Subscribe to Breaking NewsFrank discussion: homophobes and justice for all
Rep. Barney Frank was his usual candid self in an extensive interview with Ross Palombo of CBS News and 365gay News, made apparent by his first answer to the first question that many of you have already read about by now.
Here’s the context, the headlines that may have been overshadowed by one choice word, and the rest of the story.
During the interview on March 13, Palombo asked Frank for his thoughts on a new skirmish over the Defense of Marriage Act. Federal judges ruled that same-sex partners of court employees are entitled to the employees’ health benefits. The Obama administration’s Office of Personnel Management has instructed insurers not to provide the benefits ordered by the judges, citing the Defense of Marriage Act.
“As much as I dislike that law and I led the fight against it,” Frank began, “I don’t think it’s appropriate to say that the president should pick and choose what laws he defends.”
“On the other hand, ” Frank continued, “I do think that this argument, that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to pick and choose which marriages it will accept, is a good one, and at some point its going to have to go to the United States Supreme Court.”
Frank then delivered his opinion on that expected appeal.
“I wouldn’t want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has too many votes on this current court.”
That was the homophobe heard ’round the world.
USA Today, Fox News, The Boston Globe, Associated Press, The Hotline, New York Daily News, Huffington Post, Drudge Report and Los Angeles Times, all picked up on it and the list is growing.
Justice Scalia’s representative had no comment to the AP.
Barney Frank was interviewed Tuesday afternoon by WBZ radio in Boston, where he defended the characterization, citing opinions where Justice Scalia has indicated he thinks gay people are a “threat to society” and is “angry about the existence of gay people.”
“What a homophobe means is, he’s someone who has prejudice against gay people,” Frank told WBZ.
The homophobe remark overshadowed other headlines Frank delivered to 365gay News.
Palombo asked about pending legislation to require that health benefits be offered to same-sex partners of federal employees.
Frank replied, “I am afraid that we don’t yet have the vote for that, although I do think we have a chance sometime in the next few years.”
Palombo asked if Frank knew of financial hardships the LGBT community faces in times of economic crisis, such as workplace discrimination. The bill to ban discrimination based on sexual and gender orientation (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) has yet to pass in the House.
“I don’t see any evidence of it one way or the other,” Frank said, “but I am optimistic with a Democratic president and increased majorities in the House and the Senate that we are going to be able to pass a good anti-discrimination bill that will also include people who are transgender.”
Frank expanded on that answer in responding to a question about a possible repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
“Is a repeal something you think we can see in [President Obama's] first term?” Palombo asked.
“Absolutely,” Frank said.
“I think there are three pieces of legislation we should be able to get an enacted in his first 2 years with this Democratic Congress,” Frank said.
“One is a transgender-inclusive hate crimes bill. And I believe now that [Pres. Obama] has come to some agreement with the military, not an agreement because he’s in charge, but now that they are not wildly protesting his decision about Iraq we can move on Dont Ask, Don’t Tell. So I think we will have the votes, to pass ENDA, to pass hate crimes, and to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Palombo asked if Frank thought that the passage of Proposition 8 in California was a step back for gay marriage.
“I wouldn’t say that was a step back, rather an inability to take a step forward,” Frank said.
“Reality beats prejudice,” Frank said.
“And the more people who are married and the more people who know about that the likelier we are to be able to expand it.”
When asked about that increased visibility, given Frank’s role as a gay man at the center of the financial crisis resolution, and its effect on the gay community, Frank offered this assessement.
“I think the fact that I’m able to have this position and be trusted by the president, and work with the speaker, and the fact that I’m openly gay is no hindrance to my playing this role… you know you wish that wasn’t a big deal, you wish that we lived in a world that you can take that for granted. But since we can’t I think it is helpful.”
Optimism, visibility, candor – the fact that Barney Frank was the one to deliver all three was the only non-surprise in our 25-minute interview.
Not all Roman Catholics are homophobes.
Mr. Justice Scalia is a particularly toxic flavor of Roman Catholic: he is a member of Opus Dei, the shadowy extreme right-wing organization answerable only to the Pope. John-Paul II canonized its founder.
The things Opus Dei was portrayed as doing in “The Da Vinci Code” were CHILD’S PLAY compared to what they get up to in real life.
I don’t recall now, but I THINK at least four of the five Roman Catholic Justices on the US Supreme Court ARE members of Opus Dei (!).
The pope has promised to excommunicate anyone who supports a woman’s right to choose, or marriage equality.
Wonder how THAT will play out when cases involving either one inevitably come before the Court?
Of course Antonin Scalia is a homophobe; he’s a Catholic, isn’t he?
Thank you Barney,
But as a Transexual woman I feel this is too little, too late. We need equal civil rights, not empty promises.
Joe is A ignorant child. Everyone have the sympathy for him or her. Sorry people, but such a thing exists. Multiple wives A husbands.It exists & is fine to the communities it exists to.If you can’t comprehend, know where, this, you really need to be educated.
Looks like Scalia thinks gays SHOULD have the right to marry. Look at the end of his dissension in Lawrence v Texas:
Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.
Joe: “if marriage was approved for same sex- what’s next brother and sister or multi-wifes or multi husbands.”
None of that would be next. For one thing, there are already multiple laws prohibiting everything you mentioned. Dozens of studies show that serious abuses occur in polygamous relationships, while dozens of other studies show that same-sex relationships are no more likely to be abusive than opposite-sex relationships.
And, as several other posters have said, the other relationships you mentioned would have to be voted on or decided separately – even if the laws against them somehow disappeared. Marriage for same-sex partners would protect exactly one kind of couple: two adults of the same sex. And they would get no more or less protection than two adults of the opposite sex.
Joe,
They would have to be argued for their merit the same way allowing women equality to men, blacks to whites, interracial marriages, etc.
You can’t point at gay marriage because of it without pointing at strait marriage first if you are going to make that kind of argument.
joe Said: “if marriage was approved for same sex- what’s next brother and sister or multi-wifes or multi husbands.”
Did they ask this question when heterosexuals first started getting married?
Joe,
“if marriage was approved for same sex- what’s next brother and sister or multi-wifes or multi husbands.”
Why does anything have to be “next”? That’s like saying, ‘If we treat homosexuals equally before the law, then anything goes.
‘Anything’ does not go, joe. This – treating gay American citizens equally before the law – goes. Currently, no one in America has the right to multiple spouses. If polygamists want to make a case for multi-spouses, let them make their case. It has nothing to do with our case – for equal treatment. Mulitple spouses is simply a different situation and is not what is being discussed here.
“I all for same sex, but then we would have to accept all the others”
Please explain why we would “have to” do that? It makesno sense to me.
if marriage was approved for same sex- what’s next brother and sister or multi-wifes or multi husbands. I all for same sex, but then we would have to accept all the others if were truely equal
Yhitzak Said: “I’m curious, Tiger Tzu, if you believe that all gay people are inherently the same.”
Nope. Thats all the response this question deserves.
“It seems to me that Frank is less inclined to make this a hot-button issue than he is to make it a non-issue, as it should *rightly* be.”
Anytime a person or groups civil rights are stripped away, it should “rightly” be a hot button issue.
Are they all kidding? It’s about time *someone* said that about Scalia with highly public visibility. Antonin Scalia is practically the dictionary definition of judicial depravity. And that’s putting it nicely.
I’m curious, Tiger Tzu, if you believe that all gay people are inherently the same. The only thing that all gay people have in common is being gay; there is no common physical attribute, political or philosophical ideology, or socio-economic background that binds us inextricably together. We all have different views about marriage, love, friendship, and relationships at large. Barney Frank is no exception to that rule. He said, “you know you wish that wasn’t a big deal, you wish that we lived in a world that you can take that for granted.” It seems to me that Frank is less inclined to make this a hot-button issue than he is to make it a non-issue, as it should *rightly* be.
Palombo asked if Frank thought that the passage of Proposition 8 in California was a step back for gay marriage.
“I wouldn’t say that was a step back, rather an inability to take a step forward,” Frank said.
I suppose that someone who was shacked up with a prostitute wouldn’t see this as a step back, but gay people committed to a relationship do. It is obvious that Frank is not representing the views of those who may have their marriages invalidated.