Published: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 -0400
Last Build Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:59:47 -0400
Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:40:00 -0400
(image) A new poll has Hillary Clinton dominating Donald Trump with registered gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender voters. This is not terribly surprising news. But both Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein are drawing some notable numbers from the LGBT community.
NBC partnered with Survey Monkey to track likely voters for two weeks in September. In a head-to-head matchup between Clinton and Trump, Clinton won overwhelmingly, 72 percent to 20 percent. Those numbers are generally comparable to the split in the LGBT vote in previous elections.
But the poll also evaluated a four-way matchup. There, both Clinton's and Trump's numbers dropped. Clinton would beat Trump for the LGBT vote, 63 percent to 15 percent. Johnson would get 13 percent of the LGBT vote and Stein would get 8 percent. So the third-party candidates are pulling 9 percentage points worth of LGBT votes from Clinton and 5 percentage points from Trump. And given that the head-to-head matchup shows an 8 percent either undecided or declining to say, it's safe to say that there's a good number of LGBT voters unhappy with their major party choices.
By and large, though, the poll also shows that LGBT voters view Clinton much more positively than the general public. Among those polled, 59 percent view Clinton positively. Her popularity numbers when comparing the LGBT community to the general community are essentially reversed. Trump's favorability rating is even worse among LGBT voters than it is among the general public. Only 17 percent of LGBT voters view Trump favorably.
Trump's unpopularity with the LGBT community should be seen as rather striking, given that he's less openly hostile on gay issues than previous Republican candidates. But policy-wise, he's extremely unpredictable. He has taken both sides on the debate over whether North Carolina can ban transgender people from using the school or government bathrooms and other facilities of their choice. He has, as the election gone on, essentially taken every Republican position, including opposition to the legal recognition of gay marriage.
Clinton, meanwhile has promised the LGBT community anything any activist group has asked for, a host of new federal laws and regulations to protect them, and just about anything at all to get the gay vote.
But clearly a good chunk of LGBT voters are thinking beyond gay issues, which is not unusual. What is unusual is that these third-party candidates are siphoning off such large numbers. According to the poll, 70 percent of the LGBT voters who responded identify as Democrats or lean Democrat. That means Clinton is losing seven percentage points from LGBT voters within her party when Johnson and Stein are offered.
The LGBT voting community is not large. They accounted for seven percent of this total voting sample. But given how close the polls are now, that's enough to swing an election outcome.
Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:15:00 -0400
(image) It appears as though Australians will not be heading to the polls to decide whether the government should recognize marriages between same-sex partners after all. In this case, parties on the left are blocking the public vote, which had been organized as a sort of compromise by conservatives who are part of the country's ruling Coalition and would not legislatively approve same-sex marriage.
But supporters of same-sex marriage in Australia don't want a public vote, though polls show that Australians overwhelmingly support recognition. They object to the cost of having an election for this issue (remember: voting in Australia is mandatory), and gay marriage proponents also oppose having a public vote on a human rights issue. But not a vote by lawmakers who represent the public. Go figure. (Well, I suppose you can't launch a campaign to boot your neighbors out afterward if you don't like how they voted.)
But that path to a Parliament vote is equally complicated, and The West Australian wonders if it might actually take several years more than to legalize it via lawmakers. The issue here is that Australia's Parliament is fragmented across several parties, and most votes are strictly enforced along party lines. The same reason that Australia's Parliament can't get approval for a public vote on gay marriage is essentially the same reason why it hasn't been able to get through the Parliament itself. There hasn't been a strong enough coalition between different groups.
David Leyonhjelm, Australia's libertarian (technically Liberal Democrat) senator, had been trying to push for a same-sex marriage vote in the Parliament. Under the previous government (they've had a change in prime ministers and a new parliamentary election since then), the only way to have gotten gay marriage through the Parliament would have been for the ruling political parties to permit their members to vote their consciences rather than a party line. Attempts to make that happen in the government's ruling Coalition (center-to-right Liberals and Nationalists) failed, and the Coalition's official stance on same-sex marriage was in opposition. So members of those parties in the Parliament were expected to vote against it. Ao it has not been pushed to a vote in the Parliament yet.
The new Parliament keeps the same ruling coalition in charge, so there's a new push on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to get lawmakers to actually vote (and obviously vote "yes"). Read more here.
Wed, 24 Aug 2016 14:35:00 -0400Have you ever looked at "MILF" photos? Lusted after someone with "dad bod?" Congratulations, you might be a mesophiliac! "Mesophilia"—a sexual attraction to middle-aged adults—is one of dozens of potential sexual-orientations explored in a new paper from forensic psychologist Michael Seto, an associate professor at the University of Toronto and director of forensic rehabilitation research at the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group. Seto's research has long focused on sexuality, especially the psychology of sex offenders and of pedophiles. In his latest paper, published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Seto returns to and expands upon "the idea that pedophilia, a sexual interest in prepubescent children, can be considered a sexual orientation for age, in conjunction with the much more widely acknowledged and discussed sexual orientation for gender." The gendered direction of attraction is usually what we mean when we talk about sexual orientation: are you gay? straight? bisexual? But a burgeoning idea among sex researchers and psychologists is that this defines things too narrowly. As Jesse Singal explains at New York mag, "given the current scientific understanding of what sexual orientation is — that it is a deep-seated attraction toward certain sorts of people that first manifests itself around puberty, tends to be stable across the lifespan, and can't be altered by any intentional means — there's compelling reason to think gender is just one piece of a bigger, more complex puzzle." Even the gender dimension is more complex than most realize, writes Seto, with some people "attracted to gynandromorphs, that is... individuals with physical features of both sexes ... other individuals who are attracted specifically to transgender people, and those who would describe themselves as more pansexual with regard to gender, for example, being attracted to both cis- and trans-gender women or men." According to Seto—who defines sexual orientation as "essential aspects of one's sexuality that organize sexual attention, sexual response, and sexual behavior"—all of us have "multiple sexual orientations, rather than a single sexual orientation, across a variety of different dimensions." In his paper, Seto looks at seven chronophilias—orientations where sexual attraction hinges on age—and various paraphilias, the term given to sexual desires such as sadism, masochism, and exhibitionism. After gender, the second most-studied dimension for sexual attraction has been age. The vast majority of people are teleiophilic—that is, preferring sexually mature but pre-middle-age adults. For men, data indicates that around one percent are pedophilic (attracted to prepubescent children), notes Seto, while nepiophilia (attraction to infants and toddlers) is much more rare and hebephilia (attraction to children around ages 11-14) and ephebophilia (attraction to adolescents) both more common. Good estimates are hard to come by, however, as "little is known about noncriminal variations in age interests" and most of the research that does exist is exclusive to men. Sexual orientations are thought to be innate—i.e., a person can't choose to stop getting turned-on by feet or dominance or dad-bod anymore than they can choose to stop sexually reacting as they do to the opposite or same sex. This tends to alarm folks who think that calling something natural is to condone anything it inspires. But psychopathy and sociopathy are innate, or natural, too. The born-this-way element of sexual orientation doesn't mean that acting on an orientation is OK when it conflicts with other moral or social norms we've nurtured. Likewise, sexual orientations are psychologically neutral, notes Seto—that is, having an unusual orientation isn't, in itself, enough to raise mental-health concerns. But any particular sexual orientation might rise to the level of disorder if it causes someone severe distress or inhibits normal sexual functioning. Aside from the gender and age dimensions, other points of vari[...]
Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:35:00 -0400When you find yourselves turning to the lyrics of a Lady Gaga song as evidence of a widespread "myth" about scientific research, maybe take a step back for a moment and reconsider your angle, The New Atlantis is a journal about science published by the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. It's not a peer-reviewed science journal—it's an opinion journal about science. Don't take this as criticism—we're not hypocrites. We write opinion pieces frequently that are informed by science but are also intended to push forward liberty-minded policies. They have a brand new journal out getting attention in conservative circles that purports to provide "the most up-to-date explanation of many of the most rigorous findings produced by the biological, physiological, and social sciences related to sexual orientation and gender identity." What this report is really about is pointing out how many theories about sexual orientation and gender identity are exactly that—theories. Lady Gaga's song "Born This Way," is invoked early on in the study as an example of pushing a theory that sexual orientation is innate and that the science on the matter is settled when it is not. Essentially, what this "Sexuality and Gender" report is intended to do is increase an emphasis on the ambiguity of the research to help push against public policies that want to treat everything about sexuality and gender identity as "settled science." The reality, though, is that much of what is in the report is not in any way, shape, or form "debunking" any "myths," as David French puts it at the National Review, because while some people may believe sexuality is innate, the science has been fairly consistent in saying the reasons currently remain inconclusive. (And since we don't have a scientifically confirmed explanation of where sexual orientation comes from, nothing has even been "debunked.") In fact, here's how the American Psychological Association (APA) itself responds to the question "What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?" There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. That the APA doesn't classify homosexuality as a "mental illness" any longer and opposes efforts by therapists to change people's sexual orientation does not mean that the APA has concluded that sexual orientation is inherent or unchanging. The New Atlantis study also puts out these nuggets: Members of the non-heterosexual population are estimated to have about 1.5 times higher risk of experiencing anxiety disorders than members of the heterosexual population, as well as roughly double the risk of depression, 1.5 times the risk of substance abuse, and nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide. Members of the transgender population are also at higher risk of a variety of mental health problems compared to members of the non-transgender population. Especially alarmingly, the rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41%, compared to under 5% in the overall U.S. population. What's fascinating about tossing out these numbers is that, first of all, they have nothing to do with the legitimacy of non-heterosexual orientations on gender identity. It's information intended to cast doubt on the state of minds of gay and transgender people without actually establishing a correlation. (To the study's credit, it does acknowledge the evidence that discrimination and social stigmas against LGBT people contribute to these figures.) Second, [...]
Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:35:00 -0400It may seem as though the Democrats will own a dominant chunk of the gay vote this election (again), regardless of the small—but symbolically significant—pushes by the Republican Party to be more friendly and supportive of the community, even if policy goals don't align. Mark Lee is an opinion columnist at the Washington Blade, an LGBT-targeted publication in the nation's capital. He has been writing about the growing discontent with the two major parties and is questioning whether Hillary Clinton will get the same level of the gay vote as previous Democratic candidates have received. Lee doesn't really have facts at the moment to back him up, but given that Clinton has such high unfavorable ratings, it is worth wondering how many gay voters might be looking elsewhere: Similar to all Americans, one-quarter of LGBT voters indicate they don't support either major party nominee. The high degree of dissatisfaction with both of these notorious grifters has the net effect of lowering Clinton's tally of LGBT votes. An astounding 41 percent of Americans have recently said they are having difficulty choosing between Clinton and Trump because they believe neither would make a good president. LGBT voters are undoubtedly among them. When given the option, 13 percent told a polling firm aligned with Democrats they'd prefer a giant meteor hitting earth than being forced to chose either Clinton or Trump. The disaffected among those under 30 represents a plurality. With the largest bloc of voters now self-identifying as independents, more than a quarter of the unaffiliated would chose annihilation. A poll of LGBT likely voters back in May showed overwhelming support of Clinton compared to Trump: 84 percent to 16 percent. Right now those numbers show Clinton performing better than Barack Obama did in 2012 with the LGBT vote. Exit polls from 2012 showed Obama getting 77 percent of the LGBT vote and Mitt Romney getting 23 percent. But also of interest in the Clinton-Trump poll: Those polled were not presented any third-party options, and 22 percent of the LGBT voters polled identify as "independent" (outnumbering the 15 percent that identify as Republican). Given Gov. Gary Johnson's pro-gay positions (some of which are subject to libertarian criticism because Johnson simply hasn't made good arguments justifying further government intrusion that reduces religious liberty and freedom of association—and for many libertarians, these policies are a violation of the non-aggression principle), there's certainly opportunity for him to land some of the LGBT vote. Clinton's still deeply disliked—a new poll by YouGov puts her unfavorable ratings at 55 percent. She's still less detested than Trump—his unfavorables are at 66 percent. But what's also different about this race is that Clinton has jumped aboard and declared support for every single political goal put forward by the most powerful of LGBT activist groups. This is not an election where there's been any equivocation or attempts to walk some line to appeal to more conservative, religious Democrats in Southern states. Clinton has publicized a pro-LGBT federal policy agenda that supports passage of a whole host of new laws. So to the extent that she loses LGBT votes, it seems as though the likely candidates are: Those who put other priorities ahead of LGBT issues and find the Dems wanting (essentially, likely the same pool of gay voters who have already been turning away from the Democrats); those who have concluded that we've reached the point where don't actually need additional federal regulations on LGBT issues in order to lead happy, free lives (that's guys like me, but I admittedly may be overestimating how many of us fit in this category); and those who really, really don't trust Clinton based on her background of, well, not being very trustworthy. When I look at those categories, I suspect we may not see a significant difference in numbers for Clinton come November co[...]
Tue, 09 Aug 2016 15:30:00 -0400Let's start with the understanding that the government should neither be funding nor meddling with religious colleges at all. (We will pause for a moment for some readers to yell that that the government shouldn't be funding any colleges, religious or secular). But they do. They have for a long time and they will continue to do so. So before talking about the circumstances and rules through which the government funds and sets rules for religious colleges, we will have to acknowledge the current environment. As religious institutions, these colleges are able to receive federal exemptions from complying with some nondiscrimination laws that contradict church teachings. California lawmakers are targeting these exemptions with a bill that will meddle with religious schools over whatever rules they might have that allow them to engage in some types of discrimination. To be more specific: SB 1146 is looking to find ways to punish religious schools that are not on board with accepting sexually active gay students, gay marriage, and transgender students. There was a bill proposed that flat-out cut state grants going to schools that engaged in such discrimination. This bill has been held in committee since May. SB 1146 is different and a bit more subtle, but still puts the state in position of meddling with religious schools. It requires that any religious school that seeks an exemption from state or federal discrimination laws to make all that information available publicly, so the state can put together an online list of colleges that have gotten the exemption. The bill furthermore declares that colleges that receive funding from the state can be privately sued for violating the state's non-discrimination laws. It states that religious schools that have sex-segregated housing and restrooms must accommodate the selected gender identities of students. The schools may enforce religious-based practices as long as they equally apply to students regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. There are very narrow exemptions for schools that exist solely for the purpose teaching the propagation of a particular religion (like seminaries), and institutions that have previously been admitting students of one sex may continue to do so. The push for these new rules are not coming from within the church. They're come from LGBT organizations yanking around the dimensions of the Overton Window to interfere further and further with private religious practices they find detestable. The executive director of Equality California, which is pushing the bill, told NBC it was "about discrimination." But it's about discrimination based on a religion's clearly defined beliefs, which themselves are protected by the First Amendment. And in contrast to the kind of widespread discriminatory behavior that has inspired civil rights movements, we're talking about a small number of colleges with a specific population that has chosen to be there. In NBC's reporting, one student actually worried about the bill because she chose to go to a religious college to "integrate [her] faith in [her] major." For those who are not interested in living under the rules of the religions that have brought these colleges into existence in the first place, California has no dearth of options. California is not a state where students have trouble finding colleges to attend. In a response from the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Archbishop Jose Gomez and Bishop Charles Blake note "It is important to remember that no one is compelled to attend a private religious college or university. Those who do so make a deliberate decision because they are seeking an academic environment and community in which they can live, learn and serve with others who share their beliefs, values and aspirations." This bill feels like nothing so much as activism that can't acknowledge that it has won the day and relax for even one second. And the wording of the bill makes [...]
Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:15:00 -0400Over at the Washington Examiner, Tim Carney, managed a few minutes to chat with Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gov. Gary Johnson while at this week's Democratic National Convention. The chat focused on two issues of importance to more socially conservative libertarians—religious freedom rights and abortion. On religious freedom, Johnson is staying true to his position against allowing religious-based exemptions to discrimination laws, which has earned him the ire of not a few libertarians. In Carney's conversation with him, what feels very clear is that Johnson feels strongly about his position, but hasn't really analyzed the complexity of the issue nearly enough: Do you think New Mexico was right to fine the photographer for not photographing the gay wedding? "Look. Here's the issue. You've narrowly defined this. But if we allow for discrimination — if we pass a law that allows for discrimination on the basis of religion — literally, we're gonna open up a can of worms when it come stop discrimination of all forms, starting with Muslims … who knows. You're narrowly looking at a situation where if you broaden that, I just tell you — on the basis of religious freedom, being able to discriminate — something that is currently not allowed — discrimination will exist in places we never dreamed of." Can the current federal [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] be applied to protect things like the wedding photographer and the Little Sisters of the Poor? "The problem is I don't think you can cut out a little chunk there. I think what you're going to end up doing is open up a plethora of discrimination that you never believed could exist. And it'll start with Muslims." A host of responses to this rather simplistic take on what is a complicated issue: Formulating laws and regulations based on the "precautionary principle" is bad in general, but it's particularly bad when discussing the limits of liberty. To the extent that the law restricts a liberty, like freedom of religious expression and freedom of association, it needs to be tied to widespread harms that actually occur, not on a fear of what might happen. Johnson is essentially making the same kind of argument that drug warriors make. We can't legalize marijuana because it might lead users to harder drugs. Or people will get behind the wheel stoned and cause accidents. These arguments have not been based on factual analysis but on a fear of what might happen. Undoubtedly there is animosity against Muslim citizens and they may face additional discrimination and rejection in the current environment. But Johnson has failed to provide evidence that the slippery slope he suggests here will actually happen, will be widespread, and will require government intervention to fix. The public accommodation laws of the Civil Rights Act are actually rather narrowly defined based on the types of widespread and coordinated discrimination minorities were actually facing at the time. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is simply not blanket permission to discriminate on the basis of one's beliefs. This seems to elude Johnson. The RFRA is a method of defense against government accusations of legal or civil violations by claiming that one's religious practices run counter to the law. The government then must make a case that the law furthers a valid government interest and that forcing people to comply with the law is the least intrusive way they can further that interest. So the government needs to argue it has a legitimate need to make people comply with the law, despite religious beliefs. In the Little Sisters of the Poor case, which was about whether a religious organization could be forced to cover the costs of contraception for female workers, the Supreme Court kicked the case down to lower courts to see if there was a way for the government to meet its goal of having women's health needs covered[...]
Fri, 22 Jul 2016 11:45:00 -0400PayPal's Peter Thiel's self-identification as a proud gay man during his speech at the Republican National Convention is getting a lot of media attention, as it should. Though the RNC has had openly gay speakers before, this was the first time a speaker made reference to his own non-heterosexual identity. When accepting the nomination for president, Donald Trump also made reference to the gay and transgender community. He referenced the Orlando attack on a gay bar that killed 49 people, noting that the killer targeted the "LGBTQ community." Trump said that was "no good" and that he "would stop it." This prompted cheers from the audience, and he continued that he would do everything within his power to protect LGBTQ folks from violence and the "hateful oppression" of radical Islam. This prompted another round of cheers, and Trump went off-script for a moment to say "As a Republican, it's so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said." This has been characterized as a sign of advancement for the Republican Party in some fashion, but is it really something new for the Republican Party to say they don't want gay Americans to be murdered? Certainly the left would love to characterize the party that way, but for those of us who see ourselves independent of party ties, is this an actual shift in the party or something that was simply expected? It's hard not to feel cynical about the invocations given that they're tied primarily to encourage a focus on a foreign policy on how to fight Islamic terrorism and no indication of any domestic policy shifts at home. The official platform of the party has stubbornly refused reforms, continuing to reject same-sex marriage recognition, attempting to classify it as a state-level issue, yet still calling for federal policies to encourage stable families. The platform has taken a stand against federal demands that schools accommodate transgender students. Thiel described the transgender bathroom panic behavior as a "distraction," but did so in such a vague way that it's not clear whether he thinks state-level laws like those in North Carolina are bad or whether he thinks people just shouldn't get upset about it. It's easy to be dismissive of lawmaking as a "distraction" when it involves regulations that aren't likely to affect you. Taken holistically, the message from the GOP seems to be "Hey, at least we don't want to kill you! Radical Islam and Muslim-dominated countries want to kill you, but we don't." Well … thanks? I acknowledge I may be an outlier in my lack of warm feelings over how gay issues have been referenced at the convention, at least from the perspective as a libertarian gay man who is not a leftist or Democrat. Stephen Miller, over at the Independent Gay Forum's Culture Watch, sees the invocation of the gay community in speeches at the convention as a "dramatic change from the past" (he's nevertheless voting for Gary Johnson). ABC News tracked down a Trump supporter on the convention floor who was moved to tears by Trump's reference because she has a married gay son. And the lack of actual platform shift is particularly disappointing because next week, when the Democratic Party has its convention, I know full well they're going to be running so far in the other direction I'll end up frustrated for completely different reasons. Hillary Clinton is openly calling for a raft of new federal laws to address any sort of concerns raised by anybody who is gay or transgender. I noted previously that her pursuit of the gay vote calls for six new federal laws, a whole host of regulations that can be used by the government to punish citizens for refusing to make gay wedding cakes or refusing to offer adoption services to gay couples. I find such expansion of regulation oppressive to a culture that has navigated slowly but surely in the direction of naturally becoming more accommodating to gay[...]
Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:25:00 -0400If you want to see how far along a social transformation has gone, you'll learn more by paying attention to the things conservatives accept than the things radicals propose. When Pat Buchanan spoke at the Republican national convention in 1992, his address was received—rightly—as a thumping culture-war broadside. But consider this passage from it: Then there was the legal secretary that I met at the Manchester airport on Christmas Day who came running up to me and said, "Mr. Buchanan, I'm going to vote for you." And then she broke down weeping, and she said, "I've lost my job; I don't have any money, and they're going to take away my little girl. What am I going to do?" My friends, these people are our people. They don't read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they come from the same schoolyards and the same playgrounds and towns as we came from. They share our beliefs and our convictions, our hopes and our dreams. These are the conservatives of the heart. Working mothers once were met with widespread disapproval. But by 1992, a fiery jeremiad by the year's most prominent social conservative could casually complain that a mom had lost her job, and then embrace her as a "conservative of the heart." Not because Buchanan was some sort of closet feminist, but because this was a battle the feminists had won. As I've watched this year's GOP's convention, I've been listening for little moments like that—quiet signs that what once was unusual is now acceptable. And I've found them. Take Michelle Van Etten, the multi-level marketer who spoke last night on behalf of Women in Business for Trump. At one point, she recalled her 20th high school reunion: The girls I went to school with, they were driving BMWs and they looked like Barbie. I was 30 pounds overweight, a stay-at-home mom, and driving a minivan. I decided at that point I needed a change, and I began to dream again. (applause) I took a leap of faith and decided to open up my own home-based business. And what I realized, when you go after a dream, you are gonna have to learn how to fail forward and never quit. (applause) I also learned that I had to level up to become the type of person I wanted in my business. After two years, I was able to retire my husband after 28 years in the DOD. Today, my husband, he stays at home with our children and he homeschools them, because I will not subject them to Common Core. (big applause) So here we have not just a working mother, but one who resented her old status as a stay-at-home mom—and who now is married to a stay-at-home dad. And no one seemed to blink at what once would have been an avant-garde way to organize the household. Instead they whooped it up in shared revulsion for Common Core. Then there was this moment in Ted Cruz's speech: Freedom means religious freedom, whether you are Christian or Jew, Muslim or atheist. Whether you are gay or straight, the Bill of Rights protects the rights of all of us to live according to our conscience. That got a huge amount of applause, as you'd expect from a socially conservative crowd. The underlying idea, after all, was that people with religious objections to gay marriage should not be compelled to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies. But think about that sentence: "Whether you are gay or straight, the Bill of Rights protects the rights of all of us to live according to our conscience." There was a time when you wouldn't expect a major presidential candidate in either party to allude favorably to gay people's freedom of conscience. Now a leader of the Republicans' conservative wing wasn't thinking twice about it. You measure social change by watching where conservatives draw the line. And gradually, outside the spotlight, that line keeps quietly moving.[...]
Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:35:00 -0400At a special event adjacent to, but not exactly at, the Republican National Convention today, Caitlyn Jenner made it clear today that she still sees herself a Republican, but pushed the party to improve its positions on gay and transgender issues. Jenner (along with talk show host Montel Williams) participated in a "Big Tent Brunch" sponsored by the American Unity Fund. The American Unity Fund is a non-profit group that supports LGBT causes on behalf of friendly conservatives and Republicans. The event today served as pushback against a party platform that seems to have grown more explicitly opposed to accommodating LGBT concerns. Jenner, of course, was asked to weigh in on transgender issues and the fact that the GOP platform has openly taken a position against transgender accommodation in bathrooms and locker room facilities in public schools as "at once illegal, dangerous, and ignores privacy issues." Jenner responded that everybody wants "safety in the bathrooms" but pointed out that there are already laws that exist to protect people from being victimized or having their privacy violated while using public facility. The reason this conflict is developing now is because transgender youths are now starting to self-identify earlier. That's leading to new types of bullying and "a terrible suicide rate of young kids." As such, she opposed the kind of legislation passed in North Carolina that requires transgender people to use the public school and government facilities that match the sex listed on birth certificates (private facilities are free to accommodate transgender people as they wish). "Now the state of North Carolina is gonna come in and bully you, too," she said. She noted that she's been using women's restrooms for the past year and a half and has had no troubles and felt as though states were making new laws for a "non-issue." The idea of policing who may go in which bathroom may seem inherently absurd and unenforceable, and insight on a lawsuit against a Wisconsin school district shows exactly how bonkers it gets when school officials decide to step in. According to The Daily Beast, the school district stands accused of ordering transgender students to wear bright green wristbands so that officials could observe and enforce making the students either use a single-occupancy restroom or the restroom of the student's birth sex. The family has filed a federal Title IX lawsuit against the school district. While Milo Yiannopoulos may have been keeping his name in the limelight trying to get gay conservatives on board for Donald Trump, the Log Cabin Republicans, the best-known group for LGBT conservatives, actually put out a full-page ad in USA Today slamming the Republican Party for what they describe as "the most anti-LGBT platform the Republican Party has ever had." Watch Jenner's speech below: src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VjwWBdZtV9Q" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" width="560" height="340" frameborder="0">[...]
Mon, 18 Jul 2016 19:35:00 -0400The 2016 Republican National Convention Party platform is out, folks, and has a lot to say. As Reason previously noted, internal efforts to try to moderate the party's platform on gay and transgender issues failed, and if anything, what is in the 2016 platform feels just even more aggressively opposed to whatever is currently being pushed within the LGBT agenda. I would like to highlight the platform's positions on gay marriage recognition because I want to make an important point: This platform is not promoting the libertarian "get government out of marriage entirely" concept in any way, shape, or form. The platform very much wants the federal government to be involved in marriages, until federal officials do something they don't like. On page 11, the platform has a whole short section titled "Defending Marriage Against an Activist Judiciary." The section describes the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges to mandate same-sex marriage recognition across the country as "lawless," and that it robbed "320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman." Note the strange wording on that sentence there that assumes a certain outcome (and also includes children among the number of people who would be voting, but anyway). The platform calls for the ruling to be overturned and to leave the matter to the states. So one might think logically, consistently, this would be a platform that opposes federal involvement in policies related to marriage, wouldn't one? Federal government is currently deeply involved in policies and benefits that are connected to whether participants are married or not. But no, the RNC platform is fine with federal involvement in marriage to extent that it validates their positions on what a marriage should be. On page 31, the platform begins a lengthy segment on "Marriage, Family, and Society." It declares "natural marriage" to be between a man and a woman, but then goes on to talk about all the important regulations and policies that should be focused on encouraging stable families: "Its daily lessons — cooperation, patience, mutual respect, responsibility, self-reliance — are fundamental to the order and progress of our Republic. Strong families, depending upon God and one another, advance the cause of liberty by lessening the need for government in their daily lives. Conversely, as we have learned over the last five decades, the loss of faith and family life leads to greater dependence upon government. That is why Republicans formulate public policy, from taxation to education, from healthcare to welfare, with attention to the needs and strengths of the family." It goes on a little further: Children raised in a two-parent household tend to be physically and emotionally healthier, more likely to do well in school, less likely to use drugs and alcohol, engage in crime or become pregnant outside of marriage. We oppose policies and laws that create a financial incentive for or encourage cohabitation. Moreover, marriage remains the greatest antidote to child poverty. The 40 percent of children who now are born outside of marriage are five times more likely to live in poverty than youngsters born and raised by a mother and father in the home. Nearly three-quarters of the $450 billion government annually spends on welfare goes to single-parent households. This is what it takes for a governmental village to raise a child, and the village is doing a tragically poor job of it. Remarkably, after presenting all this evidence that married households are more stable and benefit children, the platform immediately pivots and declares that this is all evidence that the government should only recognize heterosexual marriages. This makes no logical sense. This is [...]
Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:15:00 -0400
(image) Special pleading or valuable knowledge about America's history? Or is that a false choice? Can we acknowledge that legal and cultural conflicts about how to treat gay and lesbian citizens are an important and teachable part of modern American history while still maybe rolling our eyes a little bit at the lobbying to force it into public schools?
On the one hand, public schools are struggling to teach the kinds of things students really need to make their way in the world. On the other hand, these issues are still heavily influencing the platforms for both the Democratic and Republican parties. To not teach about the history of current political movements that have shown lasting presence is itself a form of pandering to a particular mindset.
California has decided it's going to incorporate gay and lesbian issues into history and sociology education. Legislators already passed a law to mandate more inclusion in education all the way back in 2012. Now they're figuring out how. Ah, the speed of public education. The Los Angeles Times notes:
LGBT content will be included in some elementary, middle and high school grades. In fourth grade, for example, students would learn about "the emergence of the nation's first gay rights organizations in the 1950s," the framework states, as well as struggles in California from the 1970s to the present day to affirm the right of gay people to teach and to get married.
Equality California, an LGBT advocacy group, issued a statement praising the move, saying the new framework more accurately represents figures important to the LGBT movement.
The new guidelines, the group added, now better captures "essential moments in the struggle for equality, and the evolution of communities and identities." Equality California said a more inclusive curriculum will make LGBT students more comfortable in school.
That at the end from Equality California is where the feeling of special pleading comes in. The goal should be for students of all types to understand history and how it got them to where they are now. That it makes students "more comfortable" shouldn't be a goal of the education process. It's a positive outcome—a side effect. In fact, I would argue that truly accurate teaching of gay political history should at some points cause the opposite. It was not "comfortable" living through some of this stuff.
As an unintentionally amusing footnote, the L.A. Times notes that the new framework for adding more subjects to education includes "financial literacy," in a state school system that is hungrily devouring taxpayer dollars in order to pay for massively growing pension debts. On the fall ballot in November will be a vote to extend a temporary tax increase that was supposed to have fixed state budget issues.
Fri, 08 Jul 2016 04:00:00 -0400
(image) The Ontario Court of Appeal, the province's highest court, has upheld the decision by the Law Society of Upper Canada not to accredit a Christian university's law school. The court found that Trinity Western University's "community covenant," which bars students from having sex outside heterosexual marriage, discriminates against gays and lesbians. The ruling means that Trinity Western law graduates may not take the bar exam to practice in Ontario.
Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:05:00 -0400After months of backlash from numerous groups, leaders in the North Carolina General Assembly are preparing to introduce legislation to change certain provisions of the state's controversial bathroom law. If you recall, the Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill in March requiring individuals to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender listed on their birth certificate. In addition, the bill also prevented cities from passing any anti-discrimination protections that would apply to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people as well as other labor regulations. That law—the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, commonly known as House Bill 2—was a response to an ordinance passed in Charlotte, which would have allowed transgender people to use the bathroom or locker room for the gender they identify with and prohibited discrimination for housing and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The statewide law was passed during a one-day special session, and was signed by Republican Gov. Pat McCrory after the session concluded. Reaction to House Bill 2 has been heated. Businesses were quick to criticize McCrory and the General Assembly, and the law has been the subject of multiple lawsuits, including one from the United States Department of Justice. However, conservatives have stood by House Bill 2, saying it will protect women and children from being sexually assaulted (though this claim lacks compelling support). Three months after the law went on the books, leadership in the state's House of Representatives has drafted legislation to modify it. According to television station WBTV, the draft comes as a result of conversations between political leaders and officials from the National Basketball Association (NBA). Charlotte is currently set to host the 2017 NBA All-Star Game, but the event's future has come into question since House Bill 2 passed. So is the General Assembly planning on making it easier for transgender people to use their preferred bathroom? Far from it. Based on the draft of the bill, it won't just continue to be a hassle for these individuals to choose their bathroom—the change may make their lives more difficult. If this draft were to become law, it would permit the government to create an official document recognizing someone's gender reassignment. In order to receive this certificate, a trans person would have to submit an application as well as a statement from a doctor who "has examined the individual and can certify that the person has undergone sex reassignment surgery." As Reason's Scott Shackford noted when House Bill 2 was passed, the government should treat gay and transgender people the same way they treat straight people. Instead, North Carolina's General Assembly is putting up a major hurdle to a minority group's self-determination. Despite the backlash to House Bill 2, legislators are only slightly loosening the restrictions they've placed on people who, like everyone, have to use the bathroom.[...]
Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:10:00 -0400One part of Mississippi's broad bill passed in response in April to the Supreme Court's decision mandating same-sex marriage recognition is in trouble. Mississippi's House Bill 1523 was passed around the same time as North Carolina's infamous transgender bathroom law. While North Carolina's law was what garnered the most attention and outrage, HB 1523 was a very different and broader creature. To summarize, HB 1523 appeared on the surface to be a "religious freedom" law, but what it really did was give the government stamp of approval on three particular religious beliefs and only those beliefs: that marriage is between one man and one woman; that premarital sex is bad; and that sexual identity is an immutable birth characteristic. The bill then forbids antidiscrimination claims in certain public and private areas on the basis of those beliefs. So a baker couldn't be forced to make a wedding cake for gay couple and a therapist or surgeon couldn't be forced to assist with a transgender person's treatment for his or her condition. But a baker could be required to otherwise serve gay customers and a surgeon could be required to operate on transgender people for reasons unrelated to any transitions. Those are just a couple of examples. I wrote more about the details of the law back in April. The law also forbids Mississippi from punishing state employees for refusing to hand out marriage licenses or solemnizing weddings from same-sex couples, but the courts were required to make sure somebody provided the services when needed. And that's where we hit the problem. U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves says they can't do that. The Supreme Court ruled that states are required to recognize same-sex marriages, and so states cannot treat gay couples differently from straight couples in that respect. From the Associated Press: Reeves is extending his previous order that overturned Mississippi's ban on same-sex marriage. He says circuit clerks are required to provide equal treatment for all couples, gay or straight. He also said that all 82 circuit clerks must be given formal notice of that requirement. … "Mississippi's elected officials may disagree with Obergefell, of course, and may express that disagreement as they see fit — by advocating for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, for example," Reeves wrote Monday. "But the marriage license issue will not be adjudicated anew after every legislative session." Note that this law was different from what passed back in 2015 in North Carolina (over the governor's veto). In North Carolina, legislators decided to give magistrates the authority to legally recuse themselves from handing out marriage licenses over their religious objections. But to avoid the trap of being accused of discrimination against gay couples, the individuals had to forgo performing all marriages or handing out all marriage licenses. Likewise, the compromise solution to Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis' objection to being ordered to put her name on wedding licenses for marriages she disapproved of was to take the clerks' names off all licenses. That's not what happened in Mississippi. It specifically set up a system where government officials may treat same-sex couples differently from heterosexual couples, so the federal judge's ruling should come as no surprise at this point.[...]