We are of a similar age; I remember the Sunday Blue Laws too. And all the liberating legal rulings that followed. I suspect gay rights was the straw that broke their tolerance, as you mention. And my assessment is they knew it was too late to go after gay Americans because it was already at mainstream acceptance - so they went after tran…
We are of a similar age; I remember the Sunday Blue Laws too. And all the liberating legal rulings that followed. I suspect gay rights was the straw that broke their tolerance, as you mention. And my assessment is they knew it was too late to go after gay Americans because it was already at mainstream acceptance - so they went after transgender rights instead. Most Americans don’t personally have a transgender relative, friend, or acquaintance so it was a “safe” group to attack. But I now see that tide turning. A few years ago comments in the NYT were very negative on transgender rights, but that’s changed, probably in response to the right wing meanness. Liberals didn’t want to make common cause with MAGAs. In a paradox the cause of transgender rights has benefited from the viciousness of the right wing attacks.
We sure have lost ground on separation of church and state! With more on the way, if we can’t stop this tide.
Trump changed everything with his reptilian skill at using any wedge issue. But I will always be negative on religion and its adherents, for gleefully accepting and advancing such an evil person. Talk about strange bedfellows. And rank hypocrisy, for all to see. This Supreme Court is playing a big role in allowing religion into government and protecting religion above individual freedom.
Thanks for your answer; it’s such an interesting, important topic, worthy of discussion.
Two further comments (and thanks for your response):
1) I could write pages on the religious liberty issue, but the bottom line is this: it’s clear to me that the Religious Right wants to be able to use their religious beliefs as a reason not to have to obey duly passed laws. For example, businesses can’t refuse services to anyone based on their sex, age, ethnicity, religion, national origin (and probably some others in this list). But they can if they claim that it violates their religious beliefs. So their religious beliefs not only “trump” the legislatures, but it also “trumps” any other belief that someone might use (try saying that you don’t want to serve a Black customer in your restaurant because you don’t believe that the races should mix and see how far you get). They simply want special treatment.
2) Trump’s support from the Evangelicals is probably the most amazing about-face that I have seen in a long time (second place would go to the anti-abortion rights groups who, pre-Dobbs, said that abortion policy is a state issue and then immediately post-Dobbs wanted a national ban) and would have severely damaged their credibility in a saner world. For years, their message was basically “the means justifies the ends”. In an instant, it became “the ends justifies the means”.
We are of a similar age; I remember the Sunday Blue Laws too. And all the liberating legal rulings that followed. I suspect gay rights was the straw that broke their tolerance, as you mention. And my assessment is they knew it was too late to go after gay Americans because it was already at mainstream acceptance - so they went after transgender rights instead. Most Americans don’t personally have a transgender relative, friend, or acquaintance so it was a “safe” group to attack. But I now see that tide turning. A few years ago comments in the NYT were very negative on transgender rights, but that’s changed, probably in response to the right wing meanness. Liberals didn’t want to make common cause with MAGAs. In a paradox the cause of transgender rights has benefited from the viciousness of the right wing attacks.
We sure have lost ground on separation of church and state! With more on the way, if we can’t stop this tide.
Trump changed everything with his reptilian skill at using any wedge issue. But I will always be negative on religion and its adherents, for gleefully accepting and advancing such an evil person. Talk about strange bedfellows. And rank hypocrisy, for all to see. This Supreme Court is playing a big role in allowing religion into government and protecting religion above individual freedom.
Thanks for your answer; it’s such an interesting, important topic, worthy of discussion.
Two further comments (and thanks for your response):
1) I could write pages on the religious liberty issue, but the bottom line is this: it’s clear to me that the Religious Right wants to be able to use their religious beliefs as a reason not to have to obey duly passed laws. For example, businesses can’t refuse services to anyone based on their sex, age, ethnicity, religion, national origin (and probably some others in this list). But they can if they claim that it violates their religious beliefs. So their religious beliefs not only “trump” the legislatures, but it also “trumps” any other belief that someone might use (try saying that you don’t want to serve a Black customer in your restaurant because you don’t believe that the races should mix and see how far you get). They simply want special treatment.
2) Trump’s support from the Evangelicals is probably the most amazing about-face that I have seen in a long time (second place would go to the anti-abortion rights groups who, pre-Dobbs, said that abortion policy is a state issue and then immediately post-Dobbs wanted a national ban) and would have severely damaged their credibility in a saner world. For years, their message was basically “the means justifies the ends”. In an instant, it became “the ends justifies the means”.