Maggie Gallagher’s NOM Goes After Prop 8 Judges
On Wednesday, December 1, coincidentally both World AIDS Day and the fifty-fifth anniversary of freedom fighter Rosa Park’s refusal to give up her seat on an Alabama bus, Maggie Gallagher’s National Organization for Marriage (NOM) demanded that one of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges for next week’s upcoming Prop 8 trial give up his seat on the court. That’s right, after NOM’s successful assault on the Iowa Supreme Court judges who found Iowa’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional (NOM actually helped get them voted out of office,) Maggie Gallagher’s mysteriously-funded anti-gay anti-marriage equality organization is trying to get one of three federal judges appointed to hear the case — Judge Stephen Reinhardt — kicked off the Proposition 8 trial.
NOM’s reasoning? Judge Reinhardt’s wife is the Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California.
“Judge Reinhardt’s wife, Ramona Ripston, has been involved in this case on numerous accounts, and what we’ve learned from Ed Whelan’s highly informative Bench Memo yesterday, posted on National Review Online (and updated here) is that there is no way Judge Reinhardt can rightfully remain a member of this hearing without making a mockery of the federal judiciary,†said Brian Brown, president of NOM. “We are demanding that Judge Reinhardt to step down immediately and call Californians to write an official complaint to the Ninth Circuit demanding that Judge Reinhardt be disqualified.â€
(Of course, we can all agree that Brian Brown’s primary concern in life is the federal judiciary not be made a mockery.)
Indeed, there are many ways to look at this situation. Is a federal judge capable of being objective, regardless of his wife’s (or, hypothetically, his husband’s) involvement in the case? Is there the possibility of the perception of a lack of impartiality? Can we judge a judge based on his or her spouse’s actions, political affiliations, or even sexual orientation?
NOM claims that “there are other circumstances that clearly call his impartiality into question,” and that “Ripston, Reinhardt’s wife, contributed money to the NO on Proposition 8 campaign. It is not known if these funds were joint or separate funds. Ripston publicly cheered the decision by the District Court to declare Proposition 8 unconstitutional. In a media statement, she said, ‘We rejoice at today’s decision but there’s a long road ahead toward establishing true marriage equality for same-sex couples.’â€
If this is true, why haven’t Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, and the rest of the NOM clan called into question the impartiality of another one of the three judges on the panel who will be hearing next week’s Prop 8 case, Norman Randy Smith? Many believe Judge Smith is a Mormon, and the Mormon Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) was one of the largest contributors to the “Yes On 8” Prop 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage in California. Judge Smith, who attended Brigham Young University and received both his undergraduate and post-graduate degrees from that Mormon university, was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush to the Ninth Circuit. Is that not a problem for the National Organization for Marriage too?
If not, why is religion — and participation in religion-based activities, like donating to a political campaign — not a disqualifier for the National Organization for Marriage? And why is sexual orientation? NOM heavily protested Judge Vaughn Walker, the judge on the Prop 8 federal trial, who found Prop 8 unconstitutional. Judge Walker, as it turns out, reportedly is gay.
At the time, Gallagher called Walker’s decision which found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional, a “sin,” and “a slur against the American people.”
Given NOM’s “logic,” once Prop 8 (or the Defense of Marriage Act, or Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,) gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas must automatically recuse himself. After all, Virginia Thomas, Judge Thomas’ wife (who recently made headlines by demanding an apology from her husband’s sexual-harassment accuser, Anita Hill,) is a board member of the anti-gay Heritage Foundation, and founded and was the president of the Tea Party group, Liberty Central. (Mrs. Thomas was recently forced to step down from the group, presumably due to the impropriety of having a sitting Supreme Court Justice’s wife making extremist headlines.)
As a result of Virginia Thomas’ stepping down from Liberty Central, the Tea Party group will now merge with the Patrick Henry Center. Adele M. Stan in Alternet writes, “Also on the Patrick Henry advisory board are two anti-gay activists: Beverly LaHaye, founder of the Concerned Women for America, and Alan Sears, head of the Alliance Defense Fund. Rounding out the advisory board is Howard Phillips, founder of the Constitution Party, which seeks to replace secular law with biblical law. Phillips is one of the founders of the religious right, and a close associate of John Birch Society President John McManus.”
Given the ideological incestuousness of the anti-gay right, is there any possibility that Justice Clarence Thomas — a known anti-gay jurist in his own right — could judge LGBT-related cases without at least the appearance of being partial?
For what it’s worth, I don’t know if Judge Reinhardt should recuse himself, or if Judge Norman Randy Smith should recuse himself, or even, as I’m not a lawyer, if Justice Clarence Thomas should when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the Defense of Marriage Act, or other LGBT-related cases come before him. But I do know that if Maggie Gallagher and NOM are to have any credibility with Americans and our sense of fairness, she must demand Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself from any LGBT-related cases.
If there’s one thing you can count on with Maggie Gallagher, it’s that she’s rarely able to see what’s around the corner. In this game of judicial chess, which Gallagher has been all-too-keen on starting, it’s clear the end result is the that forces of equality will have taken down NOM’s queen, and are poised to capture the king. Thanks, in part, to Maggie.
Editorial note: This piece represents the first of what I hope are many that will be posted also at 365Gay.com. I am grateful to the fine folks there, especially my wonderful editor at 365Gay, Jennifer Vanasco, for inviting me and supporting me. You can read this piece there as well.
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
