Rainbow Wars
I have long been an anti-advocate for those White House champagne swilling, DNC sycophants who run the Human Rights Campaign. For them it is all about hobnobbing with the rich and famous rather than actually fighting for LGBTQ rights.
That is why their being a major part of a “now is not the time” censure aimed at the “Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation”, for supporting an expanded Equal Rights Amendment that would provide explicit constitutional protection of human rights for women, people of color, LGBTQ people, and those with disabilities, comes as a little surprise. (That the ACLU joined them did come as a surprise, but I think they have become more “It’s all about promoting US” nowadays.)
Human Rights Campaign, ACLU told GLAAD to quit its “dangerous” push for an LGBTQ constitutional amendment
BTW, GLAAD is an organization I work with and respect greatly. They walk the walk. That they are willing to stand up and fight the fight.
When I read the crap they just spewed in their “censure” letter it makes me want to fight as well:
“While we certainly believe that the challenges facing the LGBTQ community require bold action, we also believe that advancing an amendment campaign is a harmful approach to our community.”
How in the hell can fighting for the rights of LGBTQ people, people of color, women and people with disabilities be perceived to be “harmful”???
How can being “inclusive” be seen as a “bad thing”?
What makes me doubly angry is when these limo liberal asshats say in their letter…
“Implying that the Constitution fails to protect LGBTQ people can be dangerous.”
What freaking planet are they from? The Constitution DOES fail to protect LGBTQ people, FFS!
Why do you think transsexual people are getting abused daily, why do you think it is “constitutionally legal” to refuse service to members of the LGBTQ community or why is it okay to fire a person becuase they are gay? Don’t even get me started on how the Constitution fails to protect the rights of POC, women or people with disabilities!
So why are these groups giving GLAAD hell for daring to demand human rights be constitutionally guaranteed?
It is for three reasons:
- They are afraid of upsetting the privileged little apple cart they have in DC by “diluting” their “message” by including people who are not LGBTQ.
- “Follow the Benjamins, baby!” They are worried about the huge amounts of money they receive being “shared”.
- Lastly, and most importantly they are cowards.
So, in my opinion, they need to stop swilling White House champagne and have a big, heaping helping of this, because it is WAAAY more fitting to their actions…
247 total views, 1 views today
08/24/2019 @ 12:07 pm
Nothing new…
Prominent leaders of the 19th Century women’s rights movement did not want their cause to be associated, confused, or conflated with abolition and the rights of free blacks…
08/24/2019 @ 11:02 pm
The only question I have, and I haven’t read up on this so it really is a question, is whether there are lawyers who believe that the Constitution does in actuality already protect the rights of the LBGTQ population (meaning discrimination is already illegal but not yet being enforced because those involved in enforcement don’t believe that it’s already illegal, which is likely to be a Supreme Court decision)) and that the most successful way to establish this would be through the courts. Does a push for such an amendment invalidate their claim that the protection already exists?
I don’t know the most efficient path and because I don’t I don’t know why HRC and especially the ACLU would oppose acting on the amendment. The ACLU’s opposition is what gets my attention. So does “Implying that the Constitution fails to protect LGBTQ people can be dangerous.” If they think the Constitutional interpretation path is more likely to be successful than a Constitutional amendment, they might be right in that the last thing they’d want is liberals agreeing with conservatives that the Constitution doesn’t really necessitate equal protection. I very much doubt we would have legal gay marriage by now if we’d tried to rely on a Constitutional amendment. The Court basically concluded that said right was already in the Constitution, just not protected, and that lack of protection was a legal error.
All I care is that we get recognized Constitutional protection ASAP. Based on what you’ve presented, it isn’t clear that the motivation of HRC or certainly the ACLU is to accommodate Republicans for financial reasons. For one thing, I don’t know if there’s any evidence that there’s a correlation between wealth and LGBTQ intolerance. In this area, from what I’ve seen the business world is mostly way ahead of the Republican Party, not that it takes much. There are exceptions, but these exceptions tend to be businesses run by fundamentalists like Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby. Why would HRC be sensitive to the opinions of those who are LGBTQ intolerant? HRC has to view them as the opposition by definition.
I could certainly be wrong about this but I’d look closer.
08/25/2019 @ 8:46 am
The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, the so-called Reconstruction Amendments, did not preclude the passage of subsequent civil rights legislation, most notably that of the 1960’s pursuant to the direct action and demands of the Civil Rights Movement…
The argument is that we should not seek to amend the Constitution as a redress of even legitimate grievances.
The process of amending the Constitution must be about structural change in the nature of the relationship between the government and the governed as outlined and expressed by the Constitution itself…
Prior to the adoption and ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments the Constitution specifically
precluded Black people from becoming citizens of the United States of America. (14th Amendment)
The Constitution specifically precluded Black people from being counted as citizens having the right to vote and be represented as such in Congress. (15th Amendment)
The 13th Amendment abolished slavery and other non-punitive forms of involuntary servitude…
We simply cannot change the Constitution every time we change our collective minds about something….Even something as serious as the rights of those in the LGBTQ Community who have the Constitution as amended and Civil Rights Legislation and Judicial precedent and Jurisprudence on their side…
We need to get Chuck Schumer to stop aiding and abetting Mitch McConnell in fast tracking the nominations of judges whose conservative and anti-LGBTQ perspectives can and will become the interpretive law of the land as they render decisions that alter the course of judicial precedent regarding LGBTQ human and civil rights…
08/25/2019 @ 9:42 am
Is that your answer to me, Amy, or both?
08/25/2019 @ 9:47 am
If it suits your desire to respond, both…
08/25/2019 @ 9:58 am
Ron, if by changing the political affiliation of a judge, human rights can be given or taken away at the whim of a judicial “interpretation” the only way that I am GUARANTEED those human rights is via a Constitutional amendment.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is no place in the Constitution that prohibits discrimination against someone because of their race, gender, orientation or ableness. Until there is, at least the Supreme Court, has no grounds to keep people from refusing to bake me a cake, make you drink from the “coloreds only” drinking fountain, get to legislate the actions of my uterus or park in a designated handicap parking spot.
08/25/2019 @ 10:44 am
“If by changing the political affiliation of a judge, human rights can be given or taken away at the whim of a judicial “interpretation” the only way that I am GUARANTEED those human rights is via a Constitutional amendment…”
Dred Scott v Sanford, 1857 under the Constitution: “the black man has no rights which the white man is bound to respect…”
Plessey v Ferguson, 1896
Under the Constitution: ‘separate but equal ‘ segregation was upheld as not violative of the Constitution and hence considered to be the law of the land…
The 1857 Dred Scott decision could be only overturned by Constitutional Amendment, hence Amendments 13, 14, and 15 at the end of the Civil War during Reconstruction.
The 1896 ruling in Plessy was an interpretation of the Constitution and those very Amendments which then declared separate but equal segregation to be constitutional.
That ruling or interpretation stood as the law of the land in the face of, and in spite of, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments until 1954 when the. Supreme Court ,under Chief Justice Earl Warren, overturned the 1896 ruling in Plessy v Ferguson and declared segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional…
The law was changed by a reinterpretation of the same Constitutional provisions that allowed a completely different outcome in 1896…
The Constitution cannot guarantee your rights independent of the political will to protect rights enunciated by or in the Constitution…
Roe v Wade is under attack and Brown v Board soon will be…
The rights to privacy and to equal protection of the law can be interpreted out of existence regardless of Constitutional language and subsequent interpretations to the contrary…
Why do you think McConnell is so interested in federal judgeships?….And, why is Chuck Schumer helping him get there?
McConnell knows that he can control the interpretation of the Constitution for the foreseeable future if he can get enough bigoted conservative homophobes appointed to the bench…