The LGBT Equality Act Puts Polarizing Politics Over Good Policy

Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 2 weeks ago to Politics
22 comments | Share | Flag

This explains some details behind the LGBT Equality Act. It says it probably won't become law, but probably would have if they had allowed religious exemptions. They politicians didn't want it to pass.

"I noted the bill back in 2019 and the reality that neither religious conservative organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom, nor LGBT lobby groups like the Human Rights Campaign, want anything to do with it. But given the state of the culture war right now, the Equality Act probably cannot pass. And to be cynical, the law doesn't seem designed to pass. It seems designed to be divisive for political purposes, to be used to request political donations, and to rally the base. Equality Act co-sponsor Sen. Jeff Merkley (D–Ore.) hinted he'd like to use the bill as a way to try to dump the filibuster."

I waste too much time thinking about politicians' antics and machinations.
SOURCE URL: https://reason.com/2021/02/26/the-lgbt-equality-act-puts-polarizing-politics-over-good-policy/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by 25n56il4 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    I don;t think we need any Equality Act to define us. The Constitution did that.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      I largely agree, but until the 13th, 15th and the 19th Amendments, it didn't work for blacks and women.

      The problem here is less about LGBT rights, but more about "special" rights afforded married. Eliminate the institutionalized special rights of marriage, let it be the contract that it is, and this all goes away.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 1 month ago
        Better to get government out of the regulation of marriage entirely. They started this whole mess when they began requiring marriage licenses in the Deep South in order to prevent inter-racial marriage. Then counties across the nation began requiring them (licenses) as a revenue source. Leave marriage to religion where it has always been.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 month ago
          Agreed. That was my point, less clearly stated. We are expanding an institution that shouldn't be an institution.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 1 month ago
            I agree, though I'm going to quibble slightly here, as marriage is arguably the most important institution in society. It is through marriage that society is perpetuated at all. The problem is in allowing government to tamper with the institution that is inherently defined (by biology at a bare minimum). But I absolutely do think that there are certain rights over children which come from being a parent which the governments ought to have to prove the very highest standard to override. We have allowed government to override and lower those standards seemingly on a whim by allowing them to set school curriculae, determine if minors can get an abortion, etc.

            We absolutely should recognize marriage both societally and governmentally, but we should restore the policy bar to defer to parents on all things unless the government proves on a case-by-case basis the need to interfere (such as in the cases of extreme neglect or abuse).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 month ago
              We so need a do-over on most laws. I really wish they had a time limit (e.g. 20 years, after which all laws expire, unless renewed.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 1 month ago
                I'd love to see a provision that made any bill requiring funding (even for enforcement) automatically sunset every two years unless there was an express and individual bill passed to prolong it (for another two years). Can you imagine what that would do to Congress? I'm betting it would put 90% of the Federal Government out of business in the first round it was in effect. It would sure occupy Congress with all the re-authorization bills which would have to be put up and keep them from introducing crap like 10,000 page healthcare bills and other monstrosities.

                Yes, I know. I'm evil and anti-government. And I'm proud of it. ;)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    We are given equality by the Constitution. It is up to us to maintain it, demand it, and earn it. You are not better or worse for being LBGT, Black, green, or mixed gender, you are still rated on your own accomplishments, not by the loudness of your whine. Stupidity is my one prejudice, it is so much a choice, and a bad one.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    This preposterous idea shouldn't be choked down by honest liberals, as it makes biological women second class citizens, flying in the face of all past efforts to give women equal footing on many fronts.

    As more of these discomfiting efforts to normalize sexually related mental disorders come to light, I can't help but feel there's a motivation behind it to normalize pedophelia. We're already seeing discussion of how it's a disease, and the "victims" shouldn't be considered criminals. If you think about it, if the argument that minors have a right to make life altering decisions about their sex, the next logical step is to declare they have a "right" to experience their inherent sexuality, including having sex with adults.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 month ago
      "the next logical step is to declare they have a "right" to experience their inherent sexuality,"
      I think this is the slippery slope fallacy.

      Also, I don't see the trend going toward kids having more rights to make decisions for themselves. It seems like we're considering people incompetent to do things for themselves at older ages. I have the unpopular belief that once people develop formal operations, usually as teenagers, they soon get an urge to set out on their own and make their own decisions. I think our society is wrong to consider them children, not able to make decisions, not supposed to work, not accountable for the agreements or their crimes. That doesn't mean I want my kids to leave home at 16, but I want to start respecting them as people becoming responsible for their own lives. I have warned them at early as age 7 and 9 that there are some troubled people who want kids to be their b/f or g/f, that this is unhealthy, and that I want them to tell me if they ever sense that from someone. But in a few years, when they're 15 and 17, ages when historically people got married or went to war; they really have to start taking responsibility for their actions.

      I guess all this means people might see me as normalizing pedophilia. It's not directly related to my respect for others as individual without regard to gender.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 1 month ago
        If someone is making their own living and supporting themselves financially, then I agree: they should have the right to be treated as an adult. But how many <17-yr-olds are in this category? Almost none. Now one can argue that this is largely because of public policy and culture. I would agree. The issue is that you can't simultaneously propose that people be treated as responsible adults when they haven't taken on the responsibilities which go with adulthood - notably being responsible for your own livelihood. That's the tradeoff. (Of course, I would also argue that those who rely on government welfare to live also ought not to be treated as full adults with voting rights, but that's another topic.)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 month ago
        Unfortunately, it's not a "slippery slope." NAMBLA (an organization that I feel should be outlawed, and membership be grounds for criminal prosecution) promotes exactly the concept that children are "being denied their sexuality" by making sex with adults a crime. A law recently passed in California made sex with a minor a crime only if the adult was more than ten years senior to the minor. That's an existing endorsement of pedophile crime!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    I think that actually there is a contingent of politicians - hard-core leftists - who absolutely do want this to pass. They WANT to be able to force this nonsense on the public - or at least try. But remember, it took them a decade to get homosexuals in the military. Or gay "marriage." Or any number of other leftist policies. This is the opening salvo, but don't expect it to go away. It will get tabled or defeated this go-around but it will be back after the next election (which Democrats will fraudulently win again).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 month ago
      Bigotry is dying. I don't think it flow from laws though.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 1 month ago
        You are correct in that bigotry doesn't stem from laws. It is a mindset in those who think that some arbitrary characteristic makes them inherently superior to other human beings. It is 100% a learned behavior.

        Bigotry would already be dead if it weren't for Democrats. Who have been the race-baiters? Democrats like Al Sharption and Jesse Jackson. Who opposed the '63 and '64 bills making inequality in public accommodations illlegal? Democrats. Who has been supportive of the destructive race riots and BLM? Democrats. Heck, we can go back to the times immediately following the Civil War and who supported the KKK? Democrats.

        The only way we'll ever really be rid of bigotry is when there are no more Democratic Politicians.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 25n56il4 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    I wonder that our legislators have so much free time they can consider such stupidity. These people need to get a life.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 1 month ago
      It is both stupidity and ideology. They want to see a world in which there are no rules they can't break and no prohibitions which maintain equality and consistency across society. They want to see a return to the feudal system because they see themselves as part of the elite class of rulers. The funny thing (in a tragic sort of way) is that the inconsistency and stupidity of their proposals is its inherent Achilles' Heel.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 month ago
      "so much free time they can consider such stupidity"
      It's not free time. I think getting people fired up about nothing is part of the job, if they want to stay in office. I avoid jobs with lots of politics. People who go into politics are the opposite from me.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo