Connect with us

No, Honey, Conservatives Are Not Better for LGBTQ Folks Than Progressives

Published

on

Conservatives believe they’re the best option for LGBTQ people post Orlando. No, honey. Just no.

Have you noticed that all of a sudden conservative leaders are pretending to love The Gays™ and trying to convince us that they’re on our side? There are even gay folks out there shilling for Trump and trying to tell us that we’d be better off if we abandoned our progressive allies in favor of “pragmatic” conservatives.

Honey, no. Just no. 

Let’s talk about why this is such a stupid proposition, ok?

Pretty much by definition, and certainly by experience, conservatives just don’t like LGBTQ people. They don’t like us because of who we are, who we love, and how we live our lives. They find our very existence to be a threat to them because we refuse to fit into the boxes that they created. 

Conservatives have a terrible track record when it comes to LGBTQ people, and it’s not something they can out run any time soon: 

  • Conservatives criminalized our sex lives.
  • Conservatives were adamantly against us serving openly in the military – and we’re still fighting that battle today.
  • Conservatives passed laws prohibiting us from adopting children and raising families.
  • Conservatives passed laws prohibiting us from marrying the people we love.
  • Conservatives threw us in jail for going to bars with people who were like us.
  • Conservatives continue to prohibit us from donating blood because they think we’re a danger to society.
  • Conservatives are passing laws making it illegal for many of us to go to the bathroom.
  • Conservatives are passing laws making it legal for them to discriminate against us based on their religious beliefs.
  • Conservatives refuse to pass laws making it illegal to fire us or kick us out of our houses simply because of who we are.
  • Conservatives are fighting schools that create gay-straight alliances because they don’t want kids to know that queer people exist.
  • Conservatives are against comprehensive sex education in schools because they’re afraid we’ll turn the children gay.
  • Conservatives are in favor of abusive “conversion therapy” treatment, which has been shown to cause irreparable harm and doesn’t work.
  • Conservatives are against anti-bullying policies and laws that protect LGBTQ students.
  • Conservatives are against providing trans-affirming healthcare.
  • Conservatives placed numerous roadblocks in front of access to health and legal safety for transgender people.
  • Conservatives lead the campaign to make it illegal for gay people to be teachers because they didn’t want us around their children.
  • Conservatives fought against federal hate crimes laws and continue to fight against state and local hate crimes laws.
  • Conservatives believe using the proper pronouns and referring to us by our names is offensive and pedantic.
  • Conservative have been fighting against our full legal equality for decades.

So what could conservatives possibly think makes them better for LGBTQ people?

They like guns, and they want us to like guns, too. Also they’re incredibly xenophobic, particularly, Islamaphobic, and to them, that’s all the reason they need.

That’s it. That’s their argument. They love guns and they hate Muslims, and they think that we should too. 

(I should note that there are plenty of LGBTQ folks who like guns and that’s fine and there are also plenty of progressives who like guns too but that’s not what I’m trying to make this column about.)

The conservative argument for LGBTQ equality isn’t one of acceptance and affirmation. It’s Islamaphobia and hoplophilia. When conservatives say that LGBTQ people should join them, what they’re really saying is that if we were anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim, we’d be better off. They’re saying that the only reason Orlando happened was solely because of radical Islamic terror, and that if we all had guns, the shooter wouldn’t have had a chance. 

Neither of those things is true, of course, and neither of those things will make us any safer. Engaging in Islamaphobia won’t make our world a better place and there’s no empirical evidence that says having more guns makes us safer. Does anyone really think that someone who’s been drinking and partying all night would have the capacity to safely use a gun?

Conservatives are trying to scare us. That’s it. They’re trying to prey on our vulnerability and our fears in the wake of Orlando and it’s disgusting. And sadly, it’s not at all surprising.

Conservatives are NOT better for LGBTQ people than progressives. History has shown that they’re not better for our safety, for our health, for our families, or for our children. Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring the past – hell, they’re ignoring the present.

So when a conservative tells you we’d be better off with them? No, honey. Just no. 

 

Robbie Medwed is an Atlanta-based LGTBTQ activist and educator. His column appears here weekly. Follow him on Twitter: @rjmedwed.

 

Image:
Top by Gage Skidmore via Flickr and a CC license
Bottom by  via Twitter

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

RIGHT WING EXTREMISM

GOP Congresswoman Saying She Would ‘Do Anything’ to Protect Her Grandchildren, Even ‘Shooting Them’ Sets Internet on Fire

Published

on

U.S. Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) in a speech denouncing a House bill on gun safety, appears to inadvertently have declared that to protect her five grandchildren, she would “do anything,” even shoot them.

“I rise in opposition to H.R. 2377,” Congresswoman Lesko says in the video. “I have five grandchildren. I would do anything, anything to protect my five grandchildren, including as a last resort shooting them if I had to, to protect the lives of my grandchildren.”

NCRM has verified the video is accurate. Congresswoman Lesko made the remarks on June 9, according to C-SPAN, while she was opposing a red flag law.

The Congresswoman presumably meant she would as a last resort shoot someone threatening her grandchildren.

One Twitter user, Ryan Shead, posted the previously ignored video to Twitter, where it has gone viral and is trending.

Lesko, who some social media users note is running for re-election unopposed, went on to say: “Democrat bills that we have heard this week want to take away my right, my right to protect my grandchildren. they want to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect their own children and grandchildren. and wives and brothers and sisters,” which is false.

“This bill takes away due process from law-abiding citizens. Can you imagine if you had a disgruntled ex or somebody who hates you because of your political views and they go to a judge and say, ‘oh, this person is dangerous,’ and that judge would take away your guns?”

Lesko’s hypothetical claims are false. Red flag laws are designed to protect both gun owners and those around them.

Some social media users noted that Congresswoman Lesko reportedly “attended meetings about overturning the election,” while others are having fun with the Arizona Republican’s remarks:

Watch Congresswoman Lesko’s remarks above or at this link.

 

Continue Reading

RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM

Separation of Church and State Is a ‘Fabrication’ Says Far Right Activist Charlie Kirk: They Should Be ‘Mixed Together’

Published

on

Far-right religious activist, conspiracy theorist, and founder of the right-wing organization Turning Point USA Charlie Kirk has falsely declared that separation of church and state, a bedrock principle on which American society is based, is a “fabrication” not in the Constitution.

Kirk is a member of the secretive theocratic Council for National Policy., a close friend of Donald Trump, Jr., and spent years promoting President Trump – even interviewing him at one point. Turning Point USA has had repeated challenges. The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer in 2017 write a piece about TPUSA titled, “A Conservative Nonprofit That Seeks to Transform College Campuses Faces Allegations of Racial Bias and Illegal Campaign Activity.”

Former TPUSA communications director Candace Owens has praised Hitler, saying “the problem” with him was that he wanted to “globalize.”

RELATED: Watch: Charlie Kirk Calls for Texans to Be ‘Deputized’ to Protect ‘White Demographics in America’

On Wednesday Kirk declared, “There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication. It’s a fiction. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.”

That’s false.

The claim separation of church and state is not in the Constitution is a religious right belief that has been debunked by countless legal experts.

“Of course we should have church and state mixed together,” Kirk continued. “Our Founding Fathers believed in that. We can go through the detail of that. They established – literally – a church in Congress.”

That too is false.

RELATED: ‘When Do We Get to Use the Guns?’: TP USA Audience Member Asks Charlie Kirk When Can ‘We Kill’ Democrats? (Video)

“It’s a good thing Charlie Kirk doesn’t go to Wheaton because he would fail my Constitutional Law class,” writes Dr. Miranda Yaver, PhD, a Wheaton College professor.

As most public school students know, Kirk’s claims are belied by the First Amendment to the U.S., Constitution, which states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It’s the Establishment Clause, legal experts say, that debunks Kirk’s falsehood.

In reviewing the Supreme Court’s recent rulings, Reuters last month noted: “It was President Thomas Jefferson who famously said in an 1802 letter that the establishment clause should represent a ‘wall of separation’ between church and state. The provision prevents the government from establishing a state religion and prohibits it from favoring one faith over another.”

Jefferson is also considered the principal author of the Declaration of Independence.

Watch Charlie Kirk below or at this link.

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Pat Cipollone Is ‘A Greatest Hits Package of Crazy Statements’ by Donald Trump: Legal Expert

Published

on

Former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone has agreed to speak to the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on Congress on Friday.

Former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Harry Litman told CNN that Cipollone has carefully negotiated the testimony and he will likely “steer around down the middle” of the attorney/client privilege. However, former President Donald Trump is not the client of a White House counsel, the White House is. President Joe Biden has waived executive privilege for anything involving Jan. 6 or the 2020 election.

“He is a greatest hits package of crazy statements by Donald Trump,” Litman said of Cipollone. “He is the one who says to Mark Meadows, ‘You know, if you do this, you’ll have blood on your effing hands.’ He’s the one who says to Mark Meadows about [Mike] Pence, ‘You’ve got to stop it’ and Meadows says, ‘You’ve heard him. He thinks the rioters are right.’ He’s the one who has to go to Cassidy Hutchinson, a 25-year-old, and plead with her because Meadows won’t speak to him. ‘Please try to keep him from going to the Capitol.’ He’s the one who says, ‘if I go to the Capitol, it will be every effing crime imaginable.'”

READ MORE: Longtime friend of GOP’s Eric Greitens calls him a ‘broken man’ and accuses him of lying about his beliefs

“Now, they’ve negotiated it up, and probably what he wants is to say he’s not piercing attorney/client privilege. But all these statements I’ve said to you, Trump’s nowhere around. So, attorney/client has to be with the client for the purpose of getting legal advice, so he’s got tons to say without that.”

As Litman explained, Cipollone is in “everything.”

See the discussion below.

Image: Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks  via Flickr:
President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump talk with Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, her husband Jesse Barrett, Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, his wife Virginia Thomas, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, and Deputy White House Counsel Kate Comerford Todd in the Blue Room of the White House Monday, Oct. 26, 2020, after attending Barrett’s swearing-in ceremony as Supreme Court Associate Justice.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.