Hi, this is a wonderful display of a normal 19 year old who is autistic. She is open about it, how it affects her daily life, how her celebrity which she is not using for her own benefit, and how she copes she mentions she really doesn’t like what she feels she has to do and often retreats to an environment that soothes her emotion distress. One of the things she mentions is her love of beans, and eating one bean at a time, as it helps her deal. The interview was grand. Here is a 19 year old who could have been using her status to make millions as an influencer yet proudly admits she will use her large platform to introduce other people who have expertise or experience in fighting the climate emergency, and then she steps aside, giving them the entire stage to say what needs to be said.
She is engaging, dare I say cute, without being called out as a sexist pig? She laughed at the host, who was not trying to be funny because that was how it struck her. I loved how she totally was not like other guests, she was herself.
If I don’t clip this right and you want to hear her talk about her autism and how it affects her and her activism, please go through the video. Oh one thing before where I start with her interview, they have kids on, and the kids love her. To the point where the host tries to ask one of the kids if he knew who he was or wanted to talk to him and the kid was like, no, I want to talk to her. What an ego busting moment. Hugs, best wishes, loves. Scottie
Oh notice one thing, she says she doesn’t need to make money from the books and activism, because she is in what we call college or university and her country pays her not only to be there but enough to live. Her living costs are paid because she is a student. Think about that next time an argument about student loans comes up and how great the US is. Hugs
Please notice every law suit and every action was to legally let Christians force thier religous views on public school children regardless of other families religious faths, or to demand public funds pay for the Christians to promote their religion / god. Just demand after demand for special privelege, special rights, demands for public money, demands to force their religion and ONLY their religion on others. The entitlement these people feel to force their way of life on others is sickening to me. Gay people don’t demand the right to force others to have same sex relations and have the public pay for it. Trans people don’t demand the government force a certain number of people be forced to transition against their will and use public funds for it. But for years dueing the same sex marriage debate we heard Christians like Mike Johnson yell “The gays want special rights, special privilege just for them” No we wanted equality, they want the right to be above all other religions or views / ways of living. Hugs. Scottie
“The ultimate goal of the enemy is silencing the Gospel,” the Republican said in 2004 after Jewish parents sued a school for pushing Christianity on their kids.
Before coming to Congress, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) spent years taking up lawsuits in defense of Christian speech and activities in public elementary schools and universities.
Johnson, who was a relatively unknown Louisiana congressman before being elected House speaker last month, previously spent eight years as senior attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, an evangelical legal group focused on dismantling LGBTQ+ rights and outlawing abortion. It was in his role there that Johnson, a constitutional lawyer, took up case after case aimed at chipping away at the separation of church and state.
What’s alarming about this pattern in his background is that it raises questions about whether the House speaker ― the person second in line to the U.S. presidency ― disputes the first freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment in the Constitution: ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
In 2004, Johnson was the lead attorney for Stockwell Place Elementary when the Bossier Parish public school got sued for pushing Christianity on its students.
A set of Jewish parents sued the school after learning it was holding prayer sessions, teaching Christian songs in class and promoting a teacher-led prayer group called Stallions for Christ that met during recess. The Jewish parents, who had two children at the school, also cited a teacher with a Christian cross on the classroom door, a Nativity scene in the school library and a graduation program featuring Christian songs and a student-led prayer, and religious speeches delivered by two local sheriff’s deputies.
In their lawsuit, which you can read here, the parents claim their children were ridiculed and bullied by other kids for not participating in the religious songs. They raised concerns with the principal, who allegedly responded by defending the school’s Nativity scene and religious songs, and told the parents to “deal with it.” The parents also complained to the school superintendent, who allegedly defended the teacher-led prayer group because “this is the way things are done in the South” and “welcome to the Bible Belt.”
Johnson spoke about the lawsuit at his church, the Airline Drive Church of Christ in Shreveport, before taking on the case. He warned the congregation what was at stake with cases like the Jewish family suing to keep Christian activities out of a public school.
“The ultimate goal of the enemy is silencing the gospel,” said Johnson, according to an April 2004 story in the Shreveport Times about the lawsuit. “This is spiritual warfare.”
Here’s the article in the the Shreveport Times from April 2004:
“The ultimate goal of the enemy is silencing the gospel,” Johnson said in 2004 amid a lawsuit involving a Jewish family suing a public school for engaging students in Christian speech and activities.
SHREVEPORT TIMES
The Louisiana Republican also told church attendees, some of whom were reportedly nodding and wearing “I support Stockwell Place” T-shirts, that “if we don’t (win), they’re going to shut down all private religion expression.”
Johnson’s comments at church came a week after he wrote an opinion piece in the Shreveport Times calling the Jewish family’s lawsuit “the latest example of the radical left’s desperate efforts to silence all public expression of religious faith.”
Here’s Johnson’s article:
Johnson said in 2004 that a Jewish family suing a public school for engaging in Christian speech and activities was “the latest example of the radical left’s desperate efforts to silence all public expression of religious faith.”
SHREVEPORT TIMES
Johnson spokesperson Taylor Haulsee on Tuesday disputed that the House speaker was referring to the Jewish family as “the enemy” in the 2004 lawsuit.
“You are mischaracterizing his remark,” he said in a statement. “Johnson was referring to any coordinated attempt to impede religious expression that is protected under the Constitution, not any single family.”
Haulsee also emphasized that the first bill Johnson brought to the House floor as speaker was a resolution condemning Hamas and standing with Israel.
The lawsuit was settled in August 2005 with a consent order clarifying the types of religious expression allowed in public schools. But most of the case had been dismissed months earlier because the family moved out of state.
“On or about December 28, 2004, the McBride family moved to Missouri to escape the harassment and threats Tyler and Kelsey were enduring at Stockwell Place Elementary,” reads a March 2005 amendment to the lawsuit.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which was not officially a party to the case, said at the time that the Jewish family likely would have won their case had they not moved away.
“The ACLU believes (the complaints) were meritorious and had the plaintiffs remained in the state, they would have been found meritorious,” Joe Cook, then the executive director of the ACLU’s Louisiana affiliate, told the Shreveport Times when the case was settled.
Before coming to Congress, Johnson spent a lot of time defending religious speech and activities in public schools, specifically Christianity.
TOM WILLIAMS VIA GETTY IMAGES
In another case in 2006, Johnson represented parents suing the Katy Independent School District in Texas for allegedly trying to ban religious expression and “acknowledgement of the Christian religion.” The parents argued that the school district violated their First Amendment rights by preventing them from “speaking about their religious beliefs” and “distributing religious items or literature to classmates” on school grounds.
This lawsuit was dismissed in 2010 with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs can’t refile the same claim again in this court. The school did have to pay Johnson’s attorney fees, though.
The House speaker twice represented teenagers, in 2007 and in 2008, who were denied public school transportation to a “Just for Jesus” religious event.
In 2007, Johnson represented a high school student in a civil rights action lawsuit after her school refused to provide a bus for her club, called the One Way Club, to attend a “Just for Jesus” event. The student claimed that the school provided other clubs with transportation for fields trips and that it wasn’t fair to not provide a bus for the religious event. The lawsuit was eventually dismissed because the student found her own ride to the event.
A year later, Johnson represented a middle school student who sued her school for not providing a bus to the same event. This student, who was part of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, claimed that she was denied school transportation to the “Just for Jesus” event because she and others in her club talked about their religious beliefs.
School officials claimed the real issue was safety concerns, because there was a shooting near the “Just for Jesus” event the year before, and some students had been “injured and fearful.” The school officials suggested the organizers of the event hold it during non-school hours or on the weekend. As a compromise, school officials offered to give students excused absences if they went to the event on their own during the school day.
The judge in the case ruled that the school worked in good faith with the student by offering an excused absence and rejected Johnson’s argument that the student demonstrated “a substantial threat of irreparable injury.” The student voluntarily ended her suit shortly afterward.
“It is repugnant to Sonnier that he … must obtain governmental permission to talk to a student about his Christian faith.”
– Johnson defending a traveling evangelist’s right to preach on a public university campus.
Johnson also led lawsuits in defense of religious speech on the campuses of public universities. In 2008, he lost a case involving a traveling evangelist who sued Southeastern Louisiana University after a school police officer told him he had to move to a free speech zone on campus to deliver his remarks and get his speech pre-approved.
As they stood there, the evangelist, Jeremy Sonnier, began engaging with a student about religion, at which point the officer warned he would be arrested if he didn’t move.
Sonnier’s legal argument, led by Johnson, was that the university’s speech policy was “unduly burdensome” and based on religious grounds.
“It is repugnant to Sonnier that he, as an individual citizen, must obtain governmental permission to talk to a student about his Christian faith,” reads the legal document, presumably written by Johnson.
A passage from a lawsuit led by Johnson in 2008 in defense of a traveling evangelist.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
A federal judge ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning Sonnier can’t refile the same claim again in the court.
In another lawsuit in 2003, Johnson represented a student at Texas Tech University who accused the school of violating his First Amendment rights by requiring him to get his speech pre-approved in order to speak on campus in a spot that was not in the “free speech area” gazebo. The student was challenging a school policy that barred students from engaging in speech that might “intimidate” or “humiliate” another person on campus.
The university initially denied a permit to the student to deliver remarks outside of the designated area expressing his religious view that “homosexuality is a sinful, immoral and unhealthy lifestyle,” and passing out literature citing Scripture. But the student was ultimately given permission to do this if he moved across the street.
In 2008, Johnson was the lead attorney for the Tangipahoa Parish school board in Louisiana when it got sued for opening its meetings with prayers and requiring they be delivered by eligible members of the clergy in the parish.
The plaintiff took issue with the school board bringing religion into its meetings at all and with the denial of his wife’s request to give an invocation at a meeting because she was a non-denominational Christian.
“Plaintiff finds equally objectionable the non-secular manner in which the Board meetings are conducted,” reads the plaintiff’s legal filing. “The Board meetings are an integral part of Tangipahoa Parish public school system, requiring the Board to refrain from injecting religion into them. By commencing the meetings with a prayer, the Board is conveying its endorsement of religion.”
The lawsuit was dismissed in 2010 after the parties reached a compromise.
Asked Tuesday if Johnson fundamentally disagrees with the separation of church and state, his office pointed to comments that he made last week on CNBC, when he claimed that Americans “misunderstand” the concept.
“When the Founders set this system up, they wanted a vibrant expression of faith in the public square because they believed that a general moral consensus and virtue was necessary,” Johnson said in the TV interview. “The separation of church and state is a misnomer. People misunderstand it.”
He claimed that Thomas Jefferson meant something entirely different from what we think it means when he coined the phrase.
“What he was explaining is they did not want the government to encroach upon the church, not that they didn’t want principles of faith to have influence on our public life,” Johnson said. “It’s exactly the opposite.”
He never actually said, though, if he disagrees with the separation of church and state.
“An abject danger to our democracy.”
– Rachel Laser of Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Rachel Laser, the president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said she has “grave concerns” about Johnson’s claims.
“Any public official ― let alone the speaker of the House and second in line to be president ― who claims America is a Christian nation and discredits church-state separation is an abject danger to our democracy,” she said.
Laser said Johnson is “repeating the myth that Christian nationalists typically use” to deny that church-state separation is foundational to democracy.
“Church-state separation is baked into the Constitution, from Article VI’s prohibition on religious tests for public office to the First Amendment’s religious freedom protections. Our freedoms, equality and democracy rest on that wall of separation. Without it, America would not be America.”
Some great articles about Christians demanding special rights / privilege to violate rules and laws yet still get access to state money and force all public school clubs / sports organizations to follow their bigotry and let them violate the rules. Plus some good news, bigotry is costing churches members. Hugs. Scottie
The haters seen the writing on the wall and wanted to give a lot of money to one of them that helped them foment hate and harm to the LGBTQIA kids in schools. Because protecting kids was never the goal, doing the best for schools was never the goal. It has always been to promote and enforce their religious fundamentalist right wing views on students. And they will be back, that was the point of such a huge payout. To make others see the profit in harming the LGBTQIA kids. Hugs. Scottie
This image taken from video shows Superintendent Abram Lucabaugh and Board President Dana Hunter preside over a Central Bucks School District meeting in Doylestown Pa., Nov. 15, 2022. Democrats who swept out a Moms for Liberty majority on the board are challenging Lucabaugh’s last-minute $700,000 exit package. (AP Photo)
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A Pennsylvania school board that banned books, Pride flags and transgender athletes slipped a last-minute item into their final meeting before leaving office, hastily awarding a $700,000 exit package to the superintendent who supported their agenda.
But the Democratic majority that swept the conservative Moms For Liberty slate out of office hopes to block the unusual — they say illegal — payout and bring calm to the Central Bucks School District, whose affluent suburbs and bucolic farms near Philadelphia have been roiled by infighting since the 2020 pandemic.
“People are really sick of the embarrassing meetings, the vitriol, they’re tired of our district being in the news for all the wrong reasons. And … the students are aware of what’s been going on, particularly our LGBTQ students and their friends and allies,” said Karen Smith, a Democrat who won a third term on the board.
The district, with about 17,000 students in 23 schools, has spent $1.5 million on legal and public relations fees amid competing lawsuits, discrimination complaints and investigations in the past two years, including a pending suit over its suspension of a middle school teacher who supported LGBTQ and other marginalized students.
The jostling — and spending — look likely to continue as Democrats who won a 6-3 majority in the Nov. 7 election prepare to challenge the severance package for superintendent Abram Lucabaugh, which was added to the Nov. 14 agenda only the night before.
Meanwhile, several voters in the quaint town of Chalfont filed a court petition Monday challenging the school board election tallies, alleging unspecified “fraud or error.”
Student Lily Freeman, a vocal critic of board policies on LGBTQ issues, decried the district’s spending priorities. She called the severance package a bad deal for both students and taxpayers.
“It’s kind of like a slap in the face,” said the senior at Central Bucks East High School. “Teachers are struggling, and there’s a lot of students that are struggling.”
“There are so many resources out there that we could be putting that money to,” she said, noting her school desperately needs better WiFi.
Neither Lucabaugh, who skipped the final meeting, nor outgoing board president Dana Hunter returned calls for comment. School board solicitor Jeffrey P. Garton said he was not involved in the severance agreement.
“I didn’t prepare it and gave no legal advice concerning its content,” Garton said in an email.
Some of the incoming Democrats tried to warn the outgoing board that the payout violates a 2012 state law designed to curtail golden parachutes bestowed on school superintendents, including one that topped $900,000. The law now caps severance pay at a year’s salary, along with limited payments for unused sick time and other benefits.
“The particular circumstances in this case are even more egregious. The board gave Dr. Lucabaugh a 40 percent salary increase (to $315,000) in late July of this year, making him the second-highest paid school district superintendent in Pennsylvania, and is now using that increase less than four months later to calculate a severance payment,” lawyer Brendan Flynn, who represents them, wrote in a letter distributed to the board before the vote.
Lucabaugh’s package includes more than $300,000 for unused sick, vacation, administrative and personal time during his 18 years in various roles with the district; $50,000 for signing the deal; and health insurance for his family through June.
The package also includes a puzzling ban on any district investigations of his tenure and an agreement that he can keep his district-issued laptop as long as he wipes it of school records.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Savage nixed that last provision on Friday when he ordered Lucabaugh, a defendant in middle school teacher Andrew Burgess’s retaliation suit against the district, to preserve documents that may become evidence in the case.
“It’s hard to imagine a lawyer drafted that contract,” said Witold “Vic” Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, who represents Burgess. “No lawyer would think that a school board could insulate an employee from any kind of of court action or criminal investigation.”
Freeman, the high school senior, declined to revisit the threats and sense of danger she said she and her family have endured as she took on the board the past two years. However, her forceful public remarks at last week’s meeting, posted to TikTok, have drawn thousands of views and comments.
“It was never about protecting kids. It was about erasing people like me from Central Bucks,” she told the board last week as it voted to make students play on sports teams based on their gender assignment at birth. “You continue to make policy after policy preventing people like me from just living our lives.”
On Monday, Freeman said she’s hopeful the tensions will ease under the new board: “I feel as if we shouldn’t have to worry about a lot of these things if our needs are being met.”
Dale covers national legal issues for The Associated Press, often focusing on the federal judiciary, gender law, #MeToo and NFL player concussions. Her work unsealing Bill Cosby’s testimony in a decade-old deposition led to his arrest and sexual assault trials.
While it won’t end the larger conflict, a major hostage exchange is on the brink of being approved.
This video details how many Palestinian children are being held in Israeli military prisons with no charges, it shows clearly how much of an open air prison every Palestinian lives under in the current situation. The abuses of the Palestinians is beyond belief now. Hugs. Scottie
I wish I had a way on your blog to express both my sympathy and my anger at what happened. I wish so much you would allow comments. But if this is the only way to show sympathy and anger at what happened, then so be it.
I want so much to give each of you peace and justice. But what I want is not going to happen any more than I can imagine what you wanted to happen, did. In truth, I really wish, with no documentation, you could have your wish. I know I would hate to know of the result, but something inside me says you are owed that. Hugs. Scottie
No safe space, no quiet room to decompress for every kid who needs one, because a minority thinks some kids are evil and they might feel safe and welcome there. WTF! Seriously! Adults need quiet places to decompress, and yet these old grandparent fucks think kids have it so easy they now all they need is Christ and the 10 commandments in school to be happy. This wouldn’t have cost the district. It was free money. But again religious people have the self entitled idea that somehow they get the right to force their religious convictions on other people’s children. I hate it, kids crying for safety, begging adults to help them. But all they got from some was hate, anger, judgement, and disdain.
I included a few more comments than I normally do because I want everyone to note how many people said hate, distrust, non-accptance and intolerance kept them in the closet, kept them denying who they were and stopping them from living openly as gay people. It kept them from dating and having fullfilling relationship. That is what the religous right wants to return to, the right to opress the LGBTQIA and keep them out of society. That is the world they love, where only people like them are seen in public, and on social media.
Last thing. At the very end someone who was able to see the entire meeting (* I was not able to read the article as it required me to regester and log in. *) reported that the board did agree to the need for a safe space. What they couldn’t accept was the money from “those people” again because the goal is to keep anyone different from being able to show it. To make sure the only accepted way to be is cis straight with strict gender roles from the 1950s. So they do see the need, they just refused free money because queer people were donating it. Again it makes it quite clear the goal they have. And I say together we have to stop them. Hugs. Scottie
The Lynchburg City School Board has voted not to accept a $10,000 grant from an LGBTQ-focused nonprofit, a possible temperature gauge for the board’s upcoming consideration of Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s model policies on the treatment of transgender students. At its meeting Tuesday, the board voted 7-2 against accepting the grant from the nonprofit It Gets Better Project, with board members Anthony Andrews and Sharon Carter the only votes in favor.
Students with the E.C. Glass High School Gender and Sexuality Alliance (GSA) club applied for and were recently awarded a grant from the nonprofit to develop a safe-space or “quiet room” at the school, intended for all students’ use. One grandparent of a student spoke in opposition: “Let me be very clear, the LBGTQ agenda in schools is about indoctrination and grooming our children into an evil and wicked lifestyle, all while circumventing the rights and responsibilities of parents.”
Read the full article. In the screenshot seen above and in the cued-up video below, tearful students begged the school board in vain for the safe space.
School Board votes against accepting grant from LGBTQ-centered nonprofit | Tap on the picture to learn more 🔽 https://t.co/3uWrSdxjE1
A quiet room where students can read or do homework or just sit without being bullied. Imagine being against that. Now you understand the religious right. They want to be free to abuse anyone they want and when they are not allowed to do that they think they are being persecuted.
It reminds me of when I was in college, and an LGBT group was created, only to face a backlash from a counter group preaching “Society needs a home!” Rumor had it that this counter group sent plants into the LGBT group to potentially publicly out those attending…basically what Laura Ingraham did in college.
That threat kept me in the closet for a few more years, until I was out on my own and 1000 miles from my family. It should never have to be like that!
I started hitting the clubs at around 16 (back then in 1980’s NOLA I was just one face in a sea of gays and got away with it!) but didn’t come out until 1989 when I got out of the Army. It really was just too much trouble to be a double agent all the time. The idea of a “safe space” was unthinkable! Besides, I knew I was an ugly, twisted, perverted abomination that couldn’t be trusted around children. It took decades to partially heal from all that garbage. The kids deserve better than that, but that’s the message they get when they are denied these spaces. Oh, and I fucking HATE people like that Grandparent. I do not wish them well.
I ‘m sorry you had a moment when you viewed yourself as a “twisted abomination.” I understand it. I was raised a good Catholic boy. My parents even strong-armed me into going to their Catholic college, instead of the state college I wanted to attend, but I never saw myself as an abomination as I wanted so much more than just sex. I wanted love and a relationship…so how could that be wrong?
Of course it also helped that at the same time, Oprah, Geraldo, and other talk shows started featuring LGBT guests, who looked like “regular people,” acted like regular people, some were even ex-military & cops and this all flew in the face of what I was told what queer people were.
AIDS was devastating. I lost so many dear friends. The worst when when I would talk to my dad, and he deemed AIDS as “gawd’s judgement.” He eventually came around, when my parents met my gay friends and really liked them A LOT more than my sisters’ straight, boring, unfunny, uncultured friends. At one point, it was a bit unsettling when I had a bf my dad wanted to hang out with all the time, as they had way too many interests in common.
I’m a cis gendered white guy, and I’m ashamed that I had similar attitudes growing up. To be fair, I learned sex ed through ’60’s TV. I’m so glad I got past it. Even though I used to get hit on by gay guys all the time. 😉
My dad told me that all gay men acted & like to dress like women. “I couldn’t be gay. I’m not drawn to crossdressing nor attracted to effeminate men.”
Nothing’s worse than that time when I was closeted & neurotic 17-22 year old…desperately wanting some gay man to come onto me, only to be offended and terrified of being detected as gay.
When I was in an internship in college, there was this very cute, 30-ish mailman who delivered to the office all the time. One time he walked by my desk and flirted with me. I reacted rudely at the thought of being discovered. I thought about it later, and thought I should apologize the next time I saw him, and see where things go from there (never having been with another man yet.) Sadly, I never saw him again, as he had gotten sick shortly thereafter & died of AIDS.
My own self-loathing kept me away from friendly gay spaces and in my fraternity. Never mind that we would sometimes go to the big gay bar on $5 all you can drink Tuesdays. When I was finally outed and literally chased out of the house my biggest fear was that one of my ‘brothers’ would tell my parents. It’s not like the contact information wasn’t on file. But they didn’t.
I was booted from my frat when the fraternity president decided to come clean and tell his girlfriend that the two of us were having sex. After she ratted us out I was blackballed and the president stayed claiming I had “influenced” him. I guess the others I was having regular sex with as well felt it best to vote me out as to not appear to also having been “influenced”.
I never slept with any of my brothers but I did fuck my way through about a quarter of the PiKappaAlpha house. One bit of unfortunately blowback from my own outing was the guilt by association. Because I was treasurer and the assumptive president for the coming fall term, the whole thing created a bit of a scandal. I became toxic overnight and some of that stuck to others that I cared deeply for. In some cases I was the first person that they had spoken the words out loud to.
Oh man, I am so sorry to hear that happened to you.
My college’s GSU (1975) was the first place I felt comfortable coming out, and the first time I met people who felt the same way I did. It’s also where I met my first bf.
We all had/have our journeys. I survived and thrived, despite the delay & one-two punch in my journey of self-discovery & coming out.
1. Just before attending college and anticipating the exploration of my adulthood, I was reading about the sudden explosion of this ARC disease afflicting the gay community.
2. Was my college’s threat to this new gay safe space organization.
Moving 1000 miles away, 5 years later I found love (for 4-5 years), my happy gay self and tons of gay & lesbian friends.
Joining the Army saved my life. I was so afraid of getting kicked out for being gay (this was PRE-“Don’t ask, don’t tell) that I basically went celibate for 4 years, which coincided with the height of the plague. I remember going home on leave my first year. When I say that literally EVERY single person I’d slept with (and there were a lot) was dead, I’m not kidding. All those beautiful young men. It’s no wonder I’m filled with rage at the right.
I don’t get it. The school got the grant. It wouldn’t take any money and very little effort on the school’s part to make this happen. I don’t know of any school that would refuse free money. I guess I do now. 😦
True, the board voted 7-2 against accepting the $10,000 grant from the nonprofit It Gets Better Project. The negative majority objected to the It Gets Better Project “branding,” and what they percieved are implications of “indoctrination.”
However, in discussion beginning at hour 2:05 through 2:58 the board recognized the need for such a safe space, without objection. Eventually, the board voted 6-3 to direct the school system to find the funding for the safe space.
School Board Chair Dr. Gupta, a “No” voter on the It Gets Better Project grant, then offered to personally fund the project with $10,000. Accordingly, the Board then voted 9-0 to reconsider the 6-3 vote at their next meeting, pending investigation of any legal matters that might arise around Dr. Gupta’s donation.
I’m as disgusted as anyone here that in early discussion some board members wanted to accept the grant but were not willing recognize the grantor with a sign on the safe room’s door. But by the end of the meeting the glass was half-full — a safe room will be established, and a prominent local individual has offered to fund it.
Retiring after 17 years in my own city’s government, a place not unlike Lynchburg VA, I swore I’d never again watch another local government meeting. But watching the Lynchburg meeting I was encouraged. Especially that the needs of LGBT children were discussed (in Lynchburg, home of Liberty University!)
The meeting was calm and deliberate, without any Moms-for-Liberty stunts. I was especially struck by the diversity of the school board members, politically and ethnically. (Again in Lynchburg!) Another long, boring meeting, but I was surprised to find this one fascinating.
So, if I am reading this right, the school board recognized the need for a safe space for LGBTQ students, and approved the creation of such a space – they just couldn’t bear to take those queer dollars to fund it.
The bill now heads to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk to be signed into law.
Before the vote on Tuesday, state Rep. Jolanda Jones, a Democrat, delivered a scathing rebuke of the bill calling SB 4 and its supporters “racist.”
“It’s not all right to be racist. I will stop pulling the race card when you stop being racist,” she said.
SB 4 was considered as part of the fourth round of a special legislative session ordered by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to consider several immigration-related bills.
It creates two new state crimes for migrants who enter or re-enter into the state illegally from another country, punishable with up to two years in prison.
Migrants get handcuffed as a pair before getting onboard a bus to be transported after crossing the border into the U.S. from Mexico in Jacumba Hot Springs, Calif., Nov. 11, 2023.
Go Nakamura/Reuters
One of the most controversial aspects of the bill would authorize local and state law enforcement officials to arrest migrants they suspect unlawfully crossed into Texas. It also allows judges the option to order some migrants to return to the country they illegally crossed from instead of pursuing prosecution.
Officers and state agencies would be cleared to transport them to ports of entry to make sure they comply. If migrants refused to comply with an order to return, they could be charged with a second degree felony and face up to 20 years in prison.
SB 4 has sparked fears among immigrant rights advocates that the bill would lead to widespread racial profiling and a circumvention of protections asylum seekers have under constitutional law and international obligations. The bill does not provide any funding or requirement to train officers on immigration law, despite the fact it would authorize them to quickly make decisions about a person’s immigration status.
“There is no U.S. federal analogue to a lone officer in their own discretion escorting someone to the border and saying get out. That is a very scary prospect that is categorically different from what the federal government does. In addition to that, in the federal system people would be able to present their claims to an immigration officer and an immigration judge,” said David Donatti, a senior staff attorney with the Texas ACLU.
There’s also growing concern that parents may be separated from their children if they are arrested under these new state crimes.
Aron Thorn, a senior staff attorney at the Texas Civil Rights Project says that the law could trigger lawsuits and an international dispute with Mexico since it would lead to migrants being sent across the southern border regardless of their legal status there.
Some opponents of the bill have also suggested that it is being introduced to prompt a challenge of a 2012 Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. United States which upheld the federal government’s authority over immigration enforcement. That case revolved around a law similar to SB 4, which authorized police officers to question migrants about their immigration status and arrest them.
Retired schoolteacher Tom Wingo of Samaritans Without Borders, right, gives snacks and bottles of waters to a group of migrants claiming to be from India, who just crossed the border wall, Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2023, in Org…Show more
Matt York/AP, FILE
Thorn says because the new crimes created by SB 4 only apply to undocumented immigrants, it will cause law enforcement officials to use race as probable cause apprehending people.
“We know our history is replete with examples of race being used as a proxy for immigration status. We live in Texas, our history books are full of it, and I think people are right to be concerned, specifically because there is no possible way to violate this without being an alien, which means they have to have some sort of idea that you are a noncitizen and race is used as a proxy for that,” Thorn said.
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the specific legislation being proposed in Texas, but said the removal of noncitizens is the federal government’s responsibility.
“Generally speaking, the federal government — not individual states — is charged with determining how and when to remove noncitizens for violating immigration laws. State actions that conflict with federal law are invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution,” the spokesperson said.
Lawmakers have reviewed several versions of SB 4 and other similar proposals throughout the year, but have failed to send it to the governor’s desk in previous sessions. Hearings have been marked by strong opposition from Democrat and Republican infighting.
During a Senate floor vote on the bill last week, Republican state Sen. Brian Birdwell, who authored a previous version of the bill last session, said this version undermines the constitution by challenging the federal government’s jurisdiction over the removal of migrants.
“Members that is why all my attempts to carry this legislation and the bill language therein had the proper federal authority responsible for disposition and deportation of those that we detain,” said Birdwell.
He added that the bill would set a “terrible precedent” by violating the constitution.
“President Biden’s failure to obey his oath does not compel us to violate ours. Instead, it compels our federal representatives to constrain him and for the electorate to remove him in the coming year,” Birdwell said.
State Sen. Charles Perry, the current author of the bill, defended its legality.
“While I agree we are testing and pushing envelopes, the state has every right to protect its citizens, and this nation has every right to expect Texas to do that when called to do it,” said Perry.
In the face of anti-LGBTQ+ policies being implemented in schools across the country, some parents are speaking out and it’s glorious to watch. Especially when it’s done like this.
A video of Cody Conner, a Virginia Beach dad, is going viral on social media after he spoke at a school board meeting on October 10. The father of three gave an impassioned speech about the state’s “discriminatory policies” and called out anyone who stands in favor of them.
“You are never going to find a right way to do the wrong thing and Governor Youngkin’s policies are wrong,” he began his speech.
Conner is referring to the Virginia governor’s “model policies” for public schools that require students to use the bathroom and sports team that matches their assigned sex. It also requires written instruction from parents for a student to use names or gender pronouns that differ from the official record, meaning that teacher can deadname students—refer to them by their prior name—if paperwork isn’t filled out by the parents and it requires the school to inform parents if a student is questioning their identity, according to 13 News Now. These policies will be especially detrimental to LGBTQ+ students who come from conservative homes.
Conner started speaking out at school board meetings (he’ll be speaking for the 17th time on November 15) because he moved his family to Virginia Beach right before Youngkin’s policies passed and he worries about the future of his 13-year-old trans daughter who is now in the 8th grade. The family moved from rural Virginia to Virginia Beach so that their kid, who came out as trans a year ago, would be in a school system that would be supportive, but that all changed because of Youngkin.
“I think at that point, I just wasn’t going to run,” he tells PRIDE. “I couldn’t anymore.”
The 42-year-old father said that he’s a quiet person and might not have made the choice to speak up if not for his kids. “I just knew I couldn’t standby and do nothing, just let it happen and hope everything worked out ok and I also wanted to make sure my kid knew that I would stand up for them,” Conner explains as he begins to tear up. “My big job as a parent is not to tell my children who they are, it’s not to make the decisions for them, it’s not to live their life or decide what their life is going to be, but to show them the best way I know how to walk through this world.”
Watching a father stick up for his trans kid and the queer community and rail against conservatives is a cathartic experience and likely why the video has gone viral online.
In his speech that already has nearly 90,000 likes on TikTok, Conner pointed out that the fact that the Proud Boys and the “parental rights” group Moms for Liberty—both considered hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center—support these discriminatory and draconian policies is further proof that the policies are wrong.
“Never in history have the good guys been the segregationist group pushing to legislate identity,” he said. “Never in history have the good guys been closely connected with and supported by hate groups like the Proud Boys. And the good guys don’t put Hitler quotes for inspiration on the front of their newsletters. News flash: they’re the bad guys. They’re the bad guys supporting bad policy. And if you support the same bad policy, guess what? You’re one of the bad guys too.”
After nearly a year of delays, Youngkin’s policies are finally being implemented in the Virginia Beach school system, with a few minor alterations, which is why Conner has no plans to stop speaking out. He finished his dynamic speech by reminding the school board members to “be the good guys while you still can.”
Conner explains to PRIDE that for him speaking at school board meetings is about more than just trying to sway board members. “It was just about a lot more than just trying to change the minds of those 11 people up there,” he says. “It was about trying to bolster the hearts of the thousands and thousands of people out there that those 11 people’s decisions are threatening.”
With anti-LGBTQ+ laws sweeping the country it’s easy to become disillusioned, but watching Conner call out bigotry and homophobia is the kind of catharsis the queer community needs right now. But speaking truth to power isn’t the only way Conner is trying to change the world for the LGBTQ+ community. He’s also an organizer with the trans rights nonprofit the Calos Coalition. When speaking with PRIDE Conner was gearing up to cook a trans-Thanksgiving dinner put on by the group. It’s only the second “trans family dinner” they’ve put on—they plan to do it every month—but they are already expecting 70 guests.
“In a very real way the LGBTQ+ community gets treated by a lot of people as if they’re unwholesome in some way, with zero acknowledgment that so many members of the community have been isolated and ostracized from these presumed wholesome places and traumatized in places like the family dinner table,” he explains. “And I just wanted to take that back, create a safe space to sit down and break bread with people [who are] welcome and wanted.”
This is what allyship looks like. This is what parenting looks like. And this is hopefully what the future looks like — which if Conner gets his way, it will.
Scottie's Playtime 