Increasingly, there is no longer an LGBT rights movement. Clearly, the gay rights movement of the 70s, which became the lesbian and gay rights movement of the 80s and 90s, is gone—for the most part, a victim of its own success after the victories for military inclusion and marriage equality.
Today, there’s an archly politically correct transgender movement that’s focused on bathroom access (a legitimate issue greatly magnified by both sides, with few documented cases of actual discrimination in practice beyond the controversy around minors in public schools) and correct pronouns (often taken to ridiculous extremes). And there’s the Democratic party’s ongoing crusade to recruit LGBT votes and dollars by any means at hand. For the most part, the LGBT media has been thoroughly co-opted into this endeavor.
Lately, reading the Washington Blade is akin to reading The Onion, except that the latter often makes more sense. A few recent examples.
Headline: Trump makes ‘religious liberty’ a priority at anti-LGBT confab.
Excerpt:
Donald Trump didn’t make any explicit anti-LGBT remarks during his speech Friday at the Values Voter Summit, but loaded his remarks with coded language on “religious liberty” to indicate support for undermining LGBT rights.
The meme that religious liberty and the right to religious dissent are not only unacceptable anti-state activity but the worst kind of bigotry is thoroughly entrenched in the left-thought of the day. This, of course, all goes to forcing independent business owners to provide creative services to same-sex weddings, which, along with gender-appropriate pronouns, has become the dominant cause of what presents itself as the LGBT rights movement. That so many of the progressive mindset can’t, or won’t, see how ugly and authoritarian this has become is a sad commentary on moral corruption that dresses itself in the self-righteous narcissism of the politically correct and morally superior, fighting the “bigots” who won’t do as the progressive state decrees, clinging to their false superstitions and mistaken beliefs that individuals have a right not to be compelled to violate their “faith” principles.
Another headline: ID laws may ‘disenfranchise’ 34,000 trans voters.
Excerpt:
More than 34,000 transgender Americans in eight states could be prevented from voting in the November 2016 election because of strict voter identification laws that require voters to present government-issued photo IDs at the polls, according to a newly released report.
Just as, apparently, transgender persons can also no longer fly on airplanes or enter government buildings, since government-issued ID is also required for these activities. The fact that this big lie against voter ID is used with such unembarrassed impunity tells you all you need to know about the dishonesty of the contemporary progressive left and the degree to which LGBT activism and media have sunken down into the muck.
More. No voter fraud in the U.S. to speak of, Democrats say with a straight face. Of course, they know the truth. Corruption all round.
23 Comments for “BladeWatch”
posted by TJ on
Well, their have always been political and strategy disagreements within the gay civil rights movement.
Apparently, a gay group endorsed Nixon in the early 1970s, while another group backed McGovern.
Harvey Milk was -initially -seen as being too strategically aggressive and too progressive by the local, established gay community.
In the 1950s, some gay groups decided to ban members with ties to the Communist party, given that it was the Cold War.
Some gay groups worked heavily with willing faith based groups and mental health doctors. Some didn’t want to do that.
posted by TJ on
I think that it’s entirely possible that transgender people could have a problem voting or getting a drivers liscense.
It would depend on the applicable law and whether or not someone wanted to try and hassle transgender voters.
The U.S. Supreme court implied in certain oral arguments that restricting the political liberty of gay citizens could raise some Constitutional issues….but it’s unclear about that, or with gender identity restrictions.
posted by Houndentenor on
Anything to ignore the extreme anti-gay GOP platform passed at the convention.
If you don’t like that gay people are too cozy with Democrats, then do something about the anti-gay positions and candidates in the Republican party. Where I live every Republican primary is a contest to see which candidates can be more extreme in their anti-gay and anti-trans positions. That’s the reality. Come visit the red state, Stephen, and see why so many of us hate Republicans so much. They work hard to deserve my disgust.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
When you explain why business owners who hold religious objections to same-sex marriage should be exempted from non-discrimination laws, but business owners who hold religious objections interracial, interfaith, and inter-denominational weddings, and to remarriages after divorce should not be exempted, then we have something to discuss.
When you explain why religious objections to weddings are important enough to be covered by “religious freedom” laws, but other religious practices and/or objections are not important enough to protect by those laws, then we have something to discuss.
When you explain why “creative services” provided by business owners are worthy of protection under the rubric of “religious freedom”, but other services provided by business owners are not, then we have something to discuss.
When you explain why the Sherbert/Yoder test (substantial burden, compelling state interest, least restrictive means), embodied in the federal RFRA, is not sufficient to protect religious freedom of business owners, and why it is important to eliminate the “substantial burden” test in the case of religious objection to same-sex marriage but in no other case, then we have something to discuss.
Until then, there is nothing to discuss, except to point out (yet again) that the so-called “religious freedom” laws are, in almost all cases, thinly disguised attempts to sanction discrimination against gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone. Read them if you doubt.
In the last few years, “religious freedom” has become a latter-day replacement for the term “states rights” as that term was commonly used during the Civil Rights era, code language for government sanctioned discrimination.
It is a shame, and a disgusting development, to see “religious freedom” devalued for political purposes in this way. Religious freedom is important and worth defending, not devaluing.
As an aside about another matter, 78 days and counting, 35 days remaining.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Let me correctly format the preceding comment:
When you explain why business owners who hold religious objections to same-sex marriage should be exempted from non-discrimination laws, but business owners who hold religious objections interracial, interfaith, and inter-denominational weddings, and to remarriages after divorce should not be exempted, then we have something to discuss.
When you explain why religious objections to weddings are important enough to be covered by “religious freedom” laws, but other religious practices and/or objections are not important enough to protect by those laws, then we have something to discuss.
When you explain why “creative services” provided by business owners are worthy of protection under the rubric of “religious freedom”, but other services provided by business owners are not, then we have something to discuss.
When you explain why the Sherbert/Yoder test (substantial burden, compelling state interest, least restrivtive means), embodied in the federal RFRA, is not sufficient to protect religious freedom of business owners, and why it is important to eliminate the “substantial burden” test in the case of religious objection to same-sex marriage but in no other case, then we have something to discuss.
Until then, there is nothing to discuss, except to point out (yet again) that the so-called “religious freedom” laws are, in almost all cases, thinly disquised attempts to sanction discrimination against gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone. Read them if you doubt.
In the last few years, “religious freedom” has become a latter-day replacement for the term “states rights” as that term was commonly used during the Civil Rights era, code language for government sanctioned discrimination.
It is a shame, and a disgusting development, to see “religious freedom” devalued for political purposes in this way. Religious freedom is important and worth defending, not devaluing.
posted by TJ on
My boyfriend grew up in Western-Central Minnesota. Minnesota is fairly blue/purple in Duluth or the twin cities region. Less so elsewhere.
He says that (if you live locally) your political options are generally a very rabid racist, anti-gay/anti-transgender Republican and a moderate Blue Dog Democrat who is marginally better.
Michelle Bachman represented a chunk of central Minnesota in Congress for years.
Progressive Democrats rarely bother running locally. The rare third party or Independent candidate is more to the right of the GOP candidate.
The rightwing and theocratic Constitution Party had some traction in the region….along with conspiracy theories about a Islamic Illuminati
So, in this situation who are LGBT and allied people suppose to vote for?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Just as, apparently, transgender persons can also no longer fly on airplanes or enter government buildings, since government-issued ID is also required for these activities. The fact that this big lie against voter ID is used with such unembarrassed impunity tells you all you need to know about the dishonesty of the contemporary progressive left and the degree to which LGBT activism and media have sunken down into the muck.
For those interested in facts rather than bitch-slap sarcasm, applicable federal and state laws are available at the National Center for Transgender Equality website.
It might be illuminating to check the laws in your state. In Wisconsin, where I live, getting Wisconsin ID conforming to name and gender is not simple:
I have a friend who went through the process about two years ago, and it took almost a year to complete the process.
I don’t know how many transgender Wisconsinites will be affected for this election. I do know that Wisconsin is under close scrutiny by the federal courts, and the DMV (which issues Wisconsin ID, both driver’s licenses and state identity cards) is boffing the job of issuing Wisconsin ID in a timely manner at this point, according to the Wisconsin State Journal and a filing in the federal lawsuit. Transgender issues are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to disenfranchising voters in Wisconsin.
posted by Jorge on
Increasingly, there is no longer an LGBT rights movement.
Cheer-cheer! Gay pride (lesbian, bisexual transgender, queer, and straight allies) forever!
Just as, apparently, transgender persons can also no longer fly on airplanes or enter government buildings, since government-issued ID is also required for these activities. The fact that this big lie against voter ID is used with such unembarrassed impunity tells you all you need to know about the dishonesty of the contemporary progressive left and the degree to which LGBT activism and media have sunken down into the muck.
“‘Transgender people who have transitioned face additional burdens to acquiring or updating identification that would fulfill voter ID requirements because they must comply with requirements for updating the name and gender on their state-issue or federally issued IDs and records,’ according to the report. ‘Requirements for updating state-issued IDs vary widely by state and can be difficult and costly.'”
I realize I’m displaying my privilege, but if someone is able to obtain difficult and costly gender reassignment surgery, and all the pre-op visits that entails, it shouldn’t be that difficult to follow through on obtaining updated government identification.
Similarly, if someone is able to simply transition, it shouldn’t be that difficult to simply obtain a new photograph. In other news of the privileged, comfortable, and suffering, I waited five years between my last two dental appointments and I’m worried I’ll have to pay out of pocket what with all the work I’ll have to get done. Oh, boo-hoo, I’m being disenfranchised out of my insurance coverage!
posted by Houndentenor on
You are missing the point. Some states do not allow you to change your gender on any state documents, including driver’s licenses and other forms of ID. That is a problem if they want to vote in states with voter ID laws.
posted by Jorge on
I don’t follow.
An ID is a name and a picture. Change your picture and change your name. Why not obey the law and lie?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
An ID is a name and a picture. Change your picture and change your name.
When was the last time you renewed your driver’s license? Are you in compliance with REAL ID?
You seem to think that obtaining a gender-conforming, name-conforming, photo-conforming driver’s license is a trivial matter, and this despite the fact that you say you’ve checked the law in your state.
I don’t know what state you live in, but let me walk you through the process in Wisconsin.
Step 1: Obtain a court order confirming your change of name and gender.
Step 2: If you are US-born, armed with the court order, apply for a state-issued amended birth certificate. If you are not US-born, armed with the court order, apply for amended N-550 or N-560 naturalization documents.
Step 3: Armed with the court order and the state-issued amended birth certificate or N-550/560, apply for a change in your Social Security status, conforming your name and gender in social security records, and issuance of a new Social Security card.
Step 4: Armed with your state-issued amended birth certificate or N-550/560 naturalization documents (to prove citizenship), your new Social Security card (to prove identity), bank statements and or other proof of address and Wisconsin residency, apply for a new driver’s license, and wait for the license to be mailed to the address on the license.
Now think about that for a minute, Jorge. The process is likely to take about a year to complete, and what happens during the middle of the process? Can you vote or not?
posted by Houndentenor on
Jorge is not stupid which means he’s being willfully ignorant on this issue. You are right. What he suggests is in violation of the law in many states. If you can’t change your sex on your documents, including IDs like a driver’s license, you certainly cannot show up presenting as a different sex than what your ID says. Of course anyone with any sense could see the problems with this (including law enforcement problems with a person looking now nothing like their state issued ID). But no. He doesn’t want to see it, so he doesn’t.
posted by Jorge on
You seem to think that obtaining a gender-conforming, name-conforming, photo-conforming driver’s license is a trivial matter
Stop. Wait. Hold it.
Who said I even bought the notion that a gender-conforming ID is a right? You’re gonna have to sell that one. What’s wrong with keeping it photo-conforming? I think such a thing should be presented to a court. And I don’t think that’s too much to ask so long as one can get a photo-conforming ID. I don’t think it’s too much to ask of someone to obey the law and get a photo-right, gender-wrong ID even if it is a lie. If you don’t want to obey the law, then don’t complain if you don’t like the fact that consequences mean you do not get to vote. The government has a point. Get the court order and apply it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m not sure whether you are displaying your “privilege” or your lack of knowledge. I am certain that you are trivializing the process — typically lengthy and difficult — of changing birth certificates, naturalization documents, social security records, passports and identity cards, among the many other things (e.g. veteran’s records) that are necessary to document the transition. Again, I would suggest that you check the laws in your state before you continue to rattle on.
Obviously, it can be done. Equally obviously, it can’t be done overnight.
posted by Jorge on
I have. Your state isn’t much more burdensome than mine. If there’s something concrete you wish to make of the process I am open to hearing it.
A year, as you say, is in my view insignificant for so vast a change, especially since, in the meantime, you can simply change your picture and remain officially known by your old name.
That leaves the expense argument, and I stand by what I said. If you can afford gender reassignment therapy or hormone therapy, I really don’t want to hear complaints that you can’t afford new documents.
posted by Houndentenor on
The state won’t give them new documents. That’s the point. You’re looking incredibly stupid right now.
posted by Jorge on
In fact I shall go one or ten steps further.
A change in the gender or name through which one votes for public officials is precisely the sort of thing dramatic enough to require some sort of verification that this is actually the same voter. I cannot believe people are actually arguing that it is some sort of disenfranchisement or oppression towards transgender people to require ID to vote. This has it exactly backwards. Instead of saying that transgender people should not be required to get IDs, people who concern themselves with such things should be notifying people of their civic duty.
I have had enough of this stupid controversy. LGBT activists have no business getting involved in the voter ID debate.
posted by Jorge on
If you don’t like that gay people are too cozy with Democrats, then do something about the anti-gay positions and candidates in the Republican party.
I would be much more inclined to do support saying, as Trump has to other communities, “I’m from big business and I’m here to help you.”
In the last few years, “religious freedom” has become a latter-day replacement for the term “states rights” as that term was commonly used during the Civil Rights era, code language for government sanctioned discrimination…
The tired old argument has put on a pair of shiny boots. Too bad the feet still stink.
For those interested in facts rather than bitch-slap sarcasm
Ouch!
So, in this situation who are LGBT and allied people suppose to vote for?
There’s been times when I’ve written in No.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As a side note, I am glad to see that mainstream media (in this case Politico is beginning to recognize a topic that has heretofore been discussed only in the Jewish press. My view is that the mainstreaming of overt anti-Semitism is a direct result of the mainstreaming of the Alt-Right.
posted by TJ on
1. The LGBT/Allied movement still exists, and is still needed in America.
2. Said movement has always had (large and small and regional) disagreements over strategy and politics.
3. TPP and his VP don’t object to the GOP platform, don’t believe in religious liberty and have been pandering to people who hate/fear people who are different (especially blacks and Hispanics and Jews and Muslims)
posted by TJ on
BTW, the Blade is an OK “gay rag”, but it ain’t the reason why the Republican party platform still opposed equal rights and religious freedom.
It ain’t the reason why the GOP presidential ticket opposes equal rights and religious freedom.
It ain’t the reason why the GOP presidential ticket is appealing to David Duke and Neo Nazis.
posted by Craig Young on
Some would say that there is a difference between meaningful religious freedom and religious liberty. Religious freedom is about the right to freedom of religious worship, assembly, doctrine, speech and broad areas of religious practice. However, if the latter causes harm to others, then it can legitimately be contained. Not to do so is religious liberty, which believes that merely because one poses as a religious social conservative, one should have the right to exemption from antidiscrimination laws when it comes to employment, accomodation or goods and services provision. Certainly, religious groups should be able to choose who to marry or not to marry, or who to ordain or not to ordain, but when it comes to secular employment, their beliefs collide with the rights of others.
posted by TJ on
All credible research says that actual amount of voter fraud is almost non existent.
In terms of election law problems; Its much, much more likely that 1. A third party candidate will be unfairly kept off the election ballot, 2. Voting equipment being outdated or insecure. 3. Someone will vandalize someone’s yard sign.