Kerry Eleveld is the Senior White House Correspondent and Chief Political Editor for The Advocate Magazine and has worked as a journalist in different media for 15 years. She cut her teeth editing business journals in South Carolina, where at the age of 26 she became editor-in-chief of a startup business journal and was later voted Business Woman of the Year for her work in launching the journal.
Since she began covering LGBT issues, Eleveld's work has won: the "Best News Article" award in 2006 from the American Veterans for Equal Rights; second place for "Coverage of Election/Politics" in the New York Press Association's Better Newspaper Contest; and first place in the "Excellence in News Writing" category in 2007 from the National Gay and Lesbian Journalist Association.
Eleveld regularly gives interviews about politics to mainstream outlets such as The Associated Press and the British Broadcasting Company and often appears as a commentator on shows like MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show and the Michelangelo Signorile Show.
But there’s just no getting around The Washington Post editorial board’s endorsement of Delano Hunter for Washington, D.C., city council.
After labeling Hunter “an engaging newcomer” with "intimate knowledge of the needs of the ward," here’s how the Post whitewashed Hunter’s antigay stances:
Please read the rest of Kerry Eleveld's 'View From Washington' here: [ Link ]
Kerry Eleveld Photo By Jeff Code For DC's Metroweekly Magazine
By Kerry Eleveld (Washington DC) SEPT 4 | Journalists tend to stay away from criticizing other news outlets because, let’s face it, we have enough enemies and suffer enough demonization from the Palins of the world without sniping at each other.But there’s just no getting around The Washington Post editorial board’s endorsement of Delano Hunter for Washington, D.C., city council.
After labeling Hunter “an engaging newcomer” with "intimate knowledge of the needs of the ward," here’s how the Post whitewashed Hunter’s antigay stances:
“Mr. Hunter is not a supporter of marriage equality, but he is not the homophobe his critics make him out to be, but rather someone who thinks there is a way to provide equality for gays while respecting the beliefs of religious groups. He said he would not seek to change the law.”
There’s plenty of evidence to suggest the undersold Hunter’s homophobic cred, not least of which is that he’s been endorsed by the National Organization for Marriage and actually showed up at the D.C. rally last month celebrating the end of the organization’s disastrous Summer for Marriage 2010 tour. NOM also sent out a mailer on Hunter's behalf proclaiming that he supports the “Right of DC Residents to Vote on Homosexual Marriage,” among other of his winning attributes. But let’s set aside the facts for now.
First off, can we please drop the canard that allowing certain people to marry each other somehow impinges on certain other people’s religious freedoms? No one will be forcing churches or religious leaders to perform same-sex ceremonies against their will, and people will undoubtedly maintain their right to worship as they choose completely free of government interference—as they always have. And for them to suggest that recognizing marriage equality inherently conflicts with the beliefs of all religious groups is completely disingenuous, especially after nearly 200 religious leaders in the district stood with the multifaith group D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality.
But perhaps more to the point, it’s time for mainstream America to realize that endorsing politicians who claim to support “equality” for LGBT Americans but not marriage equality is tantamount to aiding and abetting a homophobe; that they are mounting a direct attack on the love shared by fellow tax-paying, law-abiding citizens who want to make lifelong commitments to care for one another; that they are relegating people they work with, live with, and, yes, worship with, to second-class status. There is no gray any longer, no hair-splitting, no rationalization or triangulation that suffices anymore. If you don’t support same-sex marriage, you don’t support equality and that is quite simply homophobic.
Sure, some pols are more virulently homophobic than others, but the outcome is the same: equality denied.
Please read the rest of Kerry Eleveld's 'View From Washington' here: [ Link ]
Posts
1 comments:
Quote:
"First off, can we please drop the canard that allowing certain people to marry each other somehow impinges on certain other people’s religious freedoms? No one will be forcing churches or religious leaders to perform same-sex ceremonies against their will, and people will undoubtedly maintain their right to worship as they choose completely free of government interference—as they always have. And for them to suggest that recognizing marriage equality inherently conflicts with the beliefs of all religious groups is completely disingenuous, especially after nearly 200 religious leaders in the district stood with the multifaith group D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality."
Somewhere back in the 1960s, here in Adelaide, South Australia, our state government passed a law permitting civil (heterosexual) marriages to be conducted by non-religious celebrants in public places other than a Christian Church, or Synagogue.
During debate on this legislation I seem to remember very similar arguments, like those above, pointing to the break down of society etc., Well I am pleased to say that the only thing that broke down was the belief that sanctification by religion of marriage was somehow needed to keep one's vows of love for each other.
We see here the same arguments being raised again, against same sex marriage despite an overwhelming majority of Australians polling (60% according to The Greens political Party) to be in favour of same sex marriage being recognised as equal and accepted in Australia.
This time it is our federal Australian politicians in both major parties who are out of step with not only the people but the human rights of this matter.
We also see a strong opposition to same sex marriage from the same kind of religious right-wing-nuts which the US suffers.
Ultimately, the only way we can lose the argument for what is a basic and self-evident human right, is if the threats to the freedoms of a secular society are manifested in some kind of theocratic control of our governments, from any religion or fanatical extreme which dismiss such freedom for all people.
Post a Comment