MAGA Fascists Try To Ban Drag and Fail. Repeatedly.
Added 2024-03-04 09:17:52 +0000 UTCEpisode 1011
Here's one for everyone who enjoys stories about terrible people losing in court! Casey stops by to review Alito's complaint to America's managers about the devastating cost of marriage equality: the exclusion of anti-LGBTQ bigots from juries. Matt breaks down the total failure of state attempts to ban drag shows and why the actual First Amendment keeps winning over the one that the kinds of people who yell the most about the First Amendment seem to think that they are yelling about.
1. Thomas/Alito statement in 2020 denial of Kim Davis's cert petition (2020)
2. Alito's concurrence in denial of cert in Missouri Dept of Corrections v. Finney (2024)
3. Trial court decision in Friends of Georges v. Mulroy (TN drag show ban)
4. Trial court decision in Florida-ORL v. Griffin (FL drag show ban)
5. Trial court decision in Woodlands Pride v. Paxton (TX drag show ban)
Comments
Funny how there's no consideration for sincerely held religious beliefs that accept LGBTQ+ people, or those whose conscience objects to tax money being spent on war operations.
Jason Valasek
2024-03-18 12:43:24 +0000 UTCFurthermore, buying a skirt/tie/undies with dickholding capacity will require chromosome tests at the cash register
Bald Weasels Scrotal Manscaping
2024-03-08 11:00:34 +0000 UTCIs this like the "feet are dicks actually" thing?
Bald Weasels Scrotal Manscaping
2024-03-08 10:50:34 +0000 UTCSir, you have stuffed your Speedo. You are under arrest.
Katie Byrum
2024-03-07 13:59:44 +0000 UTCAre we outlawing push up bras and, uh, codpieces now??!?!!?
Katie Byrum
2024-03-07 13:57:24 +0000 UTC!!!?? I've never heard anything like this, but tbf I was raised in an extremely specific flavor of fundamentalist Christianity. Did I miss some Judeo-Christian Extended Universe fanfic or something
Matt Cameron
2024-03-06 02:39:21 +0000 UTCI've been ruminating on Alito's comments about the jury elimination on this case-- namely that when Obergefell was argued, he predicted that Americans would be viewed as bigots by their own government for their "traditional" views on homosexuality. If I understand correctly, it sounds as if but for the technicality that meant they had to deny cert, Alito would've agreed with Missouri Corrections that the jury selection amounted to a violation of the equal rights protections of the 14th Amendment. That sounds absurd on its face to me because lawyers have the right to excuse any juror they want during voir dire, so far as I know, so long as it's not because they are members of a protected class-- which Alito specifically discounted as a basis for argument since hey didn't claim that Christians, generally, are viewed as bigots by their government. And he couldn't have done so in the light of the facts from the case, which say that the jurors were excused on 6he basis of...being bigots. On the basis of this one specific belief Not for being Christians. So that right there seems to clearly rule out a 14th Amendment argument. There's also the strong implication that Alito viewed the possibility of the government treating people as bigots due to their bigotry as a just reason to *oppose legalization of gay marriage," in which case he would've denied a large number of Americans their equal rights (which, of course, IS protected by the 14th Amendment), in order to avoid people who share his views being (rightly, IMO) perceived as bigots. How utterly fucked up is that? But wait, there's more! I'm considering this in the context of the AL chief justice, Tom Parker, issuing an opinion on IVF and abortion that is chock full of religious language. To the point that anyone would be hard pressed to argue that if he weren't just religious, and not just a Christian, but an anti-abortion Christian, he couldn't have written that same opinion. He wouldn't have been able to use the "God says no" argument that underlies everything he's saying. So I can't help but interpret that as Parker attempting to force everyone to act as though they agree with his religious opinions, or else be considered a sinner *at best*. And if the government isn't allowed to view you as a bigot, why should they be allowed to view you as a sinner? I don't see the 14th Amendment as protecting anyone in either of these cases. But in a different, more sane, more just universe, I can imagine that Parker's actions might've violated the 1st Amendment. My favorite quote from a SCOTUS ruling ever comes from W. Virginia v. Barnette in 1943, when SCOTUS upheld the right of students not to be forced to say the pledge of allegiance: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." If there is any sense in which Parker *isn't* an official prescribing what is orthodox in...everything, and forcing citizens to confess their faith therein by their actions (i.e., not even disposing of a fertilized embryo), I don't sese it. I've had this view for a long time, given how virtually every anti-abortion argument boils down to "God said no." But it comes to mind right now in particular given how blatantly Dominionist Parker's opinion is, and when I juxtapose that with Alito's apparent willingness to punish an entire class of Americans for failing to confess by word and deed the orthodoxy of HIS own fucked up views.
Gretchen Koch
2024-03-05 22:51:11 +0000 UTCHam did more than see his father naked. You have to consider the culture and read between the lines. Namely how eye-for-eye things were back then. Noah's curse impacts all of Ham's descendants starting with Canaan. Thus Noah is taking all of Ham's descendants from him and putting them into slavery; so Ham presumably took all of Noah's descendants from him. Which really only leaves castration as the crime done to Noah while he was passed out. Thus he lost all descendants he would have had from then on. No idea WHY Ham would do that, but it's at least something you can blame Ham for. Unlike "you saw a man naked by accident"
Keep Funding Me Keep Funding Me
2024-03-05 21:33:07 +0000 UTCbtw I love the breakdown of them all!
lauren
2024-03-05 16:27:59 +0000 UTCas a non-american who has lived in a few western countries, all of which have both male/female drag or cabaret and no obvious sign of wildly immoral or traumatised children, it's so odd to watch these states trying to create (another) exceptional moral panic.
lauren
2024-03-05 13:13:51 +0000 UTCClearly Matt has homework: to go to a drag show!
Cheers to The Onion, the greatest media outlet in the history of humankind
2024-03-05 04:14:10 +0000 UTCEveryone should check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QshKJQQyCAE It’s amazing and apropos.
Marc Epard
2024-03-04 23:46:04 +0000 UTCMaybe it’s an extension of “every accusation is a confession.”
Pixel Mountain (aka Rachel)
2024-03-04 18:50:21 +0000 UTCThis is all especially amusing to me, because I was literally raised by drag queens (1960s-70s commune in San Francisco). My parents are straight, but several commune members were drag queens. They’re wonderful, sweet, generous, kind, gentle people. The people who hate them are idiots. I’ll never stop fighting for my people.
Pixel Mountain (aka Rachel)
2024-03-04 17:19:38 +0000 UTCCasey asked, “What do they think goes on at these shows.” I can answer that. In my many arguments with these people on Facebook, I’ve seen the anti-drag people post several photos and a couple of videos of drag shows and drag queen story hour events, some of which are pretty over the top. They’re always one or a few items from that SAME handful of photos and videos that they apparently find in their hateful misinformation groups. And once examined, these all turn out to be either Photoshopped, or not events where children were present, or one of TWO (count ‘em, two) events that were a bit over the top. That’s all they’ve got, but they think that cherry-picked, mostly fake collection of photos and videos represents ALL drag performances. They will literally say that. They claim that those (faked, misrepresented, cherry-picked) kinds of performances are rampant all across the country, with children watching.
Pixel Mountain (aka Rachel)
2024-03-04 16:42:09 +0000 UTCas a sixties person, that is precisely how I and millions of others experienced the situation.
David in Brooklyn
2024-03-04 15:32:00 +0000 UTCThe recurrence of that phrase has always struck me as extremely Freudian. The people who use it seem to have a very loud pornography track playing in their subconscious.
David in Brooklyn
2024-03-04 15:30:37 +0000 UTCThomas' comment about the left being the party of freedom goes in line with something I've been thinking about recently. A good bit of the talk about freedom on the right (especially in libertarian circles) seems to only revolve around property rights. That's why I really think that the left is more pro personal freedom than the right.
Mark Critzman
2024-03-04 15:18:51 +0000 UTCOoh, cool, this is the “shoving it down our throats” argument. 🙄
Pixel Mountain (aka Rachel)
2024-03-04 14:14:00 +0000 UTCI really enjoyed this ep. My favourite thing about it was unpacking the difference between "Do you hold dumb bigoted beliefs about subgroup X? Like how dumb tho?" and "Are you now or have you ever been a member of bigoted organization Y that believes dumb thing Z". The way the lawyer phrased his voire dire thing almost seemed to bait those constitutional questions in a weird way.
Bald Weasels Scrotal Manscaping
2024-03-04 13:41:52 +0000 UTCThe best part of Casey's analysis is that she pronounces certiorari the same way I do.
Dr. Clerk
2024-03-04 13:27:59 +0000 UTCCasey’s coverage was wonderful and I love that she brought Kim Davis update into it too! Oh what a tangled web of wanting to be bigoted! And Matt dragged ban drag bills. lol!
KeepingThePlatesSpinning
2024-03-04 12:33:46 +0000 UTCMy parents are Catholic. They are extremely conservative. My dad was a cop who loves the death penalty. They hate us queers (and that's a big part of why I don't talk to them anymore). Don't expect consistency from religious types.
Unlikable Internet Goblin
2024-03-04 12:16:42 +0000 UTC
