LGBTQ+ rights

Subterms

    Latest story

    188 Shares159 Views

    Missouri: home to child marriage, corporal punishment and sick ‘child welfare’ ideas | Arwa Mahdawi

    by

    Did you know that child marriage is still legal in much of the US? About 300,000 children and teenagers were legally married in the US between 2000 and 2018, according to the advocacy group Unchained at Last. At least 60,000 of those marriages “occurred at an age or with a spousal age difference that should have been considered a sex crime”.Did you know that, until quite recently, Missouri was a “destination wedding spot” for children who wanted to tie the knot? The state has tightened its child marriage laws now – and is seeking to ban the practice – but not all lawmakers are happy about the changes. Missouri state senator Mike Moon said last year that he knows kids who have been married at age 12 (to another minor) and they’re “thriving”!Did you know that many school districts in Missouri still authorize corporal punishment? If a kid acts up in class, a teacher can spank them. Don’t worry though, they’re not allowed to do anything horrible like punch them in the face. According to one school district, the only punishment allowed is “swatting the buttocks with a paddle”.Did you know that Human Rights Watch gave Missouri an “F” grade last year for its compliance with international child rights standards?I mention all these fun Missouri facts because I think they’re important to bear in mind as we look at the latest dystopian news coming out of the state. Which is this: state representative Jamie Gragg is so concerned about the welfare of kids in his district that he has come up with a novel new way to “protect” them. How? By introducing a new bill which would force teachers to register as sex offenders if they use a transgender child’s preferred pronouns or otherwise help them in their “social transition”.The bill states that any teacher or school counsellor who provide support or “other resources to a child regarding social transition” could be found guilty of a class E felony and placed in the same sex offender registration category as someone possessing child sexual abuse images. They would not be able to work at a school again or be within 500ft of one.One hallmark of a Republican-authored bill is ambiguity: key terms are defined extremely broadly (or not at all) so that it is unclear what is prohibited and what isn’t. This vagueness is a feature not a bug: the idea is that people will over-comply because they’re worried about getting in trouble. It also means that Republicans can say “We didn’t mean it like that” if people try to argue that the legislation is unconstitutional. It’s a deviously brilliant tactic.This new anti-trans proposal is no exception to the GOP vagueness rule. “Social transition” is defined extremely broadly in the bill as: “The process by which an individual adopts the name, pronouns, and gender expression, such as clothing or haircuts, that match the individual’s gender identity and not the gender assumed by the individual’s sex at birth.”So what does this mean? Well it means that if this bill becomes law a teacher in Missouri would potentially be able to spank a child on the buttocks without facing any consequences but would lose their job and have to register as a sex offender if they used that kid’s preferred pronouns while doing the spanking. Hell, this bill is so broad that simply complimenting a cis girl who just got a “boyish” haircut could get a teacher in serious trouble.Of course, a bill is not a law. We should be very clear that, at the moment, HB2885 is just one lawmaker’s fantasy written down on paper. There are currently no co-sponsors for the bill and no hearing scheduled. It’s highly unlikely it will actually become law anytime soon. Erin Reed, a journalist specializing in transgender legislation and the first person to break the news of the bill, has noted that she doesn’t “believe something like this could pass, even in Missouri”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut just because HB2885, as it is currently written, is unlikely to move through the state legislature doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t alarm us. Extreme bills like this signal where Republicans want to head and help push the Overton window more and more to the right. Pretty soon a “moderate” is going to mean a raging conservative who is kind enough to think that a teacher shouldn’t be called a sex offender for using someone’s preferred pronouns. (Oh, hang on, that’s already what it means! Just how look at how frequently Nikki Haley is labelled a “moderate”.)It’s also important to note that while HB2885 might not move forward, plenty of other anti-trans bills will. Last year was a banner year for anti-trans bigots: over 308 anti-trans bills were introduced in the US, according to the Trans Legislation Tracker, including 43 in Missouri. This year will probably be even worse.All this legislation, and the anti-trans rhetoric that comes with it, is endangering the lives of trans and non-gender-conforming people. A bill doesn’t have to be passed for it to contribute to an environment where is dangerous to be LGBTQ+. Transgender deaths are on the rise in the US, with 53 transgender people killed and 32 lost to suicide last year. So, again, don’t dismiss the importance of bills like HB2885. This particular proposal might not go anywhere, but its very existence is a horrifying sign of where the US is heading.
    Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian US columnist More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A concern for everyone’: Tennessee poised to ban Pride flags in schools

      by

      Tennessee is poised to become the first state to in effect ban Pride flags in public and charter school classrooms, prompting outrage from the LGBTQ+ community.The Tennessee house advanced a bill, HB 1605, that forbids schools, teachers or faculty from displaying flags other than the US flag and the Tennessee state flag in public schools. The bill would also allow “a parent of a child who attends, or who is eligible to attend” a Tennessee public or charter school to sue their school district if a Pride flag is displayed “anywhere students may see the object”.The bill does not mention LGBTQ+ Pride flags or Black Lives Matter outright, but some Republican lawmakers have made it clear that the bill is meant to restrict them.The bill is expected to clear the senate as early as next week.Members voted for the bill after a verbal showdown between the state representative Justin Jones, a Democrat, and the Republican house speaker, Cameron Sexton. Jones was blocked from speaking on the house floor after likening the anti-LGBTQ work of the Tennessee legislature to a neo-Nazi rally held in Nashville earlier this month. When Sexton moved to end the debate and proceed to a chamber-wide vote, Jones blasted the speaker for silencing criticism of the proposed ban on Pride flags.Despite opposition, house Republicans comfortably passed the bill with a final vote of 70 to 24, splitting predictably along party lines.The vote sparked backlash from LGBTQ+ advocates, who noted that the bill’s advancement comes just weeks after Nex Benedict – a non-binary teenager in Oklahoma – died following a fight at the public high school they attended.“The flag is a symbol of acceptance, so if a teacher has a small Pride flag on the desk, or a pin on their bag, that signals to students, ‘oh, this is a safe person,’” said Chris Sanders, executive director of the Tennessee Equality Project. “When there is an affirming adult in schools, it sends a signal that there is a place in the building that is safe for LGBT youth.”LGBTQ+ youth consistently report higher rates of bullying, physical threats and other forms of harassment, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control. In 2021, nearly two-thirds of all LGBTQ+ youth reported feeling “persistently sad and hopeless”, compared to roughly one-third of heterosexual youth.And this is hardly the only attack on LGBTQ+ people in the state of Tennessee: just this year, lawmakers have filed at least 33 bills targeting LGBTQ+ individuals, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.Sanders warned that the proposed ban on Pride flags harms all of Tennessee, not just LGBTQ+ and Black residents.“They are targeting our communities, but creeping restrictions on people’s expression and speech should be a concern for everyone,” he said.The bill’s primary sponsor, the Republican state representative Gino Bulso, said that the bill was inspired by parents in his district, who complained about that “certain teachers and counselors were displaying a Pride flag” in some of Williamson county’s schools.Bulso said in a January interview with the local news station WKRN that the LGBTQ+ Pride flag represents values and ideas that he opposes, including the 2015 US supreme court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.“Fifty years ago, we had a consensus on what marriage is, we don’t have that anymore,” Bulso told reporters. “So the values that I think most parents want their children exposed to are the ones that were in existence at the time that our country was founded.”When pressed by Democratic colleagues to explain the proposed ban, Bulso declined to say if the bill prohibits the display of the Confederate flag in Tennessee classrooms.Bulso’s office did not respond to the Guardian’s multiple requests for comment.Outside of his work as a state lawmaker, Bulso is a private attorney who helps parents pursue legal action against public school districts. He is currently representing a group of parents in their lawsuit against the Williamson county board of education for allegedly violating the Age-Appropriate Materials Act of 2022, colloquially referred to by critics as a “book ban”, which requires schools to remove books that are deemed inappropriate for students.Notably, one of the four plaintiffs in the case, Aundrea Gomez, does not have children who are enrolled in Williamson county public schools. She has children who are “eligible” to be enrolled in the county school system, according to the lawsuit. Gomez also works as the Tennessee director of Citizens for Renewing America, a rightwing Christian non-profit that stands against “cancel culture”.“There’s obviously the risk of a conflict of interest between what Bulso is doing in his private practice, and what he’s doing as a legislator,” said Bryan Davidson, policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee. “A huge part of his practice is representing plaintiffs who do not have children in the school system they want to sue.”Like the state’s “book ban”, the house version of Bulso’s bill would allow parents like Gomez, whose children are “eligible” but not enrolled in the county public school system, to bring lawsuits against local education officials.Between ethical concerns about the wellbeing of LGBTQ+ students and the conflict of interest presented by Bulso’s private litigation work, Davidson said the bill presents an “obvious first amendment issue”.If the bill becomes law, it will likely face a legal challenge from attorneys at the ACLU of Tennessee, Davidson said.He said the bill belies “the first amendment and 100 years worth of supreme court precedent” on free speech and expression. More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      What Alabama’s IVF ruling reveals about the ascendant Christian nationalist movement

      by

      In the Alabama state supreme court case that dubbed embryos “extrauterine children” and imperiled the future of in vitro fertilization (IVF) in the state, the first reference to the Bible arrives on page 33.“The principle itself – that human life is fundamentally distinct from other forms of life and cannot be taken intentionally without justification – has deep roots that reach back to the creation of man ‘in the image of God’,” the Alabama supreme court justice Tom Parker wrote in an opinion that concurred with the majority. Attributing the idea to the Book of Genesis, Parker’s opinion continued to cite the Bible as well as such venerable Christian theologians as John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas.For experts, Parker’s words were a stunningly open embrace of Christian nationalism, or the idea that the United States should be an explicitly Christian country and its laws should reflect that.“He framed it entirely assuming that the state of Alabama is a theocracy, and that that is a legitimate way of evaluating laws and policies,” said Julie Ingersoll, a University of North Florida professor who studies religion and culture. “It looks like he decided to just dismiss the history of first amendment religious freedom jurisprudence at the federal level, and assume that it just doesn’t apply to Alabama.”View image in fullscreenDebates over the centrality of Christianity in US life have raged since the founding of the country. But now that Roe v Wade has been overturned and Donald Trump is once again running for president, observers say Christian nationalism has gained a stronger foothold within US politics – and its supporters have grown bolder.“They’re sort of saying the quiet parts out loud,” said Paul Djupe, who studies Christian nationalism as the chair of data for political research at Denison University in Ohio, of Parker’s decision.Today, 30% of Americans support tenets of Christian nationalism, according to a study released earlier this week from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). Researchers asked more than 22,000 Americans how much they agreed with statements such as: “The US government should declare America a Christian nation”; “Being Christian is an important part of being truly American”’; and “God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.” Ultimately, about 10% of Americans qualify as “adherents” to Christian nationalism, and another 20% are “sympathizers”.White evangelicals are particularly likely to support Christian nationalism: 66% hold Christian nationalist views.View image in fullscreenPRRI did not ask whether people self-identify as Christian nationalists, because many people who may hold those beliefs shy away from the divisive label. Yet over the last several years, conservatives at the local, state and federal level have notched major legal and political victories that have cleared the way for Christian nationalist priorities such as the overturning of Roe v Wade and the proliferation of efforts targeting sex education, LGBTQ+ rights and the separation of church and state in schools. Now, supporters are seeing further opportunity in a potential second Trump term. Whether someone openly claims the label of “Christian nationalist” is almost beside the point, Ingersoll said.“There are all kinds of people who are influenced by it in ways that they’re not even aware of,” Ingersoll said. “Most people couldn’t tell you who Thomas Aquinas was, but that doesn’t matter. They don’t have to know who that is to have been shaped by a form of Christianity that arose from his work. And I think that happens with Christian nationalism all over the place. It’s a way of shaping the public discourse.”Parker has ties to proponents of the “Seven Mountain Mandate”, a theological approach that once seemed fringe within evangelicalism but is now gaining traction. Backed by a network of nondenominational, charismatic Christians known as the New Apostolic Reformation, this mandate calls on its adherents to establish what they believe to be God’s kingdom over the seven core areas of society, including the government. On 16 February, the day the Alabama supreme court issued its ruling, a prominent proponent of the Seven Mountain Mandate released an interview with Parker.View image in fullscreen“God created government and the fact that we have let it go into the possession of others is heartbreaking,” Parker said in the interview, whose existence was first reported by the liberal media watchdog Media Matters for America. The interview took place in front of a framed copy of the Bill of Rights.A spokesperson for the Alabama state supreme court did not immediately return a request for comment from Parker.“It is clear that in the US, there have been two competing visions of the country,” said Robert P Jones, PRRI’s president and the author of The Hidden Roots of White Supremacy and the Path to a Shared American Future. “They’re mutually incompatible visions of the country, but they really have been: are we a pluralistic democracy, where everybody stands on equal footing before the law, or are we a promised land for European Christians?”‘I’m going to be your defender’Support for Christian nationalism is deeply linked to partisan politics. Residents of red states are far more likely to espouse Christian nationalist beliefs; in Alabama, 47% of people are adherents of or at least sympathetic to Christian nationalism, according to the PRRI survey. More than half of Republicans also hold Christian nationalist beliefs, compared with a quarter of independents and just 16% of Democrats.According to Jones and the PRRI survey, Christian nationalists’ top litmus tests for politicians are support for access to guns and opposition to immigration, although they are also very likely to say that they would only vote for a candidate who shares their opposition to abortion and LGBTQ+ rights.The 2015 US supreme court decision Obergefell v Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, sparked a huge backlash among many conservative Christians. Galvanized by the ruling, they threw their considerable electoral power behind Trump, who had announced his presidential candidacy just days before Obergefell was decided.View image in fullscreen“Conservative Christians have long had this kind of worldview that they’re embattled by the broader culture,” Djupe said. The Obergefell decision “was a huge spur and Trump played with it. He came on the scene to run for president about the exact same time saying: ‘You’re about to be persecuted. I’m going to be your defender.’”Trump went to great lengths to reward rightwing Christians for their support. According to one analysis, Trump’s judicial appointees were more than 97% Christian and a majority had some kind of affiliation with a religious group such as churches, the Christian law firm the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Catholic fraternal order the Knights of Columbus – far higher rates than judges who were appointed by Democrats or other Republicans. (The judges were no less well-credentialed.) Trump-appointed judges were also much likelier to vote in favor of Christian and Jewish plaintiffs embroiled in cases over the free exercise of religion.Trump also appointed three of the six US supreme court justices who voted to overturn Roe. The supreme court’s new conservative majority has steadily eroded the separation of church and state embedded in the US constitution.View image in fullscreenThe post-Roe skirmish over abortion rights illustrates another key element of a Christian nationalist worldview: the tendency to not only cast issues in binary terms, but to believe that the opposing side is a force of literal evil.“If you believe that babies are being murdered – which is the rhetoric that you often find in these ‘pro-life’, anti-abortion circles – if you believe that, then that is a very troubling and even diabolical activity,” said Matthew Taylor, Protestant scholar at the Institute for Islamic, Christian and Jewish Studies and author of an upcoming book about Christian extremism, The Violent Take It by Force. “There’s no dialogue with the other side … in their mind, you never compromise with demons. You exorcise demons.”Christian nationalists are roughly twice as likely as other Americans to believe that political violence is justified, according to the PRRI survey.‘They’re seeing the energy’In 2022, Marjorie Taylor Greene, a far-right Republican congresswoman from Georgia, openly embraced Christian nationalism. “We need to be the party of nationalism,” she said. “I am a Christian and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists.”But Greene is something of an outlier. Powerful organizations within the Christian legal movement, such as the Alliance Defending Freedom, are not yoked to the charismatic strain of evangelical Christianity that is today more closely linked to Christian nationalism, according to Djupe – even if they often work toward similar aims.View image in fullscreenStill, Djupe believes that the energized charismatic movement is pulling other Christian groups further to the right. Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House, has ties to the New Apostolic Reformation, which has also been linked to Trump’s rise. Johnson once suggested that no-fault divorces were responsible for school shootings.“They’re seeing the energy, they’re seeing the growth among charismatics, and saying, ‘Hey, you know, there’s clearly something to that formula that’s influential,” Djupe said. I think they’re starting to adopt it.”View image in fullscreenPolitico reported last week that the Center for Renewing America, a rightwing thinktank close to the former president, is drawing up plans to infuse Christian nationalist ideas throughout a second Trump administration. The Center’s president, Russell Vought, has also advised another powerful conservative thinktank, the Heritage Foundation, on its Project 2025, a playbook of proposals for a Trump administration 2.0, according to Politico.If Trump does win in November, experts fear what may happen next.“This is a worldview that does cast political struggles into an a kind of apocalyptic struggle between good and evil,” Jones said. “We stop thinking about our fellow citizens as political opponents and we start seeing them as existential enemies. And that really, at the end of the day, is poison to the blood of democracy.” More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      LGBTQ+ people protest in Florida over Republican conversion therapy bill

      by

      Hundreds of LGBTQ+ people gathered on the steps of the Florida state house on Wednesday to protest against a first-in-the-nation bill that critics say would raise health insurance costs for all state residents.The Republican-backed proposal, house bill 1639, mandates that insurance carriers cover conversion therapy, a scientifically discredited practice whose practitioners falsely claim to be able to change the sexual orientation or identity of LGBTQ+ people.“We hope that legislators wouldn’t vote for a health insurance mandate that would increase everyone’s costs as a way to just demonize LGBT people,” said Quinn Diaz, public policy associate for Equality Florida. “But we really don’t have any faith in this state government, at this point.”Diaz said the proposed legislation would also force trans people to “out themselves” on state-issued identification cards, requiring Florida residents to list the sex they were assigned at birth on their driver’s licenses.The bill comes amid a mounting assault by Florida Republicans on LGBTQ+ rights, a legislative project that has cost Florida taxpayers millions in legal fees. Last year, the Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, signed the so-called “don’t say gay” law banning classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity. Earlier this year, the Florida legislature introduced and advanced 11 bills targeting LGBTQ+ rights, including a proposed ban on Pride flags in public buildings, schools, and universities across the state.Now, Florida leaders have opted to focus on driver’s licenses and healthcare. Just last month, a leaked internal memo from the Florida department of highway safety and motor vehicles revealed that the state would no longer allow trans residents to change the gender marker on their driver’s license.“Permitting an individual to alter his or her license to reflect an internal sense of gender role or identity, which is neither immutable nor objectively verifiable, undermines the purpose of an identification record,” said the memo, written by the deputy executive director of the Florida department of highway safety and motor vehicles, Robert Kynoch.Kynoch warned that “misrepresenting one’s gender, understood as sex, on a driver license” amounts to fraud and “subjects an offender to criminal and civil penalties”.LGBTQ+ advocates say the quiet rule change has sown fear and confusion among trans and non-binary people across Florida.“Folks were afraid to just drive their car and go pick up their kids from school, because if they get a traffic infraction and are pulled over, ‘would I be automatically arrested for fraud by the police officer who checks my license?’” said Diaz.Though there is no legal way to retroactively prosecute a trans driver for the gender marker on their license, Diaz said, “the point of that memo was to make people scared.”Protesters at Wednesday’s rally also expressed outrage that the bill will probably raise health insurance costs.The Florida legislature passed a statute last year that requires lawmakers to commission an economic impact study any time a bill proposes the creation of a health insurance mandate. According to the 2023 law championed by Florida Republicans, any proposed “mandate that certain health benefits be provided by insurers” needs to first be assessed by the Florida agency for healthcare administration, so that the state can understand how the bill will “contribute to the increasing cost of health insurance premiums”.But House Republicans have not commissioned an economic impact study to understand how mandating conversion therapy might raise monthly insurance premiums, according to Equality Florida.Despite widespread criticism, the bill’s lead sponsor, the state representative Doug Bankson, said during a house committee hearing earlier this month that his proposal did not target transgender people.“It doesn’t mean we’re standing here and saying that the people in this room don’t have the right to seek their wholeness,” Bankson said. “This bill is about making sure that everyone has the right to seek that wholeness.”He described gender as a “subjective issue that is going on socially”, arguing instead that a driver’s license should display a person’s sex, “something concrete medically”.Florida Democrats remain unconvinced by Bankson’s characterization of the proposed legislation as the “compassion and clarity” bill.“What’s going on in the Florida capitol? We should be moving forward as a state, not going backwards,” said the state representative Anna Eskamani, speaking at Wednesday’s rally.Testifying against the bill earlier this week, Eskamani said Bankson’s proposal was a poorly disguised way to score political points with other Florida conservatives.“When we get in between people and their doctors and start to decide what coverage is appropriate versus not, it’s not about safety, now it’s just about political parties, it’s about the latest Fox News headline,” she said. “Nobody is asking for this.”As protesters marched through the streets of Tallahassee on Wednesday, the memory of Nex Benedict – a non-binary teenager who died last week following a fight in their public high school bathroom – loomed overhead.Angelique Godwin, a trans activist and drag artist who helped organize Wednesday’s rally, thought of Benedict’s early death as she looked up at protest signs with the words “Let Us Live” emblazoned on the blues and pinks of the transgender Pride flag.“The tragedy of Nex’s death is something that I think has lit a fire in all of us,” said Angelique Godwin. “We want justice for Nex, and we are also aware that their death is a warning of what could happen here in Florida if they continue to push the anti-trans narrative in legislation.” More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Top Virginia Republican apologizes for misgendering Democratic state senator

      by

      A top Republican in Virginia has apologized for misgendering a state senate Democrat in a row that caused legislative activity in the chamber to be temporarily suspended.“We are all equal under the law. And so I apologize, I apologize, I apologize, and I would hope that everyone would understand there is no intent to offend but that we would also give each other the ability to forgive each other,” the lieutenant governor, Winsome Earle-Sears, said in an address to the state senate on Monday.It all started when Danica Roem, 39, a state senator from Prince William county and the US’s first openly transgender person to serve in any state legislature, had asked Earle-Sears, 59, how many votes were needed to pass a bill on prescription drug prices with an emergency clause.“Madame President, how many votes would it take to pass this bill with the emergency clause?” Roem asked Earle-Sears, who was presiding over a legislative session at the time.Earle-Sears responded: “Yes, sir, that would be 32.”Roem walked out of the room after being misgendered. Earle-Sears initially refused to apologize for the mistake but finally did so after two separate recesses.The lieutenant governor maintained that she did not mean to upset anyone.“I am here to do the job that the people of Virginia have called me to do, and that is to treat everyone with respect and dignity,” Earle-Sears said.She added: “I myself have at times not been afforded that same respect and dignity.”Earle-Sears herself also made history as the state’s first Black and first female lieutenant governor.Roem has served in Virginia’s state senate since 2023. She was previously a member of the Virginia house of delegates, to which she was elected in 2017.The bill about which Roem inquired, HB592, ultimately passed the Virginia senate.Roem’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Republican party wants to turn America into a theocracy | Robert Reich

      by

      In a case centering on wrongful-death claims for frozen embryos that were accidentally destroyed at a fertility clinic, the Alabama supreme court ruled last Friday that frozen embryos are “children” under state law.As a result, several Alabama in-vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics are ceasing services, afraid to store or destroy any embryos.The underlying issue is whether government can interfere in the most intimate aspects of people’s lives – not only barring people from obtaining IVF services but also forbidding them from entering into gay marriage, utilizing contraception, having out-of-wedlock births, ending their pregnancies, changing their genders, checking out whatever books they want from the library, and worshipping God in whatever way they wish (or not worshipping at all).All these private freedoms are under increasing assault from Republican legislators and judges who want to impose their own morality on everyone else. Republicans are increasingly at war with America’s basic separation of church and state.According to a new survey from the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution, more than half of Republicans believe the country should be a strictly Christian nation – either adhering to the ideals of Christian nationalism (21%) or sympathizing with those views (33%).Christian nationalism is also closely linked with authoritarianism. According to the same survey, half of Christian nationalism adherents and nearly four in 10 sympathizers said they support the idea of an authoritarian leader powerful enough to keep these Christian values in society.During an interview at a Turning Point USA event last August, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (a Republican from Georgia) said party leaders need to be more responsive to the base of the party, which she claimed is made up of Christian nationalists.“We need to be the party of nationalism,” she said. “I am a Christian and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists.”A growing number of evangelical voters view Trump as the second coming of Jesus Christ and see the 2024 election as a battle not only for America’s soul but for the salvation of all mankind. Many of the Trump followers who stormed the Capitol on 6 January 2021 carried Christian symbols and signs invoking God and Jesus.An influential thinktank close to Trump is developing plans to infuse Christian nationalist ideas into his administration if he returns to power, according to documents obtained by Politico.Spearheading the effort is Russell Vought, who served as Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget during his presidential term and remains close to him.Vought, frequently cited as a potential chief of staff in a second Trump White House, has embraced the idea that Christians are under assault and has spoken of policies he might pursue in response.Those policies include banning immigration of non-Christians into the United States, overturning same-sex marriage and barring access to contraception.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn a concurring opinion in last week’s Alabama supreme court decision, Alabama’s chief justice, Tom Parker, invoked the prophet Jeremiah, Genesis and the writings of 16th- and 17th-century theologians.“Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God,” he wrote. “Even before birth, all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.”Before joining the court, Parker was a close aide and ally of Roy Moore, the former chief justice of the Alabama supreme court who was twice removed from the job – first for dismissing a federal court order to remove an enormous granite monument of the Ten Commandments he had installed in the state judicial building, and then for ordering state judges to defy the US supreme court’s decision affirming gay marriage.So far, the US supreme court has not explicitly based its decisions on scripture, but several of its recent rulings – the Dobbs decision that overruled Roe v Wade, its decision in Kennedy v Bremerton School District on behalf of a public school football coach who led students in Christian prayer, and its decision in Carson v Makin, requiring states to fund private religious schools if they fund any other private schools, even if those religious schools would use public funds for religious instruction and worship – are consistent with Christian nationalism.But Christian nationalism is inconsistent with personal freedom, including the first amendment’s guarantee that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.We can be truly free only if we’re confident we can go about our private lives without being monitored or intruded upon by the government and can practice whatever faith (or lack of faith) we wish regardless of the religious beliefs of others.A society where one set of religious views is imposed on those who disagree with them is not a democracy. It’s a theocracy.
      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His newest book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans are redefining the word ‘equal’ in an Iowa anti-trans bill | Erin Reed

      by

      On Tuesday afternoon, the Iowa house education committee met to debate House Study Bill 649, a bill proposed by the Republican governor, Kim Reynolds. The bill, as drafted, would end legal recognition for transgender people anywhere “male” and “female” appear in Iowa code and would require special gender markers for transgender people on birth certificates, measures that were compared to “pink triangles” once used to identify LGBTQ+ people by Nazis in the 1940s. Perhaps the most ambitious attempt to discriminate against transgender people in the proposed legislation, however, is through redefining the word “equal” in the bill.The bill states that when it comes to transgender people, “The term ‘equal’ does not mean ‘same’ or ‘identical’,” which raises the question: what does “equal” even mean? The bill does not define the word, only declares that “equal” no longer means “same” or “identical” within the state of Iowa for transgender people. When the sponsor was asked directly what the word “equal” means in this bill, the representative Heather Hora answered: “Equal would mean … um … I would assume that equal would mean … I don’t know exactly in this context.”If the bill’s own sponsor cannot define the word “equal” due to eliminating the word’s actual definition, how can she claim to have created the perfect definition for “man” or “woman” in Iowa law? In attempting to write transgender people out of all legal protections in Iowa through definitions, the state legislature seems poised to undermine the very concept of equality itself. That should be enough to shake all Iowans, regardless of their political stance on transgender issues.The bill’s sponsor is not content with redefining the word equal, however; the bill goes on to proclaim that “separate” is “not inherently unequal”. One opponent to the bill pointed to the cruel history of the doctrine of “separate but equal” and the attempt to revive that history with a new, Republican-condoned target. Though the new definition of the word “equal” and the revival of the “separate but equal doctrine” only applies to transgender people, the precedents that make up the bedrock of equality for all are threatened. Is it so important for Republicans to get a political victory against transgender people in the state that they are willing to go this far?Equally important is the means by which the bill establishes transgender people as “separate”. The bill mandates that transgender people be given unique identifiers on their birth certificates, outing them as transgender. Anyone born in Iowa who wishes to change their birth certificate after obtaining gender-affirming care would be forced to have both gender markers on their birth certificates, making their transgender identity obvious any time they use their birth certificate. This raises the question: why is it so important for the state to readily identify transgender people?Forced identification has been used to harm LGBTQ+ people in the past. During the 1940s, Nazis required LGBTQ+ people to wear pink triangles to designate their status, including transgender people. Many of those who advocated against the Iowa bill showed up wearing such pink triangles to raise awareness of how they would be designated “separate” and denied equal protections.The Republican representative Brooke Boden did not seem to take complaints about a special gender marker and forced identification for transgender people seriously. Instead, she replied disingenuously: “What I hear from the trans community is that they are proud to be trans, and I guess that that would be OK to identify it as that and make sure that your birth certificate represents those things,” moving the bill to the full committee for a vote.Despite heavy opposition with more than a hundred people who showed up against the bill, the house education committee passed it through on a party-line vote. With less than 24 hours’ notice, the bill had a hearing announced, was heard, and passed, leaving little time for the committee or the state to properly vet its staggering implications.In the coming days, Iowa legislators will grapple with the meaning of words as this bill moves to the full house floor. Some will state that the bill is really merely about defining a “man” or a “woman”. What they will not acknowledge, however, is that those definitions are misdirection, a magician’s trick to prevent you from realizing that it is the fundamental definition of equality itself that is at risk.
      Erin Reed is a transgender journalist based in Washington DC. She tracks LGBTQ+ legislation around the United States for her subscription newsletter, Erin in the Morning More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Florida’s new anti-gay bill aims to limit and punish protected free speech

      by

      By day two of Florida’s legislative session, which started last month, lawmakers had introduced nearly 20 anti-gay or anti-trans bills. One such bill, SB 1780, would make accusing someone of being homophobic, transphobic, racist or sexist, even if the accusation is true, equivalent to defamation, and punishable by a fine of at least $35,000. If passed, the bill would severely limit and punish constitutionally protected free speech in the state.Though SB 1780 is not likely to survive past higher courts, its introduction is indicative of a wider conservative strategy to stifle criticism of racist, sexist and homophobic behavior. The bill, critics argue, is being introduced to test the waters and see how far, legally, lawmakers can go until they are able to silence detractors.“That’s the pattern here in Florida,” said Sharon Austin, a professor of political science at the University of Florida. “They introduce a bill that many of us find to be really extreme. When we start to protest, eventually they take out some of the provisions and sort of water it down a little bit, but in the end it ends up getting passed.”Austin notes that similar bills, such as SB 266, which severely limits diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts, and HB7, “the stop woke act”, which regulates how race and race issues can be taught in schools, were ultimately passed after lawmakers made the bills slightly less extreme.Understanding the landscape that legislators in the state are attempting to construct is crucial, said Howard Simon, the executive director of the ACLU of Florida. “This session is probably going to be known as the ‘gay bigotry legislative session’,” he said. “They’re on track to spend the [two-month legislative session] exercising their bigotry and hostility to the gay community in Florida.”During last year’s legislative session, multiple anti-gay bills were introduced, including the infamous “don’t say gay” bill, which has been challenged multiple times since it was signed into law. Florida taxpayers have footed the costs for a number of lawsuits in the last several years, totaling well into the millions.Simon and Austin both argue that by crafting bills that specifically target LGBTQ+ people, DEI efforts and free speech, conservative legislators are trying to push those who do not fit the mold of what they believe Florida should look like out of the state.“Whether you like it or not, if someone wants to accuse you of being racist or sexist or homophobic, they have a right to do that,” said Austin. “It’s protected speech. There are attempts to intimidate and bully educators and individuals by letting them know that if you say something that’s unpopular, that offends conservatives, then we will come after you, then we will punish you.”‘It’s a frightening time’The passage of SB 1780 would have sweeping implications for free speech, as the bill’s restrictions apply to everything from print and television to online social media posts. The bill would not only make it virtually impossible to prove accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia or transphobia, but it would also make it so that the victim of discriminatory statements is responsible for damages to the offender. If enough people were charged under the bill, Simon said, it would likely intimidate others from coming forward about discrimination, effectively silencing victims of hate crimes or other forms of bigotry. Austin likens the bill and others like it to McCarthyism.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“That’s the level of paranoia we’re coming to. It’s a frightening time,” she said. “It makes you wonder if we’re going back to … that type of society in which you’re almost afraid to say anything for fear of offending conservatives who are really trying to destroy you if you say something that they don’t like.”SB 1780 also would have implications for journalists: if passed, the bill would remove the ability for reporters to keep sources anonymous. Journalists who report on discrimination would be particularly vulnerable to lawsuits, as the bill stipulates that “a statement by an anonymous source is presumptively false for purposes of a defamation action”. Austin believes that this is a further attempt to control the media.A similar, more sweeping bill, HB 991, explicitly made it easier to sue journalists and passed the civil justice subcommittee last year. Though it died in the judiciary committee, SB 1780 is a second attempt to get the law through.“I have to hope that members of the Florida legislature will have enough sense not to pass this,” Simon said. “But, if it does, I don’t think the courts will have a hard time seeing the unconstitutional restrictions on free speech that are throughout.” More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Ohio trans candidate threatened with disqualification cleared to run in house race

      by

      A transgender candidate vying for a seat in the Republican-majority Ohio house was cleared to run on Thursday after her certification had been called into question for omitting her former name on qualifying petitions as required by a little-used state elections law.The Mercer county board of elections chose not to take up a vote on disqualifying Arienne Childrey, a Democrat from Auglaize county who is one of four trans individuals campaigning for the legislature, for not disclosing her previous name on petition paperwork.Childrey, who legally changed her name in 2020, has said she would have provided her deadname – the name a trans person was assigned at birth but does not align with their gender identity – if she had known about the law.“I would have filled out whatever was necessary, because at the end of the day, while it would have been a hit to my pride, there is something much more important than my pride, and that’s fighting for this community,” Childrey said.The Ohio law, unfamiliar even to many state elections officials, mandates that candidates disclose any name changes in the past five years on their petition paperwork, with exemptions for changes caused by marriage. But the law isn’t listed in the 33-page candidate requirement guide and there is no space on the petition paperwork to list any former names.All four trans candidates for the legislature this year have run into issues with the name-change law, which has been in place in some form for decades but is rarely used – typically in the context of candidates wishing to use a nickname.The complications in Ohio come at a time when Republican-controlled state governments nationwide have moved to limit trans rights. Last year, legislatures passed dozens of bills restricting medical care for trans youth, governing pronoun and bathroom usage at schools and dictating which sports teams trans athletes can join.Earlier this month, Ohio’s Mercer county board of elections received a protest to Childrey’s ballot certification from the county Republican party chairman, Robert J Hibner. Because the ballot is for the upcoming 19 March primary, the board ruled Hibner’s protest invalid, as Hibner is from the opposing political party.The board did not immediately respond to questions regarding the elections law itself and what role it played in Thursday’s decision to keep Childrey on the ballot.If Childrey were to win the Democratic primary, she would probably face representative Angie King, a Republican lawmaker who has sponsored anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and voted for bans on gender-affirming care for minors in November’s general election.Childrey told the Associated Press on Thursday that it’s “nice to take a deep breath” as she and her team now plunge into campaigning.“Hopefully people will see that this is a marginalized community in Ohio, and yet we’re still standing,” she said.Last week, the Republican secretary of state, Frank LaRose, said his office was open to putting the rule on the candidate guide but not to tweaking the law, and that it was up to candidates to ensure they comply with Ohio election law.But the Republican governor, Mike DeWine, said on Tuesday that the law should be amended and county boards should stop disqualifying trans candidates on these grounds. DeWine did not say how it might be amended.“We shouldn’t be denying ballot access for that reason,” the governor told Cleveland.com’s editorial board. “It certainly should be fixed.”DeWine recently vetoed a proposed ban on gender-affirming care for minors, but the state house overrode that veto. The senate is expected to do the same next week.Vanessa Joy, a real estate photographer from Stark county running for the Ohio house who legally changed her name in 2022, was disqualified earlier this month for omitting her deadname from petition paperwork. She appealed her disqualification but was denied. Joy, who said the current law was a barrier to trans individuals who want to seek office but do not want to disclose their deadname, is now working with legal counsel and the Ohio Democratic party to try to change the law.Ari Faber, a Democratic candidate for the Ohio state senate from Athens, was cleared to run but must use his deadname, since he has not legally changed it.Bobbie Arnold, a contractor from West Alexandria running as a Democrat for the Ohio house, had her possible disqualification dismissed on Tuesday by the Montgomery county board of elections and will be on the ballot in the March primary.However, under the state law, if Arnold or Childrey were to win their elections, they could still be removed from office for not disclosing their deadname and both are consulting with legal counsel about that part of the law.Arnold hopes that between Joy’s work with her own team to change the law and DeWine’s call for candidates to stay on the ballot, that will not be an issue come November.For now, like Childrey, she is excited to start campaigning.“It’s important for the overall wellbeing of our society that every voice has an opportunity to be heard,” said Arnold, who went to Childrey’s hearing to support her. “And that’s something that we’re not experiencing right now in Ohio.”In light of the outcomes of Childrey and Arnold’s cases, Joy appealed again on Thursday to the Stark county board of elections. More