LGBTQ+ rights

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We’re not just clowns and jesters’: San Francisco’s first drag laureate on surviving a dangerous time

      by

      When D’Arcy Drollinger, a veteran of the San Francisco drag community, was named the city’s first drag laureate this year, she quickly realized she was walking right into the eye of a storm.The 54-year-old performer, who said she was initially caught off guard by the nomination, has found herself at the forefront of a long-brewing culture war. With anti-trans legislation spreading across the US and bills banning drag performance being passed in various states, her first few months in the role have been a whirlwind.“It came in at full force, and I was as ready for it as I could be,” said Drollinger, who uses “she” pronouns when in drag and “he” in daily life. “I feel very lucky to be able to be in that spotlight and be an ambassador and a beacon for all of the places that are not like San Francisco – where people don’t have the same kind of enthusiasm and support from not only audiences but city officials.”Drollinger will receive a $55,000 stipend in her 18-month role as the city’s inaugural drag laureate, described in the job listing as someone who will “embody San Francisco’s historic, diverse and inclusive drag culture, elevating the entire community on the national and international stage”. Thus far, her duties have included participating in drag events, throwing out the first pitch at a Giants game, and liaising with politicians on how to preserve LGBTQ+ culture and history.The position has brought official recognition to the art form Drollinger has dedicated her life to – one she says is often dismissed as “frivolous” or just entertainment at a time when it has become more political than ever.“Drag is an art form, but it is also a lens through which you can view all other art forms,” she said. “Drag is everything over the top – it’s larger than life. And when you look at something in a magnifying glass or under a microscope, you see things in very different ways. So I think the power of drag is being able to look at things with a different perspective.”The schedule of a drag laureate can be grueling, said Drollinger, speaking on a video call from her “drag room”, a walk-in closet of sorts filled with wigs, outfits and heels. She now spends almost every day in drag, doing three or more events, speaking with news outlets, and performing. But a few months in, she has finally been able to catch her breath.“It all happened so suddenly, but now that it has had time to sink in, I have more clarity about what I want to do” in the remainder of her 18-month tenure, she said. “With this role being brand new, there isn’t a path – I’ve got to pave it myself. I have to decide what this position could and should be in the future.”And not just for San Francisco. West Hollywood also appointed its first drag laureate in June, and other cities could be next. San Francisco’s decision to appoint a drag laureate came in part as a response to the rise of anti-LGBTQ+ crimes and legislation in recent years, said the mayor, London Breed. “While drag culture is under attack in other parts of the country, in San Francisco we embrace and elevate the amazing drag performers,” she said.The list of such attacks is seemingly endless. Drag story hours, in which drag queens read to children, have been targeted in a number of protests by white supremacists in recent years – including in the Bay Area in 2022. The American Civil Liberties Union is tracking hundreds of anti-LGBTQ+ pieces of legislation in the US, including more than a dozen specifically targeting drag performers. Texas successfully passed a ban on drag performing in June, but the law was blocked temporarily before going into effect this week.Drollinger said in this cultural environment, it has “never been more dangerous to be a drag performer”. She feels her role has gone beyond a laureate – typically an artist or a figure simply recognized for significant contributions to a field – to a spokesperson for and a defender of LGBTQ+ rights at a dire crossroads. And that responsibility that can be daunting at times.“The problem is I just want to entertain people – I don’t want to spend all my time fighting,” she said. “But the reality is if more cities appointed drag laureates and recognized what we do – not only politically and economically but for the community on a social level – I think the less power these proposed laws could have.”Drollinger, who was born in San Francisco, said her interest in drag began at age four, when – inspired by Mary Poppins – she asked her mother to buy her a pair of heels and an umbrella. She started drag performances in adulthood in 2004 after she moved to New York City, and opened her own nightclub with friends in 2015, after moving back to San Francisco.That nightclub, called Oasis, has become “much more than a venue”, she said – it is a center for queer community in San Francisco. When the Covid-19 pandemic hit, she launched Meals on Heels, where performers brought food, cocktails and socially distant lip-synching performances to home-bound customers. She said the drag laureate position provided official recognition to the foundational work she and many before her had done for the city.“The drag community so often are the ones taking care of our community,” she said. “We are not only the clowns and the jesters; we are the political voice. We’re here to entertain, but also to support – and that’s why I think that drag is very important.”Drollinger said to that end, she was looking forward to working with the city on the best ways to preserve and celebrate queer history, and to honor the people who had come before her. San Francisco was the site of the Compton’s Cafeteria riot – a historic act of resistance led by the transgender community that predated the Stonewall riots.She said over her decades-long career, she had never seen drag as politicized as today. In her childhood, she remembers tourists from outside the Bay Area driving to see drag shows in the North Beach area of San Francisco, or men wearing drag on television and in films like Some Like it Hot. Now, she feels the need to hire more security and use metal detectors at her nightclub.“Racism and prejudice has always existed in our culture, but after Trump and others hijacked the Republican party, it has opened the floodgates for people who were already feeling this way to be very vocal about it,” she said. “It’s not about being anti-drag, it’s about being anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-community.”She said she was working hard to make concrete changes – to protest, to speak out, and to develop programs with the city to fight anti-LGBTQ+ hate. But her biggest weapon, she said, was her sparkle.“If we just sit here and watch, we feel helpless,” she said. “We ask ourselves: what can we do? But the truth is, if we can live more authentically every day of our lives, things will change. And by authentic, I mean more fabulous – because that is what we all want. If we can be that free and that fabulous every day, we inspire everybody around us.“People might not realize it, but deep down everybody wants to be the most fabulous they can be in this life – and if everyone is just a little more fabulous, there’s that much less room for anger and hate and hostility and violence. And little by little we can create social change around us. I do believe that is possible.” More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Nashville elects Tennessee’s first openly transgender politician

      by

      A transgender woman won election to a seat on Nashville’s city council, becoming the first openly transgender person to be voted into political office in Tennessee.Olivia Hill, 57, secured one of the four open at-large seats on the metro council of Nashville, a politically liberal city in an overwhelmingly conservative state.Her triumph made her the first transgender woman to be elected in Tennessee, according to the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, an advocacy group aiming to get LGBTQ+ people into public office.Hill was elected Thursday, winning 12.9% of the vote, NBC News reported.She was born and raised in Nashville, according to her campaign website, and is a military veteran, having served in the US navy’s engineer division for 10 years. Overall, she has been an engineer for 36 years.Hill previously worked at the Vanderbilt University power plant, retiring in December 2021, the Tennessean reported. She sued the university in September 2021 after experiencing intense workplace discrimination; the two parties reached an out-of-court settlement.Hill is a public speaker and advocate for women’s and LGBTQ+ rights, and she has served on the board of directors for the Tennessee Pride Chamber.“My expertise is fixing things, and while my focus is repairing Nashville’s outdated infrastructure, I also want to ensure that our city is represented with true diversity in a state where the ruling party thinks I should head to the closet,” Hill said in a media release on Thursday following her win, according to the Associated Press.Women now make up the majority of Nashville’s metro council, the AP reported.Annise Parker, the president and CEO of the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, applauded Hill’s victory. Parker noted that Hill’s historic election comes as Tennessee’s state legislature passes laws discriminating against transgender communities.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Nashville voters clearly reject the hateful rhetoric that has grown louder in Tennessee politics lately,” Parker said in a statement.“Olivia’s victory proves that transgender people belong everywhere decisions about them are being made, including local office.”Tennessee’s numerous anti-LGBTQ+ laws include bans on drag shows and gender-affirming care for minors. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Florida city’s offer of Safe Place to LGBTQ+ people prompts Republican ire

      by

      A central Florida city is moving forward with plans to join the popular national Safe Place initiative protecting LGBTQ+ people and others, despite opposition from Republicans who consider it a “deceptive and coercive” political mandate.Councilors in Mount Dora, a historic and eclectic small city famous for its antiques stores, art galleries and festivals, voted last month to affiliate with Safe Place, which seeks to give victims of hate crimes or bias a temporary shelter if they feel threatened.The program began in Seattle in 2015 as a voluntary partnership between the police department and local businesses, which displayed rainbow stickers in the shape of a police badge to denote their participation. The effort has since been adopted in more than 350 cities nationwide, including dozens in Florida.But four Republican state politicians from Lake county, in which Mount Dora sits, took exception to the city’s declaration, accusing the city in a letter last month of “virtue signaling”, and insisting they would explore “all legislative, legal and executive options available” to oppose a move they say contravenes “Biblical principles”.“This local Safe Place program is negligent, irresponsible and divisive at best,” according to the letter signed by the Lake county legislative delegation, state representatives Taylor Yarkosky, Keith Truenow and Stan McClain, and state senator Dennis Baxley.The four claim that the city is picking “winners and losers”, and warn small businesses they risk economic harm by turning off customers, citing recent rightwing boycotts of Target and Bud Lite for affiliating with the LGBTQ+ community.Crissy Stile, the mayor of Mount Dora, told the Guardian the city would not be dissuaded by the politicians, who represent a county she said was “a little bit slower on the equality scale”.“Mount Dora is very advanced, very inclusive, very safe already for all kinds of walks of life and beliefs, and Lake county is a little bit behind us,” she said.“The political pushback doesn’t surprise me, but the actual wording of the letter did. It surprised me that they would take that step to make it so official, and to have all the legislators sign off on it.”Stile said the city was moving ahead with its plan to seek accreditation by Safe Space, which has its headquarters in Seattle, as early as October. She added that she heard little criticism from the public.“We haven’t had a lot of people that were really upset, and the ones that are, really, are just upset that the decal’s depiction of a safe place is a rainbow,” she said.“To me, it doesn’t matter if it’s a rainbow or a happy dog face, it’s just raising awareness for treating people with kindness and respect no matter who they are, what they believe in, what they feel or who they love.”Michael Gibson, Mount Dora’s interim police chief, outlined the next steps for the program at a city council last week, at which members voted down a proposal to halt the process for review.“I think that it’s an important beacon that when I look at it I’m not offended. As a conservative American it doesn’t offend me, not one bit,” Gibson told the council, according to WFTV News.Gibson said his officers would receive training in dealing with victims of hate crimes, and that the design of the decal will be finalized at a later stage.Yarkosky, the author of the letter, and self-declared constitutional conservative, did not respond to a request for comment from the Guardian. But he posted to X, formerly Twitter, a follow-up letter explaining why the original was sent.“We simply want to know why the City of Mount Dora is seeking to force Seattle style political mandates on our small businesses,” he wrote. “We should be weary [sic] of deceptive and coercive mandates administered by local government that could have an opposite effect on public safety as well and [sic] put our small businesses at risk.”Notably, the second letter was signed only by Yarkosky, and none of his colleagues. Baxley, when questioned by local journalists, appeared to backtrack a little, saying he wasn’t 100% familiar with the Mount Dora program or the intentions of city leaders.“Our interest is strictly keeping the peace in Lake county,” he said, although, as the Republicans’ original letter to the city concedes, that has not been a problem before. “We had to go back over 12 years to find reports in your area regarding any such bigotry, prejudice or outright hate crimes being reported,” they wrote.Stiles said none of the politicians had spoken to her directly, and she was not worried by threats of economic penalties.“Our city’s not going to shut down if we don’t get our typical appropriation from Tallahassee that we ask for every year,” she said.“We were lucky enough to be awarded half a million dollars for a repaving project in our downtown, and for that we’re thankful. But I don’t think the city falls apart if they do follow through with their threat of economic harm to our city.” More

    • 275 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      I have never, in my adult life, felt less safe to be openly gay in public in the US | Dan Clark

      by

      When I came out of the closet in rural, upstate New York almost two decades ago, I never thought I’d go back in. I was wrong.In the last few months, I’ve started to change my appearance to accommodate a growing hostility toward the LGBTQ+ community in the US – even in New York, a state often touted as a beacon for queer communities.I wear a baseball cap when I’m out of the house to hide my bright, blonde hair, as if that’s a shade exclusive to gay men. I’ve ditched brighter, lighter colors that pop when I wear them for darker shades that mask any expression of what could be considered femininity.I speak differently when I’m in public, leaving out the excessive niceties I’d usually exhibit in hopes of throwing strangers off the scent of who I actually am.I started to change how I present myself in public this spring, when someone approached my open car window in traffic, screamed a slur in my face, and walked away without another thought.I was shaken. It was far from the first time I’d been called a slur, but the aggression and confidence with which he confronted me were startling. The next day, I bought a baseball bat, which now lives in my car in case I’m ever followed and attacked.It’s difficult to understand how we got here and why our perception of safety in public has changed so rapidly in just a few years, but it has.But we can find clues in polling data related to the LGBTQ+ community and how others feel about the country’s queer population.A recent Gallup poll found the sharpest decline in acceptance of same-gender relationships among adults in the US since at least 2001, the earliest data available from the polling firm.While about two-thirds of adults in the US – 64% – consider same-gender relationships to be morally acceptable, according to the poll, 33% do not. That’s a jump of eight percentage points compared with last year, when 25% of US adults felt the same way.At the same time, more people now identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community than ever. A separate poll from Gallup last year estimated that about 7.1% of US adults identify with our community – double the 3.5% recorded in 2012.That means more people are coming out at a time when acceptance of same-gender relationships has gone down, creating a recipe for hostility and – in some cases – danger for queer people, and their allies.Laura Ann Carleton, a 66-year-old woman from California, was shot dead in August after her killer took issue with an LGBTQ+ pride flag that was hung outside the store she’d owned and operated for the last decade. She had a husband and a family.At least 15 transgender and gender non-conforming people have been violently killed this year alone, according to data compiled by the Human Rights Campaign, in some cases in possible hate crimes.Those are the instances we know about; because not everyone is out, and because data collection on LGBTQ+ adults can be difficult, researchers from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics say we don’t have a clear picture of how severe the situation is.In just the past year, threats of violence against the LGBTQ+ community have been on the rise, according to the US Department of Homeland Security. The agency even warned that public spaces, and healthcare sites, could be the site of an attack.And now, Canada is warning its LGBTQ+ residents that some states in the US have enacted laws and policies that may affect them, creating a new, unspoken guidance for our queer neighbors to the north: be careful.Those laws were born from culture war in the US, but their impetus remains unclear.The catalyst appears to be the false, decades-old trope that queer people, men in particular, are more likely to act inappropriately around children.It’s an idea that researchers have debunked repeatedly, according to the Zero Abuse Project, a non-profit geared toward ending child sex abuse.And in New York, where the state legislature recently allowed decades-old claims of child sex abuse to be revived in civil court, no pattern emerged that showed members of the LGBTQ+ community as the likely perpetrators of those acts.Opponents of the LGBTQ+ community have also claimed that children will be indoctrinated into a different sexual orientation or gender identity if they spend time with us.Queer people will be the first to tell you that argument is asinine. For one, it implies that children will be able to choose, or change, who they’re attracted to after they’ve reached puberty, which just isn’t possible.If it was, it would raise a question for every person who advocates against us: when did you experience same-gender attraction and how did you reject it? Curious minds would like to know.The notion also presents the false idea to children that they could be happy and loved if they just stopped being themselves – a cruel notion that can manifest into a trauma that some don’t recover from, myself included.This doesn’t have to be a partisan issue; compassion, empathy, and understanding are ideas that hold value for everyone, regardless of their political affiliation.And if you disagree with that, there’s a good chance you’re part of the problem.
      Dan Clark is a broadcast journalist in New York, where he produces and hosts a weekly, statewide public affairs program and podcast for the state’s PBS member stations More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Mississippi elects openly gay lawmaker for first time in state’s history

      by

      The US state of Mississippi has elected an openly gay person to its legislature for the first time ever.Fabian Nelson’s victory this week left Louisiana as the only American state never to have elected an LGBTQ+ person to its legislature. And it served up a salve of sorts to a wave of laws passed in Republican-controlled state legislatures that discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, including a ban in Mississippi on gender-affirming hormones or surgery for anyone aged 17 or younger.In an interview with the Associated Press on Wednesday, Nelson, a Democrat, called his election to the Mississippi house “a dream” and “shocking”. But Nelson, a foster father, also said: “Ultimately what won this campaign is the fact that I’m in touch with my community and the issues my community is facing.“At the end of the day, I put my suit on the same way every other person who walks in that statehouse does. I’m going to walk in there, and I’m going to be a sound voice … in the state of Mississippi.”Nelson, a 38-year-old realtor, won his seat by triumphing in a Democratic primary election runoff on Tuesday over Roshunda Harris-Allen, a local alderwoman and a professor of education at Tougaloo College, a historically Black institution. Tuesday’s race was necessary after neither Nelson nor Harris-Allen had secured a majority of the vote in a three-way primary on 8 August.Republicans did not run a candidate for the general election scheduled for the fall. So, by virtue of his win on Tuesday, Nelson has clinched the statehouse seat that had been up for grabs. He is scheduled to be sworn in ahead of Mississippi’s next legislative session in January.His district encompasses an area south of the state capital of Jackson. As he has told media outlets such as the Los Angeles Blade and LGBTQ Nation, Nelson’s priorities include pushing for an expansion of Mississippi’s Medicaid program as well as developing the economy and infrastructure for his district’s underserved areas.He is also hoping to impede Republicans’ anti-LGBTQ legislative measures and efforts to disenfranchise voters in and around Jackson, which is mostly Democratic.Nelson said his election accomplishes a goal he set for himself the day that he visited the state capitol building on an elementary school field trip and told his teacher he would eventually earn an office in the house.“I’m still trying to process it and take it in,” Nelson said.The state director of the Human Rights Campaign’s Mississippi chapter, which endorsed Nelson, said the election “sends a real message in a time when we are seeing attacks … against the LGBTQ+ community”.“The majority of people reject that kind of animus,” the director, Rob Hill, told the AP. “I think a lot of youth around the state who have felt like their leaders are rejecting them or targeting them won’t feel as lonely today.”The president of the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, Annise Parker, added: “Voters in Mississippi should be proud of the history they’ve made but also proud to know they’ll be well represented by Fabian.”Though Louisiana now stands as the only state to have never chosen an LGBTQ+ person for a seat in its legislature, it did elect its first openly gay Black man to public office late last year.Davante Lewis won a New Orleans-based seat on Louisiana’s Public Service Commission in December after defeating a three-term incumbent.The Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Warped history’: how the US supreme court justified gutting gay rights

      by

      The extreme religious right’s mission to roll back civil rights from abortion to public accommodations is being fueled by false facts and false history. Recent articles in the New Republic have documented the shaky factual foundation behind 303 Creative LLC v Elenis, the case in which the supreme court held that a website design business owned by an evangelical Christian, Lorie Smith, could refuse service to same-sex couples. Even more troubling, the history undergirding the majority’s reasoning is misleading and dangerous to the separation of church and state.Tragically, the religious right knows it has a friendly audience in the six conservative Catholic justices on the supreme court, who have been partners in shaking the foundations of fundamental rights. The justices’ new standard is whether a constitutional right is grounded in “history and tradition”, the latest byword for the bogus doctrine of “originalism”. So they need some history, and apparently any history will do.The legal end to reach a thunderous ruling justifies their debatable means. So the concept of “religious autonomy”, built on a foundation of misleading scholarship, “impact” litigation and, above all, false history, has become the method for restricting rights. Its logic of power rests on its illogic; its warping of the constitution depends on the distortion of history.Tossing aside established historySince the first religious free exercise case in 1878, the supreme court has held that the first amendment protects belief absolutely, but speech and conduct reflecting those beliefs can be regulated if the government’s interest is strong enough.According to the founders, the reason speech and conduct should be subject to the law is the potential for harm. For example, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously remarked, it is illegal to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there are no flames. It is also illegal to cover up child sex abuse or to let a child die from medical neglect despite religious motives. This foundational no-harm doctrine used to apply to all Americans. But now, with its recent decision, the conservative supreme court majority has carved out a gaping exception to the no-harm doctrine for the extremist Christian right, tossing aside established history.For the court to reach its holding that an evangelical website designer has a constitutional right to engage in invidious discrimination against same-sex couples, the majority fraudulently inflated the value of Smith’s speech from expressive conduct (regulatable) to highly valued “pure speech” (untouchable).Two conservative amicus groups, the Becket Fund and the Catholic League, provided the court with the necessary tools to assemble this phony argument by concocting fraudulent histories on the freedom of religious speech.Both the Becket Fund and the Catholic League rely heavily on a 1990 article by the conservative law professor Michael W McConnell that cherry-picks history to make the argument that the constitution mandates religious exemptions from the law. No legitimate scholar outside the realm of the religious right takes McConnell’s arguments seriously – they were thoroughly debunked by Philip Hamburger, Ellis West and myself 20 years ago. As I wrote in 2004, “the power to act outside the law–was not part of the framers’ intent, the framing generation’s understanding, or the vast majority–and the best–of the supreme court’s free exercise jurisprudence.”Unlike what the Becket Fund and the Catholic League wish the justices to believe, the historical truth is that the founders believed that obedience to the rule of law was necessary for true liberty. And it is the true history repeatedly stated in the sermons of the leading clergy of the late 18th-century United States. The most influential of them all, president of Presbyterian College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), the Rev John Witherspoon, who trained more framers than any other educator –including the architect of the constitution, James Madison – stated that the “true notion of liberty is the prevalence of law and order, and the security of individuals”. According to Israel Evans, chaplain of the American army in the Revolution and a friend of George Washington, when a believer “counteract[s] the peace and good order of society” and harms others, “he would be punished not for the exercise of a virtuous principle of conscience, but for violating that universal law of rectitude and benevolence which was intended to prevent one man from injuring another.”The founders believed churches should have the “power to make or ordain articles of faith, creeds, forms of worship or church government”, in the words of the congregational pastor, Rev Elisha Williams, rector of Yale University. Yet the ecclesiastical domain had to give way when others are hurt. As the founder Baptist Rev John Leland stated, the civil law is intended to constrain the actions that harm others and the public good: “[D]isturbers … ought to be punished.” Leland was close to Madison and Thomas Jefferson and influenced their views on separation of church and state. “Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny – the worst of despotism,” Leland wrote.In short, the founders definitively rejected the notion that religious believers have special rights to avoid the duly enacted laws that apply to everyone else. The inconvenience of this deeply rooted historical fact must be glossed over by the Becket Fund and the Catholic League, because acknowledging it would undermine their entire argument.Exaltation of religious speech through revisionismThe argument for placing religious speech on a pedestal above all other speech is especially suspect. The Becket Fund argues that the freedom of religious speech has historically occupied a “preferred position” in the “constitutional order”, over other forms of speech. By “preferred” they mean untouchable by law. They even concoct a new label for valuable speech: “core religious speech”. The Fund’s so-called “history” argues that the freedom of speech started with the freedom of religious speech for churches, which then devolved to freedom of speech for legislators, and then finally individuals. The history they tick off is in fact a history of the suppression of religious dissenters’ speech, which was often brutal. From that bloody history, they conclude that at the founding, “the framers elected to follow a broad view of freedom of speech”.Yet their history is just spin. First, it’s not supported in the history of the first amendment itself. As they have to admit, “neither the debates in Congress nor the ratification debates within the several states shed light on the exact scope of the right protected, much less to what extent religious speech was covered.” Second, the first amendment’s free speech and press clauses were ratified in an era of vibrant political speech aired by a vital press. It is clear the founders believed that the press and political speech were highly valued, not ranked below that of religious speech in some recently invented imaginary hierarchy.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionToday, the first amendment holds that political and religious speech are highly valued (though not one over the other), but at the time of the framing, the framers knew that when they limited the first amendment to the federal government, the state anti-blasphemy laws would stand. They placed political speech above dissenters’ religious speech. Thus, the first amendment was consistent with putting in jail those who criticized Christianity. Indeed, there were prosecutions for blasphemous and sacrilegious speech until Burstyn v Wilson in 1952, which held such a law unconstitutional. Of course, that is religious speech suppression. So much, in the light of the founders, for religious speech’s “preferred position” by history. What they really mean, based on their twisted interpretation, is that Christian speech has a preferred position.The Catholic League in fact leans into the fantastical concept of exalting a subset of religious speech over all other religious speech when it bizarrely attributes to the framers their acceptance of what they claim as Madison’s supposed view “that the governor of the universe supersedes any earthly authority, religious convictions were understood to command greater deference than mere personal opinions”.Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion elevates certain religious speech exactly as the Becket Fund and Catholic League suggest, and achieves this feat by intentionally misapplying free speech doctrine at its most basic. As a matter of law prior to this court, 303 Creative’s website design would have been expressive conduct. 303 Creative’s commercial speech is not the traditional, highly protected speech the court has recognized again and again: it’s not speech in a public park or on a public sidewalk or a parade. The speech is by a commercial business, whose product has expressive elements to it, which means it is expressive conduct, on which the public accommodation laws impose merely incidental burdens. However, the majority pulls a proverbial rabbit out of its hat by saying that the parties “stipulated” the commercial speech is “pure speech” – and so it must be. But that’s not how free speech cases are decided. The courts decide whether expression is traditionally highly protected, lesser valued speech, expressive conduct, or unprotected altogether. Hiding behind the parties’ stipulation is in derogation of the court’s duties and constitutional nonsense.Having transformed commercial expressive conduct into highly protected speech, Gorsuch nudged the law closer to McConnell’s debunked thesis of mandatory exemptions, which downplays any government interest. Gorsuch takes 12 pages to even acknowledge Colorado’s interest in public accommodations law, granting it one full paragraph and a quick tip of the hat: “The vital role public accommodations laws play in realizing the civil rights of all Americans.” Then he segues to suggesting that newer rights in the public accommodations laws haven’t been fully examined in the law. It’s easy to read between the lines: the majority is suggesting that LGBTQ+ discrimination isn’t nearly as bad as race discrimination; it’s a second-order interest. This is exactly what the Institute for Faith and Family argued with some dubious 14th amendment assertions. The disgraced John Eastman, writing for the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, would have moved all the way to McConnell’s conclusion, arguing no state interest could possibly overcome the exalted speech of the wedding website. The court got very close.Dangerous movesThese are dangerous moves by the court that unleash biased and destructive religious speech and conduct. The founders would not recognize the lawless world this court is building.Let’s be frank. The extreme right Christian groups supporting 303 Creative are still burned up about the Obergefell decision, which enshrined gay marriage as constitutional. They have manufactured a fictional guarantee to so-called “pure speech” and trivialized the anti-discrimination laws to make up for the fact they lost the war on LGBTQ+ marriage.The majority’s decision in 303 Creative is, in fact, an expression of the Christian right’s constitutional sour grapes. The supreme court majority has deconstructed the first amendment to fit their Bibles.
      Marci A Hamilton is a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania More

    • 213 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘There won’t be libraries left’: how a Florida county became the book ban heartland of the US

      by

      “Why do you need to know how to masturbate when you still got skid marks in your underwear?” asks Tia Bess, the newly appointed national director of outreach for the conservative advocacy group Moms for Liberty.Inside a squat Pentecostal church on a country road in Clay Hill, Florida, Bess flips through a large illustrated handbook titled It’s Perfectly Normal, marketed to kids ages 10 and up, intended as a primer about the onset of puberty.“This is not something you want your children to see if they are not developmentally ready,” she says, pointing at a rudimentary sketch of young adults masturbating. Bess sports a bright blue T-shirt with a Moms for Liberty logo plastered on the front, touting an organization which she refers to as an army of “joyful warriors” advocating for parental rights, and which the Southern Poverty Law Center considers a rightwing extremist group.Advancing the analogy, Bess pulls a copy of Hustler magazine from her bag, along with a copy of Gender Queer, the graphic novel by Maia Kobabe that PEN America ranks as the most banned book in the country.“Show me the difference,” she says, holding the two illustrated pages side by side.Both pages depict oral sex. Though, in the case of Gender Queer, it’s fairly obvious that the message is one of confusion and insecurity about sexuality, which contrasts with the superficially erotic scene in Hustler.Bess thinks these distinctions are too subtle for teenagers to understand. She wants to see Gender Queer and many other titles removed from shelves of public school libraries in her home district of Clay county, a rural, predominantly conservative swath of north-east Florida. And she’s had tremendous success.Clay county has become a flashpoint in the state of Florida on the topic of book challenges. According to recent tallies, more than 175 books have been permanently removed from its public school libraries – a number which ranks among the highest of any county in the US – and hundreds more remain unavailable to students due to a policy unique to the county, requiring that books are pulled from shelves as soon as a challenge form is filed with the school district. Conservative activists from two organizations have seized on that policy, often filing multiple challenge forms at a time, which inundates the systems and committees that process the claims.“The biggest issue facing Clay county right now is the backlog of challenges and the huge political divide that’s driving it. No other county is dealing with a similar problem,” says Jen Cousins, co-founder of the Florida Freedom to Read Project (FFTRP) and a mother of four. “They’re creating fake outrage over what’s available in libraries.”Last year, Bess moved her family from Jacksonville to Clay county due to a “less restrictive” political and cultural climate. She’s since embedded herself locally in the fight for book removal, filing challenge forms, holding forth in school board meetings on the dangers of books like Gender Queer (which has since been removed from public school collections) by drawing salacious parallels with flatly pornographic material, and recording hammy YouTube videos reading selections from books that she deems inappropriate for middle- and high-school students.In her official capacity at Moms for Liberty, she advises other parents in Clay county on how to do the same. She is also a key player in advancing the mandate on a national level – going city to city, state to state, speaking at chapter meetings and conventions, recruiting new members and encouraging members to run for school board seats.“Empower and educate parents – that’s what we want to do,” says Bess. “And holding elected officials accountable for the decisions they’re making.”Bess first rose to prominence as a volunteer at Moms for Liberty in the spring of 2021, when she successfully sued Jacksonville’s school district for defying Governor Ron DeSantis’s anti-masking mandate on behalf of her then three-year-old son, who has autism and sensory issues. As a Black woman from downtown Jacksonville, who spent a portion of her teenage years homeless, she complicates the stereotype of Moms for Liberty members as a tidy bloc of predominantly white suburban housewives.“A lot of people in the Black community are afraid to speak up,” she says. “And I just didn’t care about that. It wasn’t about me or my feelings.”Despite the express mission of parental empowerment, it’s rare that book challenge forms are filed by individual parents. Instead, nearly all of the challenges in Clay county have been filed by activists affiliated with the same two organizations: Moms for Liberty and No Left Turn in Education. Bess also chalks this up to fear over repercussions and a lack of knowledge about school board politics and procedures.“Parents are afraid. Even my own mother still has the mentality of a Black woman born in the 40s. There’s still that fear and intimidation,” she says. “The average person doesn’t know these books are out there. But if they knew how to challenge them, they would. And that’s my job.”Founded in central Florida in 2021, Moms for Liberty began as a critical mass of parents troubled by their school district’s Covid-19 mask mandates. With the help of well-organized campaigns of outrage (both in person and online) it has since spread rapidly, growing to 285 chapters in 45 states, with roughly 120,000 members, in two years.The group’s national profile has been built on combating what it deems the ills of society: gender ideology, critical race theory and the “sexualization” of children. For those critical of the group, these interpretations often translate to homophobia, racism and delusions of rampant pedophilia.Moms for Liberty purports to be a grassroots organization, but has attracted donations from political action committees such as Conservatives for Good Government. It also has longstanding connections to the Republican party. The founding mothers are Tina Descovich and Tiffany Justice, both former school board members from central Florida. The third founder is Bridget Ziegler. (She has since stepped back from her leadership role in the group, but continues to serve as chair of the Sarasota county school board.) She is married to Christian Ziegler, chair of the Florida Republican party. The pair are close friends with Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, who recently appointed Bridget Ziegler to the board overseeing Disney World’s district after stripping the corporation of its power to self-govern.Ziegler’s advocacy for the “Parents’ Bill of Rights” laid the groundwork for last year’s Parental Rights in Education Act, better known by the “don’t say gay” moniker. She appeared behind DeSantis at the bill’s signing last year.Among its most controversial sections, the bill prohibits classroom discussions of gender identity or sexual orientation from kindergarten to third grade. An update to that legislation, HB 1069, was passed in the spring of this year, and went into effect on 1 July and extends those same prohibitions from third to 12th grade.Additionally, the new law emboldens book challenges by forcing all districts in Florida to adopt policies that were already in effect in Clay county, such as removing books from shelves five days after a challenge form has been filed, allowing parents to appeal a school district’s decision to return books to shelves, or refile the same challenge form repeatedly, and providing parents a path to limit their children’s access to public school libraries.“It’s effectively a ban when you pull books out of circulation,” says Gargi Chipalkatti, a mother of two children in Clay county public schools. “I want my kids to have access to any book they want to read. I didn’t like the fact that somebody else was trying to dictate that.”Chipalkatti served as a volunteer on Clay county’s book review committee last school year, which rules on whether or not challenged books should be returned to shelves. “It boggles my mind that you had a couple of organizations flooding the system and holding everybody hostage.”All of this is particularly troubling for media specialists, who oversee library collections in public schools, and bear the full weight of the issue.Julie Miller, who serves as chair of the Clay county education association media specialist committee, is in charge of selecting and purchasing books for a high school library in Clay county. Her husband, Joel Miller, is likewise a career educator, and teaches media studies at a rival high school.“Prior to 2021, we’d gone over 20 years without a single challenge,” Julie Miller says. Midway through this summer, 706 books have been officially challenged, according to data provided by FFTRP. Many of the titles currently receiving negative attention have been in libraries for decades. Such is the case for Push by Sapphire, and Lucky by Alice Sebold, both of which contain granular depictions of rape. A handful of outliers, like those furnished by Tia Bess, have questionable illustrations and advice, which the Millers make no concessions for.“It all comes down to community standards,” Joel Miller says. “Portland, Oregon, may feel differently, but there’s probably no place for books like that in Orange Park, Florida.”The Millers note that a large percentage of challenges are for books that have LGBTQ+ themes, such as All Boys Aren’t Blue by George M Johnson. And yet more are challenged on the grounds of being critical race theory-adjacent and teaching “alternative history”, including canonical novels such as Native Son, Beloved and the anodyne children’s book Before She Was Harriet (which has since been returned to library shelves).“There are a few inappropriate books on that challenge list,” says Chipalkatti. “But 99.9% of those are really good books.”As is the case across the country, judging these books as roundly unsuitable for students and demanding their removal is a minority opinion. And Julie Miller feels that librarians are being unfairly maligned.“They’re calling her a groomer, a pornography peddler,” Joel Miller says.She has become the target of one conservative activist’s ire in particular – a former resident of New York named Bruce Friedman. Like Tia Bess, Friedman moved to Clay county in 2021 for political reasons. He now serves as the Florida chapter president of No Left Turn in Education, a rightwing advocacy group allied with Moms for Liberty.Last year, Friedman made headlines for having his microphone cut off at a school board meeting while attempting to read a rape scene from Alice Sebold’s memoir Lucky. At a Florida department of education meeting several months later, Friedman said he’d made a list of books in Clay county public school libraries that had “concerning content”, including “porn, critical race theory, social-emotional learning [and] fluid gender”.He has since become one of the most prolific book challengers in the country. A spreadsheet on his website compiles 4,623 titles that he labeled as problematic and intends to challenge. (Friedman declined to comment for this story.)In dozens of challenge forms provided by FFTRP, Friedman mentions Julie Miller by name – along with comments that the books will “DAMAGE SOULS”, declaring his need to “PROTECT CHILDREN”. In a school board meeting earlier this year, Friedman shared an anecdote about a friend of his son’s reading a library book aloud in his high school cafeteria that contained “steamy, erotic” scenes. Friedman said the experience “stole his son’s innocence”, but failed to provide the title of the book.Dubious, Julie Miller immediately requested an investigation. “I wanted to know if there was a book like that in my library so I could deal with it. If not, I wanted my name to be cleared,” she says.She found no record of any book that had been recently checked out matching Friedman’s description.The term “pornography” is the most bandied by Moms for Liberty and No Left Turn in Education. Bess warns that these books violate statutes. “There’s a clear definition,” she says, citing Florida statute 847.012. “All materials must be free of pornography, the depiction of erotic behavior or pictures intended to cause excitement.”The caveat is statute 847.001, which clarifies that material can only be deemed pornographic if, “Taken as a whole, [it] is without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors,” making the question of age-appropriateness difficult to parse. If the state holds to the most conservative possible reading of that statute, then texts like the Bible, Shakespeare and countless others would have to be taken off shelves as well. (Since then, Shakespeare has actually come under scrutiny.)“You have to consider context. And if you don’t do that there are not going to be libraries left,” says Chipalkatti.Bess says that the chair of Clay county’s Moms for Liberty chapter introduced the idea of a rubric, like the one recently proposed in Texas, to determine at what age certain themes and language are permissible. “But there hasn’t been much feedback on it yet,” Bess says. “That’s something that I’m really going to push for. Where’s the parental advisory label for books?”Another proposed solution was introduced last school year, when the district advertised a new “individualized school library access plan”, which allows parents to limit what books their kids can borrow or ban library access outright. “What more could you want? It blows my mind as to why that’s not sufficient for [the activists],” Joel Miller says.However, out of 38,265 students enrolled in Clay county schools, only four parents signed up to limit or oversee their children’s library access. In nearby Citrus county, the school district introduced an “opt-in” access plan, where students are defaulted to having no library access until the form has been turned in to school officials by a parent. There were roughly 4,000 students who couldn’t use their school library last school year due to “parent error or lack of engagement”, according to FFTRP. Citrus county has yet to amend this policy.The future of public school libraries in Florida seems to be imperiled in the debate over book challenges. Last year, Julie Miller purchased chairs instead of new books. And she has not been cleared to make any acquisitions for the approaching school year either. DeSantis’s new law does away with earmark percentages of school district funding for specific departments, allowing school boards to curtail or redirect library funds to different categories if they so choose.All of this suggests it might be easier to defund libraries and winnow collections rather than venture the social and political risks associated with fighting a culture war with a governor who’s currently using the state legislature as his personal armory.In a Clay county school board workshop meeting from last month, the chief academic officer Roger Dailey seemed to cast aspersions on the very utility of libraries, referring to them as glorified copy rooms, and admitting that his own teenage children have never checked a book out of their high school library because they “consume their literature in different formats, most of it digitally on their devices”, he says.“I don’t even know if my own sons know where the library is in their school.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge blocks Arkansas law allowing librarians to be charged over ‘harmful’ books

      by

      Arkansas is temporarily blocked from enforcing a law that would have allowed criminal charges against librarians and booksellers for providing “harmful” materials to minors, a federal judge ruled on Saturday.US district judge Timothy L Brooks issued a preliminary injunction against the law, which also would have created a new process to challenge library materials and request that they be relocated to areas not accessible by kids. The measure, signed by the state’s Republican governor, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, earlier this year, was set to take effect on 1 August.A coalition that included the Central Arkansas Library System (CALS) in Little Rock had challenged the law, saying fear of prosecution under the measure could prompt libraries and booksellers to no longer carry titles that could be challenged.The judge also rejected a motion by the defendants, which include prosecuting attorneys for the state, seeking to dismiss the case.The ACLU of Arkansas, which represents some of the plaintiffs, applauded the court’s ruling, saying that the absence of a preliminary injunction would have jeopardized the free speech rights enshrined in the US constitution’s first amendment.“The question we had to ask was – do Arkansans still legally have access to reading materials?” Holly Dickson, the executive director of the ACLU in Arkansas, said in a statement. “Luckily, the judicial system has once again defended our highly valued liberties.”The lawsuit comes as lawmakers in an increasing number of conservative states are pushing for measures making it easier to ban or restrict access to books. The number of attempts to ban or restrict books across the US last year was the highest in the 20 years the American Library Association has been tracking such efforts.Laws restricting access to certain materials or making it easier to challenge them have been enacted in several other states, including Iowa, Indiana and Texas.Arkansas’s attorney general, Tim Griffin, said in an email on Saturday that his office would be “reviewing the judge’s opinion and will continue to vigorously defend the law”.The executive director of the Central Arkansas Library System, Nate Coulter, said the judge’s 49-page decision recognized the law as censorship, a constitutional violation and wrongly maligning librarians.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“As folks in south-west Arkansas say, this order is stout as horseradish!” he said in an email. He added: “I’m relieved that for now the dark cloud that was hanging over CALS’ librarians has lifted.”The lawsuit which produced Brooks’s injunction names the state’s 28 local prosecutors as defendants, along with Crawford county in west Arkansas.A separate lawsuit is challenging the Crawford library’s decision to move children’s books that included LGBTQ+ themes to a separate portion of the library. More