I was on with Bill O’Reilly defending students at my alma matter George Washington University who are protesting the school’s Catholic center leader for saying that being gay is “unnatural and immoral” and counseling gay students to repress their desires and feel ashamed of themselves.
I argue the larger issue is the need for the Catholic Church to get with the times — and address the fact that a strong majority of lay Catholics are more pro-gay than the Church and this is causing many to flee from the faith, especially young people.
Here’s our exchange:
O’Reilly seemed a bit confused, claiming he supports the rights of the students to protest while at the same time calling them fascist. Later in the show, Bill criticized progressives for “incivility” in calling Margaret Thatcher a fascist. Anyway…
Here’s Mediaite’s coverage of our exchange.
On MSNBC’s The Cycle and in her Daily News column today, conservative pundit S.E. Cupp responded to my essay for Salon about the dangers of conservative embracing gay marriage as part of a larger “marriage promotion” effort.
On Tuesday, MSNBC host S.E. Cupp castigated liberal columnist Sally Kohn after she wrote a piece saying that society should not only accept gay marriage, but move beyond the promotion of marriage as a relevant institution altogether. “The judgmental moral hierarchy of conservative marriage supremacy should be looked at by all of us with a queer eye,” Kohn wrote. After summarizing and dissecting Kohn’s argument, Cupp declared that Kohn’s countercultural call to action was both excessive and flawed.
You can read the rest of Mediaite’s coverage here.
And here’s the video clip:
Also, an exchange with S.E. — whom I very much like and respect — on Twitter last night:
@sallykohn Thanks, you too!
— S.E. Cupp (@secupp) March 26, 2013
Sometimes I agree with Ann Coulter. This is one of those moments. She admitted recently that Republicans have to let go of some of their sacred cows since they lost the election — and risk losing any influence with the public going forward. From my latest column:
Americans support gay rights and increasingly believe that same sex couples should be able to marry. Most Americans think that Wall Street CEOs should not pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. Culture wars and class warfare in America? Conservatives built that. And lost.
Read the rest here. It’s a fun one.
In my latest essay for Time Magazine’s IDEAS online, I write:
Sally Ride was the first American woman in outer space. Upon news of her death last week, media outlets and celebrities alike celebrated Ride as a hero. But under federal law, Ride’s domestic partner of 27 years will not receive death benefits or Social Security payments. Is that any way to treat a hero?
Even though the majority of Americans now support the right of same-sex couples to marry and more states are embracing marriage equality, 1,138 federal benefits including Social Security and family medical leave are still denied to same-sex couples even if they’re married because of the Defense of Marriage Act enacted in 1996. And while 60% of Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partnership benefits to employees— so unmarried same or opposite-sex partners qualify for health insurance, paid family leave and more — the federal government does not.
You can read the entire piece here, get outraged, and share it.
In the wake of the sentencing of Dharun Ravi for alleged bias crimes leading to the death of Tyler Clemente, I wrote an essay for Fox News’ opinion page about why, as a progressive, I oppose enhanced sentencing hate crimes laws — and believe we all should.
I fundamentally believe that the way to root out bias crime in America and bias in general is by acknowledging all of our inherent prejudices and judgments and dealing with them openly.
In that case, hate crimes laws create a sort of false comfort that suggests we are not infected by nor furthering bias unless we’re blurting out epithets or scrawling hate screeds. That’s a dangerous and ultimately defeatist message to send to a society that has much work to do in rooting out discrimination from every crevice of our existence, not just in crime.
In a Fox News opinion piece, Penny Young Nance, the head of the ultra-conservative Concerned Women for America, responded to my essay calling on President Obama to make an even more strong statement in support of marriage equality. I want to take a few moments to respond to Ms. Nance’s critiques.
1. Comparing opposition to inter-racial marriage to opposition to gay marriage NOT same as comparing race & sexuality
Ms. Nance writes, “Sexual behavior and race are not the same thing.” I agree. I never said that they were. However, I do believe that hateful vitriol and opposition to equal rights often springs from the same well. And that was my point in making the comparison. Whether it was to preserve slavery or deny women the right to vote, opponents of equality and justice have always manipulated religion and science to try and rationalize their irrational discrimination. This time around, while the issues are very different, the objections are eerily similar.
2. Hate breeds hate.
I applaud Ms. Nance for writing, “As a mother of two, and a strong supporter of traditional marriage, I would be the first to stand up against any kid being bullied. For any reason. Period… The problem of bullying in schools is real and we must swiftly deal with it, regardless of how marriage is defined.” She’s 100% right. But saying that denying marriage equality to same-sex couples, sending a resounding message to gay and straight kids alike that the former are morally and legally inferior to the latter, is not “exploiting” the subject but rather stating facts. Bullying is bullying, whether it takes the form of constitutional amendments or name calling or scissors. Let’s not pretend that our political discourse and laws don’t create the climate for bullying and suicide.
3. Who cares if most Americans support marriage equality?
Ms. Nance argues that polls showing majority support for marriage equality are clearly baseless because, in ballot measure after ballot measure, voters have struck down marriage equality. First of all, we know that anti-marriage equality measures tend to draw more opponents to the polls than supporters, so they’re not exactly reliable bellwethers of public opinion. But Penny misses my larger point: Who cares? Fundamental rights should not be subject to public opinion and popular will. See, e.g., the United States Constitution which safeguards against such tyranny of the majority.
4. Condemning bigotry is not the same as calling people bigots.
Bigotry: “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own”. Seems to me that imposing one’s own personal beliefs about marriage to cut off the legal rights of other families is precisely the definition of bigotry. But that said, I don’t condemn anyone who struggles with the question of gay marriage. That is a personal decision between you and your own conscience. I hold the word “bigot” in a special place for those who send me hatemail about how I’m going to burn in hell and destroy civilization because I’m shacked up with a woman… but for those people who are loving and decent but genuinely uncomfortable with gay marriage, for whatever reason, I have nothing but compassion. That said, let’s make a deal: I won’t deny you any rights or liberties in spite of your opposition to marriage equality if you don’t deny me any rights and liberties for being gay. Deal?
My question back to Ms. Nance is simple: I understand that you are personally opposed to same-sex marriage and I respect that. How do you justify denying legal recognition and basic benefits to millions of loving couples in our country on the basis of your personal beliefs?
With apologies to Daily Kos for stealing their title, it just seems so right.
Here are some highlights from my inbox today… mostly a lot of people who must, personally, know God and his opinions on such matters directly. Plus a few doozies:
I don’t have any problem with same sex couples living together if it makes them happy – obviously they have either biological issues or mental issues
No comment on where the mental issues lie in that statement.
The gay lifestyle will lead to the destruction of any society, past, present, and future.
Last I checked, the world still existed when I woke up this morning living in sin so…
But now it’s clear the Obama does not meet the Biblical definition of a Christian, does he? I’m sure he meets his own definition, but not the Lord’s.
Interestingly, NOT an email from the Pope or King James so, um…
And here are some more thoughtful but still troubling ones:
First is that the word marriage means a man and a woman, it is not right to change the meaning of a word because somebody wants to.
Yes, and historically the word “voter” only meant white men — until we, um, changed it.
I do have a question. If a woman can marry a woman, can she marry 4 women?
Answer: If a man can marry a woman, can he marry 4 women? Oh wait, in some religions he can…
And perhaps my favorite:
I do appreciate your support of homosexual unions and the obvious equal value homosexuals have in our society…actually in the world. Why do people think that homosexuals even need our approval? To state in the media that they deserve equal treatment under the law of the land is giving credence to those who would try to deny them these rights. If I were homosexual I would be as offended at people defending my sexual orientation in this manner as I would be toward those pinheaded people who were critical toward me and my sexual preference.
And then there’s the bizillion emails that contain something like:
I am not a homophobic person but
Not enough time to include them all, but my generic tip is that to those of you asserting “I have a gay friend and…” send your hatemail to that person and see if they’re still your friend after.
In an op-ed for Reuters, I argue it’s time for Republicans to get on the right side of history and stand up for marriage equality, too.
Republicans should be ashamed enough that theirs is the party that stood in the way of interracial marriage and civil rights. Is that really a legacy the GOP wants to continue into the 21st century? It seems to me the GOP has a choice between courting the open-minded next generation of voters, or continuing to be marred by scandals in which anti-gay Republican after anti-gay Republican is embarrassingly outed and shamed. Apparently this is a tough choice for the GOP, which would rather keep implicitly firing up bigotry than stand firm for equality.
You can read the entire essay here.
NEW YORK TIMES PROFILE
JOIN SALLY’S EMAIL LIST
FOR A GOOD TIME, FOLLOW
RUMORS ABOUT MELoading Quotes...
TV DOESN’T PAY THE BILLSMake a tax-deductible contribution via our fiscal sponsor, the Grassroots Policy Project
POPULAR TAGS2012 Election 2012 Elections barack obama budget capitalism civility Congress corporations debt deficit democrats economy feminism financial reform Fox News gay rights Glenn Beck government greed ideology inequality jobs marriage equality Mitt Romney Obama occupy wall st occupy wall street Paul Ryan popular education populism president obama progressive protests race racism Republicans Right wing sexism social movements strategy taxes Tea Party unions values Wall Street