Donald Trump proposed an ideological test that would limit immigrants seeking admission to the U.S. to “those who share our values and respect our people,” saying: “Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.”
Trump noted that such a test has been used during the Cold War as a basis for allowing immigrants to come to our shores, further inciting those who believe we were on the wrong side of that struggle.
LGBT activists immediately responded with condemnation and mockery.
Russell Roybal, deputy executive director for National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, told The Advocate that Trump’s proposal is a form of “thought-policing.” And, of course, progressives are never in favor of limiting expression and discussion.
The Human Rights Campaign issued a statement claiming that “What’s craziest about this ignorant, incomprehensible plan is that Donald Trump and Mike Pence would fail their own test,” because they met with evangelical Christian leaders who oppose same-sex marriage and favor allowing small business owners with religious objections to abstain from providing expressive services for same-sex marriages.
Whatever the merits of the Trump suggestion, the response highlights what many choose not to see: that a great number of immigrants from Muslim countries are intensely anti-gay (and hostile to Jews, and to women’s equality).
In the U.K., an ICM poll revealed that more than half of Muslims disagree with homosexuality being legal in Britain.
If a political party proposed allowing hundreds of thousands of anti-gay conservative Christians to immigrate to the U.S. from abroad, I suspect the response from LGBT progressives would be far different.
Bruce Bawer observed:
Here in Oslo, a gay couple who were holding hands in the largely Muslim neighborhood of Grønland were physically assaulted by a man who told them: “This is a Muslim neighborhood.” In a follow-up story, Dagbladet interviewed a local man, born in Pakistan but resident in Norway for ten years, who argues that “Grønland is a multicultural environment where there are many people who don’t like homosexuals, so they shouldn’t hold hands.” He says such things are OK in west Oslo, where there are few Muslims, “but here in Grønland they shouldn’t do it. Ideally, it should be forbidden to practice homosexuality in this area.”
There are those who have been quick to dismiss this as an isolated incident. On the contrary, it’s simply an indication that Norway is headed the same way as the rest of Western Europe.
He added, elsewhere:
One familiar response is: “Well, non-Muslims beat up gays, too!” Yep – indeed they do. Yet for a while there, in much of Western Europe, homosexuality was on its way to being a non-issue. In Amsterdam in the late 1990s, I was delightfully surprised to discover that when groups of straight teenage boys passed gay couples in the streets, they just walked past without any reaction whatsoever. The sight of gay people didn’t upset, threaten, amuse, or confuse them; the familiar, insecure urge to respond to open homosexuality with some kind of distancing, disdainful word or gesture – and thereby affirm to one another, and to themselves, their own heterosexual credentials – was simply not part of those kids’ makeup. For me, it was a remarkable experience. Amsterdam then seemed to me the leading edge of a new wave in the progress of human civilization.
Alas, it is now very clearly the opposite. The number of reported gay-bashings in Amsterdam now climbs steadily year by year. Nearly half Muslim, the city is a front in the struggle between democracy and sharia, under which, lest it be forgotten, homosexuality can be a capital offense. Things have gotten so bad there that even on the part of the exceedingly politically correct, there has been a degree of acknowledgment that something has changed, and is still changing.
As Douglas Murray wrote before this latest controversy, The gay community is in denial about Islamism. Or LGBT activists leaders are, at least.
More. An observation from Mallard Fillmore.
34 Comments for “Immigrants and Values”
posted by Houndentenor on
So we ask everyone entering the country about their views on lbgt rights? Why would anyone coming intending to commit violence against gay people answer that question honestly? They would just lie and we’d let them in. Even for Trump this is a particular proposal. Do we ban people from countries where lbgt people don’t have rights? That’s most of the world. And it’s ironic since by that standard Evangelicals wouldn’t be allowed to enter either.
I’m all for trying to screen out potential terrorists, although the main problem with Islamic terrorism is Muslims born in the West and radicalized in European and American mosques or just via websites. Immigrants sometimes pose problems as well, especially in Europe, but the proposal doesn’t really solve the problem.
Am I the only one who feels like they’re an extra in the prequel to Idiocracy this year?
posted by TJ on
I just finished reading a book called, The Party of Fear.
Nativists were convinced that the Irish immigrants and Catholics in general were too violent and reactionary and needed to be kept out.
posted by JohnInCA on
If a political party proposed allowing hundreds of thousands of anti-gay conservative Christians to immigrant, I suspect the response from LGBT progressives would be far different.
/headscratch
Um, I can’t speak to the “hundreds of thousands” part, but don’t we already do that?
posted by TJ on
Ummm…..I’m pretty sure that the Libertarian party favours an open immigration policy….
posted by TJ on
The Constitution party has a libertarian economic policy, with a right-wing, fundamentalist, old time religion., theocratic Christianity.
They make it clear that they want to put in some sort of Biblical plan to criminalize LGBT people.
One of its founders was very active in building up a movement to criminalize homosexuality and oppose the gay rights movement in the 1970s-1980s.
I think that the “libertarian” Congressman Ron Paul voted for their presidential candidate.
I don’t think that most moderate and progressives are unaware of the problems with Islamic fundamentalists….especially LGBT Muslims.
I think what bothers them is the hypocrisy and the unworkable, if not also a tad racist, solutions proposed.
I think that Ron Paul voted for their presidential candidate.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
In Amsterdam in the late 1990s, I was delightfully surprised to discover that when groups of straight teenage boys passed gay couples in the streets, they just walked past without any reaction whatsoever. The sight of gay people didn’t upset, threaten, amuse, or confuse them; the familiar, insecure urge to respond to open homosexuality with some kind of distancing, disdainful word or gesture – and thereby affirm to one another, and to themselves, their own heterosexual credentials – was simply not part of those kids’ makeup. For me, it was a remarkable experience. Amsterdam then seemed to me the leading edge of a new wave in the progress of human civilization.
Wouldn’t it be great if we got to that point in the United States in the next generation, a culture in which a gay high school student is just another high school student? We have a long way to go, in no small part due to the influence of conservative Christianity in this country, an influence which is supported and sustained by one of our major political parties.
We’ll make it to that point some day, I hope.
If TPP really do intended to make support for LGBT rights a litmus test for immigration, do they intend to apply that litmus test across the board? As JohninCA correctly pointed out, we do not impose such a litmus test on Christian immigrants, and it would be a major change in immigration policy to do so.
And what would TPP propose to do about his own political party, which has become increasingly anti-gay election cycle by election cycle, adopting “the most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s 162-year history“?
I think that a fair argument could be made that none of the delegates who voted for the 2916 Republican Party platform would meet TPP’s standards for immigration.
You point out, Stephen, “In the U.K., an ICM poll revealed that more than half of Muslims disagree with homosexuality being legal in Britain.” I would quietly remind you that Pew and other polling (including Barna polls) consistently show that a strong majority of “born-again”, “fundamentalist” and “evangelical” Christians in our county share that view.
I realize that anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim drum-pounding is a central strategy for Republican loyalists in our current political environment. But I do wonder if the people pounding that drum so loudly have any self-awareness at all, given the political positions of the Republican Party on LGBT issues.
The Human Rights Campaign issued a statement claiming that “What’s craziest about this ignorant, incomprehensible plan is that Donald Trump and Mike Pence would fail their own test,” because they met with evangelical Christian leaders who hold oppose same-sex marriage and favor allowing small business owners with religious objections to abstain from providing expressive services for same-sex marriages.
“Donald Trump and Mike Pence would fail their own test” not because they met with leaders of the hard-core, anti-equality Christian right, but instead because both share the views of the hard-core, anti-equality Christian right. There is little daylight between their views and the 2016 Republican Party platform.
posted by Doug on
I might be convinced to support Trump if he would promise to deport the strong majority of born-again evangelical christians who do not ‘pass’ his own test for immigrants.
posted by Jorge on
Good to know.
posted by TJ on
Yeah. TPP and his bottom bunk prison cell mate have made it clear; killing gays is wrong, except it’s what Christian fundamentalists decide to do it (sometimes indirectly & overseas)
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Along the line Stephen is arguing, Milo Yappiopoulos argues that TPP’s immigration plan is “the most pro-gay policy I’ve ever heard from a presidential hopeful”. I guess. TPP is the first Republican candidate for president that expressly and publically took the position that gays and lesbians shouldn’t be murdered in this country by radical Muslims, so within the circles in which Yappiopoulous moves, he’s got a point.
BTW, Yappiopoulos suggests that the TPP’s plan will test “ideological commitment to western values like women’s rights, gay rights, and religious pluralism”. I hadn’t heard about the “religious pluralism” leg of the plan, and I hope that it won’t upset the “The One Way, The One Truth, The One Light” theology embraced by many/most conservative Christians. Mention “religious pluralism” to most of that crowd, and bowels start to loosen.
posted by Jorge on
So we ask everyone entering the country about their views on lbgt rights? Why would anyone coming intending to commit violence against gay people answer that question honestly? They would just lie and we’d let them in.
That’s why we ask them their views on violence against lgbts stead of whether they personally intend to commit violence.
I also believe setting a clear expectation acts to change behavior. When, as the Bawer citation suggests, an expectation is set that personal displays of affection by gays are unacceptable in certain neighborhoods, it creates a change that allows violence against gays.
I don’t think that most moderate and progressives are unaware of the problems with Islamic fundamentalists….especially LGBT Muslims.
I think what bothers them is the hypocrisy and the unworkable, if not also a tad racist, solutions proposed.
First of all, I am not at all convinced that moderates and progressives see eye to eye on racism.
Second, I wish more progressives not named Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer would demonstrate that they take Islamic fundamentalism seriously.
I would trust that any progressive who is bothered by racism and unworkability would not support the Boycott, Divest, Sanction movement, which is both.
It is for this reason that I think people should wait for and debate the weaknesses rather than make accusations of insincerity, and incompetence, as these traits have far more to do with how far one is from the center than how far one is from the left. The immediate instinct to bare fangs and bite is that of a well heeled dog rather than that of a hunter.
As JohninCA correctly pointed out, we do not impose such a litmus test on Christian immigrants, and it would be a major change in immigration policy to do so.
Christian immigrants don’t turn Cuisinart into holy pressure cooker bombs or the 2nd Amendment into “Watch Out Behind You Hunter”.
In real life.
I’m sure Trump would have pointed this out, but even his sound bytes can’t offend everyone at once.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Christian immigrants don’t turn Cuisinart into holy pressure cooker bombs or the 2nd Amendment into “Watch Out Behind You Hunter”.
In a narrow sense, you are right. Like the Orlando shooter (born and raised in the United States), Christian terrorists (the Oklahoma bomber, the Sikh shooter, the Centennial Park bomber, the TVA Universalist Church shooter, the Planner Parenthood bombers and the various abortion doctor killers) were all, as far as I know, born in America, as were, to the best of my knowledge, the vast majority of self-professed Christians who engaged in garden variety anti-gay attacks on individuals over the years in hundreds of attacks across the country. Christian violence in this country so far is home-grown, not imported.
So far. Conservative Christians in many countries around the world are as virulently anti-gay as conservative Muslims, as virulent as the worst of the worst in our country. If we start importing them in any numbers, it is only a matter of time before an immigrant Christian perpetrates an act of mass violence against gays and lesbians, just as it is just a matter of time before and immigrant Muslim perpetrates an act of mass violence against gays and lesbians.
I agree with those who think that we should be vetting immigrants very carefully, more carefully than we have done in the past. I disagree with those who would vet Muslims carefully but ignore the threat from virulently anti-gay Christians, using a lesser standard. That strikes me as stupid, to say the least.
I would quietly point out, though, dog whistles to people like you aside, that TPP&P are not proposing “extreme vetting” just to weed out potential radical Islamic killers. TPP&P propose “extreme vetting” across the board (or, more accurately stated no exemptions to the process) and indicated that that “vetting” would be used to weed out potential immigrants who did not share and “ideological commitment to western values like women’s rights, gay rights, and religious pluralism”. That’s a major change in our immigration policy, and would keep out a relatively large number of immigrants of both the Muslim and Christian faiths. It might be a good thing, or it might not. But we should consider a major change like that carefully, and not use it to play political football.
I’m sure Trump would have pointed this out, but even his sound bytes can’t offend everyone at once.
Yeah, right. He was blowing a dog whistle, and you are hearing it loud and clear, I suspect.
posted by Jorge on
In a narrow sense, you are right.
Thank you. The sentiment is mutual.
I agree with those who think that we should be vetting immigrants very carefully, more carefully than we have done in the past. I disagree with those who would vet Muslims carefully but ignore the threat from virulently anti-gay Christians, using a lesser standard. That strikes me as stupid, to say the least.
Hmm! What about other forms of virulent prejudice? We let Palestinians in this country, and I don’t imagine all of them would pass the BDS test, or whatever test would be relevant. And certainly there’s very little history of Palestinian terrorism in the west. Or anti-social behavior of any sort.
I disagree with those who would vet Muslims carefully but ignore the threat from virulently anti-gay Christians, using a lesser standard. That strikes me as stupid, to say the least.
Yes, that seems logical. If it were about national security alone, I would still say only terrorism is a threat to the country. But we cannot be concerned with just terrorism.
posted by Houndentenor on
Again, why would they answer that question honestly if they knew that the wrong answer meant they wouldn’t be allowed in. I do understand the issue that allowing in immigrants that do not value our religious diversity and the rights of women and lbgt people is a problem. I just don’t know how you screen for that in a way that people can’t be coached to pass. The very idea that terrorists would honestly answer such questions is absurd.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Again, why would they answer that question honestly if they knew that the wrong answer meant they wouldn’t be allowed in. I do understand the issue that allowing in immigrants that do not value our religious diversity and the rights of women and lbgt people is a problem. I just don’t know how you screen for that in a way that people can’t be coached to pass. The very idea that terrorists would honestly answer such questions is absurd.
Of course.
A sensible screening process and background check (which we now use, as a matter of fact) involves much more than a questionnaire — biometric screening, biographical checks, NCC/TSC, TECS and Interpol screening, multiple interviews and credibility screening, CBC vetting, and on and on.
The change proposed by TPP&P does not eliminate any of these processes. The change TPP&P is proposing to is establish “values” criteria (checking for “ideological commitment to western values like women’s rights, gay rights, and religious pluralism”) in addition to “risk” criteria.
That’s a major change in our immigration process, and it is (if actually implemented, which I doubt will ever happen, even if TPP&P are elected) almost certain to disqualify immigrants from just about anywhere outside of the Americas and Western Europe from entry, and the political process of defining what constitutes “ideological commitment to western values like women’s rights, gay rights, and religious pluralism” is dead certain to create an enormous political fight between left, center and right in this country.
Do religious adherents who believe that women should tend the home rather than enter the workplace have such an “ideological commitment”? Do religious adherents who believe that sodomy laws should be reinstated have such an “ideological commitment”? How about religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and want to see Obergefell overturned? How about religious adherents who believe that our Constitution should conform to “God’s Law”? It goes on and on. The list goes on and on and on …
I’m not sure that we should impose any ideological test (would we be a “nation of immigrants” if our ancestors had been subjected to such a test), but I am sure that we shouldn’t be playing political football with a proposal to make a major change in the nature of our immigration process.
posted by Jorge on
Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing that makes Glenn Beck think electing Trump will doom this country.
I think it would align quite well with the goal of bringing in more highly skilled (and educated) immigrants instead of using the familial system.
I think imposing an ideological test of the “right to swing your fist until it hits my face” kind of pluralism is a fundamentally good idea. You are focused too much on the application of our nation’s principles to particular cases and controversies. There can and should be many different views on specific applications, such as whether upholding the First Amendment means there should be a separation between church and state. That the government should treat all religion equally is more basic and important.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You are focused too much on the application of our nation’s principles to particular cases and controversies.
Lawyers do that … challenge grand principles by looking at the application of the principles through specific fact situations, looking at situation after situation and seeing what would happen. The method exposes unintended consequences, and disrobes bloviating that sounds good until you look at how it would actually work. I almost always respond to grand statements of principle by asking specific questions, by pointing out specific consequences.
I’m focusing on the anti-gay aspects and the supposed contrast between “bad Muslims” and “good Christians” because Stephen, LCR, Yappiopoulous and other homocons are pounding the “TPP&P will keep gays and lesbians from being thrown off rooftops by Muslim immigrants …” meme so hard, ignoring entirely the fact that their immigration litmus test would also exclude a lot of Christians. The foolishness of the litmus test is clearly illustrated by looking how such a test would exclude many of our current “good Christian” citizens from immigrating if it applied to them.
Almost any level of analysis of TPP&P’s “western values” test serves to point out that TPP&P are blowing it out their asses on this issue, or, as Kosh III so aptly put it, the proposal is “just more dog whistles and red meat to his devotees who believe anything he says and reject all criticism of the candidate”.
posted by Jorge on
Almost any level of analysis of TPP&P’s “western values” test serves to point out that TPP&P are blowing it out their asses on this issue, or, as Kosh III so aptly put it, the proposal is “just more dog whistles and red meat to his devotees who believe anything he says and reject all criticism of the candidate”.
I think it is equally likely that such a criticism biases the views of educated people over the views of uneducated people who simply want a plain-spoken focus on right vs. wrong.
“Justice is an abstract ideological concept. We deal with tangible realities not justice.” (Power Rangers RPM)
No
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think imposing an ideological test of the “right to swing your fist until it hits my face” kind of pluralism is a fundamentally good idea.
You might want to think about that, Jorge. It is an aphorism that found its way into a SCOTUS decision, but as always, the devil is in the details. How does it square with conservative Christian insistence that Obergefell was wrongly decided and should be overturned, for example? How does it square with granting conservative Christians a special, government-sanctioned license to discriminate against gays and lesbians when operating a business serving the public-at-large?
In my opinion, we should think long and hard before we start imposing ideological litmus tests for immigration. How many of our ancestors would have passed an ideological litmus test when they immigrated to this country?
It is usually the second generation than becomes fully “Americanized”, not the immigrants themselves. And many of our citizens elect not to become “Americanized” in certain respects, to stand apart and sharply critical of “American values”, even after many generations in this country. I think that’s a good thing.
America’s great strength is that it is a nation of many ideas and many viewpoints, jockeying in the political arena that we call (wrongly) “democracy”. The last thing we want to do, it seems to me, is to become like the Swiss, homogenized into a bland and tasteless conformity.
posted by Jorge on
How does it square with conservative Christian insistence that Obergefell was wrongly decided and should be overturned, for example?
I already answered that.
You are focused too much on the application of our nation’s principles to particular cases and controversies. There can and should be many different views on specific applications.
America’s great strength is that it is a nation of many ideas and many viewpoints
Exactly. You draw the line at tolerance for intolerance.
How does it square with conservative Christian insistence that Obergefell was wrongly decided and should be overturned, for example? How does it square with granting conservative Christians a special, government-sanctioned license to discriminate against gays and lesbians when operating a business serving the public-at-large?
You do not, however, draw the line in such a way that you ban religious conscience and require people to participate in foreign religious ceremonies. You are much, much, much too hung up on marriage, Tom.
posted by JohnInCA on
You are focused too much on the application of our nation’s principles to particular cases and controversies. There can and should be many different views on specific applications.
I’m curious how you would apply an ideological litmus test without doing that. If you don’t ask specific questions, and only speak in language that wouldn’t be out of place in a fortune cookie, then your test is useless.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You are focused too much on the application of our nation’s principles to particular cases and controversies. There can and should be many different views on specific applications.
No, I’m not. If we are going to include “values vetting” in our immigration screening, we are going to have to ask questions about particular cases and controversies, and in order to do so, we are going to have to define what we mean by “those who share our values and respect our people” and by “support bigotry and hatred” (to use TPP’s phrasing), or by “western values like women’s rights, gay rights, and religious pluralism” (to use TPP surrogate Yappiopoulous’s phrasing).
In short, we are going to have to develop objective standards on which to base the decision, standards that will withstand court testing, and that will require us to “focus on the application of our nation’s principles to particular cases and controversies”.
And that’s the rub. We are going to have to think about “our values” rather than just invoke them in patriotic mantras, and we are going to have to draw lines.
What do we mean by “women’s rights”, exactly? Where do we draw the line between an applicant who supports “women’s rights” and one who doesn’t? What questions do we use to elicit that information? Ditto for “gay rights” and “religious pluralism” and whatever else we define as “western values”. What are “our values”, and what does it mean to “respect our people”?
“Values Vetting”, extreme or not, opens up a can of worms the like we haven’t seen in a while.
I quietly invite you to read the questions we ask potential citizens and notice that none of them are ideological in nature. In my view, that is as it should be. The last thing we need to do is to start imposing ideological litmus tests for citizenship, or, for that matter, for immigration.
posted by Jorge on
If we are going to include “values vetting” in our immigration screening, we are going to have to ask questions about particular cases and controversies
Why?
I quietly invite you to read the questions we ask potential citizens and notice that none of them are ideological in nature.
We’ve established that already.
posted by JohnInCA on
“Why?”
Well, do you want the “test” to be useful, or a feel-good measure?
If you just want a feel-good measure, then give them an internet quiz where everyone turns out to be Cleopatra reincarnated.
If you want to find out if they actually believe in religious pluralism? Then you have to ask questions that puts that belief to the test.
For example, if you ask most people if the government should stop a church from holding mass and equivalent regular meetings, most people will say “of course not, that’d be horrible! The government should never interfer in a church like that!”
Then ask them about Satanists holding “Black Mass”.
As we saw this past April in Oklahoma City, suddenly a whole bunch of people that would never say the government should interfere with a church’s religious practices are calling out for the government to shut down a church.
If you don’t ask the specific questions, then the answers you get are pretty useless.
posted by Jorge on
Then ask them about Satanists holding “Black Mass”.
Why should the government discriminate in favor of Satanists by even asking such a question?
posted by JohnInCA on
We went over this. Because an ideological test that doesn’t test is useless.
This isn’t complicated.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: If we are going to include “values vetting” in our immigration screening, we are going to have to ask questions about particular cases and controversies.
Jorge: Why?
Because, to quote the parts of the comment you elected to ignore:
It is not sufficient for an INS decision-maker to look someone in the eyes and see their soul, as President Bush II did with Putin. INS decisions need to be based on information, and how else can an INS decision-maker obtain information about what someone believes or doesn’t except by asking questions?
Tom: I quietly invite you to read the questions we ask potential citizens and notice that none of them are ideological in nature.
Jorge: We’ve established that already.
So you would propose different criteria and set a higher standard for immigration than for citizenship?
posted by Jorge on
In short, we are going to have to develop objective standards on which to base the decision, standards that will withstand court testing, and that will require us to “focus on the application of our nation’s principles to particular cases and controversies”.
That’s still not an explanation of why the objective standards has to go so far as to ask not only if they believe in a certain value, but if they would believe in applying it a certain way.
And as for court testing, how much rights do people who have never entered this country have?
Well, do you want the “test” to be useful, or a feel-good measure?
First things first, the total ban on Muslim immigrants would be both useful and characterized by high amounts of error for the sake of presentation. This would create in my estimation a 99% false positive rate (bad) and a 10-% false negative rate (good) of people likely to be threats to national security. I reject as target blind any criticism that this is an inappropriate position to start from regardless of whether or not there are viable alternatives.
The question then becomes whether there are viable alternatives, whether continuing the status quo is one of the viable alternatives, and whether we can improve upon the status quo. I believe the answer to all three questions is yes.
posted by JohnInCA on
In “real life”, almost no one commits acts of terrorism or other mass violence.
I’m more likely to be struck by lightning, multiple times, then to do in an act of terrorism. And if I’m to die in an act of terrorism? More likely that it’s from a Christian born-American then a Muslim (immigrant or otherwise).
This is all just more fear-mongering.
posted by TJ on
I suspect that the bulk of the reported violent hate crimes against LGBT people in America have come from Christians.
Yes, I realize that many of these crimes don’t get widely reported. I realize that far more lives were devastated at the nightclub shooting, then a “standard” attack on “da queers”.
posted by Kosh III on
Trump doesn’t really plan to do this, it’s just more dog whistles and red meat to his devotees who believe anything he says and reject all criticism of the candidate.
Jesus said “and if the blind lead the blind, they both shall fall into the ditch. “
posted by Bumba from Wakumba on
“In the U.K., an ICM poll revealed that more than half of Muslims disagree with homosexuality being legal in Britain.”
This 2011 poll shows that more than half of Republicans (52%) opposed homosexuality being legal in the United States as well:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147785/support-legal-gay-relations-hits-new-high.aspx
According to these numbers, U.S. Republicans are just like British Muslims in their opposition to the legality of homosexual conduct. It is therefore perfectly accurate to point out that most conservatives would not pass an immigration test that required support for gay rights.
The only ones in denial therefore are gay conservatives, in denial of the fact that U.S. evangelicals, far beyond merely opposing same-sex marriage, have historically opposed all forms of gay rights, including rights regarding homosexual conduct, adoption, custody, protection in housing, employment and public accomodations, military service, anti-bullying laws, as well as to visibility in the arts and entertainment. They have impeded responding adequately to the AIDS epidemic, twisted scientific data to claim that homosexuals are bad parents, and to this day try to associate gay men with pedophilia (http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf). Meanwhile, American Muslims, unlike their British counterparts, are more accepting of same-sex marriage (and therefore of homosexuality) than U.S. Evangelicals:
https://reason.com/blog/2016/06/13/in-america-muslims-are-more-likely-to-su
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Another threat to Republican home and hearth: Lesbian Hillbillies take over Iowa.
posted by TJ on
“Hillbilly Lesbians” almost sounds like the title of some low budget, sleepy exploitative film from the 1970s.