You’re not going to believe this, but Jeff Sessions has taken more actions to oppress LGBTQ people than we even thought. Sessions was just appointed as incoming Attorney General by Donald Trump — you know, the guy who’s supposed to be the most pro-gay Republican president elect in history?
Here’s the latest atrocity from our friend Jeff Sessions curtesy of CNN: back in the 90s, Alabama had a law that prohibited public universities from funding groups that promote “actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws.” When an LGBT conference was planned at the University of Alabama, Sessions did everything in his power as state Attorney General to have the conference cancelled.
Did the conference even indeed promote “actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws”? Well, maybe, if you consider an interfaith panel the height of taboo eroticism.
The battle dragged out for months, and ultimately resulted in the law being ruled unconstitutional and the conference getting a significant boost in attendance — so, a huge loss for Sessions. Still, it could easily have gone the other way; and there’s no way the conference organizers could have raised the millions of dollars it costs to bring a case before the Supreme Court.
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.
Now Jeff Sessions is in charge of defending the nation’s laws, and deciding what side the Department of Justice will take in cases involving the government. And when LGBT issues come up in court — as they definitely will sometime very soon — which side do you suppose he’ll take?
Thanks again, Donald, for being such a good friend to the gays. Remember, it’s totally valid for queer people to support the Republican party.
nmharleyrider
Is anyone surprised. That guy looks like you could not get a toothpick up his ass with a sledge hammer.
Alistair Wiseman
Back in the 90’s, huh?
Oh, back when Bill Clinton was signing the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Paco
@Alistair Wiseman: And just conveniently leave out any mention of the anti-gay republican congress back then that had worse ideas for us.
love2009
This to me is more about someone that has a hatred for the LGBTQ community and is anti-gay. This is about a man who is afraid of the gay community and is threatened by the gay community and/or has something that he is trying desperately to hide and with this much hatred, I believe that he has something to hide that will at some point will come to the forefront.
1EqualityUSA
This latent fapper looks pervy. Sessions could be a character actor with those mean, little rat eyes and tiny, unforgiving mouth. What creates this? His parents must have done a number on him.
Alistair Wiseman
@1EqualityUSA:
Is this what you have sunk to? Demeaning someones looks?
Brian
Look into Jeff Sessions’sexual history and you will find something quite interesting….
unreligious
Alistar Wiseman; I always wonder when people make comments like yours, what actually is the reasoning. Do you think the wrong Bill Clinton did somehow cancels out the wrong Jeff Sessions did? I kind of remember when I was a kid learning two wrongs did not make a right. You comment might have some merit if it was Bill Clinton being considered for Attorney General. He’s not, Jeff Simmons is and we should not pretend he did not do this. Nor should we ignore it.
dean089
What fantasy land have people been living in where something like this causes shock or surprise? I actually heard people back before November saying that gay rights was a “done deal.” On what planet? Just because we got better at ignoring people like Jeff Sessions doesn’t mean they went away.
blackhook
He looks like an inbred rodent …Wait! That’s not fair to the rest of the inbred rodents!
porque_loco
@Alistair Wiseman: is this what you have sunk to? Deflecting from a major political appointee’s anti-LGBT words and actions?
Of course… as long as they are a Republican and it’s a day ending in “y.”
Phillip
It’s the closet queens that are the worst homophobes.
dwes09
@Alistair Wiseman: “Oh, back when Bill Clinton was signing the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Ah, here’s the rub fantasy boy, Based on ACTUAL ACTIONS AND STATEMENTS, the Clinton’s have changed with the times and are actually our friends and supporters. These regressives you court, on your knees with your mouth open hoping they will deign to piss in your mouth, have not changed or evolved. Their actions and statements indicate they cling to their hatred of the likes of you (if you are actually a gay man and not a hetero troll).
Do you understand? They were anti-gay, they are still anti gay. They want to see gay people constrained so they (as “good christian folks”) won’t have to be offended by our existence.
It is called reality, toady, try it. It sure as hell beats your fear driven fantasy world (where Trump, despite his actions and statements, is our friend because he says he will defend us from a pretty much imaginary threat while stripping us of equal protection under the law).
JessPH
@Alistair Wiseman: Quite right. Because the mistakes of the Clintons during the 90s definitely absolve Sessions’ and your fellow Republicans’ homophobia.
White_Bear77
1 in 7 gay men voted for Trump.
Bryguyf69
@Alistair Wiseman: You’re either intellectually dishonest or just ignorant. My guess is that you are both. Try doing some research. Both were enacted as a to head off homophobic legislation that would have been far worse. They were the best Clinton and other gay-friendly politicians can do, given the times. Congress wanted to enact a COMPLETE BAN OF LGBT PERSONNEL, WHICH INCLUDED THE WITCHHUNT OF EXISTING TROOPS. DADT’s intent was to stop the witchhunt. And gays can still enlist as long as they don’t reveal their sexuality. Or don’t you understand the meaning of, “Don’t ask”? Here is an excellent Wiki summary. I’d suggest you educate yourself and read the entire article, which includes the historical context of the act. But based on your posts, my guess is that you’d rather wallow in ignorance and ignore facts that don’t support your narrative (just like Trump!).
Read carefully: “Clinton called for legislation to overturn the ban, but encountered intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” Yes, Clinton wanted to overturn the entire ban. That single sentence negates your entire argument. Duh.
From
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Don't_ask,_don't_tell
==========
Congress rushed to enact the existing gay ban policy into federal law, outflanking Clinton’s planned repeal effort. Clinton called for legislation to overturn the ban, but encountered intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, and portions of the public. DADT emerged as a compromise policy.[36] Congress included text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 absolute ban policy.[37] The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993,[38] issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.[37] This is the policy now known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. The phrase was coined by Charles Moskos, a military sociologist.
Bryguyf69
@Alistair Wiseman: God, you’re ignorant. And probably a liar. As for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), don’t blame it on Clinton. He had to sign it because there was overwhelming approval in congress, making it veto-proof. You may subscribe to a Trumpian dictatorship, but in the US, a presidential veto is not absolute. Fighting DOMA was not only pointless, but it would have fueled the popular anti-gay movement with more momentum — possibly reviving hopes of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Public sentiment was against gays in the 1990s.
While Clinton had to sign DOMA, he publicly stated that it was “unnecessary and divisive” and “gay baiting, plain and simple.” Furthermore, the White House later released this statement, “…the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation”.
Most notably, Clinton refused to hold a signing ceremony for DOMA and didn’t allow any photographs to be taken of him signing the law. Does that sound like someone who supported DOMA?
So what was your point, Alistair, in saying that Clinton signed DADT and DOMA? That Clinton did the best he could’ve in homophobic times? Or that you, Alistair Wiseman, are ignorant and intellectually dishonest?
Bryguyf69
@unreligious: I agree with your logic but here’s the thing, in the cases of DADT and DOMA, Clinton didn’t even do wrong. He basically did the best he could in heading off laws that would’ve been much worse. Too many critics ignore the context of DADT and DOMA, namely that in the 1990s, the US and congress were much more homophobic than it is now. In other words, DADT and arguably, even DOMA, were politically gay-friendly in that they prevented the enactment of worse legislation.