“The reason we had so many overreaching regulations in our nation is because the church complied. The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it. And I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter and it means nothing like what they say it does.”
The letter declared, in part, that the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution established a “wall of separation between church and state”.
“I do care. I actually do care to address that and I’m really shocked. I’m actually appalled that Fox News would take a defamatory story like that and we are pursuing legal action against this drag queen, I’m appalled that you would bring that up when you have not talked about our stolen election.”
Kari Lake, a former journalist and current Republican candidate for governor of Arizona, responding to comments she allegedly had made about drag queens
The subject came up during an interview Lake granted to FOX News’ Bret Baier, when Baier inquired about a“Washington Post” story stating that stated: ‘Arizona GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake who has attacked drag queens as dangerous to children attended the shows of drag queen Richard Stephens for 20 years and once hired him to perform at her home.’
“My job is to defend state law and I’ll continue to do that. That is my job under the Constitution and I’m certainly willing and able to do that.”
Kenneth Paxton, Texas Attorney General, about Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that overturned a state anti-sodomy law and made all such laws invalid nationwide
“We will not live in a world, not in my city, where our rights are taken from us or rolled back. Fuck Clarence Thomas!”
Lori Lightfoot, Mayor of Chicago, reacting to the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision and Justice Clarence Thomas’ statement that other rulings should be considered, including same-sex marriage
Lightfoot is Chicago’s first openly-queer mayor.
“Mr. Justice Thomas had much to say today about my loving marriage. Oddly he didn’t have much to say about his ‘Loving’ marriage.”
Andrew McDonald, Connecticut Supreme Court Justice, about U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
McDonald, who is openly queer and married his husband Charles Gray in 2009, was referring to the 1967 Loving vs. Virginia ruling that legalized interracial marriage.
Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar with his family. Bexar County Sheriff’s office
“I’m the Sheriff of Bexar County, but also a Dad of two beautiful and intelligent young women. As their Dad I will defend my daughters’ ability to do what they feel is right with their own bodies and to love whomever they choose. My job is chasing predators, rapists, and human traffickers, not someone exercising a right… If it’s truly about protecting children, how about starting with the ones in our schools?”
Javier Salazar, Sheriff of Bexar County, Texas, announcing he won’t prosecute women seeking abortion
Many of the cases that arrive before the U.S. Supreme Court begin with individuals either trying right a wrong or make their own lives better. They rarely expect to launch a national movement. That was pretty much the case when Norma McCorvey found herself pregnant with her third child in 1969. An unemployed carnival worker living outside Dallas at the time, McCorvey apparently had led a rough life and had given up her first two children for adoption. She didn’t need – and couldn’t afford – to bring another child into the world. However, the state of Texas didn’t allow for abortions except to save the life of the mother. Even rape and incest victims couldn’t end their unwanted pregnancies. Like so many women in her situation, McCorvey was too poor to travel to another state where abortions were safe and legal. She even tried to obtain an illegal abortion, but again the cost was prohibitive. She sought legal help and ended up under the guidance of attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.
In 1970, after McCorvey had given birth and given up the baby, Coffee and Weddington filed paper work challenging the Texas law and bestowed the name “Jane Roe” upon their client. They targeted then-Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade. Wade had entered the national spotlight nearly a decade earlier when he prosecuted Jack Ruby for killing Lee Harvey Oswald who had been accused of assassinating President John F. Kennedy. (Wade would later come to light as a ruthless prosecutor who engaged in unscrupulous legal maneuvers to ensure criminal prosecutions, no matter the cost and despite evidence to the contrary.)
After McCorvey’s suit was filed, a Texas district court ruled the state’s abortion ban violated the constitutional right to privacy under the 14th Amendment. Wade persisted, however, and vowed to prosecute any doctor who performed what he deemed unnecessary abortions in the state. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court and, in a 7-2 ruling on January 22, 1973, abortion was fully legalized in the United States.
That was pretty much the end of the issue until the 1980s, when right-wing religious leaders began stoking the fires of anti-abortion rhetoric. It accompanied the presidency of Ronald Reagan who openly stated he wished for a return to an America before the 1960s. That should say enough about his bigoted state of mind, but it aligned with a growing hostility towards progressive ideology and civil rights legislation.
Earlier this week the unexpected news arrived that the Supreme Court may overturn Roe vs. Wade by the end of its current term in June. We wouldn’t know anything about this if it wasn’t for the leak of a draft opinion by Associate Justice Samuel Alito who declares the Roe decision “egregiously wrong” in terms of constitutional practicality. Chief Justice John Roberts has confirmed the veracity of the statement, but has joined many others in condemning the leak.
For many of us the leak isn’t the main concern. It’s what it says. There is now a very real possibility that nearly a half century of protection for that part of women’s overall health care could end because a handful of conservative extremists on the High Court want to inject their personal views into it.
For their like-minded ilk in the American public, the overturning of Roe marks the end of a long-fought battle in their alleged “pro-life” agenda; a perverted early Mother’s Day gift. It doesn’t matter that a majority of Americans don’t want to see a complete ban on abortion. They’ve been working for this moment over the past four decades.
For liberals, though, this is a much more dire situation. While the current case that brought Roe back into the forefront is limited to just abortion, progressives see other seminal SCOTUS decisions in the judicial crosshairs. It really isn’t extraordinary to see such cases as Obergefell vs. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage, reversed. Along with abortion, queer rights have been a target of far-right conservatives. But, if the Court sees fit to outlaw abortion at the national level (and leave it up to individual states), it could also reasonably overturn Griswold vs. Connecticut, which ruled that states could not deny birth control to married couples. Before that decision, married residents of Connecticut (and a few other states) couldn’t legally purchase birth control.
To some conservatives, abortion has become another form of birth control, which is not what contemporary feminists who jump-started the modern women’s movement desired. The latter group had always declared that abortion should be a woman’s last choice. But, with the overall concept of birth control in mind, is it possible a woman who has a tubal ligation could be criminally prosecuted? For that matter, could men who have vasectomies be subject to criminal jurisprudence? How about condoms or IUDs? Could those be outlawed?
Why stop with Roe? Aside from Obergefell and Griswold, could the Court target Loving vs. Virginia, the case that struck laws against interracial marriage? How about Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education, which outlaws racial desegregation in schools?
Remember that, when Antonin Scalia died in 2016, Republicans in the Senate displayed their usual contempt and disdain for President Obama by refusing to hold hearings on his nominee to the Court, until after Donald Trump got into office. They stated that, since Scalia’s death occurred during an election year, the incoming president should select his replacement. Yet, upon the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020, they rammed through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett – a character straight out of “The Handmaid’s Tale”.
That social and religious conservatives want to dictate what women can and cannot do with their own bodies conflicts with the long-held American vision of individual freedom. Many of these people screamed at the thought mandatory mask-wearing or forced vaccinations at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic; crying they should have autonomy over their own bodies. Really? What an original concept.
The reasons why an individual woman wants to end a pregnancy are myriad, but it is no one else’s business. As painful a decision as it may be, I’d rather see a woman end a pregnancy she doesn’t want than give birth to a child she doesn’t want. Children who come into the world unwanted are often unloved. That’s an awful fate for someone.
Regardless, pregnancy and birth are individual choices. No one – not the Supreme Court and not a politician – has the right to interfere with that.
“In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”
– U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618, which outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
“We want to be clear that, while we love our congregation, we believe that the United Methodist policies on LGBTQ+ clergy and same-sex marriage are immoral. Depending on how this church responds to the general conference action, we will decide at a later time whether or not to become officially confirmed. But until then, we will continue to stand up against the unjust actions that the denomination is taking. We are not standing just for ourselves, we are standing for every single member of the LGBTQ+ community who is hurting right now. Because we were raised in this church, we believe that if we all stand together as a whole, we can make a difference.”
– An entire confirmation class at First United Methodist Church in Omaha, Nebraska, in a letter announcing to their congregation that they have decided not to become members due to the church’s stance on LGBTQ issues.
The National UMC has preliminarily decided to split into two distinct factions: one that will uphold traditional values, and another that will allow LGBT clergy and members and will perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
“He never declared how big and how much money should be spent on the military etc, whether Government should provide welfare etc. Since Jesus did not say out of his own mouth we cannot beat our wives then it must be okay to beat them? Of course not. An argument from silence is very poor and unhelpful.”
– The Archdiocese of Washington’s Monsignor Charles Pope, slamming President Obama for mentioning scripture in his endorsement of same-sex marriage.
As I’ve said so often before, goddamn queers! They just want all sorts of rights!
“If you are to give us aid for men and men or for women and women to marry, leave it; we don’t need your aid because, as long as I am the President of The Gambia, you will never see that happen in this country. One thing we will never compromise, for whatever reason, is the integrity of our culture, our dignity and our sovereignty. As a member of the international community, we would abide by the international conventions that we have signed, but as a country, we will pass legislation that will preserve our culture, our humanity, our dignity and our identity as Africans, West Africans and Gambians.”
– Gambian President Yahya Jammeh, adding that no amount of foreign aid would compel him to “offend God” by endorsing what is “evil and unholy;” that is, accepting homosexuals as they are.
No, I’m not talking about Native American homosexuals! In October 2011, the National Log Cabin Republicans, a gay/lesbian political group, revoked the charter of its Dallas chapter after its president, Rob Schlein, told a national radio audience that businesses should be allowed to fire people just because they’re Black. I suppose he feels the same about Hispanics and Indians, although I don’t know if he feels Caucasians should be equally vulnerable. Not to be overshadowed, Schlein created Metroplex Republicans of Dallas. The city now has the unique distinction of having 2 gay Republican groups. Only in Texas, I guess! But, in a press release issued this past Wednesday, Schlein announced Metroplex Republicans will unite with another national conservative gay group, GOProud. GOProud bills itself as “a national organization of gay and straight Americans who seek to promote freedom by supporting free markets, limited government, and a respect for individual rights.” Funny, respect is what queer and non-White folks have demanded for years now.
A Dallas native, Schlein is a self-made businessman; successfully operating a series of men’s clothing stores in the area. Last September he told radio talk show host Michelangelo Signorile that, as a business owner in a right-to-work state, he should be able to fire someone at will, regardless of race. But, he noted, wouldn’t necessarily tell them that. “I’d find a reason if I wanted to fire them,” Schlein said. It might be worth noting Schlein is Jewish, and his partner his half-Native American.
I knew Schlein several years ago, when we were members of Lambda Pride Toastmasters, a local Toastmasters club he had founded with his partner and some other friends. He told me once that discrimination is inherent in human nature; that we discriminate every day, for example, when we choose what we have for lunch, or buy a car. I promptly told him discrimination is a deliberate act of animosity and bigotry towards an individual or a group, based upon an intrinsic quality attributed to that person or group. Choosing what we have for lunch is merely selection, not bigotry. I was shocked that he’d compare racial discrimination to lunch selections, but that’s before I actually got to know him and his mindset. Later, in a speech before the club, Schlein mentioned that people who don’t have enough in financial assets invite scorn and disrespect, especially in the workplace. That elicited an extremely hostile reaction from me after the meeting. “You mean to say, when people disrespected me at the bank, it’s because I didn’t have enough money in my checking account?!” I literally yelled at him. He fumbled for an answer, as fellow club members stood around shocked by my outburst.
Schlein has also been active in local politics for years. A Reagan devotee, he created some measure of controversy in the Dallas gay community when he aligned himself with the ultra-conservative Texas Eagle Forum. Founded by Phyllis Schlafly in 1972, TEF promotes a staunchly conservative agenda, including opposition to anything related to gay rights. It’s odd, considering Schlafly has an openly gay son; something she seems loathe to admit publicly. I’ve always been curious how queer folks fit into the Republican Party. Some compare it to Hispanics who work for the Border Patrol, but I kind of look at it like Indians who’d join Custer’s army. What’s the point? They won’t like you anyway. Schlein once told me he didn’t care if the average Republican liked him or not; he was more concerned about the overall conservative cause. I guess that’s how a lot of Indians felt in the 1860’s, as they attired themselves in traditional southern regalia; hoping to fit in alongside White slave owners. Meanwhile, Abraham Lincoln was ordering the U.S. Army to massacre as many Indians as possible out West.
On a side note, Metroplex Republicans of Dallas meets once a month at a Mexican restaurant near Dallas’s “Homo Heights,” a.k.a. the Cedar Springs – Oak Lawn area of town. Don’t you know that would get Phyllis Schlafly’s bloomers in a bind?
Chief Writing Wolf 