The LGBTQ+ progressive left and gay libertarians, moderates on the center-right and economic conservatives have always had an uneasy alliance, but an alliance it was, around issues such as marriage equality (once the left got over its view that marriage was an oppressive, patriarchal, bourgeois institution) and equality under the law.
Now, in an era in which gays in the U.S. enjoy legal equality and broad (if not universal) social acceptance, that alliance is all but undone. And while all gay non-leftists are not supporting Donald Trump (count me among them, please), his campaign is highlighting that widening divide.
The Washington Examiner reports that:
…the presumptive Republican nominee went out of his way to recognize the gay and lesbian victims of the slaughter and frame his anti-terror approach as a signal of his commitment to gay rights.
“Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando’s LGBT community,” Trump declared. He said the attacker’s decision to “execute gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation” was “an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want and express their identity.”
And this:
“Hillary Clinton can never claim to be a friend of the gay community as long as she continues to support immigration policies that bring Islamic extremists to our country,” he said.
It’s a new take on Trump’s immigration politics, though combining support for immigration restrictions and gay rights has been more common in Europe, where Muslim arrivals have been perceived as threatening social liberalism.
That’s a message that will resonate with a swath of LGBT conservatives, and it enrages progressives. Witness this release from Get Equality (received via email):
LGBTQ Protestors Disrupt Donald Trump at Press Conference, Saying “Lies Equal Violence”
LGBTQ grassroots network GetEQUAL disrupted a press conference that followed a day-long meeting between Donald Trump and several hundred evangelical leaders. The disruption called attention to hate-mongering by both right-wing leaders and Trump — creating the atmosphere that led to last week’s massacre in Orlando — as well as the systemic violence that queer and trans people of color face every day. The disrupters chanted “Take responsibility for Orlando,” “Your hate is killing us,” and “Your lies are killing us” in the middle of the press conference.
The standard progressive trope, and one that now dominates college campuses, is that views disagreeing with progressivism are equal to violence and therefore must be silenced.
The fact that Trump, who for all his many failings has never demonstrated animus toward gay people, and evangelical Christians are responsible for the Islamic jihadist-inspired mass murder in Orlando and elsewhere, is simply repugnant.
And of course wildly hypocritical, since there are no protests from the left when Obama meets with anti-gay Muslim leaders.
47 Comments for “A Widening Political Divide”
posted by TJ on
Trump likes justices that are of the Scalia variety.
Really, its almost impossible to get an indepth policy statement from Trump about anything…even harder if you want to put the policy in the real world.
He talked about building a giant wall on the border, at least the Mexican side..Beyond the racial implications, he seemed to have no idea what it would cost and how to get around numerous problems.
He created a fake college to fleece people out of money. He then decided that people of a certain racial or ethnic ancestry shouldn’t be judges.
Hillary ain’t some far leftist candidate.
Please respect your self and the audience by not sholving out John Bircher conspiracy theories.
posted by TJ on
Quite a few “leftists” have complained about U.S. foreign policy in terms of human rights.
SEVERAL human rights groups have regular reports on LGBT rights by country or region.
posted by DMZ on
We’re sorta trapped, because on the one hand, disparaging Islam as a whole is not only inaccurate but it could drive gay Muslims deeper into the closet.
On the other hand, many Muslim leaders are too quick to reflexively jump to “don’t blame us.” But many progressive Muslims will point out that ultra-conservative and homophobic doctrines are regularly preached in mosques in North America. The attitude among many leaders has been “well, we don’t like the gays but we didn’t say it was okay to KILL them!”
It rings hollow and most Americans are not buying it. Which only allows alarmist voices like Trump to further monopolize the discourse.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Compared to most Republican politicians, The President Presumptive (as far as I know, he has expressed no personal animus toward gays and lesbians, and he has expressed support for including gays and lesbians as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964) is a bright and shining light amidst the styxian darkness in which the Republican Party continues to dwell on LGBT issues.
Given that, I can easily understand why Milo Yiannopoulos, LCR and other homocons are flocking to support his campaign.
Nonetheless, a quiet reminder amidst the homocon hoopla: (1) The President Presumptive opposes marriage equality and civil unions. (2) The President Presumptive pledges to appoint Justices who will overturn Obergefell, and, to eliminate any doubt about his bona fides in that respect, has given us a list of judges from whom he would appoint Justices as the opportunity arises. (3) The President Presumptive supports the First Amendment Defense Act, which, if enacted, will codify government-sanctioned religious discrimination against gays and lesbians into law. (4) The President Presumptive has pledged to rescind the President’s Executive Orders, presumably including the Executive Orders banning discrimination in federal contractor employment and medical care.
And given that, I can easily understand why a few homocons (Stephen apparently included) are refusing to board the TrumpTrain, and will be supporting the Libertarian Party instead.
The fact remains that while The President Presumptive is far ahead of many/most Republicans on LGBT issues, he nonetheless lags behind the American mainstream on LGBT issues, and far behind Democrats and Independents in particular. And his suggestion that he is a better candidate for LGBT voters than either Secretary Clinton or Governor Johnson is, well, delusional bullshit.
I sense that StephenWorld™ is morphing into an alternate reality in which we can expect a lot of posts going forward that scold Democrats for refusing to engage in that delusional bullshit. A waste of electrons, as far as I am concerned. And why bother, at this point, Stephen? You don’t support the President Presumptive, either, or at least you say you don’t. Let us know how you vote in November.
posted by Raymond on
The President Presumptive pledges to appoint Justices who will overturn Obergefell,…
This is not exactly true. Trump has said he opposes a constitutional amendment to overturn Obergefell.
He has also said he will appoint conservatives in the Scalia mold to the Supreme Court. But court-watchers know that overturning a decision is extremely difficult, even if you have a majority of justices who would not have initially ruled for it. Also, there were some names on the Trump list of possible justices that libertarians praised.
Trump is not a hard-edged social conservative by inclination, it is is unlikely he would appoint more than a token Scalia-like social conservative to the court, if that.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: The President Presumptive pledges to appoint Justices who will overturn Obergefell …
Raymond: This is not exactly true. Trump has said he opposes a constitutional amendment to overturn Obergefell.
The two issues are distinct. The President Presumptive knows, as we all do, that a constitutional amendment is doomed, but that Obergefell can be overturned, as Bowers was overturned, or so severely limited as to have been defacto neutered. That’s why conservative Christians have made anti-Obergefell a litmus, and that’s why The President Presumptive made the pledge.
Raymond: He has also said he will appoint conservatives in the Scalia mold to the Supreme Court.
He has said that he will select Justices from a list he provided to the press and to the public. You can assess the judges on that list as well as I can. I don’t see any that are likely to support the reasoning in Obergefell or Roe, for that matter. That’s why they are on the list.
Raymond: But court-watchers know that overturning a decision is extremely difficult, even if you have a majority of justices who would not have initially ruled for it.
Granted, but it happens (see Bower/Lawrence). Obergefell is not long-established precedent, the “privacy” reasoning that underlies the decision is a primary target of “originalists” (again, see the list) and the decision need not be directly overturned in any event. Instead, it could be overturned on the grounds that marriage is a state issue, and it could be nibbled away around the edges until all that is left is a hollow core. There are lots of ways for “originalist” Justices to skin this cat.
Raymond: Also, there were some names on the Trump list of possible justices that libertarians praised.
Not, presumably, because of the judge’s support for the reasoning in Obergefell. But, in any event, I don’t give much credence to “that libertarians praised” without more. Which “libertarians” praised which “possible Justices”? Why? How does “that praise” related to Obergefell?
Raymond: Trump is not a hard-edged social conservative by inclination, it is is unlikely he would appoint more than a token Scalia-like social conservative to the court, if that.
Uh huh. Review the list. Read his promise to appoint Justices from the list. We’ve got one vacancy now (Scalia) and it is likely that we will have three more (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy) during the next term. Do the math.
It seems to me that you are doing a lot of whistling, Raymond. And maybe playing with fire. Are you on the TrumpTrain? Sure sounds like it.
posted by Jorge on
…but an alliance it was, around issues such as marriage equality (once the left got over its view that marriage was an oppressive, patriarchal, bourgeois institution) and equality under the law.
Just that? Nothing on hate crimes? (I realize HIV/AIDS was a dividing point, but still?)
Now, in an era in which gays in the U.S. enjoy legal equality and broad (if not universal) social acceptance, that alliance is all but undone.
It’s a little early but I would not be surprised to see movement in that direction. The Empire State Pride Agenda recently disbanded after NY Governor Cuomo issued an executive order incorporating gender identity into the state’s civil rights law. This organization was pretty good at incorporating both progressive and conservative social arguments into its policy positions.
As more and more center-left goals are met, there is less and less opportunity to draw from arguments and allies on the right. And because the gay rights movement is largely progressive, it is more likely to move toward the left than toward the center. Combine that with the leftward shift already occurring on the left.
“LGBTQ grassroots network GetEQUAL disrupted a press conference that followed a day-long meeting between Donald Trump and several hundred evangelical leaders.”
This is such a terrible example, Mr. Miller, that I openly question whether you even pay attention to gay politics, and I’m not at all impressed by this being your only example.
GetEQUAL has been a thorn in President Obama’s side for years, and for good reason. Far from ever being allied with anyone on the right, they imposed outrageous demands on him from the left. Theirs was a platform focused far more on social equality than on personal safety. Their very existence is a significant breach from the more traditional gay rights organizations which have center-left to liberal goals but are generally partisan in their politics.
It is not even the least bit remarkable that any gay organization that choose to protest Donald Trump would be named GetEQUAL (what a name!). Nor is it worth even mentioning that this specific organization would hit Trump twice as hard as it has hit Obama, nor should anyone reasonably expect that a progressive organization would pick up a centrist view on the impact of global Islamic terrorism on gay rights.
posted by Jorge on
On the other hand, many Muslim leaders are too quick to reflexively jump to “don’t blame us.” But many progressive Muslims will point out that ultra-conservative and homophobic doctrines are regularly preached in mosques in North America. The attitude among many leaders has been “well, we don’t like the gays but we didn’t say it was okay to KILL them!”
It rings hollow and most Americans are not buying it. Which only allows alarmist voices like Trump to further monopolize the discourse.
If Islam in Europe and the United States of America have a problem, it is not the problem that is the same as the problem Christianity has. The problem is not the willingness of religious leaders to say, “hate gay people.”
The problem Islam has is the willingness of religious leaders to say, “Betray your neighbor and engage in armed insurrection.”
You can tell a community of traditional patriarchal norms to respect the authority of strangers with respect to strangers and respect the authority of the government with respect to the public safety of both the family and the outsider, and you won’t have too much trouble. Most of the problems come from in-group violence. Oi-vey! The shameful failure of the public administrator and the family or community leader to cooperate in preventing massive and unnecessary attrition of people caught between their two priorities. And this, Orlando, is part of that cycle, too!
But an-group killing themselves off is only a concern to a few benevolent administrators, the nanny-state liberals and the social conservatives who want to control what an in-group does among its own kind. Radical terrorist Islam preaches inter-group violence that attacks the social contract between a sub-community and its neighbors and between a sub-community and the authority that protects all communities. That is alarming to far more people.
posted by Doug on
Trump appoints gay-haters Reed, Dobson, Falwell to campaign advisory board. So much for Trump being better than Hillary on LGBT issues. How many openly LGBT folks has Trump appointed to his campaign advisory board, Stephen?
posted by Raymond on
Stephen never has said Trump is better than Hillary on gay rights. And few gay Republicans would claim that. Their view is that Trump is, by GOP standards, far better on LGBT rights than other nominees have been, and if you think he’s better on a host of other issues, from foreign policy and immigration to the economy, then supporting him is justified. (Stephen has indicated he’s supporting the Libertarians.)
Trump does have gay supportive and openly gay people (Peter Theil, Rick Grennell) on some of his advisory boards , and Hillary has some loony tune leftists on hers.
posted by Houndentenor on
Trump is actually polling worse among gay people than previous Republican nominees. in the 90s and 00s Democrats got about 75% of the gay vote. Clinton is polling at 86%. Let’s not pretend like a few gay people who would never vote for a Democrat no matter what are part of any trend.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Trump appoints gay-haters Reed, Dobson, Falwell to campaign advisory board.
It gets worse. The Advocate describes the full advisory board as “horrifying”.
Yup.
posted by Jorge on
It’s an “Evangelical” advisory board. Of course it’s going to include some anti-gay radicals. Just like when President Obama brings together a Muslim advisory board, it includes a couple of terror breeders.
Of course, if you had Obama gather the Evangelicals and Trump gather the Muslims you’d avoid problems like that.
By the way, headlining a list of OMG SCARY people with Michelle Bachman does not impress me in the slightest.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Jorge, I don’t think that the point is that the TrumpTrain’s Evangelical Board represents anything out of the Republican mainstream — substitute Ken Cuccinelli for Michele Bachmann, E.W. Jackson for Harry Jackson, Tony Perkins for James Dobson, and so on, and you’d have the same board with different names and faces.
I think that the point is, instead, that nothing changed, and nothing will change.
The President Presumptive had an opportunity to signal change. He could have appointed at least one board member who represented the emerging “New Evangelical” line of thought — even substituting Russell Moore for Richard Land would have sent a signal that The President Presumptive was a potential change agent. Instead he signalled that he not going lift a finger to lessen the conservative Christian stranglehold over the Republican Party.
I’m not surprised.
With the single exception of his position on including gays and lesbians as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and, perhaps, his gracious concession that Kaitlyn Jenner could use the women’s bathroom in Trump Tower), his expressed views on LGBT issues mirror the party’s 2012 Platform up and down the line. So don’t be looking for anything except “the same old, same old” when it comes to LGBT issues.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
An interesting statistic from Gallup: In the year since The President Presumptive announced his candidacy, the percentage of same-sex couples living together who are married increased from 38% to 49%, and the number of same-sex couples living together but not married decreased from 61% to 59%.
Of course, wildly hypocritical progressives deny that The President Presumptive is responsible for the increase in marriage rates among gays and lesbians, attributing it instead to the Obergefell decision, which The President Presumptive has pledged to reverse.
posted by JohnInCA on
“The LGBTQ+ progressive left and gay libertarians, moderates on the center-right and economic conservatives have always had an uneasy alliance, but an alliance it was, around issues such as marriage equality (once the left got over its view that marriage was an oppressive, patriarchal, bourgeois institution) and equality under the law.”
Am I the only one that read this and said “this premise assumes a lot and will need more support before I accept it without question”?
’cause as far as I recall, conservative and center-right gays were saying “not yet” right up till Obergefel.
posted by Raymond on
’cause as far as I recall, conservative and center-right gays were saying “not yet” right up till Obergefel.
That’s a total rewrite of history. Gay conservatives such as Bruce Bawer and Andrew Sullivan (then still a conservative) and non-leftist moderates like Jonathan Rauch were at the forefront of supporting same-sex marriage in the 80s and 90s when the LGBT left and liberals, including the Human Rights Campaign, were strongly against it.
The “homocons” were attacked for supporting such a conservative goal as same-sex marriage. That’s the history.
posted by JohnInCA on
The 80s and 90s.
To quote myself: “[…]conservative and center-right gays were saying “not yet” right up till Obergefel.”
When did Obergefel happen? 2015.
Where are the “conservative” writers who were supposedly in “alliance” with the rest of us in 2015? Of your three, you can count Sullivan on that list. Bawer stopped really talking about LGBT issues after 9/11 and Rauch joined the “too much, too fast” bandwagon. The only major LGBT consevative groups I can think of (GoProud and LCR) spent more time attacking Democrats then anything else.
Sorry, but regardless of their positions in the 80s and 90s, but the time Obergefel rolled around conservative gays were largely silent or actively arguing it was a mistake. That is not, in any way, shape or form, an “alliance”.
It’s like saying “well, this bill passed with 49 Republicans and 1 Democrat, so it’s bi-partisan!”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The only major LGBT conservative groups I can think of (GoProud and LCR) spent more time attacking Democrats then anything else.
GOProud didn’t support same-sex marriage until 2012. Before that, GOP ignored the issue entirely, saying that marriage wasn’t a federal issue.
LCR’s record is mixed. LCR has long taken the position that any discrimination against gays and lesbians (including marriage discrimination) “is inconsistent with the GOP’s core principles of smaller government and personal freedom”, and filed an amicus in Obergefell, but didn’t push hard for marriage equality or withhold support from the national ticket in any recent election cycle.
Bawer stopped really talking about LGBT issues after 9/11 …
Bawer’s writing on same-sex marriage is interesting, and to some extent revealing of the homocon mindset on the subject. He (like a number of gay conservatives of the period) advocated for same-sex marriage as a means of social control (an institutional mechanism to discourage gay promiscuity) and as a means for normalization of gay culture, a normalization that would, in his view (see “A Place at the Table: The Gay Individual in American Society“), lead to cultural acceptance of gays and lesbians.
My guess is that marriage equality was never important to Bawer in its own right, and he quickly dropped his discussion of the issue (as JohninCA pointed out) after it became clear that social conservatives weren’t buying.
Rauch’s justification for same-sex marriage support (see “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America“) had a core argument that was similar to Bawer’s (social control, normalization, reduced promiscuity and so on), but he also advanced an “equal means equal” argument that Bawer did not. Rauch, in addition, sought to strengthen the institution of marriage as a “gold standard” by insisting that all couples (straight and gay/lesbian alike) should be adopt marriage as the norm, and arguing that civil unions and other forms of “marriage lite” damaged the institution. I thought that the “gold standard” argument was compelling, and was aghast when he team up with Blankenhorn (of unsainted memory) on the “civil unions compromise” in 2009. I still don’t understand why Rauch did it.
I haven’t followed Sullivan’s writing (he always struck me as just slightly less pretentious and obnoxious than Milo Yiannopoulos, if considerably less the twit) so I can’t speak to it.
JohninCA makes a point that I hadn’t considered, though, and I suspect its right. Conservative gays wrote about marriage in the 1980’s and 1990’s but then seemed to peter out after 2000. I don’t know what happened, but I think that the observation is right.
Raymond argues that to deny that gay conservatives were pioneers of the marriage equality movement is to “rewrite history”. I don’t think so. Gays and lesbians writing articles about marriage equality since in the 1950’s, and the first serious marriage equality case was filed in 1970 and decided in 1971. Bawer, Sullivan, Rauch and other homocons started writing well after the marriage movement was in motion. That’s not to deny the value of homocon embrace of marriage as a goal, or to denigrate their perspective on the issue, but facts are facts.
posted by Jorge on
Bruce Bawer reads as a mainstream Democrat in A Place at the Table. I would hardly call him a conservative pre-9/11. That would be like calling NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio conservative because of his public display of strong family values.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Bruce Bawer reads as a mainstream Democrat in “A Place at the Table”. I would hardly call him a conservative pre-9/11.
In the early 1990’s, when Bawer wrote “A Place at the Table: The Gay Individual in American Society” moderates still existed in the conservative movement, and it was not yet set in stone that the party would spend the next twenty-five years standing in opposition to “equal means equal”.
Bawer’s book (like, to some extent, Rauch’s “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America“ a decade later) was a good faith attempt to appeal to conservative moderates, on conservative principles, in support of same-sex marriage.
I can understand, looking back, why younger gays and lesbians, who were not adults during the period, might think that Bawer’s writings represent “mainstream Democrat” views. Today, that is certainly true. But when Bauer wrote “A Place at the Table“, a significant number of moderate conservatives still existed, and Bawer was writing to that audience.
I think that there was a period, which ended with the Bush/Rove/Mehlman anti-marriage amendment strategy, when the conservative movement in general, and the Republican Party in particular, could have turned toward equal treatment of gays and lesbians. After the anti-marriage amendment push, that window of opportunity closed, and “moderate” and “Republican” no longer fit together.
posted by Jorge on
In the early 1990’s, when Bawer wrote “A Place at the Table: The Gay Individual in American Society” moderates still existed in the conservative movement
They also existed in greater numbers in the progressive movement.
I agree that he was writing to an audience of moderate conservatives. I remember it being common for the left to write or speak to moderate conservatives in the 1990s and 2000s. Michael Moore’s Dude, Where’s My Country?“, for example, argued on several hot-button issues like abortion, gun control, and environmentalism that the progressive position is really supported by most Americans (I think he was cherry-picking). But I don’t think this sort of thing is as common anymore. There’s more base politics.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A quiet note: Rauch (whose thinking during the 1990’s influenced my own thinking on the importance of marriage equality) more or less abandoned marriage equality in 2009, seeking a “marriage equivalent” compromise instead. Rauch is a good example of JohninCA’s point, as are many of the contributors to IGF. Do an internal search of IGF and you’ll find example after example of “we are moving too fast; we are inviting a backlash” thinking.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Now, in an era in which gays in the U.S. enjoy legal equality and broad (if not universal) social acceptance …
A rosy description, indeed. I don’t think that it is accurate.
Social acceptance is regional. Gays and lesbians enjoy “broad (if not universal) social acceptance” in many, but not all, urban neighborhoods. Gays and lesbians do not enjoy “broad (if not universal) social acceptance” in most rural areas, many urban neighborhoods, and in many regions of the country.
As others have suggested, head out of your urban safe zone and head to rural Texas, or southern Indiana, or western Kentucky, and see how much “social acceptance” you find. Gays and lesbians don’t have to seek out a “radical Islamist” neighborhood to put themselves at risk, despite what Republicans claim.
We will experience “broad (if not universal) social acceptance” if and when we can act like normal human beings (as straights do) without comment or reaction. Granted, things are a lot better than 5/10/15 years ago, but we have a long way to go before a gay high school kid is just another high school kid. When we get to that point, and not before, we will have reached the goal of “social acceptance”.
Legal equality continues to elude us. Gays and lesbians can be fired because of their sexual orientation in a majority of states. Gays and lesbians can be denied equal access to housing because of their sexual orientation in a majority of states. Gays and lesbians are not protected by public accommodations laws in a majority of states. Gays and lesbians are not protected against credit discrimination in a majority of states. Adoption and foster parenting by gays and lesbians is restricted in many states. And so on. The list is long, and the fight for legal equality won’t be over for years and years.
The legal gains we’ve made (marriage, military service, non-discrimination laws in some localities and states, federal executive orders and regulatory decisions) are under broad-scale attack at both the federal (e.g. FADA) and state levels, driven by a coalition of conservative Christians and social conservative politicians from one of the two major political parties. The fight for legal equality is a long way from over.
… that alliance [between progressive left and gay libertarians, moderates on the center-right and economic conservatives] is all but undone.
I don’t want to rain on your parade, but as JohninCA has pointed out, “conservative and center-right gays were saying “not yet” right up till Obergefell“. And still are, as the battle moves from marriage equality into non-discrimination protection, and protection for transgenders.
Whatever else there might be to say about “the alliance”, gays and lesbians in one political party took on the work of turning the party toward “equal means equal”, and the gays and lesbians in the other political party did not, for whatever reason, and that’s why the legal battle for equality is going to continue for another decade.
posted by Kosh III on
“He has also said he will appoint conservatives in the Scalia mold to the Supreme Court.”
That’s one gay-bashing Scalia too many.
posted by Houndentenor on
Promising to appoint SCOTUS justices that will overturn Obergefell isn’t animus towards gay people? Meeting with people who have fought all gay rights (including fighting to keep sodomy laws) isn’t showing animus to gay people?
I doubt Trump has any personal animus towards gay people. But he openly courts anti-gay bigots and has made them promises to roll back gay rights. That’s significant.
posted by TJ on
Trump — years ago — reportedly flirted with idea of running for president under the Reform Party ticket. You know, the ‘quirky’ third party that nominated Patrick Buchanan for President (before falling apart due to internal fighting).
His “birther” campaign and more recent attacks on Muslims and Hispanics would be great if he were running under the modern-day version of another third party; The Know Nothings party.
Trump had every opportunity — especially with his own wealth and media connections — to tell the extreme Christian right, “take a walk”, and campaign as some sort of centrist, new- age Republican. It was not like he really needed the backing off these far-right groups to run a campaign, but he is eager to court them.
posted by Jorge on
Sorry, but regardless of their positions in the 80s and 90s, but the time Obergefel rolled around conservative gays were largely silent or actively arguing it was a mistake. That is not, in any way, shape or form, an “alliance”.
Sorry, I could not disagree with you more.
Obergefel was a mistake. In forcing all states to recognize gay marriages in a time when, given the choice, most refused or demurred, it represented the triumph of power over consensus. And this was almost single-handedly responsible for the clown show that included a Kentucky clerk getting arrested because of her religion and small businessowners being fined out of business over cakes, photographs, and the use of their own homes.
All of a sudden, the momentum for gay legal rights stopped. It has been replaced by a momentum of gay bullying, of pastors and waitresses faking anti-gay slurs on social media and couples spending their engagements going full-on bridezilla toward people who are tolerant but not accepting enough.
The gamble that was made was that the momentum for gay legal rights would just far enough to cash in. For governors and appointed boards to fine and punish people for not wanting to perform weddings or sell cakes, for governors and the president to bully states for saying schools should accommodate transgender students as their conscience dictates. So far it looks like the LGBT community has successfully cashed in. But at what a cost! We are suffering the consequences of Obergefell in the bureaucratization of our dignity and the coarsening of our values.
It is not, in any way, shape, or form, seditious or contrary to community functioning for part of a community to dissent from a way of action. It is rather an important part of group functioning to share ideas and make sure the leaders have considered the risks and mistakes they might be making, so as to minimize them and carry out their goals in the most effective way possible. That is why the gay rights movement has given so much recognition to the practice of faith, the raising of families, the service in our armed forces, and the free expression of sexuality even though strong pluralities if not majorities of the gay community lean highly skeptical of each.
posted by JohnInCA on
“[Obergefel] was almost single-handedly responsible for the clown show that included a Kentucky clerk getting arrested because of her religion and small businessowners being fined out of business over cakes, photographs, and the use of their own homes.”
Davis got into trouble because she (A) refused to do her job and (B) refused to let her sub-ordinates do their jobs. Her religion was irrelevant.
Both Elane Photography and Sweet Cakes by Melissa pre-dated their states getting marriage equality. And for that matter, Sweet Cakes by Melissa shut down their storefront like a year before any fines were set against them. Pretending they were “fined out of business” is a blatant lie, especially considering that they received a more-then-large enough war chest to cover all the costs.
Not sure who you’re referring to for the last, but seeing as you’ve struck out on three of four so-far, I’m not really banking on this one being a winner either.
The rest of it is a neat rant, but entirely irrelevant to what you claim you’re responding to.
posted by Jorge on
We shall see.
posted by JohnInCA on
We really won’t. See, my point was that there was no “alliance” that Miller presumed. You responded to “no alliance” with “Obergefel was a mistake”.
Even if you’re right (a point I have no interest in debating with you), you’re just reinforcing my point: there was no alliance.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
All of a sudden, the momentum for gay legal rights stopped. It has been replaced by a momentum of gay bullying, of pastors and waitresses faking anti-gay slurs on social media and couples spending their engagements going full-on bridezilla toward people who are tolerant but not accepting enough.
Utter nonsense. The work is going forward, state by state, locality by locality, issue by issue.
Post-Obergefell, non-discrimination bills were introduced (almost always by Democrats, sometimes with a few Republican co-sponsors) in the following states: Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. Most (as you might guess given the predominance of “red” states in the list) failed by votes along party lines. A few succeeded in one house of the legislature. As far as I know, none are yet law.
I can’t speak for localities nationwide, but in Wisconsin (which has included sexual orientation in employment, housing and public accommodations laws since 1982), transgender non-discrimination ordinances have been enacted, post-Obergefell, in three additional major cities/counties, including Speak Ryan’s home town of Janesville.
In other states, work is ongoing on the adoption and foster parent front, as well as on other issues of importance to “equal means equal”.
posted by Doug on
I bet you thought equality for African Americans was wrong too.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I bet you thought equality for African Americans was wrong too.
I doubt it.
I’ve been reading Jorge’s comments for several years, making what sense I can of them when he wanders off into word salads.
Jorge has self-described as a “social conservative” and seems to be a more or less garden-variety religious conservative on political issues affecting gays and lesbians.
Jorge has spoken out in opposition to same-sex marriage on religious grounds. He has argued that the government, rather than individual citizens, should be the arbiter of moral decisions on abortion, reproduction, sodomy and similar issues, regardless of the moral/religious convictions of the individual. Conversely, he has argued that the government oversteps its boundaries when it enacts public accommodations law covering sexual orientation, and in that instance, argues that the government cannot interfere with the religious conscience of individuals. Jorge has condemned Obergefell, arguing that (a) the Court decided wrongly (marriage equality is not a constitutional right), and (b) the issue should have been decided though the political process instead of the courts.
On the other hand, Jorge has not joined in with religious conservatives in the widespread, fact-free condemnations of gays and lesbians. He’s never, in my experience, come close to the views expressed by the members of the TrumpTrain Evangelical Board — gays are the spawn of Satan, disease-ridden demons who prey on children, perverts determined to destroy the Christian movement and American values, and so on.
Whatever we may make of all that, it doesn’t translate into opposition to African-American equality. He hasn’t, as far as I know, discussed those issues on IGF.
posted by Jorge on
I bet you thought equality for African Americans was wrong too.
It’s hard to respond to a trite comparison of what is considered racial equality and what is considered legal equality for gays when the two refer to laws that mean very different things. Obergefell has no equivalent in Supreme Court history. The correllary of Loving v. Virginia, a case involving a criminal prosecution of a couple for getting married, is Lawrence v. Texas. An accurate comparison to Obergefell would be to the reparations movement.
Jorge has self-described as a “social conservative”
You’re remembering wrong. I’m socially conservative or I have a strong social conservative streak. I am not “a” social conservative. The main difference is I tend to accept or consider reasonable how liberals see the world. I just don’t share most of their ideas on what to do about it. I identify as a center-right moderate and a neoconservative.
Jorge has spoken out in opposition to same-sex marriage on religious grounds.
I oppose the courts requiring the recognition of same sex marriage as a constitutional right, in part because I believe it privileges one religion over another. That is not the same as speaking out against same sex marriage on religious grounds. I support legislatures recognizing same sex marriage on the grounds that it is legislating morality. That doesn’t get much attention here because that rarely comes up.
He has argued that the government, rather than individual citizens, should be the arbiter of moral decisions on abortion, reproduction, sodomy and similar issues, regardless of the moral/religious convictions of the individual.
And I argue that because in those cases I believe majority rules. I am against extending majority rule in cases where it infringes on the Bill of Rights.
Sodomy laws I tend to see as an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy in intimate and marital affairs, not to mention on freedom of religion.
posted by TJ on
After The Ball is an interesting book from 1989 that talks about how the gay community can develop more effective campaign strategies, mixed in with some tales of how gay men shouldn’t do ‘x, y and z”, because straight people might think that most gay men do x,y, and z.
It was published before my time, but it is interesting to see a internal, 1980s look at how to try and educate the public and win political battles. It features some print and bill board ads from the period.
A Place At The Table (1994) repeats a quote from then President Bill Clinton. This may be why some people that the book was coming from a “centrist” Democrat. He mentions his work with a conservative magazine, but most of it (the book) talks about stereotypes (within the gay community) , challenges facing gay couples and does not focus much on “all Democrats are Satan” side of homocon partisan politics. Apparently, he relocated to Europe and “explored” his kinkier side. After 9-11-01, he wrote less about gay rights.
The Institute for Justice and the Cato Institute both filed friendly briefs in the Lawrence v Texas case. They are essentially, libertarian or conservative-libertarian groups.
I get the impression that quite a few libertarians — at least in the 1980s and 1990s — were perfectly happy to vote Republican, look the other way when the religious right took over the party as part of the ‘New Right’.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And of course wildly hypocritical, since there are no protests from the left when Obama meets with anti-gay Muslim leaders.
I wonder if the different reaction has to do with the Republican Party’s long history of teaming up with conservative Christians to oppose equality. I noticed today that James Dobson announced today that The President Presumptive recently converted to Christ, and is now a “baby [born-again] Christian”. Considering what Dobson means by “Christian”, that doesn’t bode well, if it isn’t just more TrumpTrain hype.
posted by Lori Heine on
Like most televangelists, Dobson is a butt-kisser who dreams of making kings. He wants inside the corridors of power. These people care about nothing else.
Trump says stuff. He says a lot of stuff. What he will DO is whatever gives him power.
I refuse to degrade myself by hanging on every word these people say. They believe in nothing but themselves and their own glorious little careers. They’ll do whatever they think benefits themselves. There is no grand conspiracy between the GOP and the televangelists, because neither of them sincerely gives a crap about anything but money, popularity and power.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
There is no grand conspiracy between the GOP and the televangelists, because neither of them sincerely gives a crap about anything but money, popularity and power.
That’s no doubt true, but somehow the non-conspiracy resulted in 30+ anti-marriage amendments, stopping the 1980’s/1990’s movement toward adding gays and lesbians to non-discrimination ordinances in its tracks, and (on average) 100-200 anti-equality bills introduced in state legislatures every legislative session.
posted by Jorge on
People gravitate toward things that make them immortal and attack things that threaten them.
Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people start with a deficit in how we are viewed by the public at large in relation to their social institutions. You can change the balance one way with public education so that people think gay rights makes them more whole. Then suddenly one act changes the entire balance again and you realize you didn’t level the playing field, you only climbed up higher on the hill.
posted by Lori Heine on
And of course supporting legislation that would force people to bake cakes is always terrific P.R. for our cause.
posted by JohnInCA on
Until I’m free to refuse a customer because their God hates fags, it’s gonna be a hard sell that it’s only fair if they can refuse a customer because their God hates fags.
Or, to put it another way… if it’s such an inconsequential thing to be refused service, then join us over here in the “not protected” class. But so long as anti-gay Christians enjoy being a protected class, it’s not reasonable to demand gay people accept the status quo.
posted by Lori Heine on
More magical puffs of thought from the left. If I don’t think the police state should crack down on somebody, then I must LOVE whatever they’re doing.
It’s a waste of time arguing with someone who simply cannot think.
posted by JohnInCA on
” If I don’t think the police state should crack down on somebody, then I must LOVE whatever they’re doing.”
Is not something I implied or said.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I assume you spoke out against including sexual orientation in the Phoenix non-discrimination ordinance in 2013, but did not carry the day.
So at this point, which do you prefer — eliminating the non-discrimination ordinance entirely, removing sexual orientation as a protected class, or permitting employers and businesses an exemption in the case of sexual orientation?
Whichever you prefer, go for it.
posted by Lori Heine on
I favor government simply getting the hell out of the fricking way and letting people sort it out for themselves.
I know…horrors! Selma 1965!
Talk to the hand. I’m done with the left and their bulls**t.
posted by Exclusionary Pride - IGF Culture Watch on
[…] on the points made below in “A Widening Political Divide,” the NYC LGBT Pride March proceeded today under a banner that read “Republican Hate […]