When Conservative Supreme Justices Revolt

CNN has been carrying pieces looking at the the just finished term of the U.S. Supreme Court and the manner in which two justices, Gorsuch and Roberts delivered decisions that will prove to be on the right side of morality and history but which caused apoplexy among Christofascists and others in the far right. Gorsuch's majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County which extended non-discrimination protectons to the LGBT community is perhaps the best example.  A piece in The Atlantic looks further into the failure of conservative justices to rule as demanded by Der Trumpenfurhrer and those demanding special rights for far right Christians.   While defeats at the Court may not lessen evangelical ardor for Trump on a wide scale - further proof of their moral bankruptcy - the just ended term must have a few believing they were betrayed by Trump's appointees.  Here are article excerpts:

Until two months ago, Leonard Leo was among the unambiguous winners of the Trump era. The bookish lawyer and architect of the conservative legal movement has spent the past three and a half years executing his decades-long vision of remaking the federal judiciary—he was instrumental in the Supreme Court appointments of Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. But during the Court’s term this summer, an old conservative nightmare recurred: Republican-appointed justices, including Gorsuch, aligned with their liberal colleagues on big, consequential decisions about immigration, abortion, and LGBTQ protections.

In recent decades, conservative justices have consistently moved to the left once reaching the bench: Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan, routinely cast the deciding vote against social conservatives on gay rights. Conservative-movement stalwarts have never forgiven David Souter, the George H. W. Bush appointee, for voting to uphold the constitutional right to abortion in the 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey, or for siding with his liberal colleagues in the battle over the 2000 presidential election, Bush v. Gore. Leo spent his career building a conservative legal machine in Washington that would forestall this kind of leftward drift among Supreme Court justices. But this summer, the machine began to sputter.

Leo’s greatest strategic success, perhaps, has been convincing Donald Trump of his methodology: He helped Trump craft a list of potential Supreme Court nominees during the 2016 presidential campaign, which Trump widely advertised to demonstrate his conservative bona fides, and, in less than four years, Leo has shepherded 200 judges to their confirmation on the federal bench. But the president—and his supporters—made a pact premised on results. If even Leo can’t guarantee conservatives the rulings they crave, can Trump?

Conservative-movement activists were frustrated by setbacks at the Court this term, even going so far as to question Trump’s judicial vetting process. But Leo is taking the long view, arguing that his movement’s philosophical overhaul of the judiciary will yield dividends for years to come.

As they did for Trump’s other Supreme Court prospects, Leo and his team reviewed Gorsuch’s record for what they saw as independence and fearlessness. “His judicial record demonstrates a faithful commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law,” Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said at Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing. “He has refused to litigate his own policy preferences from the bench.” In mid-June, however, Gorsuch shocked conservatives by writing the opinion in one of the biggest cases of the term, consolidated under Bostock v. Clayton County, arguing that federal civil-rights law protects LGBTQ employees from discriminatory practices. . . . . Backed by Chief Justice John Roberts and all four of the Court’s liberals, Gorsuch wrote that he reached his decision in favor of LGBTQ rights using textualism, the conservative judicial philosophy. “It’s no contest,” he wrote. “Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.”

Leading conservative lawyers in Washington were shocked. . . . . Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, who wrote a glowing CNN op-ed in support of Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court, decried Bostock on the Senate floor as a flashing sign of danger for religious conservatives, who fear that extending civil-rights protections to LGBTQ people will threaten their freedom of conscience. “If this case makes anything clear, it is that the bargain that has been offered to religious conservatives for years now is a bad one,” Hawley said. In exchange for going along with the conservative establishment, religious voters are promised judges who will protect their rights, he said, but those judges consistently fall short.

Bostock was just the beginning of bruising conservative defeats during this term. In June Medical Services v. Russo, the Court’s first big case on abortion since Trump was elected, Roberts cast the deciding vote to strike down a Louisiana law that regulated abortion providers. This was a “disaster,” Hawley tweeted. “It is a big-time wake up call to religious conservatives.

As the term produced one defeat after another—on abortion, LGBTQ rights, immigration, and tribal affairs, conservative justices leading the way each time—the sniping from conservative commentators grew more pronounced. If these are the conclusions a majority-conservative Court comes to, they asked, is the conservative legal machine really as effective as Leo and his allies have claimed?

Trump has spent the past month making the case that religious conservatives need him to protect their legal rights. “If the Radical Left Democrats assume power, your Second Amendment, Right to Life, Secure Borders, and … Religious Liberty, among many other things, are OVER and GONE!” he tweeted. He promised to release a new list of potential Supreme Court nominees by September 1, and added the current justices to a long list of his political enemies: “Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?” he tweeted. Like [Trump] the president they support, religious conservatives are likely discontent with this term at the nation’s high court. And yet, their defeats may only redouble their commitment to supporting [Trump] the president.

"Religious Liberty" - The Christofascists' Euphemism for the Mistreatment of Others

Aided by the Trump/Pence regime Christofascists have worked to conflate the terms "religious liberty" and "religious freedom" as part of their demand that they have special rights and privileges, not the least of which is carte blanche to discriminate against and to mistreat others.  Sadly, much of the mainstream media has given cover for such self-centered hate merchants by using these two terms and failing to describe the Christofascists' agenda for what it is: the right to discriminate at will and to be above the laws that govern the rest of us.  The same holds true for referring to these people as "Christian conservatives" rather than as bigots or those who embrace ignorance in the face of modern knowledge.  Today's Supreme Court ruling will hopefully shine a spotlight on the dis-ingenuousness of the Christofascists' word game and their continued demand that they be put above the law - something the Founders never contemplated. A piece in the Washington Post looks at more of this Christofascist effort to conflate religious freedom with unvarnished bigotry and often outright hatred of others.  Here are article excerpts:

In a landmark decision on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal law barring employment discrimination on the basis of sex also applies to sexuality and gender identity.

The decision was also met with alarm by several religious conservatives who fear what it could eventually mean for their [right to discriminate] religious freedom and how it could affect faith-based employers, including religious health-care providers, religious schools and social services operated by religious groups.

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, wrote that the ruling will make it harder for employers to operate according to their sincerely held beliefs.

The court’s 6-to-3 decision, written by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, was met with surprise because Gorsuch’s appointment by President Trump had spurred delight among social conservatives.

Some, including Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professor Andrew Walker and conservative commentator Erick Erickson, argued that Monday’s decision undercuts an argument from some Trump supporters that religious conservatives will vote for him based on his Supreme Court picks.

However, the court did not settle religious liberty questions in its Monday decision.

But worries about how Title VII may intersect with religious liberty are nothing new; they even predate the statute’s passage,” Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.

The court combined two cases to consider whether gay workers are protected under the law. Attorneys for the two employers involved in Monday’s decision were not arguing the cases on religious grounds. In one of the cases, the owner of a Michigan funeral home had argued under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in a lower court but lost. It did not raise that argument in the appeal to the Supreme Court.

In 2012, the Supreme Court protected religious organizations from discrimination lawsuits brought by certain employees who are considered “ministers” of the faith. Two cases pending before the court concern whether teachers at parochial schools who do not primarily teach religion are among those who can’t sue.

While religious conservatives voiced concern, progressive faith leaders expressed support for the LGBT workers who won the case.

“Too often employers overstep the boundaries of personal religious freedom — the right to believe as we choose — to impose their beliefs on others through staffing decisions and workplace culture,” Katy Joseph, director of policy and advocacy at Interfaith Alliance, wrote in a statement. “Turning away LGBTQ+ job applicants and employees, or terminating their employment due to their identity, isn’t religious freedom — it’s discrimination.”

The Fairness for All Act, introduced last year in Congress, tried to reconcile nondiscrimination protections for people who are LGBT with protections for people of faith. It had the backing of groups such as the National Association of Evangelicals and the American Unity Fund.

Monday’s decision could kill those legislative efforts, said Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School.

“This will end all legislative bargaining over religious liberty in the gay-rights context,” Laycock wrote in an email. “There is no longer a deal to be had in which Congress passes a gay-rights law with religious exemptions; the religious side has nothing left to offer.”

Mayor Pete’s Gay Reckoning

Win or lose in Iowa tomorrow, Pete Buttigieg has been a groundbreaking candidate and, in many ways, is emblematic of the situation that so many in the LGBT community find themselves experiencing.  Namely, their sexual orientation does not define who they are, yet others - especially the Christofascists and Republicans who prostitute themselves to them - strive to define us with a broad, negative brush.   Sadly, not all in the LGBT community (foolishly, in my view) respect Buttigieg and complain that he's "not gay enough" or that he's too socially moderate.  In reality, many of the members of the LGBT community I know fall in the socially liberal, fiscally moderate, and progressive categories  - much like Buttigieg.  As for black voters, while they claim homophobia doesn't drive their failure to embrace Buttigieg more, I think they doth protest too much as they cling to a more conservative version of Christianity that white society has used throughout America's history to control minorities.  A column in New York Times looks at Buttigieg's groundbreaking role.  Here are excerpts:

You can listen to long stretches of Pete Buttigieg’s remarks and hear little or no reference to the trailblazing nature of his campaign. You can almost forget.

But as he wrapped up a rally here on Thursday night, with the clock ticking down fast to the Iowa caucuses, he made soaring, stirring mention of it. You remembered.

“Iowa has a remarkable knack for making history,” he told hundreds of supporters, noting that he’d initially visited the state to support Barack Obama during the Democratic primary in 2008, when Obama’s Iowa victory set him on his way. “You changed America’s — and the world’s — expectations for what was possible.”

Then he alluded to Iowa’s legalization of gay marriage in 2009, six years before that happened nationally, and how it gave him hope that he might someday “be a happily married man.” The crowd roared. I had one foot out the door — it had been a long, long day — and I stopped in my tracks. As a gay man and an American, I felt a surge of pride.

Win or lose, Buttigieg is the first openly gay American to become a serious presidential candidate, one who landed on the covers of prominent magazines, was fawned over on the most-watched television talk shows, raised exponentially more money than any of the governors in the race, outpaced Beto O’Rourke, outpolled Kamala Harris, caught President Trump’s attention, qualified for all of the Democratic debates and more than held his own in each of them.

Win or lose, he’s an example, an education and a hell of a story. That narrative is about youth — he just turned 38 — and the power of hyper-articulateness in an era of presidential crudeness. But it’s also about sexual orientation, which has and hasn’t factored into his pitch in surprising ways.

He has grappled, on the national political stage, with questions that all L.G.B.T.Q. people ask, so that his candidacy is a metaphor for our lives: To what extent am I defined by my sexual orientation or gender identity? What does and doesn’t it tell you about me?

Buttigieg’s answers have disappointed some L.G.B.T.Q. people — and were bound to, given the expectations placed on any politician who is blessed and cursed to become a symbol. Female candidates have had experiences similar to his; candidates of color, too.

He has weathered complaints, even derision, from L.G.B.T.Q. progressives, many of whom say he’s not gay enough, his manner and mannerisms too strait-laced, his policy preoccupations too moderate, his success infuriatingly reflective of how readily and well he assimilates into heterosexual America. “Gays Seem to Be Mayor Pete’s Worst Critics” was the headline of a column in The Washington Blade, an L.G.B.T.Q. publication.

That saddens me. As I’ve written before, part of what so many gay people have fought so hard for is the recognition that we don’t fit into tidy boxes, otherwise known as stereotypes — not sartorially, not ideologically. Absolutely disagree with Buttigieg’s opposition to “Medicare for all” if you have a different view, but don’t suggest that he should support it because he’s gay.

And don’t say that by discussing his own Christianity, he’s consorting with the enemy. Yes, religion has been used cruelly against L.G.B.T.Q. people. But one of the most profound dimensions of Buttigieg’s candidacy is how he has turned that around, for instance asserting that his marriage to his husband, Chasten, has brought him “closer to God.”

Buttigieg has campaigned frequently with his husband, embracing him onstage, and has mentioned his marriage in debates. And he doesn’t shy away from questions about his sexual orientation . . . But he doesn’t volunteer lengthy ruminations about its impact on how he sees the world or showcase it in any other way.

None of the voters at his rallies in Iowa brought it up when I asked them what drew them to Buttigieg. They mostly raved about his intelligence.

Were there any particular obstacles he might face in a general election?

“His youth,” said Louann Cooling, 62, of Le Grand, Iowa. It was the same answer — his youth, or his inexperience — that others gave. No one mentioned his being openly gay.

Being gay and an emblem of progress hasn’t given Buttigieg any special traction with younger Democrats, who respond much less favorably to him than older Democrats do.

“While I do not have the experience of ever having been discriminated against because of the color of my skin, I do have the experience of sometimes feeling like a stranger in my own country, turning on the news and seeing my own rights come up for debate,” he said. “Wearing this wedding ring in a way that couldn’t have happened two elections ago lets me know just how deep my obligation is to help those whose rights are on the line every day, even if they are nothing like me in their experience.”

Those remarks didn’t have the effect he intended. Some African-Americans accused him of equating very different kinds of discrimination, and polls show that his support from black Democrats remains abysmal.

What does Buttigieg’s being gay tell you? That he has trepidation and caution in him — he stayed in the closet all those years — but that he has courage, too, enough to pursue the presidency despite the inevitable spotlight on him as a novelty.

I’m not sure he really does “thrilled,” and he confessed to being more a Dave Matthews Band fan. In any case, he said, “I usually have a kind of celebrity blindness.”

A gay man who doesn’t twinkle at the stars around him? Yep, our creator makes us in all shapes and stripes. Thank you, Mayor Pete, for taking that message out on the trail.

Buttigieg's Rise Drives "Christian" Hate Merchants to Apoplexy

Regardless of whether or not he wins the Democrat nomination, Pete Buttigieg's rise among the Democrat contenders is causing the usual hate merchants of falsely labeled "Christian" organizations to reveal the full depth of their dishonesty and desire to be above the nondiscrimination laws that bind the rest of us.  A case in point is Bryan Fischer, a gay hater and extremist of the first order, associated with American Family Association ("AFA"), a certified hate group and one of the most dishonest of these toxic organizations.  In a tirade, Fischer rants that Buttigieg is an "open and defiant homosexual" - I've been called similar thing by Victoria Cobb of The Family Foundation, one of Virginia's leading hate groups. What's telling is that everything that Fischer accuses Buttigieg of is actually applicable to Fischer and his fellow dominion who want a Christian theocracy in America and most definitely want a "Christian Supremacy Act."   Having followed AFA's lies and extremism for over two decades, anyone AFA opposes is precisely who sane and moral people should support.  LGBTQ Nation looks at Fischer's mentally disturbed rant.  Here are excepts:  

A prominent Christian conservative [extremist] has said that South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg is the “biggest threat to religious liberty in history.”

Bryan Fischer is the Director of Issues Analysis for the SPLC designated anti-LGBTQ hate group American Family Association.

In a column on the far-right website OneNewsNow, he calls Buttigieg “an open and defiant homosexual” and says that it makes sense to reject him for his “sexual proclivities” – comparing being gay to being Donald Trump.

“We can certainly understand the left’s condemnation of President Trump for his sexual romps with porn stars 12 or 13 years ago,” Fischer writes. “This means, of course, that unless they are profoundly hypocritical, [progressives] will be able to understand our legitimate concerns about Buttigieg’s aberrant sexual conduct and what it means for his qualifications to become the leader of the Free World.”

Fischer is quite clear that his problem is with Buttigieg’s sexual orientation, not just his policies, but he also goes after his policies.

His first big problem is that Buttigieg is in favor of transgender people’s civil rights.

He also criticizes Buttigieg for supporting the Equality Act, which he calls “The Homosexual Supremacy Act,” claiming that the law that outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, and other areas would require churches “to hire homosexual choir directors” and would allow “men barging into restrooms reserved for little girls.”

“Therapists who try to help teens overcome unwanted same-sex attractions will have their professional licenses yanked and be put out of business,” Fischer writes, although he doesn’t explain why that’s a bad thing, or even how it’s related to the Equality Act.

Fischer was able to find one thing to compliment Buttigieg about. Who knew it would be his “boyish good looks”?

A Harsh New Reality for Virginia Republicans

House of Delegates chamber.

This morning Virginia Republicans wake to a new and harsh reality: they are now the minority party with Democrats controlling the legislature and every statewide office.  Some will be quick to try to blame the debacle on anti-Trump animus - Trump's approval rating in Virginia over the summer was under 30% - but much of the fault lies with the Republican base in Virginia which increasingly racist, homophobia and anti-modernity itself and toxic organizations like the NRA and The Family Foundation (the leading hate group in the state) have set the GOP agenda.  That agenda has been one of unlimited guns, feigned "religious freedom" trampling on the rights of other citizens, and efforts to disenfranchise anyone who isn't a white evangelical.  Finally, a majority of Virginians, especially in the so-called urban crescent said "enough!"  It will be interesting to see how the leading hate merchants try to spin this to avoid accepting their own significant role in making the GOP repulsive to more and more Virginians.  Articles in the Washington Post and Yahoo News look at some of the realities of today's morning after for Virginia Republicans.  Here are excerpts from Yahoo News:

Virginia Democrats promised swift action on a host of liberal policy proposals now that they've won full control of state government for the first time in more than two decades.

Democratic leaders said Virginians should expect a higher minimum wage, new gun restrictions and greater abortion rights after their party flipped control of the state House and Senate in Tuesday's election. They also promised ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, making Virginia the final state needed for possible passage of the gender equality measure.

Suburban voters turned out in big numbers to back Democratic candidates, continuing a trend of once GOP-friendly suburbs turning blue. This is the third election in a row in which Virginia Democrats made significant gains since President Donald Trump was elected.

The Democrats' big win was a warning sign for the president and Republicans ahead of next year's election. Higher-educated and more affluent suburban voters — particularly women — have revolted against Trump's GOP both in Virginia and nationwide.

Democrats were keenly focused on gun issues during the election, saying Republicans should be held accountable for failing to pass new restrictions after a mass shooting in Virginia Beach earlier this year.

Tuesday's election could help cement Democratic rule for the next decade, because the winners will decide who controls the next redistricting process.

Poll after poll showed that Virginians want gun control and believe in non-discrimination protections for LGBT citizens. They also are repelled by the GOP's efforts to undermine the Affordable Health Care Act.  Republican refusal to deliver what so many voters want came home to roost.  The Post piece continues some of this analysis:

But singling out Trump as the reason for Republican failures in 2019 “is too easy,” said Mark Rozell, a George Mason University professor of public policy. Rather, he said, Virginia’s GOP over the past decade has gravitated toward the right on social issues and alienated moderate voters.

Gillespie, for example, embraced a hard-line anti-immigrant stance during his 2017 gubernatorial race after having preached the importance of the Republican Party adopting a more tolerant message to attract voters.

“Democrats have had an easy time characterizing the Republicans as out of the mainstream on issues,” Rozell said. “Republicans in Virginia need to rebrand, refocus and broaden their appeal.”

Even before results were announced Tuesday night, leaders of gun-control groups were taking a victory lap at the Democrats’ rally at the Hilton Hotel in downtown Richmond. John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, said a key turning point in the campaign was GOP lawmakers move to shut down a special legislative session in July on gun control, in the wake of the May 31 mass shooting in Virginia Beach.

“I think what we’re going to learn tonight is that was a huge political mistake,” he said. “I think Republicans really turned their backs on citizens of the commonwealth by not taking up a single gun safety measure.”

[D]emographic changes in large portions of the state, including a population explosion in Northern Virginia from the early 1990s through 2010, turned the commonwealth from red to purple.

And now?

“At this point, Virginia has become a blue state — how can you call it anything else,” Rozell said. “In a state that was long considered leaning red and two-party competitive at best, who could have predicted that the Republican Party would fall so dramatically and quickly?”

But how Democrats handle their newfound power could determine whether the party remains dominant in Virginia. If Democratic lawmakers push a progressive agenda, for example, the party risks alienating centrist voters. . . . a Democratic operative, said the party’s core of moderate lawmakers — headed by Northam and state Sen. Richard Saslaw (D-Fairfax), who is to become Senate majority leader — retain enormous influence over policy.

“They’re both centrists,” he said. “You’re not going to see a coup from the far left. There aren’t enough votes for that.”

It is definitely a new day in Virginia.  Democrats worked hard to get to this point, but Republican extremism and obstruction of the popular will made their job far easier.  Will the Virginia GOP learn from this debacle?  Probably not given the insanity and toxicity of its party base.

Republicans Won’t Stop Killing LGBT Rights in Virginia

It's election day in Virginia and so much is at stake in terms of Virginia's future.  This is especially the case with LGBT rights which Virginia Republicans have blocked for decades now leave LGBT Virginians with no state level employment non-discrimination protections and even without public accommodation and housing non-discrimination protections.  While Republicans have run extremely dishonest campaigns trying to sound almost like typical Democrats, make mistake that these campaign efforts are a lie and that should Republicans retain control of the General Assembly, nothing will change and LGBT rights advances will continue to be killed.  A piece in Metro Weekly looks at this truth.  If you are LGBT or have LGBT friends or family members, it is imperative that you go vote for the Democrat candidates in your House of Delegates and Senate districts. Here are article excerpts that explain why:

Republicans in Virginia have controlled the House of Delegates for almost two decades, since taking control after the 1999 general election.

During that time, though public attitudes around LGBTQ rights have shifted and widespread acceptance of LGBTQ individuals has increased, the Virginia GOP is still partying like it’s 1999, using their power — particularly in the House — to continually halt or kill pro-equality measures.

That remains true even though polls show a majority of Virginians support making it illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ people.

The GOP is even out of step with its own base — a poll earlier this year found that a majority of Virginia Republicans support protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination.
[T]he House of Delegates has remained stubbornly opposed to allowing any such legislation to escape to the governor’s desk.

With that in mind — and a general election set for tomorrow, Nov. 5, that could hand control of the House to Democrats — here’s some of the most notable times Republicans have killed progress for the LGBTQ community in Virginia:

Yanked three pro-LGBTQ bills, fearing they might pass

In January this year, Republican leaders in the House killed three separate pro-LGBTQ bills. Two of the bills would have prohibited discrimination in public employment and housing, and a third would have provided more expansive protections for LGBTQ people in public accommodations, credit, and public contracting. The bills, as with many before them, were killed by Republican-stacked subcommittees, with advocates blaming Speaker Kirk Cox, alleging that he feared at least two of the bills would have passed a full vote in the House.

Killed every pro-LGBTQ housing and employment bill

In 2018, Cox once again stepped in to ensure that four bills designed to protect LGBTQ people from discrimination in housing and employment died in subcommittees — after Cox engineered those committees to heavily favor conservative lawmakers from GOP-leaning districts. This, despite wide support for the bills including from a number of housing, building, and realtor associations.

Rejected protecting transgender people from healthcare discrimination

Also in 2018, Republicans voted to allow anti-transgender healthcare discrimination to continue. A Democrat-sponsored bill would have prevented insurance companies from refusing to cover medically necessary treatments or procedures for trans patients, but all GOP members of a House subcommittee rejected it, effectively killing the bill.

Stopped an attempt to ban anti-LGBTQ conversion therapy on minors

Again in 2018, Republicans — this time in a Senate committee — killed a bill that would have prevented licensed therapists and counselors from subjecting LGBTQ minors to conversion therapy. Widely debunked and considered harmful and detrimental to mental health, conversion therapy purports to “change” a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. But rather than vote to protect children from being subjected to methods that include public shaming, forced vomiting, and electroshock therapy, they instead rejected the bill on a party-line vote. (And it’s not the first time. Republicans rejected a similar ban in 2015.)

Defeated bills to deal with anti-LGBTQ hate crimes

It really was a busy year for killing pro-LGBTQ legislation, as in 2018 Republicans also shut down attempts to deal with crimes that target LGBTQ people — a decision made even as the number of anti-LGBTQ homicides hit a record high.

And that’s just in the last couple of years.

We’ve only highlighted as far back as the start of the 2018 legislative session, but Republicans have killed countless pro-LGBTQ measures over the years, covering a number of LGBTQ issues, from nondiscrimination protections, to legalizing same-sex marriage, to including LGBTQ people in hate crimes protections:

2017: Two pro-equality bills designed to ban discrimination against LGBTQ people in housing and employment passed the Senate before being killed in the House by a Republican-controlled subcommittee.

2016: GOP Delegates killed eight LGBTQ-related bills by punting them to a process that subjects legislation to further review and analysis, effectively tabling them indefinitely. Among those punted were six bills granting protections in public employment, private employment, housing and public accommodations, as well as a measure that would have banned the practice of LGBT conversion therapy on minors. House Republicans then killed two nondiscrimination bills — which had passed the Senate on a bipartisan vote — that would have prohibited discrimination in housing and employment.

We haven’t even mentioned the anti-LGBTQ legislation…

While Republicans in Virginia were busy voting down, tabling, delaying, or otherwise killing pro-LGBTQ legislation, they were also introducing various bills that actively discriminated against the LGBTQ community, including: a “religious freedom” bill that removed penalties for those who discriminated against LGBTQ people (it was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Terry McAuliffe after passing both the House and Senate); passing an almost identical bill in 2016, which was similarly vetoed; introducing three separate bills in 2017 targeting transgender people in public accommodations, allowing contractors to discriminate against LGBTQ people, and banning trans students from accessing facilities that match their gender identity; and in 2016 threatening nine separate pieces of anti-LGBTQ legislation targeting same-sex marriage and LGBTQ rights.

And again, that’s just in the last few years.

Democrats expect a “sea change” in LGBTQ progress should they flip the House or Senate

Democrats are arguing that the only hope for progress on LGBTQ rights in Virginia is for voters to flip the House — and the Senate, too — and give Democrats a chance to pass pro-LGBTQ legislation.

As Kathryn Gilley, communications director for the Democratic Party of Virginia, told Metro Weekly last week, “If Republicans were going to do something to help the LGBTQ community, they would have done it by now.”

“They have had a majority in the House of Delegates for 20 years,” she said. “We’ve seen their stance on LGBTQ rights, and it’s not good.”

Again, if you have LGBT friends or family members, if you don't vote Democrat today, you are actively voting to harm your friends and family members.  It truly is that simple. Vote Democrat!

Sanders Is Only Major Candidate to Sit Out Both LGBT Forums

When it comes to LGBT issues, Bernie Sanders has never left me with a warm and fuzzy feeling. Indeed, the man comes across as perpetually angry and not the empathetic type. Now, Sanders is seemingly avoiding two candidate forums on LGBT issues - the only major candidate to do so.  His claims of "scheduling conflicts" sadly simply do not seem to ring true and one has to wonder why he is snubbing the LGBT community, a reliable segment of the Democrat Party base. Personally, I do not believe Sanders is electable for three reasons: (i) he is too far to the left on issues, (ii) he is too strident and appears unwilling to work with others, and (iii) he is simply not likable. All issues that could prove harmful in the 2020 general election. A piece in The Advocate looks at Sanders' slight to LGBT voters.  Here are highlights:

Progressive presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is the only frontrunner who will miss both events aimed at discussing LGBTQ equality and rights.

The rest of the frontrunners will be on hand Friday for an LGBTQ Presidential Forum, cosponsored by The Advocate in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. And, according to CNN's schedule for the event, all of the heavy-hitters other than Sanders will also attend the Human Rights Campaign/CNN’s LGBTQ Town Hall slated for October 10 in Los Angeles. The senator from Vermont’s team has cited “scheduling conflicts” for both events.

Among those attending the LGBTQ Forum cosponsored by The Advocate and GLAAD are Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Julián Castro, Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Sestak, and Marianne Williamson. Pose star Angelica Ross will host the event that features columnist Lyz Lenz of eastern Iowa newspaper The Gazette, One Iowa Policy Director Keenan Crow, and Advocate Editor-in-chief Zach Stafford as moderators.

Since taking office, the Trump administration has made over 100 actions to roll back rights and safety for LGBTQ people, including the trans military ban and his administration's support of allowing businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual and gender identity.  

The candidates slated to attend the HRC/CNN Town Hall are Harris, Warren, Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Booker, Tom Steyer, Beto O’Rourke, and Castro.

There have been three major Democratic debates in the past few months but moderators have not posed a single question regarding LGBTQ equality to the candidates.

A recent report highlighted how coverage of LGBTQ issues has "essentially vanished" from mainstream media outlets "after Trump was elected and have remained largely absent from coverage for the past three years."

Is Sanders taking LGBT voters for granted or does he simply not like us? Those are questions Sanders needs to answer.

The Unfinished Struggle for Gay Rights

Here in Virginia LGBT citizens can be fired for being LGBT and can face fully legal discrimination in housing.  Meanwhile, poll after poll reveals - both in Virginia and across America - most Americans believe that anti-LGBT discrimination is illegal even as the Trump/Pence regimes works to convince a rightward leaning U.S. Supreme Court that anti-LGBT discrimination should be fully legal and outside the protections of existing civil rights laws. In Virginia in November, 2019, the state of affairs can change if control of the Virginia General Assembly shifts to Democrats and Republicans are voted out of a majority in the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates.  In 2020, the same opportunity for change exists if (i) Trump is not re-elected, and (ii) Republicans lose control of the U.S. Senate. A piece in The Atlantic looks at the unfinished work to be done in the area of LGBT rights and the mess that exists in a majority of states where gays can marry on the weekend and be fired on Monday for being gay.  

To me, the ultimate irony is that civil rights laws are supposed to protect against immutable characteristics such as skin color, country of one's birth, age, sex.  Medical and medical health knowledge tells us that sexual orientation cannot be changed - despite the lies disseminated by Christofascist proponents of "conversion therapy."  Indeed, of currently protected categories, only one is NOT immutable: religion.  People can and do change religious affiliation all the time while others leave it entirely based on things ranging from Christian hypocrisy to the reality that neither science nor historical evidence confirm the gospel narratives.  If any category deserves not non-discrimination protection, it is religion. embracing myths and ignorance is a choice. One's sexual orientation is not. The Equality Act passed by the House of Representatives which contains no religious exemptions recognizes this simple reality. Here are article highlights:

Roughly half of Americans think federal law bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Despite four years of nationwide same-sex marriage, despite rapidly growing cultural acceptance for LGBTQ people, despite extensive annual Pride celebrations—these Americans are wrong. Now that all of this summer’s glitter floats have been dismantled and the rainbow confetti has been cleared, lawyers, legislators, and judges have turned back to the ongoing fight over whether federal law does, and should, specifically protect LGBTQ people from being fired, denied a rental lease, or refused service because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
 This year will mark several important milestones in the battle over LGBTQ discrimination. In the spring, the House of Representatives passed the Equality Act, a sweeping bill that would prohibit anti-LGBTQ discrimination in all aspects of public and commercial life, without any religious exemptions. While the bill has basically no chance of gaining traction in this Senate, if Democrats sweep Congress in 2020, it will likely be high on the party’s priority list. In the fall, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC & Aimee Stephens, about a former funeral director who was fired after coming out to her employer as transgender. The justices will consider whether existing workplace protections in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already cover discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

And yet, the legal status of LGBTQ rights remains murky. As the movement has gained cultural momentum, activists have largely moved away from a posture of compromise—they believe they can win full protections for LGBTQ people in any context, without exceptions. A small but significant group of conservative religious leaders has been working the middle ground, trying to build support for a bill that would protect LGBTQ people but leave space for institutions, such as Christian colleges and Catholic hospitals, to operate according to their religious teachings. But they’ve faced resistance from their right, with prominent pastors and conservative legal groups opposed to any kind of bill that would mark sexual orientation and gender identity as special legal categories.

As America has largely moved on from its gay-rights moment, with many Americans believing everything got taken care of with same-sex marriage, legal advocates on both sides have been left with bitter disagreements about where the country should go next—and the possibility that the status quo will perpetually remain in place.

[Lying and dishonest] Conservative advocates argue that LGBTQ people face little to no discrimination, and that their identities have been normalized . . . . Ask LGBTQ people themselves, however, and they consistently see discrimination in their daily lives: A recent study from the Williams Institute at UCLA found that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people reported much higher rates of being bullied, fired, or denied a job, promotion, or lease compared with heterosexual people. Still, these experiences can be subtle or hard to document. And the incentives for bringing a formal, legal complaint vary wildly, depending on where someone lives: 20 states fully prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, while 28 states don’t. “Because it doesn’t look just like Jim Crow,” said Doug NeJaime, a law professor at Yale University who focuses on LGBTQ legal issues, conservatives argue that “it then doesn’t merit attention.” But, he said, “there’s lots of reasons why discrimination against LGBT people looks different than other forms of discrimination … [That] doesn’t mean it’s not discrimination that needs to be remedied.”

In the past 30 years, the Supreme Court has ruled sex stereotyping illegal; declared sodomy bans unconstitutional; struck down state measures blocking civil-rights protections for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals; and, of course, legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states. But even as the inevitability of legalized gay marriage was becoming clear in the early 2010s, “the narrative really began to take hold that you could be married on Sunday and fired on Monday and lose your housing on Tuesday,”. . . . This question has been particularly fraught for transgender people, such as the plaintiff who will go before the Supreme Court this fall. Ironically, as LGBTQ rights have expanded, it has become harder for advocates to make their case to the public. Before the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, “people could see very clearly the fact that same-sex couples couldn’t get married,” McBride said. “People have a more difficult time understanding the way civil rights work in our country, the absence of protections.” The movement has also developed powerful allies from Wall Street to Hollywood, and those alliances have been used against advocates. . . . “The irony about antidiscrimination laws is: Vulnerable groups don’t get protected until they’re actually … [able to] muster the political power to gain momentum.”

Still, that momentum has redoubled the resolve of LGBTQ activists. Maybe they won’t win at the Supreme Court this time, or get nondiscrimination legislation passed through this Congress. But, they believe, theirs is a cause of progress. They will eventually win it all.

And that has left a number of their opponents very, very nervous.

When the Equality Act passed in the U.S. House of Representatives this spring, there were no amendments on the floor—it was just an up or down vote. . . . The legislation won the vote of every Democrat in the House who participated in the roll call, along with eight Republicans—a clear sign of its broad support. The bill also sent another message: The days of compromise are over.

In recent years, claims of LGBTQ rights have been repeatedly brought into direct conflict with claims of religious conscience. Just this week, the Trump administration proposed a new rule that would allow federal contractors to make hiring and firing decisions based on their religious beliefs and practices; progressive advocates believe the rule will be used to target LGBTQ people.

The Equality Act specifically bars any group from using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, known as RFRA, to try to opt out of the bill’s protections.

For religious groups and institutions that teach that homosexuality is a sin, and that men and women were created as such by God, the prospect of this kind of legislation is worrying. “It would be years of litigation . . . Hoogstra has been part of a coalition pushing an alternative to the Equality Act called Fairness for All. Her organization, along with groups such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Seventh-day Adventists, believes federal LGBTQ discrimination protections are inevitable—the Equality Act’s passage “was a proof point,” Hoogstra said. They want the final law, whenever it passes, to reflect their needs. . . much like exceptions that were written into parts of the original Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

When the evangelical World Magazine broke the news that the CCCU and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), which claims to represent roughly 45,000 churches, had voted to support the Fairness for All effort, a prominent group of conservative religious leaders signed a letter of condemnation. . . . The signers included Franklin Graham, the evangelist Billy Graham’s son, who has been known to make inflammatory comments about homosexuality; but also Russell Moore, the head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s political arm, who is often seen as a moderating voice in the evangelical world.

If the Democrats make a full electoral sweep in 2020, holding on to the House, taking back the Senate, and winning the White House, it seems likely that the Equality Act will be on their agenda—and it’s unlikely the party’s leadership will be open to finding a middle ground. Meanwhile, the groups totally opposed to this kind of legislation are preparing for legal war.

The story of the LGBTQ movement has lately been one of triumph, but it’s not clear whether that will continue. Graham, of Georgia Equality, told me he believes some kind of federal legislation will eventually protect LGBTQ people from discrimination, “but I’m not optimistic that it will happen quickly,” he added. In this political environment, the possibility of moderation and dialogue seems almost antiquated. “It really feels,” he said, “like everything is a battle for the soul of the nation.”

My take away?  If one is LGBT or has family members or friends who are LGBT allies, the course of action is simple: vote a straight Democrat ticket in Virginia in 2019 and in the 2020 federal elections.  Religious based bigotry and ignorance has harmed lives for centuries.  It's time to make it illegal. 

Survey: Acceptance Of LGBTs Declines Among Young

The Stonewall Inn where some say the battle for LGBT
rights officially began.

In what ought to be disturbing news to all in the LGBT community and certainly LGBT rights organizations, a survey shows that for the second year in a row the percentage of Americans accepting of members of the LGBT community declined.  The decline included the younger Americans who heretofore have been more accepting.  The survey did not come to any set conclusion for the decline although references were made to the general normalization of hate and intolerance that has been a hallmark of the Trump/Pence regime and its pro-Christofascist, anti-gay policies. Personally, I believe fault also lies with organizations like Human Rights Campaign ("HRC") and Equality Virginia ("EV") here in Virginia.  In the case of EV, when not shaking down gay and lesbian Virginians for money, burning bridges with top pro-LGBT officeholders, EV's main activities are focused on the transgender community to the seeming exclusion of the rest of the LG and B components of the community. I am not anti-transgender, but other than the general need for non-discrimination laws, the issues of the transgender community are not synonymous with those of gays and lesbians. In an era where many now feel comfortable being open white supremacists, having LGBT rights organizations pretending that they are the same does a disservice to all of the involved groups. LGBTQ Nation looks at the disturbing survey findings:

A new survey shows that young people’s support for LGBTQ people has dropped for the second consecutive year.

The Harris Poll and GLAAD just released the results of their yearly survey in their Accelerating Acceptance report.

The survey was conducted this past January and involved 1970 respondents, including 1754 non-LGBTQ respondents. They were asked about whether they would be comfortable with an LGBTQ person in various situations, like having an LGBTQ doctor, their kid having an LGBTQ teacher, or a family member coming out.

Among non-LGBTQ people, 49% were comfortable in all the situations, the same percentage as last year. Two years ago, though, 53% of non-LGBTQ people were comfortable in all situations, a drop that coincided with the start of the Trump administration.

But the drop was more pronounced among 18- to 34-year-olds. 63% were comfortable in all the situations two years ago, 53% last year, and 45% this year.  Young men’s drop in support was even more dramatic. 62% were comfortable in all the situations two years ago, but now only 35% are. Support for LGBTQ people in each individual situation either stayed the same or dropped since two years ago. 34% of straight people said that they would be uncomfortable if their child learned about LGBTQ people at school. This year, 39% said they would be uncomfortable.

Among 18- to 34-year-olds, 39% said that they were uncomfortable in that situation, up from 27% two years ago. Young adults were 50% more likely to say that they would be uncomfortable if a family member came out this year compared to 2016.

“So it is surprising to see a notable erosion of acceptance for the LGBTQ community, which counters many of the assumptions we make about their values and beliefs. In this toxic age, tolerance – even among youth – now seems to be parsed out.”

“The sharp and quick rise in divisive rhetoric both in politics and in culture is now having a negative influence on younger Americans and coinciding with an alarming pattern of anti-LGBTQ violence and discrimination,” said Sarah Kate Ellis, the president of GLAAD.

“As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, LGBTQ people and allies must urgently address today’s cultural crisis by being visible and vigilant.”

New strategies and efforts are needed - as is new leadership at leading LGBT rights organizations, particularly Equality Virginia to which I have ceased all financial support.  I stopped giving to the even more out of touch HRC years ago.

Survey: Young Republicans Increasingly Anti-LGBT

While support for LGBT rights has been increasing across almost all demographics, one group stands out for its decreasing support of LGBT rights: Republicans under 30 years of age. While no specific cause for the growing homophobia among younger Republicans was identified, one theory is that the ranks of young Republicans is shrinking with even 54% of evangelical Christians now supporting LGBT non-discrimination protections.  Indeed, overall, the percentage of Americans identifying as Republican has declined. The New York Times looks at the survey findings which suggests that the GOP is increasingly out of step with the majority Americans when it comes to LGBT rights and acceptance.  Here are excerpts (which also suggest that the lower one's level of education, the more anti-LGBT one is likely to be):

Support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights has increased or remained steady among Mormons, Muslims, political independents, Southerners, seniors and a number of other demographic groups in the United States since 2015, a new survey found. One notable outlier: young Republicans. Between 2015 and 2018, support for laws aimed at protecting L.G.B.T. individuals from discrimination fell by nearly 10 percentage points among Republicans under the age of 30. This was one of the key findings from a survey of more than 40,000 Americans’ views on L.G.B.T. issues that the Public Religion Research Institute released Tuesday.

The majority of young Republicans surveyed — around 63 percent — continued to support such measures. But given that 74 percent were in favor in 2015, the shift was striking, . . . “It was one of the largest and most significant drops that we saw,” Dr. Jones said.

[O]ne hypothesis he offered was that the ranks of young Republicans are thinning, with more socially liberal individuals opting to identify as independent. “The Republican Party is becoming more ideologically pure,” he suggested.

Sixty-two percent of Americans continue to support same-sex marriage, the survey found. But among all racial and ethnic groups surveyed, individuals identifying as Asian-Pacific Islander Americans demonstrated the highest level of support for both same-sex marriage (75 percent) and for laws that would protect L.G.B.T. people from discrimination in jobs, public accommodations and housing (73 percent, four percentage points more than Americans over all).

These figures could be partly explained by another finding: Researchers spotted a strong correlation between participants’ educational level and support of L.G.B.T. rights. Over all, Asian-Pacific Islander Americans were far more likely than other Americans surveyed to hold either a four-year college degree or a postgraduate degree, Dr. Jones said.

[A]nalysts found majority support for anti-discrimination measures for L.G.B.T. people from every major religious group. The strongest support came from Unitarian Universalists (90 percent), Jews (80 percent) and Hindus (79 percent). Seventy percent of Mormons, 60 percent of Muslims and 54 percent of white evangelical Protestants were also in favor.

NAACP Endorses LGBT Equality Act

Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP’s D.C. bureau.

While in theory they should have been allies for decades given their common enemies, particularly white Christofacsists who by a seeming large majority are also white supremacists, the LGBT and African-American communities have nor always been allies.  One of the main stumbling blocks has been "conservative" black pastors who have allowed themselves year after year to be rallied against LGBT rights by the very same Christofascist who in prior generations advocated for segregation and retention of the Jim Crow laws. Indeed, here in Virginia, The Family Foundation, the state's leading hate group, has played black pastors as fools  for many years.  Now, with the very transparent effort by the Legislative Black Caucus to throw Governor Ralph Northam - the most LGBT governor in Virginia history - under the bus in order to elevate Justin Fairfax to the position of governor,  relations between the some elements of the two communities are very strained (e.g., I will not be voting for my state senator and delegate in November who are members of the Legislative Black Caucus).  A piece in Metro Weekly looks at the NAACP's endorsement of the Equality Act which hopefully may help mend fences.  Here are excerpts:

The Equality Act got a big boost on Friday night after the NAACP, the nation’s oldest African-American civil rights organization, publicly endorsed the LGBTQ rights bill currently making its way through Congress.

“We support what it does — and we support it now,” Hilary Shelton, the director of the NAACP’s D.C. bureau, told NBC News. “It’s important that it gets through.”

Shelton added that the group had previously endorsed the bill in meetings with its two main sponsors, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.).

The organization’s support for the bill, which would add protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of characteristics protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is considered a significant victory for LGBTQ rights groups, who had been criticized for failing to obtain the support of prominent African-American organizations before introducing the act earlier this month.

By endorsing the act, the NAACP effectively shuts down one of the arguments — albeit specious — used to justify opposition to the legislation.

“We believe the same protections that we have worked for so hard over the 110 years of the NAACP should be extended to all Americans, particularly members of the LGBTQ community,” Shelton told NBC.

He also noted that the NAACP previously supported other pieces of legislation granting the LGBTQ community expanded protections, including the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, insurance nondiscrimination protections contained in the Affordable Care Act, and the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

The organization also expressed support for marriage equality in the run-up to 2012, and prior to the 2013 and 2015 Supreme Court decisions that, respectively, overturned Section 3 of DOMA and legalized same-sex marriages nationwide.