42
How pro-LGBTQ+ is Kamala Harris?
(www.advocate.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
42 points (80.0% liked)
politics
19090 readers
4662 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Here you go. Her real record, not all the fluff pieces that will now be everywhere trying to make her look like she's always been pro-LGBTQ+ (still vote for her if she's the nominee, just know what she did in the past)...
https://www.them.us/story/kamala-harriss-record-on-trans-and-sex-work-issues
And...
https://19thnews.org/2020/08/kamala-harris-complicated-lgbtq-choice/
And...
https://www.out.com/news-opinion/2019/1/22/kamala-harris-takes-responsibility-opposing-trans-surgeries
She has a hella spotty record on trans rights, I'm really not more thrilled with her than I would have been with biden. Unfortunately, the alternative is worse by far, so my hands are pretty much tied to vote for her if she's the nominee. One is pretending to care at present, the other explicitly wants to eliminate us from public life.
Someday in my lifetime, it'd be really nice to get a president that clearly cares about everyone in the population. And while I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony.
It's worth actually diving into the details. The reporting is burying key details that are often not quoted, making Kamala sound worse than she is.
I'll say this: people are complicated. Reasonable people are capable of change within themselves.
A lot of people suggest that past actions are indicative of future behaviours. People who assert this are flat out wrong. Look at what Trump promised prior to his election in 2016, then compare it to what he actually did. The same is true of anyone else. What someone did, or didn't do, in the past doesn't exactly prescribe what they will do in future.
People are complicated, and reasonable people are capable of change.
I've read into the Kamala Harris denying surgery for a trans prisoner story a bit. It's worth noting that her role as the attorney general at the time is supposed to represent the state, and is not able to pick and choose battles, irrespective of her beliefs.
She took full responsibility for her actions [out.com article cited above]. Trump has never done this, as far as I can tell.
What is not being quoted above, an omission that makes Kamala look bad on trans issues, is that she actually worked with the relevant departments to change the rules [https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/01/21/harris-takes-full-responsibility-for-briefs-against-surgery-for-trans-inmates/].
Sure, she might have a spotty record though look at her more recent actions. She co-sponsored the Equality Act when she was elected to the U.S Senate.
Even if she was 'against' trans rights, those actions above suggest there's not an 'against' slant now.
Don't take my word for it. Dig out as many articles as you can find, or even transcripts of her debates and speeches.
People are complicated. You can help shape their views. Get involved. Vote. Read deeper into the news, don't take news at face value. It is often spun, and misquoted, to portray a particular point of view whether right or wrong.
(For what it's worth, I'm a gay trans person though I have no horse in the U.S Presidential election as I don't live in the U.S. That said, having witnessed how awful the media have twisted issues and facts in my own country, especially over LGBT issues, I wanted to point out that this whole 'she's spotty on trans rights' is not the whole picture. It's not your fault though, we're constantly fed bullshit to try sway narratives, or to convince people to stay home, which is disastrous in a first-past-the-post voting system).
Not remotely as spotty as her critics have made it seem.
The past is always a predecessor to the future. I wouldn't trust her with my rights anymore than I would trust Trump, She also supported the Respect for Marriage Act, which will throw LGBTQ+ and interracial marriages back under the bus if SCOTUS strikes down Loving and/or Obergefell.
In high school I thought homosexuality was a sin, and was occasionally a little shit about it. But I had been raised to be kind and empathetic, even towards people I thought were going against God’s will (because my faith growing up was very careful to drive home that literally everyone is a sinner and we should not judge one another), and that kindness and empathy eventually led to me getting to know LGBTQ people and learning more about them, feeling for their struggles, which among other things helped reshape the views I had in my younger years to my current extremely allied stance.
People change. Especially when given new information and perspectives. Especially over time. I am not the person I was then, and I am thoroughly grateful to the people who didn’t just discard me because I held views that disagreed with theirs.
I’m extremely confused by what you mean here. The RFMA specifically codifies parts of the decisions in Loving and Obergefell. Even if those decisions were overturned, we now have Federal laws on the subject. Whereas before the RFMA, if Obergefell were overturned, then DOMA would be law again and gay marriage wouldn’t be federally recognized nor required to be recognized by the states. It was brought into law because of the threat to Obergefell after Row was overturned.
How would RFMA “throw LGBTQ+ and interracial marriages back under the bus”?
For those not already married their rights could be denied by a simple county clerk that doesn't believe in gay or interracial marriage.
That would absolutely suck, sure, but I’m not sure what they could do about that. Marriage licenses are state-issued and it’s a power not given to the Federal government. RFMA demands states accept marriage licenses from other states (as the full faith and credit clause allows them to demand) and repealed DOMA, which prevented the Federal government from recognizing gay marriage (in the event of Obergefell being overturned). Those are important, even if it may fall short of perfection. And for that reason the bill was largely touted as a win for progressives.
Short of a constitutional amendment, which will NOT happen in our current national climate, there’s not much more the federal government can do I think. I’m not a constitutional scholar.
Considering every single Democrat in Congress voted for RFMA, I think holding Harris’s support for the bill against her is quite silly.
I got way more against Harris than just a single bill. Her history against the broad spectrum of the marginalized is horrific