Mississippi attorneys discover difficulty of defending anti-lgbt law

Miss. Gov Phil Bryant

From one of my favorite journalists, Mark Joseph Stern of The Slate, comes an article which accentuates how difficult it is to defend an anti-lgbt law. Stern's article, Mississippi’s Anti-LGBTQ Lawyers Are Gaslighting Their Opponents in Court, looks at the difficulties the attorneys are having defending that state's anti-lgbt 'religious liberty' law in front of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals:

Have the lawyers defending Mississippi’s anti-LGBTQ bill actually read their own statute? 

This question loomed large over hearings here on Monday at the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Civil rights attorneys challenging the Mississippi statute, HB 1523, argue that it promotes certain religious beliefs over others and legalizes discrimination against LGBTQ people. That reading would seem to be reasonable, since the bill explicitly states that anti-gay and anti-trans beliefs receive special legal protection, and allows anti-LGBTQ discrimination in employment, housing, medical treatment, public accommodations, adoption, and marriage licensing. But when Roberta Kaplan, a Paul, Weiss attorney arguing against the law, raised this point in court, her opponent, Jonathan Mitchell, contested it. 

“This statute has been mischaracterized so many times,” Mitchell told the court with a weary sigh. He insisted that a public school teacher who promotes anti-gay beliefs in a second-grade classroom could be re-assigned under HB 1523. Judge Catharina Haynes, one of the 5th Circuit’s sharpest judges, looked puzzled. 

“Why?” she asked. After all, the law bars the government from taking any “adverse employment action” against state employees for promoting anti-LGBTQ beliefs. Mitchell responded that the school could create a “neutral policy” barring schoolteachers from espousing political views in school. But that would not solve the problem at all. Even if a school passed such a policy, it would be barred under HB 1523 for punishing a teacher who violated it so long as they did so by endorsing anti-LGBTQ views. The text of the law is absolute: There are no exceptions and no balancing of interests.

Here is a more interesting exchange:

Haynes raised another concern: that HB 1523 allows restaurants to eject same-sex couples. Mitchell responded that serving these couples wouldn’t constitute a “recognition” of their marriage under the law. “What about a rehearsal dinner for a same-sex couple?” Haynes asked. Mitchell scoffed. 

A rehearsal dinner? At a restaurant?” he responded incredulously. Yes, Haynes said, informing Mitchell, perhaps for the first time in his life, that not all couples conduct rehearsal dinners in swanky hotel ballrooms. Mitchell hedged, equivocated, and dodged, informing Haynes that the court had to “defer to the state’s reasonable construction.” 

Before we continue, a brief word about this line of argument. Federal courts are, indeed, required to defer to a state’s interpretation of its statutes. But the state’s attorneys aren’t the ones who do the interpreting. It’s the state’s courts. If a state court rules that HB 1523 doesn’t allow discrimination, the federal courts must rely upon that interpretation. But if a state’s lawyer says so on the fly with absolutely no evidence or legal authority, the federal courts owe him no deference. Haynes pointed this out to Mitchell, reminding him, “Your interpretation of the law is not binding on a judge. A judge isn’t bound by what you told me.” Mitchell responded with the most jarring line of the day, telling Haynes that if a state judge interprets HB 1523 incorrectly, he should be “impeached.” Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod leaned forward with a shocked expression. “If a judge interprets something incorrectly,” she asked with evident alarm, “we should impeach them?” 

Mitchell broke into a laugh, realizing how badly he had erred. “No!” he said. “Not you!” Then he reiterated his main point: HB 1523 is not “a license to discriminate.”

The religious right, while being successful in getting the public to vote the way they want or getting lawmakers to create certain bills,  have failed time and time again to get the courts to ratify their mess with a favorable ruling.

And why is that? Simply because, to paraphrase the words of David Boies, the attorney who successfully argued against Prop 8, the courts are places of logic. You can't sway judges with lies, junk science, or anecdotal horror stories like you can with the public. You can't work with judges like you can with politicians. Judges aren't your friends or allies. You can't make public appearances with them or give them cheesy awards praising their "values."

Judges are supposed to uphold the Constitution and impartially rule for fairness. And in cases such as with sodomy laws, gay adoption, and even marriage equality, the best lies of the religious right fell because they didn't pass the muster of truth.

And in the end, that line, however seemingly thin, may continue to be strong enough to hold the religious right at bay.

'Trump ally has homophobic meltdown at Congressman focusing on Russia connection' & other Tue. midday news briefs

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

How Mike Pence mistreats the lgbt community more important conversation than relationship with wife

Last week, it was revealed that Mike Pence won't dine alone with a woman other than his wife. Naturally this led to a lot of speculation in the mainstream press or praise from the religious right about either Pence's supposed extreme ideas about marriage and women or his "piety" and "fidelity."

I simply don't care. Maybe there can be some type of discussion pulled from  Pence's relationship with his wife, However, I think people should be talking about his  mistreatment of the lgbt community throughout his political career -  from supporting a constitutional amendment which would bar us from marrying to opposing a law which would keep us from being discriminated against in the workplace.

There are so many examples of how Pence has attacked or demonized the lgbt community in the past. Probably one of the most memorable incidents happened in 2015 when he, as governor of Indiana, wouldn't say if he opposed discrimination against the lgbt community. A simple "yes" or "no" shouldn't have been difficult.

But it was for Pence:



 I don't care how Pence treats his wife. But I do care that he doesn't treat the lgbt community like we are worthy of equality.  That should be where the concern lies. And what the conversation should be about.

''Moonlight' big winner, Trump big loser at GLAAD Media Awards' & other Mon. midday news briefs

The first half ceremony of the 28th annual GLAAD Media Awards was held Saturday in Los Angeles. The big winners included Oscar winning movie 'Moonlight,' while another Oscar winner, Patricia Arquette and singer-songwriter, actor, and Youtube sensation Troye Sivan received the Vanguard and Stephen F. Kolzak awards.  And Trump got properly "read." The second half ceremony of the GLAAD Media Awards will be held on May 6 in New York.  Will the third time be the charm for this blog as it vies for 'Outstanding Blog?' Hopefully so:

GLAAD Awards to Trump: 'Meryl Was Too Easy on You' - Don't act shocked. Lgbtqs and allies getting together for a huge awards ceremony. You know Trump was going to be in our sights. 

 In other news:  

Young People Are More Likely To Be Openly LGBT, But They're Leaving Traditional Labels Behind - I LOVE this!

 Beyond the bathroom bill, more legislation raises worries - Alright, Texas. Stop acting up. 

What You Need to Know About Mississippi’s HB1523, Considered by the 5th Circuit on April 3rd - Siiiigh! Keep your fingers crossed.

And now a word about 'Identity Politics'

Personally, I think "identity politics" is a phrase which demonstrates how too much of the American media is white, heterosexual, and male oriented.  If there is no diversity in the faces we see telling us the news, naturally the important issues affecting those who don't fit in the above categories are shuffled off into some box of "odds and ends," as if they are trifles instead of pertinent problems.

That's my take on it, but Boris Dittrich in The Advocate has an equally wonderful look on the difficulty of us so-called minorities (African-American, lgbtq, etc.) have in getting our concerns looked at seriously instead of sidebars. There is an excerpt from his piece, Identity Politics Forever:

LGBT activists advocate for equal rights and nondiscrimination. They do not claim special or extra rights. They aspire to a society where LGBT people are not bullied at work or in school and have the same relationship rights as others do. Equality and nondiscrimination are values that concern everyone in society. They require a robust defense. Because the values of human rights depend foremost on the ability to empathize with others — to recognize the importance of treating others the way we would want to be treated — they are especially vulnerable when the argument of the majority versus minorities is invoked.  

 Politics that stops talking about minority rights on the theory that upholding them is “divisive” or makes it harder to win over majority voting blocs, will only lead to a more fragmented society, not bring people together. Instead political leaders should make clear that rights are not a zero-sum game — protecting my rights does not undermine yours. On the contrary, it creates a framework we can all rely on if our rights come under threat.

'92 reasons to celebrate Trans Day of Visibility' & other Fri midday news briefs

92 Gorgeous Photos That Show What It Really Means To Be Trans - Ninety-two reasons to celebrate Trans Day of Visibility (with the proviso that there are so many more reasons.)  

"Never Give Up": Trans People Share Messages Of Love And Support For Trans Day Of Visibility - Never forget your value and never allow other people to reduce your worth.  

N.C. governor ‘threw the LGBT community under the bus’- Yes he did. No one is happy with that jacked up, screwed up HB2 "repeal." 

The decades-old anti-gay illogic used to demonize transgender people - What I have been saying consistently. The same crap used to demonize gay men is now being using to demonize transgender men and women. The same technique, the same reliance on easily debunked anecdotal stories, the same appeal to people's basic prejudicial ignorance. . .  

Arkansas 'bathroom bill' dead for session, to be studied - For now. Let's not celebrate yet.  

These Photos Posted By People Of Color In Love Make A Beautiful Point - Let's end today's news briefs on a positive note.

Lies about elderly transgender men & women a new, but not unexpected low for religious right

One fact which is consistent with religious right attacks on the lgbtq community is their reliance on boogeymen and horror stories. Anti-lgbtq groups and personalities are always invoking horrible semantics and ugly images of anecdotal stories (usually lies) about what would happen if any bill or action helping our community is advanced.

Anita Bryant was really the first to do this when she claimed in the 70s that a pro-gay law would allow gay men to "recruit" children. This claim was the root of her successful campaign to overturn a pro-gay law in Florida. Since then, this line of attack has been used by the religious right in opposing everything pro-lgbtq from non-discrimination ordinances to marriage equality.

But there is another boogeyman they are using. Via the hate group American Family Association's fake news service One News Now:

Some California legislators are taking another step to make sure transgendered individuals are accommodated by young and old – this time affecting nursing homes. California Senator Scott Wiener (D) has introduced SB 219, the California LGBT Seniors Long-Term Care Bill of Rights, for members of the LGBT community in long-term care facilities such as nursing homes. Karen England, head of Capitol Resource Institute in Sacramento, tells OneNewsNow the bill would invade the privacy of everyone in retirement communities "when a transgender wants to come and room with them or shower with them." 

 Columnist John Stewart describes SB 219 as "buffoonery" and says while it contains several provisions most evangelicals wouldn't consider objectionable, it does contain a "glaring" provision that forces employees of long-term care facilities to "use the resident's preferred pronoun." Stewart also points out it's not the first time California has forced the ideology on a vulnerable group. England agrees. England "They [promoted] mandating it in schools, kindergarten through 12th grade," she says. "Now they're mandating it with the elderly who are having to be cared for and who were trusting these facilities to make sure our grandparents and older siblings are taken care of."

Seriously, folks? Spinning tales about horror stories about elderly transgender  men and women? That's  beyond low.

The problem with refuting this is the same as refuting  horror stories about gay men and children. The difficulty lies with the execution of refutation. We have got to start calling these groups, personalities, and lies out in a wider form instead of fighting singular battles. Isn't always convenient that they have an excuse to oppose every pro-lgbtq law, ordinance, and action? And isn't it always convenient that their "reasons" involve horror stories and anecdotal evidence of mayhem, which often doesn't become reality.

So why do we fight every time they come at us with this mess as a singular battle? How often do we call general attention to the tactic they are using?

How often does anyone of us or our spokespeople who have great media exposure say something like, "Look, these groups and people are always bringing up stories about gay or transgender boogeymen. They know that a religious argument alone won't win it for them so they constantly conjure up these lies designed to mess with people's heads, appeal to their egos, or give them false reasons to oppose pro-lgbtq legislation so they don't have to admit to their own homophobia. It's all they got and they know it. They also know that what they say are lies. It's no different than racists claiming that black men live for ravishing white women. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if they hide behind religion, it doesn't matter if it's  about schools, nursing homes, bathrooms, or anything else. We are dealing with organizations and people who are out to hinder the lgbtq community and have no problem with lying to do it because they've have lied so many times in the past with a straight face and clutching the mantle of their so-called religious beliefs."

Now how hard is it to say that and to consistently push that argument until we have a grounds for a fair conversation (for a change) when it comes to this so-called culture battle?
 . . .