LGBTQ+ rights

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The US supreme court is poised to strike another blow against gay rights | Moira Donegan

      by

      The US supreme court is poised to strike another blow against gay rightsMoira DoneganThe court is hearing a case that could allow the kind of naked discrimination that the gay rights and civil rights movements fought so hard to end It’s not clear what, exactly, Lorie Smith’s problem is. The Colorado woman aspires to be a web designer; apparently, she’s also upset that gay people can get married. Smith is an evangelical Christian who says that her faith makes her object to same-sex marriage.This wouldn’t be anyone’s problem, except that Smith lives in a state with a robust civil rights law, one that forbids business owners who make their services available to the public from discriminating. But Smith really wants to discriminate: she hopes to be able to turn away gay clients from her as-yet-hypothetical wedding website business; she wants to put a banner at the top of her business homepage proclaiming her unwillingness to design websites for gay weddings. The law would forbid this if she ever went into business, so she’s suing.As of now, none of this has actually come up. At the time Smith filed her lawsuit, demanding an exemption to her state’s law, she didn’t even have a business with which to discriminate. The law has never been enforced against her; she’s never had the opportunity to discriminate that she so craves. It’s not clear, in other words, that she really has standing to sue – she’s never been forced to provide services to gay people, so, in legal parlance, there’s no “injury” to speak of. But Smith is an angry conservative, and she’s found some very well-funded lawyers from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a huge rightwing legal organization that has embarked on a nationwide campaign of lawsuits to erode civil rights protections for gay people.The result is 303 Creative v Elenis, a case in which Smith argues that her religious convictions mean that she shouldn’t have to comply with a generally applicable civil rights law, and should be granted license to discriminate by her state. The US supreme court heard oral arguments on Monday, and the 6-3 conservative majority is certain to hand Smith a victory allowing her to deny service to clients based on sexual orientation.A decision from the court is expected next summer. The question, as happens so often with this rabidly conservative court, is not who is going to win. That question was probably answered the moment the court agreed to hear the case, to the point that briefings and oral arguments in hot-button culture and identity cases like 303 Creative have been rendered largely moot.The question, instead, is how far the court will go: how much the justices will unravel the anti-discrimination laws that govern public accommodations – that is, the laws that say that businesses which serve the public cannot deny service to people based on their identity – and how much discrimination, humiliation and bigotry in public life they will unleash upon gay Americans. The question is whether the speech that Smith can deploy in any other form of her life – any belief that she already has every right to broadcast online, or in her church, or in writing, or by holding a sign up in the street – is also an opinion she is entitled to enforce through the conduct of her business.If the 303 Creative case sounds familiar, that’s because it’s more or less a rerun. In 2018, the supreme court heard Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, another case by a business owner challenging the same state law, this time a baker who didn’t want to make a gay couple’s wedding cake. In that case, the court punted, ruling that lower tribunals had mishandled the case, but not making a decision on the merits about whether an individual businessperson’s opinions trumped civil rights law. But the court looked very different in 2018: that punting opinion was written by Anthony Kennedy, who retired soon thereafter and was replaced by his protege, the beer enthusiast Brett Kavanaugh. Since then the court has lurched even further to the right, and has shown a willingness to indulge even the most far-fetched claims of Christian religious litigants.But it’s worth considering what the court did not do when it agreed to hear 303 Creative: it did not grant certiorari on Smith’s claim that her religious freedom was violated by the anti-discrimination law. This is unusual, for this court: since the Trump justices joined the court, turning it from what was already a quite conservative institution into a maximalist, revanchist one with a culture-war axe to grind, the court has expanded free-exercise-of-religion rights quite rapidly – at least, so long as those free-exercise rights are being exercised by conservative Christians.The court has even specifically used the constitution’s free-exercise clause to imply an entitlement to discriminate against homosexuals: in last summer’s Fulton v Philadelphia, the justices ruled that municipal agencies handling the welfare of children in need were obliged to work with a religiously affiliated adoption agency, even though that agency discriminated against gay couples in violation of city civil rights law.But in 303 Creative the court is only considering Smith’s wish to discriminate as a free speech issue. This opens a new avenue for challenges to civil rights law, and will provide an opportunity for rightwing lawyers to begin unraveling the laws regarding non-discrimination in public accommodations in the wake of the civil rights movement, like pulling on a loose thread to unravel a sweater.Though Smith wants to discriminate only against gay couples, and other exemptions to civil rights law are likely to focus on allowing open bigotry against LGBTQ+ people to be expressed in commercial life, there is no limiting principle that means that only gay people will be targeted. After all, if a website designer is allowed to decline to make a gay wedding website, what stops her from making the same claim to refuse an interracial wedding, or an interfaith one? Is she allowed to decline to make sites for birth announcements of children born to gay couples, or via IVF?I keep thinking of the sign that Smith wants to put at the top of her future business’s webpage, the one that says she won’t make websites for gay weddings. It’s essentially an advertisement of her belief in gay people’s inferiority, an effort to exclude them not just from her own goodwill, but from commercial life. How different is such a sign, really, from those that advertised whites-only lunch counters, or the signs that the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recalled seeing in the windows of shops when she went on family road trips as a child: “No dogs and no Jews”.It has become vogue, in rightwing legal arguments against civil rights law, to speak of the “indignity” imposed on anti-gay business owners who are forced to comply with anti-discrimination law. It’s a shame that the court doesn’t seem poised to consider the indignity of facing discrimination itself.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS supreme courtReligionLaw (US)LGBTQ+ rightscommentReuse this content More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      US Senate passes bill protecting same-sex marriage

      by

      US Senate passes bill protecting same-sex marriageHouse must now pass legislation as Democrats hurry to get it Biden to sign into law before Republicans take over the chamber The US Senate has passed the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation to protect same-sex unions that Democrats are hurrying to get to Joe Biden to be signed into law before Republicans take over the House next year.‘No rings, no guests’: supreme court fears spur LGBTQ ‘shotgun’ weddingsRead moreThe House must now pass the bill, a step the majority leader, Steny Hoyer, said could come as soon as Tuesday 6 December. Nearly 50 House Republicans supported the measure earlier this year. In the Senate, support from 12 Republicans was enough to override the filibuster and advance the bill to Tuesday’s majority vote, which ended 61-36.Although the Respect for Marriage Act would not codify Obergefell v Hodges, the 2015 supreme court decision which made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, it would require states to recognise all marriages that were legal when performed, including in other states. Interracial marriages would also be protected, with states required to recognise legal marriage regardless of “sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin”.Same-sex marriage has been thought under threat since June, when the conservative-dominated supreme court struck down the right to abortion. Then, the hardline justice Clarence Thomas wrote that other privacy-based rights, including same-sex marriage, could be reconsidered next.Public support for same-sex marriage is at an all-time high of around 70% but according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, if the supreme court did overturn the right, at least 29 states would be able to enforce bans.Before the vote on Tuesday, the US transportation secretary, Pete Buttigieg, wrote on Twitter: “Strange feeling, to see something as basic and as personal as the durability of your marriage come up for debate on the Senate floor.“But I am hopeful that they will act to protect millions of families, including ours, and appreciate all that has gone into preparing this important legislation to move forward.”After the vote, Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic senator from Rhode Island, said the Respect for Marriage Act would “place the right to marry out of this activist supreme court’s reach. We affirm what the American people already understand: every person deserves the freedom to marry the one they love.”James Esseks, director of the LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, pointed to the need for more work.In a statement, he said: “For the last seven years, LGBTQ+ families across the country have been able to build their lives around their right to marriage equality. The Respect for Marriage Act will go a long way to ensure an increasingly radical supreme court does not threaten this right, but LGBTQ+ rights are already under attack nationwide.“Transgender people especially have had their safety, dignity, and healthcare threatened by lawmakers across the country, including by members of this Congress. While we welcome the historic vote on this measure, members of Congress must also fight like trans lives depend on their efforts because trans lives do.”In his opinion in the abortion case, Thomas did not mention interracial marriage. The justice, who is Black, is married to the conservative activist Ginni Thomas, who is white.The Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, is white. His wife, the former transportation secretary Elaine Chao, is Asian American. McConnell has voted against the Respect for Marriage act.On Tuesday, Biden, who as vice-president famously came out in support of same-sex marriage before his boss, Barack Obama, said: “For millions of Americans, this legislation will safeguard the rights and protections to which LGBTQ+ and interracial couples and their children are entitled.“It will also ensure that, for generations to follow, LGBTQ+ youth will grow up knowing that they too can lead full, happy lives and build families of their own.”Biden thanked senators for their “bipartisan achievement” and said he “look[ed] forward to welcoming them at the White House after the House passes this legislation and sends it to my desk, where I will promptly and proudly sign it into law”.On Monday, before a test vote, the Democratic Senate leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, also praised Republicans who backed the measure, saying: “A decade ago, it would have strained all of our imaginations to envision both sides talking about protecting the rights of same-sex married couples.”Republicans argued for amendments they say won the support of religious groups that nonetheless oppose same-sex marriage, among them the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.“They see this as a step forward for religious freedom,” Thom Tillis of South Carolina told the Associated Press.Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, a Democrat and the first openly gay senator, told the AP the way some Republicans came round on the issue reminded her “of the arc of the LBGTQ+ movement to begin with, in the early days when people weren’t out and people knew gay people by myths and stereotypes”.With growing acceptance of LGBTQ+ rights, Baldwin said, “slowly laws have followed. It is history.”Associated Press contributed reportingTopicsSame-sex marriage (US)LGBTQ+ rightsUS politicsUS CongressUS SenateDemocratsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Lauren Boebert accused of hypocrisy over prayers for LGBTQ+ club shooting

      by

      Lauren Boebert accused of hypocrisy over prayers for LGBTQ+ club shootingFar-right Republican congresswoman has record of anti-LGBTQ+ statements that advocates call ‘dangerous’ LGBTQ+ advocates in the US have criticized the far-right Colorado Republican congresswoman Lauren Boebert as a hypocrite in light of her past anti-LGBTQ+ statements after she offered prayers to the victims of the recent Club Q mass shooting in Colorado Springs.The news out of Colorado Springs is absolutely awful.This morning the victims & their families are in my prayers.This lawless violence needs to end and end quickly.— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) November 20, 2022
      The shooting at the LGBTQ+ club that left five dead took place on the eve of the Transgender Day of Remembrance. ACLU-Colorado’s senior policy strategist and trans activist Anaya Robinson called Boebert’s condolences “disingenuous”, and blamed incendiary comments about the community for such tragedies.Robinson said: “Certain language and statements are the things that are perpetuating this violence and this hate. Change course … dehumanizing individuals and communities because of who they are and who they love – it makes it accessible to harm them.”Colorado Springs shooting: ‘heroic’ patrons praised for subduing gunmanRead moreAccording to a study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, “Transgender people are over four times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault.”Boebert has been outspoken about her stance against same-sex marriage, which the US supreme court ruled a constitutional right in the landmark 2015 case, Obergefell v Hodges.On her official government website, Boebert says that she opposes “efforts to redefine marriage as anything other than the union of one man and one woman”.Boebert has also taken aim at drag shows, which have become a focus of bigoted far-right conspiracy theories and a target for violence and protests. On Twitter, she once wrote: “ Take your children to CHURCH, not drag bars.”Take your children to CHURCH, not drag bars.— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) June 6, 2022
      Boebert, who has been in office since 2021 and was narrowly re-elected in the 2022 midterm elections, also has a history of pushing anti-LGTBQ+ policies in legislation.In 2021, Boebert introduced a bill to block funding for research into gender-affirming treatments for transgender youth. Boebert called the research “evil” and spread conspiracy-based misinformation about the National Institute of Health (NIH), which she called the “National Institute of Horrors”.On social media, Boebert aims to shock – equating gender-affirming treatment and surgeries to “child-grooming”.The Assistant Secretary for Health is out here trying to “empower” children to become transgender.The word is “groom”, Richard, not empower.You’re grooming them, not empowering them. https://t.co/sBPiaNu0Lj— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) July 18, 2022
      It’s a comparison advocates from Glaad, the world’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer media advocacy organization, have called “dangerous”.Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of Glaad, told the Guardian: “Boebert’s vile anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and her glorification of guns and violence is a toxic combination – researchers who study extremism say it’s like a hot pan on a burner with popcorn kernels ready to pop – anyone listening can be encouraged to pop.“Boebert led on creating a culture of anti-LGBTQ hate in Colorado and beyond. The lies Boebert spews about LGBTQ people are absolutely despicable. Instead of offering her thoughts and prayers, how about Boebert instead stops her barrage of anti-LGBTQ hate and works to enact stronger gun safety reforms? We need politicians who will represent us all and keep us safe, not politicians who put our lives in danger just to bolster their careers.”In its official statement on the Club Q shooting, Glaad wrote: “Our hearts are broken for the victims of the horrific tragedy in Colorado Springs, and their loved ones. This unspeakable attack has robbed countless people of their friends and family and an entire community’s sense of safety.“You can draw a straight line from the false and vile rhetoric about LGBTQ people spread by extremists and amplified across social media, to the nearly 300 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced this year, to the dozens of attacks on our community like this one.”TopicsRepublicansUS politicsLGBTQ+ rightsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Same-sex marriage legislation clears key US Senate hurdle with Republican support

      by

      Same-sex marriage legislation clears key US Senate hurdle with Republican supportTwelve Republicans voted with all Democrats to advance the bill, which would ensure same-sex unions are enshrined in federal law Legislation to protect same-sex and interracial marriages crossed a major Senate hurdle on Wednesday, putting Congress on track to take the historic step of ensuring that such unions are enshrined in federal law.Twelve Republicans voted with all Democrats to move forward on the legislation, meaning a final vote could come as soon as this week, or later this month. Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, said the bill ensuring the unions are legally recognized under the law is a chance for the Senate to “live up to its highest ideals” and protect marriage equality for all people.“It will make our country a better, fairer place to live,” Schumer said, noting that his own daughter and her wife are expecting a baby next year.Senate Democrats are quickly moving to pass the bill while the party still controls the House. Republicans are on the verge of winning the House majority and would be unlikely to take up the issue next year.The bill has gained steady momentum since the supreme court’s June decision that overturned Roe v Wade and the federal right to an abortion. An opinion at that time from Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that an earlier high court decision protecting same-sex marriage could also come under threat.The legislation would repeal the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act and require states to recognize all marriages that were legal where they were performed. The new Respect for Marriage Act would also protect interracial marriages by requiring states to recognize legal marriages regardless of “sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin”.Congress has been moving to protect same-sex marriage as support from the general public – and from Republicans in particular – has sharply grown in recent years, as the supreme court’s 2015 Obergefell v Hodges decision legalized gay marriage nationwide. Recent polling has found more than two-thirds of the public supports same-sex unions.Still, many Republicans in Congress have been reluctant to support the legislation. Democrats delayed consideration until after the midterm elections, hoping that would relieve political pressure on some GOP senators who might be wavering.A proposed amendment to the bill, negotiated by supporters to bring more Republicans on board, would clarify that it does not affect rights of private individuals or businesses that are already enshrined in law. Another tweak would make clear that a marriage is between two people, an effort to ward off some far-right criticism that the legislation could endorse polygamy.Three Republicans said early on that they would support the legislation and have lobbied their GOP colleagues to support it: Maine Senator Susan Collins, North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis and Ohio Senator Rob Portman.“Current federal law doesn’t reflect the will or beliefs of the American people in this regard,” Portman said ahead of the vote. “It’s time for the Senate to settle the issue.”The growing GOP support for the issue is a sharp contrast from even a decade ago, when many Republicans vocally opposed same-sex marriages. The legislation passed the House in a July vote with the support of 47 Republicans – a larger-than-expected number that gave the measure a boost in the Senate.On Tuesday, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints became the most recent conservative-leaning group to back the legislation. In a statement, the Utah-based faith said church doctrine would continue to consider same-sex relationships to be against God’s commandments, but it would support rights for same-sex couples as long as they didn’t infringe upon religious groups’ right to believe as they choose.Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat who is the first openly gay senator and has been working on gay rights issues for almost four decades, said the newfound openness from many Republicans on the subject reminds her “of the arc of the LBGTQ movement to begin with, in the early days when people weren’t out and people knew gay people by myths and stereotypes”.Baldwin said that as more individuals and families have become visible, hearts and minds have changed.TopicsSame-sex marriage (US)LGBTQ+ rightsUS politicsMarriagenewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Midterm elections: the candidates who will make history if they win

      by

      Midterm elections: the candidates who will make history if they winElections could usher in a younger and more diverse Congress in the House and governor’s mansions across the US American voters will head to the polls on Tuesday to cast ballots in the crucial midterm elections, and a number of candidates will make history if they prevail in their races.In particular, the departure of 46 members from the House of Representatives has created an opening for a new class of young and diverse candidates to seek federal office.Two House candidates, Democrat Maxwell Frost of Florida and Republican Karoline Leavitt of New Hampshire, would become the first Gen Z members of Congress if they win their elections. Leavitt would also set a record as the youngest woman ever elected to Congress if she can defeat Democrat Chris Pappas in their hotly contested race, which is considered a toss-up by the Cook Political Report.In Vermont, Democrat Becca Balint is favored to win her House race, which would make her the first woman and the first openly LGBTQ+ politician to represent the state in Congress. If Balint wins, all 50 US states will have sent at least one woman to Congress, as Vermont became the sole outlier on that metric in 2018.Some House races will even make history regardless of which party’s candidate prevails. In New York’s third congressional district, either Democrat Robert Zimmerman or Republican George Devolder-Santos will become the first openly gay person to represent Long Island in the House.As Republicans look to take back the House, their playbook has relied upon nominating a diverse slate of candidates in battleground districts that will probably determine control of the lower chamber. The strategy builds upon the party’s momentum from 2020, when Republicans flipped 14 House districts where they nominated a woman or a person of color.Overall, Republicans have nominated 67 candidates of color in House races, according to the National Republican Congressional Committee. Those candidates could allow the party to dramatically expand its ranks of members of color, given that just 19 non-white Republicans serve in the House now. With Republicans heavily favored to take back the House, many of those candidates of color could join the new session of Congress in January.Latina Republicans have performed particularly well in primary races, with several of them expected to win their general elections as well. The nominations of candidates like Anna Paulina Luna in Florida’s 13th congressional district and Yesli Vega in Virginia’s seventh district, which is another tossup race, led Vox to declare 2022 to be “the year of the Latina Republican”.“Republicans have an all-star class of candidates who represent the diversity of our country,” Tom Emmer, chair of the NRCC, said late last month. “These candidates are going to win on election day and they will deliver for the American people.”Republicans’ strategy of nominating people of color in some key House races comes even as members of the party continue to make headlines for their racist comments on the campaign trail. For example, Republican senator Tommy Tubberville of Alabama was widely denounced last month after he suggested Democrats support reparations for the descendants of enslaved people because “they think the people that do the crime are owed that”.And while Republicans boast about the diversity of this year’s class of candidates, Democrats’ House caucus remains much more racially diverse. Fifty-eight Black Democrats serve in the House currently, compared to two incumbent Black Republicans. Similarly, House Republicans hope to double their number of Latino members, which now stands at seven, but 33 Latino Democrats currently serve in the lower chamber.Beyond Congress, several gubernatorial candidates are eying the history books. Two Democratic gubernatorial candidates, Maura Healey in Massachusetts and Tina Kotek in Oregon, would become the first openly lesbian women governors in US history if they are successful on Tuesday. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the former White House press secretary under Donald Trump, will also likely be the first woman to win the Arkansas governorship.Stacey Abrams had hoped to make her mark as the first Black woman to serve as Georgia’s governor, but incumbent Republican Brian Kemp has pulled ahead in the polls. Other candidates like Oklahoma Democrat Madison Horn, who would be the first Native American woman to serve in the US Senate, also face long-shot odds of prevailing on Tuesday.But even if certain historic candidates do not succeed, it appears certain that the halls of Congress and governor’s mansions across America will look a bit different after 8 November.TopicsUS midterm elections 2022US politicsHouse of RepresentativesRaceLGBTQ+ rightsnewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans aim to pass national ‘don’t say gay’ law

      by

      Republicans aim to pass national ‘don’t say gay’ law Measure introduced in Congress would prohibit federal money from being used to teach children under 10 about LGBTQ issues Congressional Republicans introduced a measure Tuesday that would prohibit federal money from being used to teach children under 10 about LGBTQ issues.The bill would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach children about “sexually-oriented material” as well as “any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects”. The effects of such a law, if enacted, would be far-reaching since a range of institutions – schools, libraries, among them – receive public money.Universities, public schools, hospitals, medical clinics, etc. could all be defunded if they host any event discussing LGBTQ people and children could be present. The way they define “sexually oriented material” simply includes anything about LGBTQ people.— Alejandra Caraballo (@Esqueer_) October 18, 2022
      The bill also gives parents the ability to sue in federal court if their child is exposed to the barred material that is funded “in whole or in part” by federal funds.I can’t overstate how radical the private right of action portion is. The bill is so broadly defined that a pediatric hospital could be sued for having a pride flag or a medical pamphlet about gender dysphoria. It deputizes anti-LGBTQ bigots to engage in bounty lawsuits.— Alejandra Caraballo (@Esqueer_) October 18, 2022
      The bill was introduced by Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, and 32 other GOP members of Congress.“The Democrat party and their cultural allies are on a misguided crusade to immerse young children in sexual imagery and radical gender ideology,” he said in a statement. “This commonsense bill is straightforward. No federal tax dollars should go to any federal, state, or local government agencies, or private organizations that intentionally expose children under 10 years of age to sexually explicit material.”The bill is unlikely to become law while Democrats control the US senate and White House, but it underscores how Republicans have zeroed in on anti-LGBTQ issues as a way of rallying their base.Earlier this year Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, signed a law that barred schools from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity until third grade, “or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards”.More than a dozen states introduced so-called “don’t say gay” bills this year.Republicans have also targeted drag shows as part of this anti-LGBTQ effort. Idaho lawmakers will reportedly consider a measure to ban drag shows in public.TopicsRepublicansLGBTQ+ rightsUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Students protest Ben Sasse’s views on LGBTQ+ rights at University of Florida

      by

      Students protest Ben Sasse’s views on LGBTQ+ rights at University of FloridaLikely appointment of Republican Nebraska senator as president of the university sparks protests during his campus visit Less than a week after being revealed as the likely next president of the University of Florida (UF), the Republican senator Ben Sasse was met with protests when he appeared on campus in Gainesville on Monday.Ben Sasse, Republican who voted to convict Trump, to depart CongressRead more“Hey-hey, ho-ho, Ben Sasse has got to go,” protesters chanted, seeking to draw attention to the Nebraskan’s views on LGBTQ+ rights.According to the UF student newspaper, the Independent Florida Alligator, after Sasse left a student forum early, leaders of a crowd of around 300 called the senator “homophobic and racist in between yelling from the audience”. One protester called out “Get the fuck”, the crowd responding, “Out of our swamp!”Online footage showed the noisy scenes.A former president of Midland University in Nebraska, Sasse was elected in 2014. He emerged as a relatively independent voice in Republican ranks, criticising Donald Trump though usually voting with him. He voted to convict in Trump’s second impeachment trial.But in 2015, when the supreme court made same-sex marriage legal, Sasse called the ruling “a disappointment to Nebraskans who understand that marriage brings a wife and husband together so their children can have a mom and dad”.Under the heading “Nebraska values”, Sasse’s website says: “The family is the most basic unit of civilization, and the heart of our society. Senator Sasse supports the right to life, the sanctity of marriage, and the right of families to choose how to educate their children.”In Gainesville on Monday, Sasse first spoke to faculty members. The first question was about his opposition to same-sex marriage.He said: “I believe in the universal dignity and the immeasurable worth of every single person, all the tens of millions of Floridians, all … 56,000 students here, all 30,000 faculty and staff … we need to create a community of inclusion and respect and trust where people feel heard and appreciated and cherished.”Regarding Obergefell v Hodges, the 2015 ruling which made same-sex marriage legal, Sasse said: “There are definitely federal policy issues where I’ve had disputes before about which decisions courts should be making versus legislatures, but Obergefell, for example, is the law of the land and nothing about Obergefell is changing in the United States.”However, when the right to abortion was overturned earlier this year, Clarence Thomas, one of six conservatives on the supreme court, suggested same-sex marriage could also be reconsidered.Democrats responded by seeking to pass the Respect for Marriage Act. Sasse told reporters that Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, was “trying to divide America with culture wars”.“I think it’s just the same old bullshit,” he said. “She’s not an adult.”In Gainesville, as the young adults of UF protested, a staff forum featuring Sasse was moved online.The Sasse pick prompted the Republican governor of Nebraska, Pete Ricketts, to deny that he intended to appoint himself as Sasse’s Senate replacement. It also fed claims of growing Republican political interference in university affairs.There are no other named candidates for president. On Monday, the campus paper reported, one protester said: “I thought America was supposed to be a democracy. So why don’t we have a choice?”Alex Noon, president of the UF law school’s LGBTQ+ organization, told the Alligator: “It blows my mind that this is the sole person that they came up with. I could probably go downtown on a Thursday and find someone better.”RJ Della Salle, a gay student, said of Sasse: “We either have someone who’s a genuine homophobe as our president or we have a sleazy politician who just says what the people that he’s trying to get elected by want to hear.”TopicsFloridaLGBTQ+ rightsUS educationHigher educationUS politicsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘I want a president who has been gaybashed’: America’s underground anthem

      by

      ‘I want a president who has been gaybashed’: America’s underground anthem Zoe Leonard wanted a leader who had been on welfare, lost a lover to Aids, and much more. Sadly her plea, penned in 1992 and later displayed beneath New York’s High Line, is just as relevant today‘I want a dyke for president,” reads the opening of Zoe Leonard’s I Want a President. “I want a person with aids for president and I want a fag for vice-president and I want someone with no health insurance and I want someone who grew up in a place where the earth is so saturated with toxic waste that they didn’t have a choice about getting leukemia.”Originally intended to be published as “a statement” in an underground LGBT magazine, I Want a President was written in the run-up to the 1992 US presidential race. This took place at the height of the Aids epidemic, a medical issue turned political crisis that was, in the previous decade, catastrophically silenced by Ronald Reagan. President from 1981 to 89, Reagan failed to acknowledge Aids until thousands had died. The queer community was in turmoil, in the grip of a disease that took the lives of so many, and stigmatised even more.TopicsArtThe great women’s art bulletinUS politicsLGBTQ+ rightsfeaturesReuse this content More