The American Voter And The Catholic Church Evolve On The LGBTQ Community-- While The GOP Devolves

 

Undue Influence by Nancy Ohanian

A new national survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) found that "the vast majority of Americans (70%) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally, compared to 28% of Americans who oppose it. Majorities of Democrats (80%) and independents (76%), as well as half of Republicans (50%), support same-sex marriage."

It will probably surprise no one that white evangelical Protestants are the only major religious group in which a majority opposes allowing gay and lesbian couples marrying (34% favor, 63% oppose). Majorities in every other major religious group support marriage equality, including 90% of the religiously unaffiliated , 79% of white mainline Protestants, 78% of Hispanic Catholics, 72% of members of non-Christian religious groups, 68% of Hispanic Protestants, 67% of white Catholics, 57% of Black Protestants, and 56% of members of other Christian religious groups. Further, "more than eight in ten Americans (83%) favor laws that would protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing, compared to only 16% of Americans who oppose such laws. Majorities of Democrats (94%), independents (85%), and Republicans (68%) favor nondiscrimination laws that protect LGBTQ people."

Trump, as you know, chose a vicious homophobic bigot from a weird Bronze-Age-oriented religious cult for the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett. The Republican-controlled Senate is rushing through her confirmation against the wishes of most Americans.

More in touch with the kind of Christianity that is related to Jesus Christ, Pope Francis, has taken a big step towards ending the systemic homophobia that has helped turn people off to the Catholic Church. Reporting for the Washington Post yesterday, Chico Harlan and Michelle Boorstein wrote that in a new documentary Pope Francis "has called for the creation of civil union laws for same-sex couples, in what amounts to his clearest support to date for the issue... Francis has long expressed an interest in outreach to the church's LGBT followers, but his remarks have often stressed general understanding and welcoming-- rather than substantive policies. Priests in some parts of the world bless same-sex marriage, but that stance-- and Francis's new remarks-- are a departure from official church teaching. The documentary, Francesco, is premiering this week in Rome and then in the United States. The pope gave an interview to the filmmaker, Evgeny Afineevsky, saying that 'homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They're children of God and have a right to a family,' the pope said. 'Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it.'"





Biden has evolved from being a homophobic bigot into someone who at least professes to be pro-LGBQT. Trump, meanwhile, has devolved from being someone who didn't care one way or the other to being a vicious transactional homophobe. Yesterday, Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin reported that most voters prefer Biden's positions over Trump's on virtually every major issue. On all other subjects tested in the poll, voters preferred Biden over Trump. Biden is favored over Trump to lead on the coronavirus pandemic by 12 points, and voters trust Biden over Trump to choose Supreme Court justices and to maintain law and order by six-point margins. Americans see Biden as more capable of uniting the country by nearly 20 points.





"Trump," wrote conservative activist George Will in his Washington Post column yesterday, "is as much a mess and a disgrace now as he was when he began his illegitimate, divisive presidency. "As the Donald Trump parenthesis in the republic’s history closes, he is opening the sluices on his reservoir of invectives and self-pity. A practitioner of crybaby conservatism-- no one, he thinks, has suffered so much since Job lost his camels and acquired boils-- and ever a weakling, Trump will end his presidency as he began it: whining.

His first day cloaked in presidential dignity he spent disputing photographic proof that his inauguration crowd was substantially smaller than his immediate predecessor’s. Trump’s day of complaining continued at the CIA headquarters, at the wall commemorating those who died serving the agency. His presidency that began with a wallow in self-pity probably will end in ignominy when he slinks away pouting, trailing clouds of recriminations, without a trace of John McCain’s graciousness on election night 2008." ...Subsequently, the Republican Party has eagerly surrendered its self-respect. And having hitched its wagon to a plummeting cinder, the party is about to have a rendezvous with a surly electorate wielding a truncheon. The party picked a bad year to invite a mugging, a year ending in zero: Approximately 80 percent of state legislative seats will be filled this year, and next year the occupants, many of them Democrats wafted into office by a wave election, will redraw congressional districts based on the 2020 Census.

After Democrats controlled the House for 40 years (1954-1994), control of it changed under four presidents (Bill Clinton in 1994, George W. Bush in 2006, Obama in 2010, Trump in 2018). Trump’s legacy might include a decade of Democratic control of the House.

Trump vs The LGBTQ Community

Trump has been at odds with huge swathes of the population but has been quiet about gays lately-- until yesterday. Remember, NBC's 2016 exit polls showed that 14% of LGBTQ voters admitted they had cast ballots for Trump. Yesterday Hill reporter Nathaniel Weixel wrote that the Regime plans to "scrap ObamaCare's nondiscrimination protections for sex and gender identity under a final rule released Friday. In a statement, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said the government's interpretation of sex discrimination will be based on 'the plain meaning of the word 'sex' as male or female and as determined by biology.' ... The move was announced amid Pride Month but has been long-anticipated by religious providers, who argue the administration needs to reinforce their right not to provide treatment that is against their beliefs. The administration has been working on the rule for well over a year."

That will come as delightful news to the bigoted evangelicals who are still the base of Trump's dwindling support base. Hatred is, after all, the essence of their creed.

Advocates and health groups said the policy will make it easier for doctors, hospitals and insurance companies to deny care or coverage to transgender and nonbinary patients, as well as women who have had abortions.

"HHS respects the dignity of every human being, and as we have shown in our response to the pandemic, we vigorously protect and enforce the civil rights of all to the fullest extent permitted by our laws as passed by Congress," said Roger Severino, director of the HHS Office for Civil Rights.

The administration has argued that removing the protections, based on Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, is largely moot because a federal judge in Texas vacated much of the rule last year.

The Obama-era rule made it illegal for doctors, hospitals and other health care workers to deny care to someone whose sexual orientation or gender identity they disapproved of.

The Obama administration did this by expanding the health law's definition of sex discrimination to include gender identity for the first time, but those expansions were blocked by a federal judge in 2016. The Trump administration has worked to weaken the rules before they could take effect.

The Trump administration’s rule is wide-ranging and goes beyond the Obama-era protections by rolling back nondiscrimination protections contained in other health provisions as well. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the rule removes protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity in 10 existing regulations.

Advocates and Democratic lawmakers said the decision to move ahead with the rule while the country is still in the middle of a pandemic is especially cruel. The concern is that LGBTQ patients might not be able to access the care they need.

The COVID-19 pandemic has already impacted access to medical treatment, as almost all "nonessential" procedures were halted, people stopped going to the emergency room and even stopped giving their children needed vaccines.

Yet even as states begin to reopen and loosen restrictions on nonessential medical procedures, advocates worry that LGBTQ patients will be discouraged from seeking treatment, coronavirus-related or otherwise.

  "At a time when protecting communities from the COVID-19 pandemic is paramount, your Department and the Trump Administration are knowingly putting the health and wellbeing of vulnerable individuals and children at risk, while blatantly promoting discrimination against LGBTQIA+ communities and religious minorities by pursuing the finalization of this proposed rule," Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Patty Murray (D-WA) wrote in a letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azar.

Katie Keith, a health care consultant and professor at Georgetown Law, said the rule will target vulnerable communities, likely making existing health care disparities worse.

"The circumstances [of the pandemic] make it harmful, but it would be harmful either way. It seems extra callous to push the regulation out at this point in time," Keith said.

The Human Rights Campaign immediately announced that it will file a lawsuit to overturn the rule and slammed the administration for releasing it on the anniversary of the Pulse shooting, where a gunman killed 49 people in an LGBTQ nightclub.

The administration's move was praised by religious conservatives and anti-abortion groups.

Imagine if the gayest Republican in the Senate got angry enough to denounce Trump for doing that. This is what it would sound like. You go #LadyG!





I asked several Blue America candidates to comment on the new rule. Marie Newman (IL), Julie Oliver (TX), Jon Hoadley (MI) and Eva Putzova (AZ) pretty much spoke for all of them. Marie, who already won her Chicagoland primary against an entrenched Blue Dog incumbent, sounded exasperated: "HHS and Trump do not respect anybody’s dignity. Whenever I think he will stop being cruel he drops the bar lower. Please vote and tell everyone you know to vote." Julie, also no fan of Trump and his lockstep enablers: "They’re targeting some of the most vulnerable of our fellow Americans’ access to health care during a global pandemic. This serves no purpose, and is as dangerous as it is hateful and backwards."

Jon is a Michigan legislator running for a congressional seat held by Trump collaborator Fred Upton. Hoadley is open about being gay. "There is no logical or policy motive for this move by the Trump Administration," he told us this morning. "Let's be clear: this is blatant discrimination against trans folks and will result in more death. Removing protections for any individual based on an aspect of their identity is obvious discrimination. Remember, anyone who voted against broad protections for LGBTQ+ folks in the Equality Act, like Fred Upton, share responsibility for this harm.

Eva explained that "Before this ruling, 31 percent of transgender Americans already lacked regular access to health care. Now, Trump is authorizing discrimination and futher jeopardizing the health of so many LGBTQ+ people in this country. It's sick, inhumane, and the fact he decided to roll back LGBTQ+ rights on the anniversary of the Pulse nightclub shooting and Pride Month makes it even more abhorrent. When I'm in Congress, I will fight this with bold action. We need to ensure LGBTQ+ equality in law by passing the Equality Act AND enact Medicare for All so all LGBTQ+ people have access to the affordable, quality care they need to be their full selves."

The Most Important LGBTQ Election Of 2019 Is Coming Up Six Weeks From Today

On Sunday, The Advocate published a feature by Michael Keegan, president of People for the American Way, The Most Important LGBTQ Race in 2019 Is Danica Roem's. "With the presidential primary campaigns in full swing-- and the first openly LGBTQ major-party presidential candidate very much in the mix-- it’s tempting to think the most momentous political fights of our lives lie ahead in 2020." wrote Keegan. "But there is an enormously consequential off-year fight going on right now in Virginia, and it’s one we all need to get behind."

It’s happening in Virginia House District 13, where Danica Roem is fighting hard to hold on to her seat against a well-funded right wing challenger. Her race is one of the most competitive in the state this cycle. Danica made history and headlines in 2017 when she won her election to the Virginia House of Delegates and became the first openly transgender person to serve on any state legislature. She won by taking out an incumbent who described himself as Virginia’s “chief homophobe.” The right wing wants revenge and will spend what it takes to get it. What happens in her race this November will reverberate across the country, with implications for the LGBTQ community and for the broader narrative about what’s happening in American politics right now.

Danica’s 2017 campaign inspired the first rainbow wave in the 2018 midterms. Meanwhile at the state level, her win was part of a broader shift in political power in which full control of the legislature hinged upon a single vote. Republican control of the Virginia legislature is hanging by a thread this year. A win by Danica is not only a key element of flipping the Virginia House and the entire state legislature from red to blue, it’s a key part of setting the stage for 2020-- just like the victories of diverse and progressive candidates in Virginia two years ago were curtain-raisers for big wins in the historic 2018 election.

By any measure Danica has earned reelection. She is a dedicated public servant with a laser focus on serving her constituents. She has campaigned on a platform to fix the region’s infrastructure. She cares about her constituents and the things that matter in their lives; she played a major role in the Virginia Medicaid expansion that provides vital coverage to hundreds of thousands of residents. But none of this insulates her from the transphobic hostility that motivates her opponent and many of that opponent’s deep-pocketed financial backers.

Danica’s opponent Kelly McGinn has a long record of anti-LGBTQ extremism. She has compared marriage equality to “morally repugnant practices” such as slavery, described LGBTQ parenthood as “absurd” and “harmful to children,” and even tried to justify her transphobia as a rationale for opposing the Equal Rights Amendment’s ratification in the state. It is all sadly reminiscent of the campaign of Danica’s 2017 opponent Bob Marshall, architect of Virginia’s shameful anti-trans bathroom bill. On the campaign trail, Marshall refused to recognize Danica’s gender identity, claiming that she “defied the laws of nature.”

Kelly McGinn is every bit the bigot that Marshall was. McGinn’s campaign website is slickly designed to appeal to voters who may not know much about her, describing her as a political moderate who is dedicated to family values. But she continues to accept financial contributions from far-right groups and donors that traffic either overtly or covertly in anti-LGBTQ hate-- like the Eagle Forum, which was founded by anti-LGBTQ activist Phyllis Schlafly. Anti-LGBTQ forces in the state know exactly who McGinn is. And they are all in.

And this is why we have to stand up. Our community is intimately familiar with the damaging, real-life consequences wrought by the Trump administration’s anti-LGBTQ agenda. When a candidate like McGinn emerges and espouses similar views and rhetoric, it’s paramount that we do all we can to make sure such candidates are defeated. This is especially true when defeating that candidate will send a strong message beyond a single district and a single year-- as the outcome of this race, in this critical run-up to 2020, most certainly will.

Our community rose to the occasion for her historic candidacy in 2017, and in this important election year, we can’t sit this one out. The organization I lead, People For the American Way, was deeply involved in supporting Danica two years ago, and we are doing it again because Danica is far more than a symbol, she is a proven progressive leader who is making Virginia a progressive state. We’re running ads, knocking on doors, organizing national phone banks, whatever we can do to help her win in what is going to be a tight race.

This is another all-hands-on deck moment for all of us. It’s an opportunity to make history once again and to rebuke hate in our politics, to stand up for Danica Roem at a pivotal moment for our community and our country. This is one we have to win.

Nearly all the state legislative candidates endorsed by Blue America so far this year are running in Virginia. That's not serendipity. Winning back the House of Delegates and the state Senate in Virginia are crucially important-- and it can be done without having to hold any noses and vote for any conservative lesser-of-two-evils candidates. Click on the Blue America 2020 legislative thermometer on the right. Those are all solid progressives you'll find there.

Gay Identity Politics-- McKinsey Pete

Monday, I responded to a tweet about some random guy primarying Jan Schakowsky (D-IL): "Jan Schakowsky is one of the best members of Congress & is one of the few who has NOT failed us." Notice what I didn't say: Jan Schawkowsky is one of the best female members of Congress" or even "Jan Schawkowsky is one of the best Jewish members of Congress"-- although she is both. But doesn't it sound better that she's just flat out one of the best members of Congress? You know where I learned that? Listening to Joni Mitchell explode when a reviewer would refer to her as the world's greatest female songwriter. From her reaction, you might think the reviewer had written that she has no songwriting ability at all. In her world, her rivals were always Bob Dylan and Neil Young and she sees herself as the best songwriter in the world. It wasn't uncommon to see Joni work on a song for longer than it took Neil to write and record an entire album.

If you read DWT much, you probably know how much I hate identity politics. Picking a candidate for any reason other than their qualifications sickens me and makes me worry for the health of a Democratic Party that is riven with leaders who are all about aggressively choosing people based on extraneous characteristics, even if it means winding up with less qualified-- or even unqualified-- people in positions. Many of my friends disagree with me on this'd I've been through the pros and cons countless times. Monday morning, a weak L.A. Times reporter, Janet Hook, wrote that McKinsey Pete is inspiring pride among gay voters.

I'm a gay voter and I don't feel a twinge of pride in that. I'm glad an openly gay person can run for office but...





My "but" is different than the but Hook wrote about. But but is that he's a crap candidate who spent much of his life in the closet, developing an ability to lie and deceive-- which is what people in the closet do-- and then fit in perfectly with the world's biggest-- and worst-- consulting firm, McKinsey, which trains its robots to lie flawlessly and without blinking. Hook says the but for gay voters is that they fear he can't win. Thank God for small favors!

Win or lose in the 2020 presidential race, Pete Buttigieg, the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Ind., is energizing LGBTQ Americans. With his surprisingly strong run for the Democratic presidential nomination, he is helping a long-marginalized community advance in political stature and pride in a way some compare to the effect Barack Obama’s presidency had on African Americans.

“Mayor Pete Buttigieg is transforming America’s perception of LGBTQ people,” said Annise Parker, president of the Victory Fund, an LGBTQ political group that endorsed Buttigieg in June, the first time it had endorsed a presidential candidate.

Buttigieg does not put his sexual orientation at the center of his campaign, but he is not hiding it either. In recent weeks, as his campaign gained prominence, he has made high-profile appearances before predominantly gay audiences.

When he traveled to Provincetown for a campaign event and fundraiser Friday, Buttigieg and his husband, Chasten, received a hero’s welcome from a town that, after the 2010 census, had the highest proportion of same-sex couples in the country.

It was a long way from Iowa, where Buttigieg was heckled by antigay activists this year. In P-town, as the city is known, a popular eatery painted a welcome message to the Buttigiegs in its window. An art gallery displayed an enormous portrait of Buttigieg. He met with students attending a local summer camp for LGBTQ youths. Throngs gathered during a morning stroll through town.

“It felt like our own little parade,” Buttigieg said at an afternoon event where hundreds in the hall-- and hundreds more in the overflow crowd outside-- waved “PETETOWN’’ signs. “It reminds me of what it is to be in a place that celebrates inclusion, that celebrates belonging.”

Buttigieg and his husband have become the most high-profile gay male couple in America. Images of the pair kissing at campaign events have been broadcast across the country. They have appeared together on the cover of Time magazine.

Asked about potential backlash, Buttigieg cites his experience coming out as gay in the conservative state of Indiana in 2015 just before running for reelection as South Bend mayor.

“I came out not knowing what the consequences would be and, in the end, got reelected with 80% of the vote,” he told reporters in Provincetown. “You have to give people a chance to show they can move beyond prejudice.”

But that could be a risky political bet in a campaign against President Trump. Many of Trump’s supporters are among the 31% of Americans who oppose gay marriage, according to a 2019 Pew Research Center poll, and even some of Buttigieg’s admirers question whether the country will accept a gay man as president.

“Homophobia is a very real thing; however, it is not as visible as racism,” said Damian Archer, a gay African American man at Buttigieg’s Friday rally who is undecided about which candidate to support in 2020.

Rufus Gifford, a gay former Obama administration official, who admires Buttigieg but has not committed to him or any other candidate, says: “I do worry with the stakes as high as they are, I ask myself every day: Is the U.S. ready to elect an openly gay president? I still question it. I’m scared to death we’ll reelect Donald Trump.”

Still, the response to Buttigieg’s candidacy is a remarkable sign of one of the fastest shifts in public attitudes ever measured in the U.S.: the growth in acceptance of homosexuality to the point that, at least among Democratic primary voters, Buttigieg’s orientation has ended up a political asset, not a liability.

Some 61% of Americans support same-sex marriage-- double the share in 2004, when only 31% did, according to the Pew Research Center.

Even within the Democratic Party, in 2008, none of the leading presidential candidates supported gay marriage. The ban on gays serving openly in the military ended only in 2011. It was just four years ago, 2015, that the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage could not be banned by states.

“I heard a woman from Alabama call Pete Buttigieg wholesome,” said Richard Holt, a board member of the Victory Fund. “I never thought I’d hear a Bible Belt mother refer to a gay guy as wholesome.”

Buttigieg often appears with his husband. With an active social media presence, Chasten Buttigieg has gained outsize celebrity and embraced the “candidate’s spouse” role with humor and style.

When the pair emerged from a black SUV for a June Victory Fund event in Brooklyn, attendees seemed almost as excited to see the spouse as the candidate.

The event, like the Provincetown visit, was a respite for Buttigieg, who has been battered by criticism for his handling of racial tensions in South Bend after a black man was shot by a white policeman. The fund’s endorsement had been scheduled for earlier in June but was postponed when Buttigieg returned to South Bend to cope with the crisis.

It was rescheduled to a propitious day-- the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall uprising, a landmark in the history of the LGBTQ rights movement that occurred after police raided a gay bar in New York City.

“We haven’t seen equality come to the land, not by a long shot, but think about what it means that 50 years after Stonewall, we could be gathered in a room with a top-tier candidate for the American presidency and be in a room with his husband,” Buttigieg said to cheers.

Buttigieg rose implausibly fast in the party’s big 2020 presidential field in part because he is gay. That fact helped him stand out from the pack and garner media attention, and drew a big infusion of early campaign donations from the LGBTQ community. He went on to raisean impressive $24.8 million in the second quarter, more than any of his rivals have announced so far.

Los Angeles political consultant David Wolf said Buttigieg has received significant fundraising support from Hollywood’s LGBTQ community, including TV producer Ryan Murphy and prominent agents Bryan Lourd and Kevin Huvane.

Buttigieg added to his coffers Friday at the Provincetown fundraiser organized by Bryan Rafanelli, a major Democratic donor who also hosted a Buttigieg event this year at Fenway Park in Boston.

For many Democrats-- gay and straight-- Buttigieg’s biggest liability is not his sexuality, but that he is too young, too inexperienced or not liberal enough.

“I’m still concerned about his ability to beat Trump,” said Mitchell Katine, a Houston lawyer who helped win a landmark 2003 Supreme Court ruling that decriminalized gay sex. “I want him to be in the running and continue this education process. But he’ll have to convince me he can beat Trump.”

Antigay sentiment is still a powerful force. There are only 20 states where LGBTQ people are protected against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations. Just 46% of Republicans say they are open to electing a gay president, an April Quinnipiac University poll found.

Nor does Buttigieg have a monopoly on LGBTQ voters. Former Vice President Joe Biden earned the allegiance of many with his 2012 endorsement of gay marriage-- getting out in front of Obama on the issue. Sen. Kamala Harris of California enjoys strong support in San Francisco’s gay community.

A group of 47 LGBTQ activists and elected officials announced their endorsements of Harris last weekend ahead of her participation in the city’s Pride parade.

A June poll of LGBTQ voters by Whitman Insight Strategies and BuzzFeed News found a noteworthy gender gap. Buttigieg was the top choice among Democratic gay men, with 27% saying they were likely to support him.

Among lesbians, however, Buttigieg was fifth choice, with just 13% saying they’d likely support him, behind Harris, Biden and Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Some lesbians are torn between their interest in Buttigieg and a desire to elect a female president. But Kate Wise, a gay woman from Cleveland who was in New York for the World Pride celebration, said she was all in for Buttigieg from the minute he announced.

“We landed a bro on the top of the pile,” Wise said. But she added, “He would be my guy even if he was not gay.”

Whether he wins the party nomination and goes on to the White House, gay activists hope Buttigieg will help inspire other LGBTQ candidates running up and down the ballot.

“He can have coattails,” Holt said. “We have to have representatives at all levels.”

Harvey Milk was an incredible person who I spent great deal of time with when he was on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. When I arrived in San Francisco, penniless, he staked me the darkroom equipment I used to set up a photography business and later became his campaign photographer. Many of the unacknowledged photos you see of him were pictures I took. (The Times of Harvey Milk film credits me for my pictures by the rest are just routinely stolen. Sorry for the tangent.) I remember once sitting with Harvey in the back of his photo shop on Castro Street. He had a mail sack filled with letters from all over the country. I remember one from a kid in Kansas or Nebraska. My eyes still well up with tears, around 4 decades later, when I think about it. This kid read about Harvey's election and it made him revaluate his own self-worth and to rescind his decision to commit suicide. Harvey was an inspiring figure. It wasn't just because he was the first openly gay person to win elective office; it was because of who he was. That's not who McKinsey Pete is.

House Passes Equality Act-- Republicans Whine It Impinges On Their Right To Discriminate Against Gays

Aside from being Republicans serving in Congress, what do these 8 men and women have in common: Susan Brooks (R-IN), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Brain Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Will Hurd (R-TX), John Katko (R-NY), Tom Reed (R-NY), Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Greg Walden (R-OR)? They were the Republicans to stand up for their own LGBTQ constituents by voting with every single Democrat to pass David Cicilline's Equality Act (H.R.5). It's a simple, straight forward bill that prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation. It allows the Department of Justice to intervene in equal protection actions in federal court on account of sexual orientation or gender identity. And it prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.

The bill passed with a big bipartisan majority-- 236-173. McConnell has already signaled that he will not permit a vote on the legislation in the Senate, ironic since he's a lifelong closet case himself who was kicked out of the military many decades ago for fondling a private's privates. Republicans don't admit that they're bigots when they try to block this kind of legislation. They claim it-- equality itself-- imposes on their freedom. Banning anti-LGBTQ discrimination is against their bizarre religion and will lead, the insist, to persecution of Christians. (No, no they really tell each other that.)

A morally "upright" Republican hate-monger like Florida crackpot Ross Spano-- who stole his election and should never have been seated-- warned that HR-5 will "allow the government to force its rigid and unyielding fist inside the church... It would deliver a crushing blow to the base of the tree of religious liberty." Could you even image having a lunatic who talks like that as a Reprsentative? Another GOP gay-hater and bigot from the Sunshine State, Greg Steube, also voted no, he says, to protect women athletes.

The Florida Republican argued that the bill will inhibit competitiveness in women's sports and women's eligibility for athletic scholarships.

"A sports team couldn't treat a transgender woman differently from a woman who is not transgender on the ground that the former is male-bodied," Steube said on the House floor. "Yet, the reality is [when] putting male and female bodied athletes together in open sport ... females lose."

"This is fear mongering about trans women playing in sports," California Rep. Katie Hil largued in opposition to the amendment. "No person is trying to game the system to participate in women's sports. That is a sad scare tactic." The Republican motion to recommit failed with only one Democrat, Rep. Dan Lipinski, voting in favor of the amendment; seven did not vote. Lipinski was also the only Democrat not to cosponsor the legislation.

Republican opponents also argued the measure would restrict individual religious freedoms and mandate "specific accommodations" in shared facilities that would put burdens on small businesses, schools, and other community places.

"Its vague and circular definition of gender identity will lead only to uncertainty, litigation, and harm to individuals and organizations that will be forced to comply with a law the authors don’t even seem to understand," Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) said on the House floor Friday. "This is a classic example of passing something now and figuring out what it actually means later ... If the devil is in the details, we’re in for a lot of devilish surprises."

In response, Cicilline, the measure's sponsor, argued that the bill "does not, nor could any legislation," supersede the First Amendment's religious freedom protections.

"H.R. 5 allows the standards set by prior civil rights law to not interfere with worship and religious practices by religious organizations," Cicilline added.

It's worth reminding people who Virginia Foxx-- one of Congress' most hateful and homophobic psychics-- actually is. Do you remember the name Matthew Shepard? He was the young gay man who was crucified-- literally-- and left to die next to a lonely Wyoming highway. While his grieving mother sat in the congressional visitors' gallery, this is what North Carolina 's premiere contribution to national evil and hatred had to say.



Foxx never apologized and has voted against every equality bill that has ever come before Congress-- proudly and loudly, always making sure everyone knows she stands for hatred and intolerance. Her district is safely gerrymandered so that she is re-elected year after year without ever doing anything for anyone but herself and other selfish multimillionaires. Meanwhile, yesterday, what's left of poor old Pat Robertson was ranting and raving on evangelical TV. Clearly, God has cursed him:





Austin and Houston are what you could call WOKE cities. Both Travis and Harris counties-- the westernmost and easternmost components of a gerrymandered shitshow (TX-10) by Tom Delay-- are open and welcoming parts of Texas where people expect everyone to be treated fairly and equally. By cutting Austin up like a pie, Texas Republicans succeeded in disenfranchising voters there-- putting them into 4 bizarrely-drawn congressional districts, 3 of which are predominately Republican. One of the conservative anti-LGBTQ congressmen that gerrymander had forced on Austin is multimillionaire-- he married well-- crackpot and Trump bootlick Michael McCaul. Progressive Democrat Mike Siegel held him down to a 51.1% win last year and Siegel has every intention of finishing the job next year, In fact, please consider contribution to his campaign by clicking on the Lone Star State ActBlue thermometer on the right. After the vote on the bipartisan H.R.5 yesterday, Mike told us he would have gladly joined the vast majority of congressmembers who voted for it. "The Equality Act is about making sure everyone can access work and housing and education and other public services, without fear of discrimination. Unfortunately, here in the Texas 10th, in a district that includes strong LGBT communities in the Austin and Houston areas, our 'representative' voted to legalize hatred. To legitimize oppression and bigotry. To endanger his very constituents, who he is sworn to protect. This is only the latest example of Michael McCaul failing to stand up for Texans. We are working hard to ensure this is the beginning of his end."

After Caving On The Shutdown, Loser Trump Throws His Hate-Filled Backers A Bone

Forever beleaguered in finding enough red meat for his-- in ex-Senator Alfonse D’Amato's words-- right-wing whack-a-doodle base, Trump wants to pivot away from his embarrassing loss to Pelosi over the anti-Hispanic vanity-wall to crapping all over the LGBTQ community. The asshole's latest: revving up the dead nomination for Eric Murphy Ohio Solicitor General to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Murphy was the attorney who argued against marriage equality before the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges. Trump nominated him for the judgeship 7 months ago. As home-state senator, Sherrod Brown blocked the nomination (did not return his blue slip) and the nomination died. Last week Trump renominated him. Over the weekend, the Washington Post ran an OpEd by Jim Obergefell denouncing not just Murphy and the nomination but Rob Portman, Ohio's other senator, for supporting it. "In March 2013," wrote Obergefell," Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) broke with his Republican colleagues and penned an op-ed in the Columbus Dispatch supporting same-sex couples’ right to marry, a conclusion he reached shortly after his son came out as gay. In the article, he expressed his desire for each of his three children to have 'the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment' in all aspects of their lives. So I was surprised to find out that Portman was supporting the nomination of Eric Murphy to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit even after Murphy argued against same-sex marriage at the Supreme Court."

Barely four years ago, Mr. Murphy made a forceful argument that my marriage was unconstitutional. As the attorney tasked with defending Ohio’s discriminatory ban on same-sex marriage, he used dog-whistles such as “traditional marriage” in his brief to the Supreme Court and argued that “bigotry” had nothing to do with why the state refused to recognize my lawful marriage to my late husband.

The court rejected Murphy’s arguments and overturned that law. In a landmark opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy-- for whom Murphy himself once clerked-- the Supreme Court declared that “it demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society.” Gay couples “ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law,” Kennedy wrote. “The Constitution grants them that right.”

Still, if Murphy had been successful, John and I, and tens of thousands of couples like us, would have been denied the right to marry and forced to live as second-class citizens.

Now, Murphy seeks to be a judge who will decide cases such as mine; his renomination was sent to the Senate this week. As a federal judge, Murphy would have immense power and influence over the rights of the LGBTQ community. Judges can decide if presidents can ban transgender soldiers from serving in the military. Judges can decide if people can be fired from their job for being gay. Such decisions would affect people such as me, Senator Portman’s son, and thousands of other LGBTQ people living in the 6th Circuit states of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.

In light of his past arguments, Murphy must show he is capable of being fair and unbiased toward the LGBTQ community.

Now that he is no longer obligated to defend the old Ohio law, he should explicitly affirm that my Supreme Court case was correctly decided and vow that discrimination against the LGBTQ community would have no place in his courtroom. Surely there is no longer anything stopping Murphy from showing the same respect and dignity to the LGBTQ community as Kennedy and Portman have.

Until Murphy makes such a statement, Portman and his fellow senators should oppose his nomination.

Trump wants a quick "win" for his base after his embarrassing defeat at the hands of Pelosi over the wall. I was happy to see that all the Blue America-endorsed congressional candidates are questioning his re-nomination of Murphy. Today Austin-based congressional candidate Mike Siegel remarked that "Unfortunately, despite high-profile losses for Trump and his party on the government shutdown, ACA repeal, and a few other issues, the Republicans continue to radically reshape our judiciary. The antidote will be the 2020 elections. With a Democratic Congress, we must finally enact comprehensive civil rights legislation that guarantees LGBT equality in every way, from employment and housing to marriage, adoption, and inheritance. In the meantime, we must oppose Murphy and other extreme nominees and hope to embarrass the GOP on a case-by-case basis."

Please consider contributing to Mike, Marie and Eva by clicking on the Blue America 2020 thermometer on the right. Needless to say, Illinois progressive Democrat, Marie Newman who's in a hot primary battle against one of the last virulent homophobes in the Democratic congressional delegation, Blue Dog Dan Lipinski, is just as disappointed in the nomination. Lipinski's voting record against the LGBTQ community is startling and there are even Republicans who are less filled with bigotry and ignorance. Marie is no fan of Trump's nomination. "I would certainly hope to see his nomination rejected," she told us today. "This is simple, Eric Murphy and his supporters want to divide the country and ruin our economy. Murphy’s goal is simply to keep folks out of the economy and prevent equality. It is morally wrong and terrible for the economy."

Eva Putzova, the Blue America-endorsed Arizona progressive in a primary against another reactionary Blue Dog, also has strong feelings about these kinds of divisive nominations by Trump. She told us that "While most Americans agree that 'love is love' and all people should be equal in pursuing happiness no matter where their partner is on the gender spectrum, it's troubling that in 2019 Eric Murphy's name even comes up in the nomination process. People who think some members of our society are less than others because of who they choose to love should have no place at any level of our judicial system."

I reached our old buddy, 2018 congressional candidate Dan Canon, a prominent Indiana civil rights lawyer who was one of the attorneys who won the Obergefell Supreme Court case. This is what he had to say about the Murphy re-nomination today:

The Sixth Circuit is already among the most hostile venues in the country for individual rights, especially where it concerns the rights of women and minorities. This is amply demonstrated by the court's ruling in Love v. Beshear, which later became known as Obergefell. When the court ruled against us in that case, it eventually led to marriage equality in all 50 states, but it was a close call-- I'm not sure it would turn out the same way today. At the time, the Supreme Court was turning down cases from other circuits because they all reached the same conclusion-- that same-sex marriage bans violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of committed couples. The Sixth Circuit was the only federal appellate court to say otherwise. That was over four years ago.

Since then, Trump has been committed to dragging all the federal courts even further to the right by appointing inexperienced extremists to lifetime positions-- positions that give them tremendous power of the lives of other people. Democrats and activist organizations have got to take this seriously, and develop a strategy to mobilize people on this issue. It's not enough to raise hell when Trump appoints an extremist to the Supreme Court. The lower courts-- for which Senate Democrats have consistently provided rubber stamps on Trump's nominees-- are far more consequential when it comes to justice (or injustices) that affects the day-to-day lives of women, minorities, the working classes, and the poor. The trial and intermediate appellate judges that Trump silently installs are going to be the first-- and often last-- word on voting rights, abortion, employment discrimination, capital punishment, corporate accountability, immigration, etc. It is absolutely critical that voters become more engaged, and vocal, about all judicial appointments.

Are Conservative Evangelicals An Actual Hate Group? What Would Jesus Say?

These days, the Senate doesn't pass anything remotely controversial, let alone pass it unanimously. But last month they did-- a bill by Tim Scott (R-SC), Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) to make lynching a federal hate crime. Their bill, the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act (S.3178), had 39 co-sponsors, including conservative Republicans Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Chuck Grassley, Thom Tillis and John Cornyn. The bill defines lynching as the "willful act of murder by a collection of people assembled with the intention of committing an act of violence upon any person" and mandates life imprisonment for those found guilty.

NPR's report included an interesting tangent:

"This is an historic piece of legislation that would criminalize lynching, attempts to lynch and conspiracy to lynch for the first time in America's history," Harris said on the Senate floor Wednesday. "We finally have a chance to speak the truth about our past and make clear that these hateful acts should never happen again without serious, severe and swift consequence and accountability."

While Harris spoke, Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) presided. During Mississippi's runoff election last month, Hyde-Smith was caught on camera complimenting a supporter by saying, "If he invited me to a public hanging, I'd be on the front row."

Hyde-Smith, who is white, was defending her seat against Democratic challenger Mike Espy, a former congressman who is African-American. She was widely criticized for her comments, but won reelection.

While this is the first time the Senate has passed anti-lynching legislation, Congress has been trying for over a century. According to the measure passed Wednesday, almost 200 bills were introduced in Congress during the first half of the 20th century in an effort to end lynching.

But it still hasn't been signed into law. Why not? Simple: House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) refused to schedule it for debate so the process has to start all over again in the Senate, where the craven Miss McConnell has vowed to not permit any votes unless he's given the OK from Trump. And there's a problem. Reactionary white evangelicals-- Trump's base-- are now opposed to the bill. The corporate media doesn't talk much about it but celebrated author Marianne Williamson is running for president right along the politicians and billionaires. This kind of religious bigotry is something she has confronted before. Today she told me that "This argument goes back to Eleanor Roosevelt trying to convince her husband to support a federal anti-lynching bill, which he refused to do; he said Americans weren’t ready for it. But now we are. The Cindy Hyde-Smiths of the world still win some elections, but they don’t speak for the American heart and the heart is where we are going. We simply must persist."

Another presidential aspirant, Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, is very sensitive to religious bigotry intruding into politics. And in the distant past, coming from a very conservative family, she wasn't always on the same page as Hawaii's LGBT community. After her military service in Iraq her views have been much more gay-friendly and she wasn't happy about extremists' attempts to target the LGBT community with this legislation. Yesterday, in the midst of her presidential campaign rollout, she told me that "We must learn from the dark stains of our country’s history, from slavery, to the Jim Crow era of lynching, to the failed War on Drugs, and more. The passage of this landmark legislation in the Senate to establish lynching as a hate crime is a critical step forward, which is why it is unconscionable to attempt to block these protections from applying to the LGBT community. All Americans-- no matter their sexual orientation, race, gender, religion, disability, zip code, national origin, or anything else-- must receive equal protection and treatment under the law."

Suppose Miss McConnell were out in Pickle Park or Louisville's Fruit Loop, cruising late one night and instead of a young man, he ran into a dozen red necks with Louisviille slugger baseball bats and suppose they clobbered him into hamburger. Under the legislation he and McCarthy (who is not gay) are blocking, the perpetrators would be guilty under the federal lynching bill.

The hate-filled evangelical fanatics are demanding that victims who are targeted for their sexual orientation or gender identity be excluded from the bill's protections. The Trump-supporting Liberty Counsel-- an off-shoot of Falwell's Liberty "University"-- and led by deranged and obsessive homophobes, Mathew and Anita Staver-- is at the forefront of the demands. Mathew Staver: "The old saying is once that camel gets the nose in the tent, you can’t stop them from coming the rest of the way in. And this would be the first time that you would have in federal law mentioning gender identity and sexual orientation, as part of this anti-lynching bill... So far they've been unsuccessful over the many years in the past, but this is a way to slip it in under a so-called anti-lynching bill, and to then to sort of circle the wagon and then go for the juggler at some time in the future."

Staver tolds OneNewsNow that his fanatical organization, Liberty Counsel, is talking to lawmakers in the House in an effort to convince them to strip the bill of the amendment before taking a vote. Instead he seems to have persuaded McCarthy just to not take a vote at all.

Matt Cartwright (D-PA) is a member of two very powerful committees, House Appropriations and the House Oversight and Governmental Reform Committee. Before being elected to Congress, he was one of Pennsylvania's top attorneys. And, like Tulsi Gabbard, he's not happy about this kind of thing. "People," he told me, "who think it’s okay to commit murder because of the victim’s sexual orientation have no business commenting on American law, let alone holding themselves out as followers of Jesus Christ."

Yesterday, Doug Pagitt, a progressive evangelical pastor in Minnesota and executive director of VoteCommonGood, suggested I use the term "conservative Evangelicals" instead of "white evangelicals" because it's more accurate and helps make the distinction and because it "calls people to the progressive ideas and actions Jesus teaches... The people who support these measures are by far more committed to their conservatism, and even white nationalism, than they are to any sense of evangelicalism. This is born out in the fact that the primary question that should be put to any Jesus following Evangelical group is not the well deserved question, 'are they a hate group?' but, 'how do they find no end to the love they show all people?'"

Jamie Raskin (D-MD), one of the most distinguished members of the House Judiciary Committee, told me that "It’s hard to believe that, while the Congress is already up in arms over the dangerous white nationalism voiced by Rep. Steve King, the GOP is indulging the bigotry of right-wing religious forces. Conservative Evangelicals apparently cannot abide the inclusion of gay and lesbian Americans in our federal anti-lynching legislation. What do they think the social message is of removing the LGBT community from the protection of a law against lynching? Here’s another simple moral test for the GOP."

Expanding on a theme he's been developing for a decade, evangelical expert and best-selling author Frank Schaeffer asked "Where did Trump’s evangelicals come from?: Children born into households that isolate them in homeschooling and church schools then send them to institutions like Bob Jones or Liberty U or Wheaton so identity is cemented and they carry forward the fundamentalist religious supremacy crusade. The Bible Trump’s evangelicals quote sanctifies humanity’s moral infancy idolizing the worldview of the Iron Age, leaving believers susceptible to justifying all manner of Trump’s evil in the name of God.

Face it: American Evangelicals are the Number 1 threat to democracy. Of course lynching gay people would be fine with them. As Trump joked about Mike Pence "He'd like to hang gay people."

When one treats the Bible as the literally perfect word of God it isn’t hard to find support for the ugly list racist, Christian-Zionist, xenophobic magical thinking that now darkens the Trumped evangelical brand. It’s time to say it: Evangelicals are a threat to the USA.

Evangelical religion has made evangelical leaders and ordinary Bible-believers susceptible to courtship by Trump’s authoritarian, bigoted, sexist, tribal, anti-intellectual greed-mongers who dangle the carrot of theocracy. It is time to define evangelical voters as a hate group.

Mark Foley, a personal friend of Trump's and a gay former Republican congressman who represented Mar-A-Lago, told me this morning that "the fact that  they are working to exclude any group from this legislation is appalling and shows a total lack of true Christian beliefs." He then warned his former colleagues that "If the Republican Party wants to continue to placate a vocal, yet distinct minority of individuals who cloak their bias by using the church as their shield, they will be justly rewarded on Judgment Day and those legislators that aid and abet this calculated hateful political stunt will pay dearly at the ballot box if their conscience doesn’t get them first..."

The Most Anti-LGBTQ Administration In History?

The Republican Convention Trump used Islamophobia to try to coverup Republican homophobia to reassure gay voters that he could be trusted to defend LGBTQ rights. "As your president I will to everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology, believe me."

He also said he is a better friend of gays and that "someday, I believe, that will be proven out, bigly." Is today that day? I could be... since his State Department has decided to deny visas to same-sex partners of diplomats and UN officials. A 30 second phone call to Secretary of State Pompeo, would change that with no fuss at all.

On Monday, Trump's regime started "denying visas to same-sex domestic partners of foreign diplomats and United Nations employees, and requiring those already in the United States to get married by the end of the year or leave the country."

The U.S. Mission to the U.N. portrayed the decision-- which foreign diplomats fear will increase hardships for same-sex couples in countries that don’t recognize same-sex marriage-- as an effort to bring its international visa practices in line with current U.S. policy. In light of the landmark 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, the U.S. extends diplomatic visas only to married spouses of U.S. diplomats.

“Same-sex spouses of U.S. diplomats now enjoy the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex spouses,” the U.S. mission wrote in a July 12 note to U.N.-based delegations. “Consistent with [State] Department policy, partners accompanying members of permanent missions or seeking to join the same must generally be married in order to be eligible” for a diplomatic visa.

But critics says the new policy will impose undue hardships on foreign couples from countries that criminalize same-sex marriages.

Samantha Power, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, denounced the new policy on Twitter as “needlessly cruel & bigoted.”

GOP closet cases in high places-- no help at all

“State Dept. will no longer let same-sex domestic partners of UN employees get visas unless they are married,” she tweeted, noting that “only 12% of UN member states allow same-sex marriage.”

In July, the U.S. mission sent out diplomatic notes to the United Nations and representatives for foreign diplomatic missions explaining the new policy, which reversed a 2009 decision by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to grant visas to domestic partners of U.S. and foreign diplomats. The contents of the diplomatic note were first reported in August by the Washington Blade. The 2009 policy, however, did not allow a heterosexual domestic partner of a U.S. or foreign diplomat to enter the country on a diplomatic visa.

The new policy-- which enters into force Monday-- requires that foreign domestic partners of diplomats and U.N. officials posted in the United States must show the State Department proof of marriage by Dec. 31, or leave the country within 30 days. As of today, domestic partners of diplomats and U.N. officials based abroad will need to show they are married in order to enter the country on a diplomatic visa. The latest policy change, the United States explained in the note, was aimed at ensuring all couples were treated equally.

“The Department of State will not issue a G-4 visa for same-sex domestic partners,” the U.N. human resources chief explained in a note distributed to staff last month. “As of 1 October 2018, same-sex domestic partners… seeking to join newly arrived U.N. officials must provide proof of marriage to eligible for a G-4 visa or to seek a change in such status.”

There are currently at least 10 U.N. employees in the United States who would need to get married by the New Year to have their partners’ visas extended.

The new policy poses a number of risks for same-sex partners, according to Alfonso Nam, the president of U.N. Globe, a U.N. LGBTI staff advocacy organization.

Sam Gillette, writing for People reported that "Two years and multiple anti-LGBTQ policies later, a new book by his former press secretary Sean Spicer reveals that the sentence in Trump’s convention speech was nothing more than empty payback for a political favor." In his book, The Briefing: Politics, The Press, and The President, Spicer asserted that "Trump’s campaign team was on a mission at the time to derail anti-Trump delegates seeking to prevent Trump from becoming the Republican presidential nominee-- a process that 'Never Trumpers' had initiated by signing a petition ahead of the Republican convention. Manafort and his lieutenants went one by one down the list of people who had signed the petition and persuaded them to remove their signatures. How Manafort and company did this was a scene out of 1950s politics-- alternating between carrot and stick and sometimes bat, even, at one point, conveniently making the convention’s parliamentarian unavailable to keep the opposition from formally submitting their petition. The Manafort message was clear: Trump will be our nominee and our next president, and anyone who didn’t want to work to that end could spend the next four years in political Siberia. (No Russia pun intended.)"

The final name that needed to be scrubbed from the petition, Spicer writes, was that of Washington, D.C., delegate Robert Sinners. The book describes an alleged deal between Sinners, who Spicer says told the Manafort team “he wanted Donald Trump to support gay rights,” and senior Trump communications advisor Jason Miller.

“Jason assured Sinners that Trump would be the most ‘inclusive’ candidate the Republican Party ever had,” Spicer writes.

“This is your moment, Robert,” Miller told Sinners, according to the book. “You can deliver this.”

Sinners then reportedly signed “a form that officially removed his name from the petition,” and the deal was done.

“Jason told Sinners Donald Trump’s acceptance speech would acknowledge the LGBT[Q] community, which no other Republican acceptance speech had done,” Spicer writes. “And it did.”

Trump's speech was pure lip-service. Since he occupied the White House his regime has been overtly anti-LGBTQ, from ordering the Defense Department to stop accepting transgender people in the military and having the Justice Department work against the interests of gay families at every opportunity-- such as reversing a policy protecting transgender people from workplace discrimination-- to refusing to follow bipartisan tradition of recognizing Pride Month. The ACLU's legislative director, Ian Thompson, called Trump’s administration "easily the most anti-LGBT administration in at least a generation. They are hard at work trying to dismantle and erase every gain LGBT people have made since 2009."

It's worth noting that the LGBTQ community makes up about 5% of the country-- and about 10 million voters, especially important is close races like Florida (700,000 LGBTQ citizens).

Will Rohrabacher's Crazy Homophobia Cost Him His Orange County Seat In Congress?

Should congressmen who get high and play dress-up be barred from buying homes in Orange Co?

I can remember when I was a kid growing up on Long Island, there were fights in the suburbs-- Nassau County-- about selling houses to black families. Half the people who lived in some of these towns were there because of "white flight" and they brought their ugly bigotry and racism with them. Trump is ginning that up again-- and on Long Island! But here in California, Trump's top lackey-- and Putin's-- is Orange County lunatic Dana Rohrabacher and he's got gays in his sites. Thursday, Jeff Collins, writing for the Orange County Register, reported that last week Rohrabacher told a group of realtors that homeowners should be able to refuse to sell their property to gays and lesbians.

“Every homeowner should be able to make a decision not to sell their home to someone (if) they don’t agree with their lifestyle,” Rohrabacher told an Orange County Association of Realtors delegation at a May 16 meeting in Washington, D.C., according to Wayne Woodyard, a former Orange County Realtor president who was at the event.

On Thursday, Rohrabacher confirmed the accuracy of the sentiment, and added that homeowners should have the right to “choose who they do business with.”

“We’ve drawn a line on racism, but I don’t think we should extend that line,” Rohrabacher said.

“A homeowner should not be required to be in business with someone they think is doing something that is immoral.”

The statement ignited a protest by a Realtor gay-rights group, prompting the National Association of Realtors to withdraw its recommendation that members send campaign contributions to Rohrabacher.

“It was determined that Rep. Rohrabacher will no longer receive support from NAR’s President’s Circle,” an association statement said, referring to its list of recommended candidates. Rohrabacher’s stance, the 1.3-million-member trade group said, is contrary to NAR’s code of ethics, which bans discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation or gender identity.”

“We certainly hope that Congress will... support the elimination of housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

The about-face occurred as the 15-term coastal Orange County Republican is locked in his toughest re-election campaign.

He’s facing 15 challengers, including eight Democrats as well as onetime political ally Scott Baugh, former Orange County GOP chairman.

“It certainly can’t do me any good to have people take me off their endorsement list,” said Rohrabacher, who represents California’s 48th District in coastal Orange County. “It’s sad to see (the association’s) priority is standing in solidarity with making sure a stamp of approval is put on somebody’s private lifestyle.”

Harley Rouda, a Democrat who is challenging Rohrabacher and a son of a former Realtor association president, called Rohrabacher’s statements “outlandish and unacceptable,” saying everyone should have the same rights to buy and sell a home.

“What Dana Rohrabacher fails to understand is discrimination is discrimination,” Rouda said. “It shows how backward his thinking is.”

Previously Rohrabacher had been designated as a “Realtor Champion,” eligible for support from top Realtor donors.

The Realtors Political Action Committee, the trade group’s campaign finance arm, also donated $5,000 to Rohrabacher’s re-election campaign in December and January, campaign finance reports show. Rohrabacher also received donations from numerous agents, real estate developers and Realtor groups.

The backlash occurred after Orange County Realtors met last week with Rohrabacher during NAR’s mid-year lobbying conference in Washington and asked him to support H.R. 1447, among other issues.

The measure expands the Fair Housing Act passed in 1968 to add anti-discrimination protections based on a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity. The existing law already forbids home sellers, landlords and lenders from discrimination based on a person’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Rohrabacher’s remarks sparked outrage among gay and lesbian Realtors after Woodyard posted them on Facebook. The founder of a real estate gay-rights group then wrote to NAR President Elizabeth Mendenhall requesting the association revoke its support of Rohrabacher.

“When a supposed champion of the Realtor Party outright states that housing discrimination should be lawful, I hope you agree there should be cause for concern,” wrote Jeff Berger, a Florida agent and founder of the National Association of Gay & Lesbian Real Estate Professionals. “Ignoring the congressman’s comments belies the decades of serious work and progress NAR has made in the area of fair housing.”

Rohrabacher denied he’s trying to shore up his conservative flank in the face of opposition from Baugh. Indeed, he said, his stance likely will “alienate a certain number of gays who think I’m anti-gay, which isn’t the case.”

Rohrabacher added he vehemently opposes housing discrimination based on race, religion or a person’s sex.

But, he said, “there are some fundamentalist Christians who do not approve of their lifestyle. I support their rights.” He also said he believes the Realtor association’s stance is “way out of sync” with its own industry.

Rohrabacher distinguished race-based discrimination from choosing not to do business with someone because of their lifestyle or political beliefs.

Homeowners, for example, shouldn’t be allowed to deny a sale to an interracial couple, he said.

But Democrats or Republicans should be able to refuse a home sale to people with opposing political views.

Would Rohrabacher, who uses a medical marijuana cream to ease his arthritis and supports relaxed penalties for cannabis use, be OK if a home seller refused to do business with him based on that lifestyle choice?

“Yes,” Rohrabacher said. “Absolutely.”

Ted Lieu is the DCCC regional vice chair for the West Coast, including, obviously, California. Since Rohrabacher refuses to do town hall meetings in his own district, Ted went down to Orange County and did one for the folks who live down there. "Dana Rohrabacher," he told me today, "thinks it is fine for gays and lesbians to be denied a house-- let's work to make sure Dana is denied a seat in the House."

Eric Bauman is the chairman of the California Democratic Party. He's watching all the Orange County congressional races very carefully. This morning he told me "It's pathetic that Putin’s favorite member of Congress thinks his best path to re-election is to attack LGBTQ people where it hurts most-- in their homes and jobs. This sorry excuse for a congressman is happy to help cover up Trump’s exploitation of women, bashing of immigrants and cavorting with foreign regimes, especially because he has no record to run on after decades in the House. So he has no choice but to turn to the classic fascist agenda and scapegoat LGBTQ and other at-risk people. Well I have a suggestion for you Dana, you'd better get out your surfboard and prepare for a long trip, we are going to send you to hang 10, and it won't be in DC, perhaps Moscow or... Stalingrad."

DuWayne Gregory is the progressive Democrat running for the congressional seat in Nassau and Suffolk counties in southern and central Long Island (NY-02), a seat currently held by old time reactionary Peter King. DuWayne recognizes  just what Rohrabacher is up to, "Congressman Rohrabacher is an illustration of how the Trump era has empowered people to speak and promote hatred," he told me this morning. "As a father of a son who is gay, I want my son to be able to live a life free of fear and hatred. A society where he won’t be the victim of a hate crime. A society where he can work for an employer that won’t discriminate against him, because of his sexual orientation. A society where he can purchase a home and raise his own family. A society where he can pursue his dreams just like every other American citizen. That’s why I am running for Congress, because my congressman, Peter King, has just as bad a record on LGBTQ issues as his colleague in discrimination Rohrabacher. We can do better and we must do better by electing people to Congress that understand the true values of our country."