“Values” vs. Science: America’s Right-Wing’s Ridiculous Anti-Marriage Equality Arguments
“Values” vs. Science is part two in our week-long series, “America’s Right-Wing’s Ridiculous Anti-Marriage Equality Arguments.†Read part one, The Conservative Mind, then come back tomorrow for part three, Gays And Parenting.
Part Two: “Values” vs. Science. Actual Science.
America’s Right Wing has steeped itself in a vessel of religion, history, and its own bigotry. It refuses to look at any new information or science, and certainly none that would shed a different light than what it needs Americans to believe to further its stranglehold on the intangibility of “morality” — and against America’s LGBT community.
Conservatives are not fond of things like science. Or, “peer-reviewed studies.” Why use knowledge and science when we have our “moral values” and our “beliefs?” (Not to mention that their entire business model is dependent upon Americans believing that America’s Right Wing holds the key to their salvation.)
For proof, all you need to do is look at America’s Right Wing’s fierce resistance to the science of climate change (which they call “Climategate,”) or their current attack on the positive economics of deficit spending, or even the ludicrous theme espoused by the GOP leadership recently, that government regulation is to blame for the BP oil spill.)
But back to marriage equality. Let’s start with David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, and the only witness against marriage equality in the Prop 8 trial that ended earlier this month. Blankenhorn essentially “flip-flopped” by the end of the trial. In fact, at the end of the trial, Ted Olsen, the pro-marriage equality lead counsel, used Blankenhorn’s own quote at the end of his closing argument, stating, “we will be more American [the day we permit gay marriage.]”
To be fair, Blankenhorn has been a bit maligned, first by the Left, and now by both sides of the marriage equality argument. While he does not support same-sex marriage, he does support same-sex relationships. In an odd way. Last year, he, along with Jonathan Rauch, an esteemed author and same-sex marriage supporter, wrote a misguided op-ed for the New York Times, titled, “A Reconciliation On Gay Marriage.” It was not a “reconciliation.” It was a call to encode second-class citizenship upon same-sex couples. In, “An Embarrassing Reconciliation On Gay Marriage,” I called their ideas “sectarian mischief,” ensconced in “separate but equal†arguments, and all “in service to the church.”
Which is how America’s Right Wing likes to maintain their segregation of America’s LGBT community.
Blankenhorn recently wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times (which refused it,) challenging “Weddings For Everybody,” a piece op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd had written. In his letter, Blankenhorn writes, “Maureen Down incorrectly reports that, in the California Prop 8 trial on gay marriage, I stated on the witness stand that ‘adoptive parents are as good as natural parents.’ I respect adoptive parents and value adoption as an institution, but numerous studies suggests [sic] that outcomes for adopted children often are not ‘as good as’ outcomes for children raised by natural parents.”
Hogwash. Times two.
First, the “numerous studies suggests” part. Blankenhorn doesn’t quote which studies, but I can all but guarantee the name Paul Cameron, or the Family Research Institute, have some involvement with them. (Cameron founded FRI and was discredited and expelled from the American Psychological Association.)
More importantly, two long-term studies recently published found just the opposite. In fact, one of them, a twenty-five year-long and vigorously peer-reviewed study published in the journal Pediatrics, found that adopted children raised by lesbian parents are better-adjusted and do better in school than their opposite-parented peers.
But relying on science won’t help conservatives make their case, so they have to make up “science,” or rely on outdated concepts, to try to give their fears credibility. Or, they have to turn to decades, or centuries-old “research” to try to prove their bigotry.
A new breed of conservative politicians, those of the “Tea Party,” have brought a special mix of virulent anti-science, “moral values,” and homophobia to the fore. Take Sharon Angle, now running against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada.
Talking Points Memo, run by the award-winning journalist Joshua Micah Marshall, just last week posted “Sharron Angle’s Fringe Third Party Sponsored Virulently Anti-Gay Flier In ’90s,” writing,
The ad insert, which approvingly cites an 1814 legal treatise titled “Consequences of Sodomy: Ruin of a Nation,” is a digest of articles that refer to LGBT people alternately as “homosexuals,” “sodomites,” and “brazen perverts.” The insert includes virtually every homophobic myth ever conceived.
Sample headlines include: “Homosexual Curriculum In The First Grade” … “Flawed Science Nurtures Genetic Origin For Homosexuality” … “No Constitutional Right To Be A Sodomite.” Here’s a passage from an item headlined “True Homosexual Character Revealed”:
Homosexuals argue that they are a peaceful and gay people. Yet … Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Report writes “the top six U.S. male killers were all homosexuals.”
(By the way, Cameron — remember Cameron from the Family Research Institute? — is flat-out wrong by saying “the top six U.S. male killers were all homosexuals.”)
Unsurprisingly, not much has changed with America’s Right Wing’s hatred and fear of America’s LGBT community. They are working hard to not only maintain our second-class citizen status, but are trying to use corrupt “science,” along with religion, to further erode our status.
The once-and-future GOP presidential candidate and Baptist minister Mike Huckabee is never too far away from the anti-gay culture war. Just days ago, Huckabee shared this bit of personal ignorant homophobia:
“I do believe that God created male and female and intended for marriage to be the relationship of the two opposite sexes. Male and female are biologically compatible to have a relationship. We can get into the ick factor, but the fact is two men in a relationship, two women in a relationship, biologically, that doesn’t work the same.â€
That alone should be worth a fair amount of cash for his Huck PAC.
America’s Right Wing believes by abusing science and morality to demean and disenfranchise America’s LGBT community, they will have won the culture wars. They believe that America’s gay and lesbian citizens should remain second-class citizens, with little to no rights — certainly not the right to serve in the military, be safe from being fired for being gay, marry, or parent children.
And they couldn’t be more wrong.
“Values” vs. Science is part two in our week-long series, “America’s Right-Wing’s Ridiculous Anti-Marriage Equality Arguments.†Read part one, The Conservative Mind, then come back tomorrow for part three, Gays And Parenting.
(image: kevindooley)
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.
|
Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.
Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”
“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”
In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”
He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”
“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”
“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”
“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”
The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.
“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”
Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”
Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.
Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) July 6, 2026
President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.
“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”
The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”
Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”
TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”
Critics blasted Trump.
“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.
One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”
Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”
The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.
According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.
Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”
“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”
Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”
Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.
Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.
The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.
“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.
The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.
“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”
Image via Reuters
Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation
Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs
One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won
Inside the Group Helping MAGA Voters Walk Away — And What Finally Pushed Them
