Same-sex marriage (US)

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares169 Views

    Nephew calls Republican who tearfully opposed gay marriage bill a homophobe

    by

    Nephew calls Republican who tearfully opposed gay marriage bill a homophobeCongresswoman Vicky Hartzler voted against bill protecting same-sex marriage but Andrew Hartzler, who is gay, was unimpressed The backlash to the Republican member of Congress who broke down in tears in her opposition to the same-sex marriage bill has included a familiar face – her nephew, who has called the lawmaker a “homophobe”.On Thursday, Vicky Hartzler, a Republican representative from Missouri, shed tears as she urged colleagues in the US House of Representatives to vote against the Respect for Marriage Act, which forces states without marriage equality laws to recognize LGBTQ+ marriages from other states.House passes landmark legislation protecting same-sex marriageRead moreHartzler’s high-profile objection to the bill, which passed the House following assent from the Senate and is now set for Joe Biden’s signature, prompted her own nephew to speak out against her in a TikTok video that has been seen more than 200,000 times.In the video, Andrew Hartzler said his aunt was crying “because gay people like me can get married”. He added: “So despite coming out to my aunt this past February I guess she’s still just as much as a homophobe.”Vicky Hartzler said the legislation was “misguided and dangerous” as it would threaten religious institutions opposed to marriage equality. The tenor of the bill was “submit to our ideology or be silenced”, the congresswoman claimed in her House speech.Her nephew pointed out that religious schools still receive federal funding even if they discriminate against LGBTQ students. The 23-year-old has said he was reported for “homosexual activity” when attending Oral Roberts University, an evangelical private college in Oklahoma, and is part of a federal class-action lawsuit against the US Department of Education for funding such institutions.The new legislation does not alter conditions for such funding and churches, mosques, synagogues and other houses of worship will not be required to perform LGBTQ marriages if it goes against their beliefs.“It’s more like you want the power to force your religious beliefs on to everyone else, and because you don’t have that power, you feel like you’re being silenced,” Andrew Hartzler said to his aunt on his video. “But you’re not. You’re just going have to learn to coexist with all of us. And I’m sure it’s not that hard.”Andrew Hartzler told Buzzfeed he isn’t close to his aunt, who is considered one of the most anti-gay members of Congress, and that his relationship with his conservative, religious parents has also become strained.“It was weird to me that she was crying. I would say that,” he said. “I don’t think that was a performance. Knowing my aunt, I think those were genuine tears.“I do feel compelled to speak out when I see this just to counter these messages. I don’t want my last name to be associated with hate. I want it to be associated with love.”Vicky Hartzler is just the latest Republican politician to be publicly criticized by close members of their family. In October, Adam Laxalt, a Republican candidate for a closely run Senate seat in Nevada, was faced with 14 members of his family endorsing his opponent, the incumbent Democrat, Catherine Cortez Masto. Laxalt went on to lose.In 2018, six of Republican Paul Gosar’s siblings backed his Democratic opponent in midterm elections for the far-right politician’s House of Representative district in Arizona. Gosar prevailed despite the familial acrimony.TopicsRepublicansLGBTQ+ rightsHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsSame-sex marriage (US)newsReuse this content More

    More stories

    • 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

      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

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US House passes bill to protect right to same-sex and interracial marriage

      by

      US House passes bill to protect right to same-sex and interracial marriageThe measure, partly a political strategy, forced Democrats and Republicans to record their view, and garnered bipartisan support The US House has passed a bill protecting the right to same-sex and interracial marriages, a vote that comes amid concerns that the supreme court’s overturning of Roe v Wade could jeopardize other rights.Forty-seven House Republicans supported the legislation, called the Respect for Marriage Act, including some who have publicly apologized for their past opposition to gay marriage. But more than three-quarters of House Republicans voted against the bill, with some claiming it was a “political charade”.All 220 House Democrats supported the bill, which is expected to be blocked by Republican opposition in a politically divided Senate.Kamala Harris urges voters to elect a ‘pro-choice Congress’ in midtermsRead moreSame-sex marriage has majority support in the United States, including support from majorities of both Republican and Democratic voters. In opposing the bill, Republican politicians in both the House and Senate have claimed that the legislation is mere political posturing from Democrats and that same-sex and interracial marriages are not actually under attack.“We are here for a political charade, we are here for political messaging,” said congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio, the top Republican on the judiciary committee, who voted against the Respect for Marriage Act.“I’m probably not inclined to support it,” Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, said of the bill. “The predicate of this is just wrong. I don’t think the supreme court is going to overturn any of that stuff.”“I don’t see anything behind this right now other than, you know, election year politics,” said the GOP Senate whip, Senator John Thune of South Dakota.The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal a law from the Clinton era that defines marriage as a heterogeneous relationship between a man and a woman. It would also provide legal protections for interracial marriages by prohibiting any state from denying out-of-state marriage licenses and benefits on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity or national origin.The 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act, had basically been sidelined by Obama-era court rulings, including the supreme court case Obergefell v Hodges, which established the rights of same-sex couples to marry nationwide, a landmark case for gay rights.But last month, writing for the majority in overturning Roe v Wade, Justice Samuel Alito argued for a more narrow interpretation of the rights guaranteed to Americans, noting that the right to an abortion was not spelled out in the Constitution.In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas went further, saying other rulings similar to Roe, including those around same-sex marriage and the right for couples to use contraception, should be reconsidered.While Alito insisted in the majority opinion that “this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right”, others have taken notice. Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz said over the weekend that the supreme court’s decision protecting marriage equality was “clearly wrong” and state legislatures should visit the issue.Activists who fought to secure same sex marriage rights have said the current moment should be taken seriously. Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff in the landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriage and now running as a Democrat for the Ohio House, said after the court’s ruling on abortion: “When we lose one right that we have relied on and enjoyed, other rights are at risk.”House Democrats argued that the Respect for Marriage Act is necessary to enshrine equal marriage rights into law and to protect all Americans from a conservative-dominated supreme court with an ideology that is starkly out-of-step with majority of the American public, and a demonstrated appetite for upending settled law.A Gallup poll in June showed broad and increasing support for same-sex marriage, with 70% of US adults saying they think such unions should be recognized by law as valid. The poll showed majority support among both Democrats (83%) and Republicans (55%).“For me, this is personal,” said congressman Mondaire Jones of New York, who said he was among nine openly gay members of the House.“Imagine telling the next generation of Americans, my generation, we no longer have the right to marry,” he said. “Congress can’t allow that to happen.”There were “Yes” votes from Republican legislators in North Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho and Utah. Wyoming Republican Liz Cheney, who in 2021 publicly apologized for her past opposition to same-sex marriage, was one of the Republicans who voted in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act. Cheney’s sister, Mary Cheney, who is married to a woman, had publicly rebuked her for her stance.“If gay couples want to be as happily or miserably married as straight couples, more power to them,” said the South Carolina Republican Nancy Mace in a statement about her support.In a notable silence, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell declined to express his view on the bill, leaving an open question over how strongly his party would fight it. Democratic Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer did not commit to holding a vote on the bill.The Associated Press contributed reporting. TopicsUS newsMarriageSame-sex marriage (US)US CongressLGBT rightsUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The Engagement review: a tour de force on the fight for same-sex marriage

      by

      BooksThe Engagement review: a tour de force on the fight for same-sex marriageDon’t let the length or density of Sasha Issenberg’s new book put you off – it is a must-read on the fight for true civil rights Michael Henry AdamsSun 4 Jul 2021 02.00 EDTLast modified on Sun 4 Jul 2021 02.01 EDTSasha Issenberg’s tour-de-force, 900-word chronicle of “America’s quarter-century struggle over same-sex marriage” might have been even better had it been given even a few illustrations.This is the Fire review: Don Lemon’s audacious study of racism – and loveRead moreThe New Yorker contributor Michael Shaw’s cartoon of 1 March 2004 would have been one candidate. Its arch question, “Gays and lesbians getting married – haven’t they suffered enough?”, seems to encapsulate how an unlikely issue, consistently championed, achieved a broader vision of “gay liberation” than many dreamed could be attained so rapidly.Thanks to works of scholarship like Charles Kaiser’s The Gay Metropolis and The Deviant’s War by Eric Cervini, it has become clear that the seemingly impossible is often achievable. With The Engagement, Issenberg adds to such proof that one can write LGBTQ+ history in a way that is engaging, authoritative and impeccably sourced.He conveys a telling truth for activists beyond the campaign for gay rights. Brimming with a promise of inclusion, of acceptance beyond mere toleration, his book shows there are indeed more ways than one to skin a cat. Awakened and empowered by Black Lives Matter and Trumpism’s exposure of widespread white supremacist alliances, many progressives were certain that only the most radical policy positions – “defund the police”, anyone? – and candidates offered any real remedy. But older black voters were certain of a different way of maneuvering. And it looks as if they were right, just as proponents of marriage equality were right – to a point at least.If The Engagement lacks snappy cartoons or colorful or insightful photographs, Issenberg manages nonetheless to present compelling depictions of fascinating individuals. Their pursuit of gay marriage propels his narrative, lawsuit by lawsuit, legislative victory by legislative victory and political endorsement by political endorsement.False starts, setbacks, losses – they are all here too. But then finally, on 26 June 2015, with Obergefell v Hodges, the supreme court invalidated same-sex marriage bans all across the land. In time, a court-sanctioned right to self-determination expanded the rights of transgender people too.Gay marriage declared legal across the US in historic supreme court rulingRead moreIf the quest began with an almost stereotypically flamboyant figure, Bill Woods, Issenberg shows with deft sensitivity how for all Woods’ drive and flair for manipulating media and politicians, two more reticent lesbians played a pivotal role. Their relatable story is one of opposites determined to fashion a life together, just three months after meeting in 1990. Initially, the LGBTQ+ community was compelled to fight just to be allowed to love one another. But this committed couple’s saga goes a long way to showing how marriage, as opposed to a brave new world of sexual revolution and limitless pairings, emerged as the definitive cause of gay civil rights.When Genora Dancel, a broadcast engineer, presented a ruby ring to Nina Baehr, she “thought our love could withstand anything”. Coming home to find Baehr in pain from an ear infection, Dancel learned otherwise. Baehr’s university health coverage had yet to take effect. Her new “wife” had two policies from her employers but could not use them for her partner. She had to pay out of pocket to to aid her.Out of this practical desire to care for each other, the pair joined two other same-sex couples organized by Bill Woods. On 17 December 1990, in Honolulu, they applied for marriage licenses. When they were denied, Dan Foley, an attorney who was straight, sued the state on their behalf. After a battle lasting nearly three years, they were vindicated. The Hawaii supreme court was the first in the US to determine that the right to wed was a basic civil right.Many, like the lesbian feminist Paula Ettelbrick, were convinced there was an alternative to marriage and that “making room in our society for broader definitions of family” was better. They saw little utility in such a gain.Jasmyne Cannick, a journalist from Los Angeles, was dubious as well. Following the passage of Proposition 8, a ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage in California, she outlined the looming disconnect between disaffected queers of color and our sometimes oblivious white brethren.
      The white gay community is banging its head against the glass ceiling of a room called equality, believing that a breakthrough on marriage will bestow on it parity with heterosexuals.
      But the right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both Black gays and Black straights. Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?
      In books such as Nigel Nicholson’s Portrait of a Marriage and Elizabeth Drexel Lehr’s King Lehr and the Gilded Age, one gets a poignant look at how especially for upper-class gays, conventional alliances, with partners of the opposite sex and children, are as old as time, assuring inheritances and perpetuating dynastic ties. George Chauncey’s Gay New York tells of how in Harlem same-sex couples, from the 1920s on, staged elaborate nuptial ceremonies, anticipating current trends.The Deviant’s War: superb epic of Frank Kameny and the fight for gay equalityRead moreYes, one way or another, even in the realm of queers, marriage still seems to constitute a profound idea.Issenberg contends that without overwhelming opposition, gay marriage would never have subsumed gay activism; that conservatives, lying in wait, biding their time, are poised to try to take it away. When they do, will we be ready, armed with the lesson of Issenberg’s book?Today, self-segregated into competing camps of righteous activists and dogged pragmatists, freedom fighters still at struggle and insiders who just happen to be gay, do we sincerely value the efficacy of throwing down our buckets where we stand? Have we lost hope that every road leads to a common victory? That in a street fight, every contribution adds value to our effort?
      The Engagement: America’s Quarter-Century Struggle Over Same-Sex Marriage is published in the US by Penguin Random House
      TopicsBooksLGBT rightsSame-sex marriage (US)US constitution and civil libertiesLaw (US)US politicsActivismnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Senators stir ghosts of Scalia and Ginsburg for Amy Coney Barrett hearing

      by

      Depending on your point of view, the woman seated before the Senate judiciary committee for her first day of questioning was either the female Scalia or the anti-RBG. Or maybe, of course, both.As proceedings commenced in a brightly lit and deeply sanitized hearing room, Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump’s third nominee to the supreme court, described herself as an originalist in the tradition of her mentor. Like the late Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked, she subscribes to a theory of constitutional interpretation that attempts to understand and apply “meaning that [the constitution] had at the time people ratified it”.That time was the 1780s, when only white and land-owning men could vote. Oddly, Scalia often produced opinions that delighted conservatives. Outside the Capitol on Tuesday, a group of conservative women gathered to sing and pray, hands extended heavenward.Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican committee chair, asked Barrett if it was appropriate to call her the “female Scalia”. She demurred.“If I am confirmed, you would not be getting Justice Scalia,” she said. “You would be getting Justice Barrett.”All of the young conservative women out there, this hearing to me is about a place for youLindsey GrahamThat, of course, is exactly what Democrats fear.In several rounds of questioning, Democratic senators portrayed the would-be justice as a rightwing crusader, chosen to undermine the civil rights legacy of the justice she hopes to replace, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon, a world-famous champion of women.Outside the Capitol on Monday, progressive activists had worn blood-red robes and bonnets, symbols of female oppression taken from The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel.Barrett has roots in a charismatic Catholic group, People of Praise, which has been cited as an inspiration for Atwood. Such citations are wrong, but in the hearing room on Tuesday Democratic senators nonetheless painted a determinedly dystopian picture, of an America ruled by a conservative court.In their telling, millions – constituents with names, faces and gut-wrenching stories the senators took took pains to tell – stand to lose access to life-saving services provided by the Affordable Care Act; poor women who cannot afford to travel for an abortion will be forced to make dangerous choices; same-sex couples may no longer have the right to marry.Barrett declined to answer questions on such issues – and in doing so, perhaps provocatively, cited RBG. A dictum Ginsburg set forth during her 1993 confirmation hearing: “No hints, no forecasts, no previews.”“These are life and death questions for people,” insisted Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the panel. Barrett’s repeated refusal to answer questions on abortion was “distressing” Feinstein said, noting that Ginsburg was far more forthcoming about her views on the issue.“I have no agenda,” Barrett said, not for the first or last time.But Donald Trump does.The president chose Barrett from a list of what he called “pro-life” judges. He has said he hopes, even expects, the court will overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling that established the right to abortion.The president tweets of what he expects a supreme court nominee to do politically for himDick DurbinThe president has also insisted he needs a ninth justice on the court before the election, in case the result is contested.“Who came up with this notion, this insulting notion, that you might violate your oath?” Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, wondered sarcastically, in response to Republicans’ accusation that his party was impugning Barrett’s judicial independence merely by asking where she stood on key issues.“Where could this idea have come from? Could it have come from the White House? Could it have come from the president’s tweets of what he expects a supreme court nominee to do politically for him? That is where it originated.”Despite it all, the hearing played out with an air of inevitability. Graham was clear. This was “the hearing to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court”, rather than the traditional opportunity to “consider” her nomination. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      'Vote like your life depends on it': Pete Buttigieg's message to LGBTQ youth

      by

      For Pete Buttigieg, the first openly gay candidate to win a presidential primary or caucus, the threat of a second Trump term is both political and deeply personal.Donald Trump has claimed to be a staunch supporter of LGBTQ rights but he has sought to undermine them through the courts. His vice-president, Mike Pence, has long opposed same-sex marriage.“When you see your own rights come up for debate, when you know something as intimate and central to your life as the existence of your family is something that is not supported by your president, and certainly your vice-president, it’s painful,” Buttigieg says by phone from Traverse City, Michigan, where his husband Chasten grew up.“It creates a sense of urgency that I hope will motivate many people – including a lot of LGBTQ younger people who maybe weren’t deciding so much how to vote as they were whether to vote – to see now is the time to vote like your life depends on it.”Buttigieg, 38 and the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, was a breakout star of presidential politics in that seemingly distant pre-pandemic age that was in fact February. A Rhodes scholar at Oxford and war veteran in Afghanistan, he beat senators and a former vice-president to make history by narrowly winning the Iowa caucuses.I’m mindful every day that my marriage exists by the grace of one vote on our supreme courtBut after a crushing defeat in South Carolina, Buttigieg quit the race on 1 March, joining other moderates in throwing his weight behind Joe Biden. He is now launching his own podcast and prosecuting the case against Trump in the media – including on LGBTQ rights.In June, the Republican party issued a press release that claimed “President Trump has taken unprecedented steps to protect the LGBTQ community”. Among its examples to support this were the selection of Richard Grenell as acting director of national intelligence, making him the first openly gay person to hold a cabinet-level position. Grenell has called Trump the “most pro-gay president in American history”.But LGBTQ rights activists are not buying it, pointing out that Trump banned transgender people from the military and reversed many of their legal protections. He also opposes the Equality Act, that would protect LGBTQ people from discrimination in housing, the workplace and other settings, and his agencies are trying to give adoption and foster care agencies the right to discriminate against same-sex couples.The power of Washington over individual lives was made viscerally clear to Buttigieg by the 2015 supreme court ruling that legalised same-sex marriage nationwide. Three years later he married Chasten, a junior high school teacher who became a popular figure on the campaign trail.Buttigieg says: “I’m mindful every day that my marriage exists by the grace of one vote on our supreme court and we’ve seen the kind of extreme appointees that have been placed on the bench by this administration.“We’ve seen how, despite sometimes paying lip service to the community, [Trump has] rarely missed an opportunity to attack the community, especially trans people, whether we’re talking about the ban on military service or issues around healthcare. But even for same-sex international adoption, this administration has taken us in the wrong direction and four more years would be a tremendous setback.“Also around the world, we’re seeing, for example in eastern Europe, really disturbing setbacks in LGBTQ rights and equality without a strong United States leading the way in human rights, which requires leadership and credibility and also that we’re doing the right thing here at home. Without that, I think that people around the world are less safe.”In Poland, for example, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the leader of the governing party, has said homosexuality represents a “threat to Polish identity”. When six towns declared themselves “LGBT ideology-free zones”, the European Union froze funding. But the US has been silent. Hosting Polish president Andrzej Duda at the White House in June, Trump said: “I don’t think we’ve ever been closer to Poland than we are right now.” More