How badly do Republican presidential candidates want to stick it to LGBTQs?
So bad they’re willing to screw over straight people at the same time.
Feast your eyes on one of the right wing’s worst ideas ever: a proposed bill called the “First Amendment Defense Act,” which has flown underneath the media radar this election season.
The point is that it was created to pander to homophobic anxieties by making life unpleasant for queer people.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Oh, and whoops, it also targets any straight people who have sex outside of marriage.
Let’s review. The wording of the FADA is so difficult to get through, you might have trouble translating it. The law would ban:
“discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”
Okay, so what does that actually mean? It means that the government can’t prohibit discrimination against same-sex couples (whether that discrimination comes from a government employee, or a business, or an individual). It essentially creates special rights for anyone who says that they don’t like the gays — you know, just like how they’re always accusing us of wanting special rights whenever we ask to be treated equally.
But then it goes even further with that second point. The FADA also allows discrimination against any people — gay or straight — who have sex outside of marriage.
Is this seriously a problem? Are religious groups beset by heterosexual fornicators? Why does anyone need to have the “right” to punish straight people for having sex?
So let’s talk about some of the potential consequences of the FADA: If you’re gay and married, homeless shelters could turn you away; federal employees could refuse to process your tax returns; employers could refuse to grant you family and medical leave if your husband gets sick.
If you’re straight and single, your landlord could evict you for having an overnight date; your boss might refuse to cover your birth control; and then you could be fired for becoming pregnant.
The worst part about this act is that it doesn’t defend the First Amendment — it actually violates the First Amendment by enshrining a specific religious belief into law. Of course, this law would probably be found unconstitutional; but that could take years. Remember, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 and didn’t go away until 2013.
But this is just part of a larger trend of Republicans, the party of small government, harnessing government power to control the lives and bodies of anyone they don’t like. Naturally, it’s been endorsed most of the Republican front-runners: Cruz and Rubio signed their names to a pledge to pass it, and Donald Trump said he supported it in a letter. (Santorum and Huckabee also pledged their support — thank God we don’t have to take those guys seriously anymore.)
We don’t have to worry about FADA right now. President Obama would never sign anything like that into law. And we wouldn’t have to worry about it if next year we have a President Clinton or President Sanders.
But if anyone else winds up in the White House — well, then straight people better be careful about who finds out what they’re doing in the bedroom.
Christian Scott Thomas
meanwhile they post their faceless profiles on craigslist, adam, gay.com, all the sites searching for it lmao…
Martin Talbot
Depressed and biased control freaks ! LOL
Stephen Meeks
Not surprising. These folks are just just plain uptight.
Douglas Schlitz
What republicans need to do is stay out of everyone’s personal,business and their bedroom !
Douglas Schlitz
DCguy
No, they just assume that the same thing will happen that always happened. Straight people would never be arrested or prosecuted under the laws.
One of the reason that Sodomy got struck down was that they couldn’t find examples of when the law had ever been used against somebody who wasn’t LGBT.
Antony Nguyen
Why sex at all, they seem to have it shamefully
Friends of the LGBT
Republicans ARE NOT for small government. They want to force their bigoted christian morals on us all and control our actions in our own bedrooms. What an unbelievable nightmare scenario!
Robbie Martinez
Relax its just sex.
chris_clb614
It’s about time that all sexual contact outside of holy matrimony be considered for shaming! Meanwhile, out of wedlock children escape harsh judgment of these folks.
Daniel Salmeron
You know it would be used almost exclusively against the gays
Antonio Shazer
MAMA SHOULD HAVE KEPT HER LEGS CLOSED THAT NIGHT!
Roy Hortman
Can’t beleive that someone ever fucked Ted Cruz. One ugly mother fucker.
Glücklich
Jesus fucking christ these people! PRIORITIES!!
There’s important shit in this country to work on and these dumb fuckers focus on who’s bumpin’ uglies with whom.
Once loony-toon poster Asshole-istair Sizequeen extricates himself from being spit-roasted by Rubio and Cruz I’m sure he’ll come in with some clever missive about…some crazy bullshit.
captainburrito
I want this to pass. That way they have to deal with backlash from almost everyone! That alone would give the Democrats a super majority in the Senate and allow them to confirm any supreme court nominee!
Glücklich
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TksKqUjwfb4
DCguy
And this is why I hate the media, do you notice how nobody has asked a question like “Do you feel that Bristol Palin should be shamed for her out of wedlock birth?”
Mark Reimer
Billy Budd
This is madness. You can’t even fuck who you wanna fuck anymore.
Creamsicle
This shit right here is why so many young people can’t hang with the Republicans. Now people who are for small government call themselves Independents or Libertarians because the Republicans have to pander to the religious base. And the worst part about it is that most of the religious base think this kind of interference in personal lives is shitty. Nobody wants to legislate faith and religious bahavior.
Brian
The Religious Right element is still strong in the Republican Party. At the same time, we mustn’t forget that promiscuity is rife amongst men and female prostitutes. They are basically the same thing, and it doesn’t matter whether you identify as straight or gay.
Promiscuity needs to be controlled and certainly not glamorized.
Stefano
@Brian: You are no better than them…and i’m really not surprise. Loll
Archie
Sounds like we could sue straight people under this law. Could be interesting.