1. Anonymous says

    Chai Feldblum is one of the signatories to the viewpoint of I personally find the position of to be very troubling — far more radical than I could ever be comfortable with as a happily married gay man. I have had several heated discussions with some of the signatories of this — many of which are law professors really on the fringe of even liberal thought on these matters.

    I’m absolutely not defending Tony Perkins (who could?), but Chai Feldman’s positions are not unassailable even from a very mainstream liberal prospective. I do not, however, think this makes her unqualified for the EEOC.

  2. thomasina says

    “They plan to paint her as an anti-religious extremist…”

    As Liz Lemon might say, “Just say Jewish–this is taking forever.”

  3. MikeMick says

    Lani Guinier, anyone? Her positions on racial equality were wildly distorted by the right. The Clinton White House, showing the collective balls of a hummingbird, withdrew her nomination as assistant AG for civil rights.

    I went to and read the full statement. If that’s fringe to you, I’d like to know what ideological pole you’re on.

  4. Anonymous says

    How about

    “Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.”

    Sorry.. that’s more than I’m comfortable with! And I believe that 99% of Americans would be uncomfortable with this also. is about throwing out marriage completely, rather than expanding it to include other committed couples.

  5. ZnSD says

    Hey “Anonymous” AKA Troll: if you are SO concerned about more than one person loving each other in a committed relationship perhaps you should, oh, mind your own business? The fact is: marriage is a contract: ultimately polyamorous unions will be recognized. If that makes you uncomfortable then you can not have one. How exactly would this affect YOUR marriage? Are you sure you’re not Maggie Gallagher in disguise? Most Americans aren’t comfortable with marriage equality for gays and lesbians but that doesn’t make them right – your argument is full of FAIL.

  6. Brian says

    When I was in law school I had the pleasure of working with Chai at the Task Force (she was a consultant, I was an intern). She is incredibly intelligent and very talented. She is very committed to improving the relationship between employers and employees. She would be an asset to the EEOC. Regardless of what you think of her stance on polyamory, we should support her nomination.

  7. HW in SoCal says

    “A master of using the language of moral imperatives”… Jew, Jew, Jew.

    Thomasina (and Liz Lemon) just beat me to it.

  8. former student says

    I’m a former student of hers, and I realize this is the wrong audience, but I hope you all can spread the message.

    Chai is hardly anti-religion. Forgetting for a moment that she herself is Jewish, she advocates on behalf of Catholic Charities USA for federal legislation that is favorable to their cause:

    Selecting her as their advocate should speak volumes about her. Her taking them on as a client should do the same.

    She is also *exceedingly* moderate. There is truly nothing radical about her stances or opinions. (She works with HRC for Gods sakes!) She wants to win over supporters with a long term strategy that focuses on the moral worth of gay couples.

    I don’t understand the first’s commenters objections to beyondmarriage
    First, it’s moderate, but progressive. Second, it is practical.

    I don’t want to debate the merits of the petition with you, but I am curious as to how her signing this would even call into question your support for her on the EEOC

  9. TANK says

    Progressive and moderate? Progressive moderate… Let’s all endeavor to use words, please.

    chai’s tea. Is this antisemitism? Hmmm…if I had to guess, I’d say it’s more homophobic given that I can’t conceive of the responses being different if her religious/cultural background were.

  10. former student says

    @tank What??? I have no idea what “Let’s all endeavor to use words, please.”
    Progressive in that she wants to move things forwards for gay rights. Moderate in the sense that her advocacy is extremely tempered and limited.
    The two words are neither contradictory nor invented, so I have no idea what you are attempting to say about my post.

  11. TANK says

    I don’t think we’re using words here when we couple progressive with moderate. One can want “move things forward for gay rights,” and not be a progressive. Her sense of advocacy is extremely tempered and limited? C’mon, that’s arbitrary.

  12. Paul says

    Perkins wouldn’t be projecting, now would he?

    Let’s see…

    Perkins intends to use his position of influence to force private institutions to follow his extreme vision of society, through the enforcement of aggressive and intrusive employment discrimination laws.

    He is a master at using the language of moral imperatives to further his agenda.

    Perkins is a Christian activist who supports government suppression of gay marriage as a way to convey disapproval of gay relationships and homosexuality in general. He has also argued against the equality of “polyamorous” relationships and almost any conceivable sexual relationship to protect traditional marriage–a position in line with American tradition, but fading from American principles and the mainstream of public opinion.

    Far from believing that government should not be involved in private relationships, he is a champion of government interference in moral and religious traditions where they intersect with his personal crusade.