 |
| Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council love portraying themselves as victims of persecution. |
By now you've heard that the United States Senate advanced the Respect for Marriage Act, hopefully assuring its passage. The Act is supposed to give married gay couples a bit more protection should the Supreme Court try to overturn the Obergefell decision, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2015.
I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion on whether or not this bill adequately protects same-sex couples should it become law. But I want to focus on the negative response lodged by Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. Maybe I'm being petty here. FRC and Perkins are still in shock about last week's midterms in which Democrats managed to keep the Senate. They are definitely caught off guard by the Respect for Marriage Act.
But not too off guard not to play the victim. Perkins posted a hysterically nonsensical piece claiming that this Act would mean the persecution of Christians. Ironically, he cited examples of alleged persecution from foreign countries. But he still managed to play the drama queen rather well with passages like such:
“We’ve all heard of people being cancelled, thrown off social media, even fired from jobs … But how many years before a Christian minister [who speaks] on marriage and sexual orientation is reported [to] a government anti-terrorism program?” For Reverend Dr. Bernard Randall, that time has already come. The chaplain of a Church of England School was suspended, fired for gross misconduct, and reported to child protective services simply for restating what the Church of England believes. If his story sounds like a distant outlier, it’s not. Randall’s nightmare will be every Christian’s nightmare if our Senate passes the Respect for Marriage Act.
“I was doing my job as per the job description,” Randall told a roomful of religious liberty advocates this July. Yet for being a Christian in a Christian school, he was painted “as a potential violent extremist [who] might draw others into violent extremism.” This, despite the U.K. Human Rights Act that declares, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” (Article 9, 1998). How long is it going to take for this to happen in the United States, he asked? “Is it under Biden? Is it under a second term of Biden-Harris?”
If congressional Democrats get their way, it happens now.
Oh please. To paraphrase the words of Thelma Ritter from All About Eve:
"What a story. Everything but the hounds snapping at his rear end."
Folks like Perkins are always claiming that there will be negative repercussions if LGBTQ people get any type of support. It's always something with them
In the 70s, they claimed that if gays got rights, they would "sexually recruit" kids.
In the 80s, it was all about fear tactics undermining the fight against AIDS and HIV.
Then there was "gays want special rights" claim
After that came "we have to protect marriage from gays."
And of course there was "giving LGBTQ people rights will put the rights of Christians in danger. We need to protect religious liberty."
Now it's "we have to protect women and girls in locker rooms, bathrooms, and in sports competitions from trans women and girls who are actually predators with an unfair advantage in sports."
And in the midst of this latest argument, they've reverted back to the "we have to protect children from them" lie by combining hysterias to create a type of "Anita Bryant on steroids" narrative that LGBTQ people want to sexually groom kids in schools and then subject them to dangerous "surgeries" in an attempt to change their gender.
People like Perkins have dragged the LGBTQ community through all of these lies because of one thing. They have a religious belief that being an LGBTQ is a sin. The only reason why they've manufactured all of these bogus reasons against LGBTQ people throughout the decades is because they cannot admit to themselves that they have no right to force the rest of us to conform to their religious beliefs
It's perfectly fine for them to believe that LGBTQ people are living in sin. The problem lies with how they attempt to assert this belief in the creation of public policy. Laws in this country should never be made based upon the belief that certain people are living in sin and therefore deserve no legal protections. That's why they've manufactured other "reasons" why LGBTQ rights should be undermined.
In reality Perkins seems to think that not making people live their lives in accordance to his religious beliefs is persecution.
If Perkins wants to know what persecution actually is, he should have a talk with the families of trans kids who had to flee Texas when its governor declared war on them for simply being supportive and affirming of their kids.
Or the teachers who were fired because demagogues used the power of social media to falsely claim that they are "sexually grooming" children.
Or various children's hospitals across America having to deal with bomb threats because the same demagogues are trying to undermine trans kids receiving basic healthcare.
Or trans kids in various states having to defend their right to receive healthcare in the face of idiots spreading lies and lawmakers believing the lies instead of doing their damn jobs to protect these kids.
That is persecution.
What Perkins is actually mourning is the death of his privilege. And he really should get over it because the privilege shouldn't have been his to begin with.
As we all know, last Tuesday's midterm elections was supposed to be a red wave, but ended up as a rainbow wave (a little confession - that wasn't an original thought by me. It's been repeated ad nauseum by other sources). A historic number - over 340 - LGBTQ candidates were elected to public offices.
So what happens next?
National Public Radio (NPR) published a good story on Monday which talks about this very subject. The entire article is worth a read, particularly three points it made.
1. Generation Z is identifying as LGBTQ in high numbers and it could bode well for future elections.
To reach equitable representation, the U.S. needs to elect more than 35,000 additional out LGBTQ people to office, according to Victory Fund. Meloy said that Millennials and especially Gen Z are identifying as LGBTQ at levels never seen before. He thinks that fact may mean some of the gap will naturally be filled as younger generations run for office.
2. When LGBTQ people win elections, it encourages more of us to run for office.
When LGBTQ people win elections, more members of the community follow them, Meloy added. He hopes that the election of New Hampshire's James Roesener, who just became the first trans man ever elected to a state legislature, will inspire other trans men to run for office. He cited the uptick in trans women candidates after Virginia State Delegate Danica Roem won her race in 2017.
Erin Reed, a content creator and queer legislature researcher who shares LGBTQ news, (Editor's note - And one of my sheroes) noted that not only were many LGBTQ candidates elected, but many voters rejected anti-trans sentiments. "The loss of anti-transgender candidates from the school board level up to the state level sends a clear message that basing your candidacy on hate does is not a winning strategy,"Reed told NPR. "So many candidates thought they could rely on beating up on transgender people for an easy victory and they left election night disappointed." Reed said this won't stop attacks on transgender people. "I anticipate 2023 will be the worst year for anti-trans legislation ever," Reed said. "But it does send a clear message that voters are not moved by anti-trans laws."
 |
| Social conservatives in Michigan spent $50 million to get GOP gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon (seen here) and other Republicans elected by in part scapegoating the transgender community. They failed big time. |
One story of the 2022 midterms which needs more attention is how social conservatives used Michigan as a battleground for their war on transgender Americans. According to a November 7 article in Semafor, political writer Dave Weigel said that Michigan Republicans and social conservatives spent an enormous amount of money on attacking trans people in hopes of winning big in the state.
Republicans and conservative groups have spent at least $50 million this cycle on a topic that wasn’t a focus of their 2020 campaigns – transgender rights, and Democratic support for gender-affirming care for young people.
In Michigan,(GOP gubernatorial nominee Tudor) Dixon and attorney general candidate Matt DePerno have campaigned to stop sexually explicit materials in schools, while a campaign to beat a pro-abortion rights ballot measure has framed it as a plot to legalize “sterilization” — the amendment would codify a right to procedures like vasectomies — as a backdoor to gender surgeries for minors.
Democrats in Michigan have made history for the first time in four decades by taking back control of both chambers of the state Legislature. Voters also reelected the entire Democratic ticket for governor, attorney general and secretary of state . . .
He also pointed to Dixon’s emphasis on culture wars, implying Dixon would’ve been better served concentrating on the economy. “There were more ads on transgender sports than inflation, gas prices and bread and butter issues that could have swayed independent voters,” Cordes wrote. “We did not have a turnout problem – middle-of-the-road voters simply didn’t like what Tudor was selling.”
