The White House on Sunday slammed Congressional Republicans for including a provision in the government funding bill that essentially stops LGBTQ+ Pride flags f
The measure permits only certain flags to be flown over US embassies, including the US flag, US Foreign Service flag, POW/MIA flag, Hostage and Wrongful Detainee flag, flag of a state, “insular area” or DC, Indian tribal government flag, the official branded flag of a US agency, and the sovereign flag of another nation.
I'd much rather they try and implement actual protections for LGBT+ Americans than just do this performative bs. I don't give a flying fuck if there are pride flags at our embassies. What I actually want is to be protected from losing my healthcare, housing, and general right to appear in public without fear of harassment. There are already several states I don't feel safe traveling to, and that is an absolute travesty in what is supposedly the "Land of Freedom". What a fucking joke.
I'd rather have both and there's no reason we should settle for less.
Of course actual protection are more important.
But social signaling that LGBTQ+ is accepted by society and the government is important, too. And preventing bigots who overtly are anti-LGBTQ+ from winning on passing laws like this is also important.
What specific protections that actually fall under the Executive's unilateral authority are you looking for? The Presidency isn't a kingship, and the federal government's authority to interfere with state laws is limited, particularly in the absence of a friendly Congress.
Re: Housing, discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation is illegal and you can file a complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development if you experience it.
Harassment is, for better or for worse, a pretty high bar, and the President absolutely does not have the power to prevent people from being assholes to us. If healthcare is in reference to HRT, the administration has been heavily involved in pushing back against state laws, but again, there are constitutional constraints.
That aside, I like to think that the Pride flag flying at embassies is a very nice signal of what America can stand for at its best, particularly in countries where LGBT people won't otherwise see any kind of support at all. It's obviously not the same thing, but as a gay kid from a tiny rural southern town, it was always cool when I traveled to cities and saw Pride flags or saw Pride campaigns on TV as a way to know that not everyone was like my hometown.
I realize the article is about the white house specifically pushing back, but my sentiment is directed more at the entire democratic party. They had control of House, Senate, and the Oval Office for 2 years and didn't seem to put much effort into protecting lgbt people. What I see is usually more posturing and virtue signalling coming from them. I want them to defend us with at least the ferocity republicans attack us. The right will seemingly stop at nothing to take our rights away and the Dems only ever put forth token efforts to save them. They need to wise up and start playing just as dirty as the right or we will continue our slide into fascism and us trans folk will be the first ones they send off to the gas chambers.
My concerns exactly, when lgbtq folk are being persecuted in their home states for just existing, and all they can do is let trans people back in the military and allow the privileged folks at embassies to fly pride flags, well it's clearly more about apprarences.