Kim Davis–infamous bigot with bad hair–is back. Like a bad infestation, she just won’t go away. As the 10-year anniversary of marriage equality and the Obergefell ruling approaches this June, The Trump administration and the conservative-majority Supreme Court are hard at work trying to strip us of our freedoms. Enter Kim Davis, appealing her 2015 case. According to the Advocate, “Davis appealed her case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which ruled unanimously against her in February. Now that the appeals court has refused to re-hear her case, her lawyer — from the Liberty Counsel, a far-right Christian legal organization — has announced that they intend to appeal to the Supreme Court.” Her goal, of course, is to have marriage equality overturned by SCOTUS. Here’s hoping we can finally fumigate and get rid of her for good.
On April 22 SCOTUS heard oral arguments in the Mahmoud v. Taylor case, and is likely to hand down its decision in late June or early July. This case has LGBTQ+ children’s books back in the new cycle, as it centers on a group of parents who are suing Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools for not allowing them to opt their children out of instruction involving books with LGBTQ+ characters. The parents argue that this violates their First Amendment right to religious freedom, while I’m left wondering–once again–why LGBTQ+ people are being treated as unicorns, bridge trolls, and fire-breathing dragons. That is to ask – what gives these parents the right to pretend we don’t exist?
An article from the 19th News explains, “These parents aren’t challenging school curriculum or asking for books to be banned. But since they can no longer opt their kids out of reading these books, they are asking the Supreme Court to intervene.” Scotus Blog reports that “during nearly two-and-a-half hours of oral argument, a majority of the justices seemed to agree with them, with several justices questioning whether there would even be any harm to simply allowing the parents to excuse their children from the instruction.” Also from the Scotus Blog: “Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that the teaching of the content in the storybooks might amount to more than mere exposure. Presentation of an idea as fact, such as telling students that “this is the right view of the world,” she posited, is different from exposure – such as telling students that “some people think” a particular thing.”
Fact: LGBTQ+ people exist.
Fact: Your children will meet LGBTQ+ people in their lifetime.
Fact: Your children already know LGBTQ+ people.
Opting out of letting our children learn about topics or people that we don’t understand, disagree with, or even make us uncomfortable is a foolproof way to ensure that our children will lack critical thinking skills and empathy for others. I’m not surprised that the majority of the current Supremes are on board with this.
On May 6th an emergency application for stay was granted in the United States v. Schilling case. This means that for the time being, the court has upheld Trump’s trans military ban. While the legal challenge continues, NBC News reports that 1,000 transgender troops are being moved out of the military. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson say they would deny the application. Trump’s trans ban is especially enraging because, as the Cape Cod Times reports, “For three generations, Trump’s paternal line has neither offered nor performed any military service, voluntarily or through the draft.” According to the Scotus Blog, “The plaintiffs contend that the policy violates, among other things, the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.”
Finally, there’s Libby v. Fecteau, another case that highlights the MAGA obsession with transgender Americans. My understanding is that this particular case is tricky. CBS News has the full story, but here’s the abridged version: In February Laurel Libby, a Republican member of Maine’s House of Representatives, published a Facebook post that included photos and the name of the school and the minor transgender athlete who placed first in the girls’ pole vault at the state’s track-and-field championship. Even after being warned that this post could endanger the safety of the young athlete, Libby refused to delete the post, and the Maine House voted 75 to 70 to censure her. Because Libby’s votes no longer count in the House of Representatives, her case argues, her constituents are left “without a voice.”
In an article for Vox, Senior Correspondent Ian Millhiser argues that, “even if the First Amendment does not apply to speech that is somewhat menacing to a minor — itself a dubious proposition — stripping Libby of her voting rights does more than simply strike at her right to free speech. It punishes her constituents by stripping them of their right to representation.”
Does the punishment fit the crime? Not if Libby’s constituents aren’t being represented, in my humble opinion. I have to agree with Millhiser’s point that the Maine legislature could have simply expelled Libby from the state house altogether. “At least in that circumstance,” he argues, “the people of her district could elect someone else to cast votes on their behalf.” Proceedings in the case are ongoing.
Don’t worry, there’s still some good news… check it out here!
Hey there. Laura Leigh here. I’m a wife, writer, mama, small business owner, podcast host, and the Head of Content here at Pink Robin.
I love supporting the queer community and bringing shared experiences to life.
If you have a story to tell, I’m here for it.
la********@pi***********.com
I remember when my wife and I first became moms, I knew that our ability to “pass” was behind us. I was never going to pretend that my wife and family were something other than exactly who they were. It was freeing to know that I had to live my queer life out loud, that I would forever be myself in every space, all the time.
In a 2023 CNN article Daniel Korschun, associate professor of marketing at Drexel University explained that when it comes to supporting the LGBTQ+ community, executives “are becoming much more skittish about taking these stands and making strong statements.
According to a 2022 Pew Research Poll, roughly eight-in-ten U.S. adults say there is at least some discrimination against transgender people in our society. Because trans rights have become such a contentious issue across the country, companies that used to view supporting pride as “low stakes” have become less likely to support the LGBTQ+ community as a whole. “The pendulum is swinging a bit back … toward a more conservative approach, where they’ll be less vocal,” says Korschun. According to a recent NBC News article, Target stores will only sell pride merchandise in select locations this year. The retailer will not have Pride collections in about half of their locations. Additionally, they will only sell pride merchandise for adults.
An argument that Target has made in the past and is now using again is that this decision protects their LGBTQ+ employees, but let’s be clear: Conditional allyship is not support. Pulling queer merchandise from their shelves and essentially pretending that we don’t exist–and ignoring those of us who have children that want to celebrate pride with us–is detrimental to our community. Erasure threatens our safety. This weekend my mom told me that she’s done with Target. Like her, I can’t say I feel good about spending my money in a place that doesn’t value my family. As of today, the ACLU is currently tracking 515 anti-LGBTQ bills in the U.S. We exist, and abandoning us only endangers us.
Pink Robin is a digital marketplace that brings together LGBTQIA+ owned brands and service providers in one easy to find and shop platform. We are devoted to providing visibility and support to queer owned businesses, providing easier access to elevate their amazing products and services.
Copyright © 2024 Pink Robin Inc.
No products in the cart.
Explore unique products from LGBTQIA+ owned brands. Add some fabulous finds to your cart and support the community!
Shop now
