position on DOMA, including in August 2007, when Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said, “He supports the complete repeal of DOMA which is the same position he has held since early 2004.”

But Palin told NOM’s Maggie Gallagher this week, “It’s appalling, but not surprising that the President has flip-flopped on yet another issue from his stated position as a candidate to a seemingly opposite position once he was elected.”

And Huckabee last month said Obama “himself didn’t take this position [against DOMA] when he ran for president. I think if he had, he wouldn’t be president,” adding, ”I think he owes the people of America an explanation – was he being disingenuous and dishonest then, is he being dishonest now, or did he change his view and if he did, when and why?”

Um, no. Just no.

You know who else lied about Obama’s DOMA position? Pat Vaughn, general counsel for the American Family Association, who clearly said Obama “lied to people [about DOMA] when he ran.”

As I said in the beginning, this week has been filled with ugly days. And anti-semitism. And charges of it. (And don’t get me started on Charlie Sheen!)

Earlier this week, celebrated Russian gay activist Nikolai Alekseev came to America to discuss, all across the country, the state of the LGBT equality movement in Russia. Alekseev is best-known for suing for, and winning, the right to hold gay pride parades in Moscow. But a discredited detractor claimed that Alekseev made comments that could be seen as anti-semitic.

(You can see Alekseev deny the charges in a speech he made at Columbia University in New York City this week, and hear his interview with veteran writer and radio host Michelangelo Signorile.)

Anti-semitism, like racism, is ugly, and an ugly charge if not true, and all deserve to be examined and discussed.

But the folks on the west coast who were sponsoring Alekseev’s trip didn’t want much of a discussion, and canceled his appearances. Long story short, Alekseev denied the charges several times. And probably isn’t too keen on some of his American counterparts now.

Just when you thought the marriage equality debate in Maryland was over, and the House was ready to vote (the Senate already did, and this should be the final step,) one Maryland state delegate, Sam Arora, flip-flopped his position on marriage equality.

Arora ran on a platform of full equality, and took a lot of money from the LGBT community. Needless to say, they were non-too pleased, and this became a national event.

Fortunately, Arora at the last minute has changed his mind. A bit. He now says he will vote for the bill, but wants a public referendum on marriage equality in Maryland. (For the record, civil rights are inalienable. No one should ever be allowed to vote on your rights.)

But before Arora switched back, NOM’s Maggie Gallagher got into the mix. And played the race card. Maggie claims she did not mean anything racist. You’ll have to decide for yourself.

In response to an op-ed by veteran Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart, Maggie wrote,

“I have two reactions to reading this WaPo columnist’s comments.

“First, if Sam Arora is wavering under this media firestorm, he must be hearing from hundreds of constitutents who do not want him to vote for gay marriage.

“Secondly, as someone married to an Indian-American, I find it interesting that the gay marriage machine appears to be re-focusing its attacks from Black Democrats who oppose gay marriage to an easier target: Indian-Americans.”

Now, who knew (I certainly hadn’t) but it seems that Arora is Indian-American. What difference that makes on anything is unbeknownst to me. Not did I know anyone was attacking Black Democrats. Nor did I know there was a “gay marriage machine.” (Where does one buy that?)

This entire situation came to light when well-known columnist, LGBT activist, and Media Matters guy Karl Frisch — who happens to be a friend of Arora — wrote an open letter demanding his campaign contribution back.

Evidently, a very effective tactic, especially when it’s that personal.

Others followed. Many others. And then word got out and comments on Arora’s Facebook page went into overdrive.

As I’ve said, it’s been an ugly week. But change is sometimes ugly. Battles can be ugly.

But it’s all for a good cause. Love, and marriage. And the civil right to have both. Whatever bumps we feel along the way, no other reward, no other success, will be as sweet.

Related Topics:
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

DeSantis Declares NYC ‘Reeks’ of Pot Amid Florida’s Battle for Legalization and 2024 Voters

Published

2 hours ago

on

April 30, 2024

By

Standing behind a sign that says “Freedom Month,” Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis on Tuesday blasted efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in the Sunshine State to make recreational use of marijuana legal. DeSantis also denounced efforts to pass a ballot initiative that would make abortion legal in his state.

“Look what’s happened in Denver, Colorado. Look what’s happened in Los Angeles, New York City. You know, I’ve talked to people that have moved from New York and they’re like, they used to have, you know, an apartment somewhere and it used to (smell differently). Now, what does it reek of? It reeks of marijuana. I don’t want the state to be reeking of marijuana,” DeSantis said (video below), as Florida Politics reported.

The Florida governor’s remarks come on the same day the Biden Administration announced plans to decrease the classification level of marijuana, which is currently listed in the same category as heroin, methamphetamines, and LSD. The proposed reclassification, which NBC News reports is expected to be approved, would move marijuana to the same category as Tylenol, codeine, and steroids.

In 2022 and 2023, President Joe Biden pardoned thousands of people serving time in prison for simple pot possession.

READ MORE: Noem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death

DeSantis’ remarks also come just days after he met with Donald Trump in a private meeting designed to “bury the hatchet,” and help the ex-president’s re-election efforts. The Florida governor ran in the Republican presidential primary against Trump, and both unleashed strong attacks. DeSantis, who is term-limited and cannot run again for governor in 2026, is expected to help Trump with fundraising and help him try to win the state of Florida.

“DeSantis kisses the ring in Miami meeting with Trump and it might just pay off,” the Miami Herald Editorial Board noted Tuesday. “Kissing the ring — to America’s detriment — has worked in the past, and it might work again for Florida’s ambitious governor.”

The Biden campaign believes Florida is in play, and political analysts say with both abortion and marijuana on the ballot there, Florida is a battleground state and one the President could win. NBC News reported earlier this month the Biden team sees Florida as “winnable.”

“’Make no mistake: Florida is not an easy state to win, but it is a winnable one for President Biden, especially given Trump’s weak, cash-strapped campaign, and serious vulnerabilities within his coalition,’ Julie Chávez Rodríguez, Biden’s campaign manager, wrote in a memo,” NBC News had first reported.

READ MORE: Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution

Calling it “a sign that he is serious about winning the state,” Axios reported last week the Biden campaign is opening a field office in Florida.

On Tuesday the Associated Press reported that “Florida Democrats hope young voters will be driven to the polls by ballot amendments legalizing marijuana and enshrining abortion rights. They hope the more tolerant views of young voters on those issues will reverse an active voter registration edge of nearly 900,000 for Republicans in Florida, which has turned from the ultimate swing state in 2000 to reliably Republican in recent years.”

Watch DeSantis’ remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Pretty Strong Views’: Trump Vows ‘Big Statement’ on Abortion Pill in the ‘Next Week or Two’

Published

5 hours ago

on

April 30, 2024

By

Donald Trump claimed he has “pretty strong views” on the medication abortion drug mifepristone, vowed he would make a statement on it in two weeks, and when he missed his self-imposed deadline the ex-president said he would do so in one week, according to a TIME magazine cover story interview and transcript published Tuesday.

Abortion has become a critical election issue, with Democrats fully supporting a woman’s right to choose and most Republicans strongly opposed. Some Republicans and those on the far-right support a ban, are attempting to ban, or refusing to protect in-vitro fertilization (IVF), as well as mifepristone, which is widely-used, safe, and available by mail in many states.

In the wide-ranging interview with TIME’s Eric Cortellessa, Trump made clear he would not weigh in on a national abortion ban, insisting it could not happen because the Supreme Court sent the issue to the states. Several Republicans and far-right activists have openly promoted national abortion bans.

Trump, according to a transcript of his interview TIME published, also appeared unfamiliar with – or unable or unwilling to discuss – some issues that have been an important part of the national conversation, including IVF, mifepristone, and attaching legal “personhood” status to fetuses, or embryos, in the womb.

RELATED: Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution

“Your allies in the Republican Study Committee, which makes up about 80% of the GOP caucus, have included the Life of Conception act in their 2025 budget proposal. The measure would grant full legal rights to embryos. Is that your position as well?” TIME’s Cortellessa asked Trump.

“Say it again. What?” the ex-president replied.

“The Life at Conception Act would grant full legal rights to embryos, included in their 2025 budget proposal. Is that your position?” Cortellessa explained, asking again.

“I’m leaving everything up to the states. The states are going to be different. Some will say yes. Some will say no. Texas is different than Ohio,” Trump replied, ignoring that the bill is a federal bill sponsored by Republicans in the House and Senate.

“Would you veto that bill?” Cortellessa pressed.

“I don’t have to do anything about vetoes, because we now have it back in the states,” Trump insisted, not giving a direct answer. “They’re gonna make those determinations.”

Cortellessa’s next question: “Do you think women should be able to get the abortion pill mifepristone?”

READ MORE: ‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach

Again, Trump refused to give a direct answer.

“Well, I have an opinion on that, but I’m not going to explain. I’m not gonna say it yet. But I have pretty strong views on that. And I’ll be releasing it probably over the next week,” he said, unwilling to even engage in any conversation about it.

“Well, this is a big question, Mr. President,” Cortellessa pressed, “because your allies have called for enforcement of the Comstock Act, which prohibits the mailing of drugs used for abortions by mail. The Biden Department of Justice has not enforced it. Would your Department of Justice enforce it?”

“I will be making a statement on that over the next 14 days,” Trump vowed.

“You will?” the reporter again pressed.

“Yeah, I have a big statement on that. I feel very strongly about it. I actually think it’s a very important issue,” Trump claimed, refusing to discuss it further.

TIME reports the original Trump interview took place at Mar-a-Lago on April 12, and a follow up interview was conducted by phone April 27.

“Last time we spoke, you said you had an announcement coming over the next two weeks regarding your policy on the abortion pill mifepristone. You haven’t made an announcement yet. Would you like to do so now?” Cortellessa asked Trump.

“No, I haven’t,” he acknowledged. “I’ll be doing it over the next week or two. But I don’t think it will be shocking, frankly. But I’ll be doing it over the next week or two. We’re for helping women, Eric. I am for helping women. You probably saw that the IVF came out very well. And, you know, I set a policy on it, and the Republicans immediately adopted the policy.”

READ MORE: Noem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death

 

 

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

Trump Would Not Oppose State Pregnancy Surveillance or Abortion Prosecution

Published

7 hours ago

on

April 30, 2024

By

With little more than six months until Election Day, Donald Trump is preparing for an “authoritarian” presidency, and a massive, multi-million dollar operation called Project 2025, organized by The Heritage Foundation and headed by a former top Trump White House official, is proposing what it would like to be his agenda. In its 920-page policy manual the word “abortion” appears, by NCRM’s count, nearly 200 times.

Trump appears to hold a more narrow grasp of the issue of abortion, and is holding on to the framing he recently settled on, which he hoped would end debate on the issue after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. One day before the Arizona Supreme Court ruled an 1864 law banning abortion was still legal and enforceable, Trump declared states have total control over abortion and can do whatever they like.

Despite the results of that framing, Trump is sticking with that policy.

In a set of interviews with TIME‘s Eric Cortellessa, published Tuesday, the four-times indicted ex-president said he would not stop states from monitoring all pregnancies within their borders and prosecuting anyone who violates any abortion ban, if he were to again become president. He also refused to weigh in on a nationwide abortion ban or on medication abortion.

READ MORE: ‘Won’t Stop Him’: Judge Threatens Trump With Jail for Gag Order Breach

Recently, Trump backed away from endorsing a nationwide abortion ban, but in the past he has said there should be “punishment” for women who have abortions. The group effectively creating what could become his polices, The Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025, fully support a ban on abortion.

The scope of the TIME interviews was extensive.

“What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world,” Cortellessa writes in his article.

“To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding.”

TIME’s Cortellessa also notes that Trump “is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.”

READ MORE: ‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say

On abortion, Trump has repeatedly bragged he personally ended Roe v. Wade, which was a nearly 50-year old landmark Supreme Court ruling that found women have a constitutional right to abortion, and by extension, bodily autonomy.

But Trump has also “sought to defuse a potent campaign issue for the Democrats by saying he wouldn’t sign a federal ban. In our interview at Mar-a-Lago, he declines to commit to vetoing any additional federal restrictions if they came to his desk. More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. ‘I think they might do that,’ he says.”

“When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, ‘It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.’ President Biden has said he would fight state anti-abortion measures in court and with regulation,” Cortellessa adds.

Trump in his TIME interview continued to hold on to the convenient claim as president he would have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

But “Trump’s allies don’t plan to be passive on abortion if he returns to power. The Heritage Foundation has called for enforcement of a 19th century statute that would outlaw the mailing of abortion pills. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes more than 80% of the House GOP conference, included in its 2025 budget proposal the Life at Conception Act, which says the right to life extends to ‘the moment of fertilization.’ I ask Trump if he would veto that bill if it came to his desk. ‘I don’t have to do anything about vetoes,’ Trump says, ‘because we now have it back in the states.'”

That’s inaccurate, if a national abortion ban, or any legislation on women’s reproductive rights, comes to his desk. And they will, if there’s a Republican majority in the House and Senate.

READ MORE: Hunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’

Brooke Goren, Deputy Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) writes, “In the same interview, Trump:
– Repeatedly refuses to say he wouldn’t sign a national ban
– Left the door open to signing legislation that could ban IVF
– Stood by his allies, who are making plans to unilaterally ban medication abortion nationwide if he’s elected.”

Cortellessa ends his piece with this thought: “Whether or not he was kidding about bringing a tyrannical end to our 248-year experiment in democracy, I ask him, Don’t you see why many Americans see such talk of dictatorship as contrary to our most cherished principles? Trump says no. Quite the opposite, he insists. ‘I think a lot of people like it.'”

The Bulwark’s Bill Kristol, once a hard-core conservative Republican, now a Democrat as of 2020, served up this take on TIME’s Trump interview and overview of a second Trump reign.

“Some of us: A second term really would be far more dangerous than his first, it would be real authoritarianism–with more than a touch of fascism.

Trump apologists: No way, calm down.

Trump: Yup, authoritarianism all the way!”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.