So, having looked at GOP presidential candidates, SCOTUS justices, and a few prominent Republicans and organizations, let’s see how they square up to State Party Platforms.
Alabama
Alabama very short and uh… not very detailed platform, though for reading’s sake, thank you.
Says traditional marriage is the foundation of a free society, implying same-sex marriage goes against a free society. Implies a desire for justices who will oppose queer rights.
Does not include sexual orientation or gender identity in the following sentence: “We believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, without regard to race, creed, age, sex, or national origin.” Implying they do support withholding that equality for LGBT persons.
Alaska
The Alaskan GOP platform is a webpage instead of a PDF which I find both nice and odd.
They state that marriage is between one man and one woman they “support reserving marriage benefits to this union alone” after calling the family the foundational unit of society, implying queer families aren’t part of that foundation.
They “oppose the insertion of ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘transgender identity’ in the list of protected classes under anti-discrimination laws for the State” which implies to me that they support people in their discrimination against LGBT people.
It has language about biological males and females to avoid using “transmen and transwomen.” And basically says trans people shouldn’t be allowed to use facilities or anything else in line with their gender identity.
Arizona
In a strange turn of events, I did not find a platform for Arizona. The closest things I found was a nonspecific About Page, an issues page that was just a bylaws collection, and a Resolutions page which I think is the closest in relation to a platform?
There’s a resolution declaring that they want to pass laws or an amendment stating “only biologically DNA verifiable gender shall be upheld as legal gender.” So, I guess, fuck intersex people and cis people with atypical DNA.
In another resolution, while discussing sex acts in books and research databases as pedophilia, says one harmful thing included amongst those awful sex acts that’s obviously on the same level is “homosexual marriage.” So I guess me getting married one day is the same thing as porn.
Arkansas
At this rate I’m amused by and hoping each state has a slightly new way of presenting their platform or lack thereof. For Arkansas, their platform is on their website through SCRIBD.
Another statement that marriage is the foundation this time of a healthy society and that marriage is a holy thing between one man and woman, implying that same-sex marriage is both unholy and leads to an ill society.
On their statement against discrimination, they say we “should have equal opportunity to succeed regardless of race, nationality, origin, gender, or creed.” They don’t include sexual orientation because of course not. That implies that don’t mind or support discrimination based on sexual orientation.
You may think, oh, they said gender. That’s curious. Are they somehow homophobic whilst being trans affirming? Of course not. They say they “oppose federal efforts to force doctors and hospital to treat patients according to self-percieved gender identity” and insurance requirements for any related coverage. So I think they mean they’re against forced affirming care, but there’s also potential that they mean they support the Trump Administration’s take that healthcare professionals should be able to discriminate against trans people.
T
heir platform is explicitly Christian, by the way, which is alluded to in other platforms but it’s interesting. It almost seems like one could call it a Christian nationalist party, but I’m not sure I’d go that far.
California
California’s odd bit is that the first option on Google is actual a County Gop upload of their platform for the Stanislaus GOP whose website is stangop and I find that very funny.
They have a statement that they condemn “racism, xenophobia, religious intolerance, ethnic nationalism, and white supremacy” which is good, I approve of that and its explicit callout of enthno nationalism, xenophobia, and white supremacy by name. That’s impressive. But… sexism, homophobia, and transphobia aren’t mentioned. Now, as you’ll see later, the California GOP actually does condemn sexism and homophobia in terms of discrimination, but in talking about violence, none are mentioned despite, crucially, that violence against women, especially domestic violence, is one of the more frequent forms of prejudiced violence.
They want equal education regardless of race, “circumstances of their neighborhood,” which is interesting and new so far, or socio-economic status. I understand those being the areas called in specific, but again, it’s odd what they leave out. Besides sexuality, gender identity, and sex, here they leave disability, which is a key battleground for the advancement of educational rights, specifically in regards to financing and following IEPs.
They also say they would like parents to be able to “opt out of age-inappropriate and sexually explicit curriculum” without detailing exactly what they mean by that. What do you consider age-inappropriate? Do you mean you want an opt-out for sex ed in a generous interpretation, which is still stupid, by the way, or, in a cynical interpretation, do you have a DeSantis view that LGBT people existing is sexually explicit and inappropriate?
On their Equal opportunity section, they say they “support laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, sexual orientation, disability, or religion.” Now, they don’t mention gender identity here which I believe is worthy of critique and discussion of transphobia. I want to take a second to note the rarity of the inclusion of sexual orientation here, so I do appreciate that on some level. But these traits which are mentioned here not being mentioned elsewhere I think doesn’t speak on malice. I actually think this statement here is more reflective of the Californian GOP’s actual position. What I think it showcases is a lack of specificity and perhaps a level of thought simply not engaged in in the previous parts of the platform.
Now, they do then say that to protect the children, marriage should be between one mand and one woman because while they may be against discriminating against gay people, they’re also fine with generic homophobia restricting us from having rights.
What I will say about the California platform is that it’s so far the most detailed of the state platforms. Yet, at the same time, it’s not super detailed. I know the state platforms will never reach the levels of detail or length of the national platform and they probably shouldn’t, but I think if they were to go into details, they could avoid some of the discrepancies that I perceive there to be. Either way, not great, but so far the best of them.
Colorado
So, um, in keeping with the trend of each state having something new. The Colarado GOP doesn’t seem to have a fully functional website? There’s a section on the About Page that says Platform but there’s not a link there. Their Action tab leads nowhere. Their Get Involved tab is basically a blank page, though there are links at the top of every page for volunteering and donating. So my conclusion on the Colorado GOP Platform is: it sure would be nice to be able to read it. Guess it’s the national platform in the meanwhile. Good luck with your website, guys.
Connecticut
Connecticut offers a new and novel approach by not having anything on their website approaching a platform, not even the Resolutions page of Arizona. Guys. Why. Ballotpedia says you follow the National Platform? Maybe that’s why? But guys… That’s so lazy. Make your own. You can’t be specific about the needs and beliefs of your designation and your constituents elsewise.
Delaware
Well, surprise surprise, Delaware’s GOP have taken a new flavor. I didn’t find anything called a platform, but I found a general, brief set of “we believe” statements on an about page, and a “policy plan” called The Rescue Delaware Plan that I believe is closer to what we’d consider a platform.
The About page first.
Their commitment to antidiscrimination says they want equality “regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.” So again, no inclusion of sexual orientation or gender identity which implies they don’t mind a lack of equality based on those things.
Now onto their pseudo-platform:
They do actually have a statement on their education page that all instruction “must reinforce the premise that characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation and religious beliefs do not define an individual’s abilities or potential.” Such as is great phrasing to say the list goes on from there, and it’s a clear statement that, at least in schools, there should be no teaching of any sort of discrimination and actually a forceful education of equality and shared humanity, so that’s nice. And actually, they reiterate that later in the document, twice actually, with the same language.
There is vague discussion about a Parental Bill of Rights that Conservatives love to talk about in regards to education, letting parents have more and more say in the educational process. In some cases, that involves letting parents object to and opt out of any mention of gender and sexual orientation. I read the 2019 HB 145 they say it’d be based on, but that’s a very short and unspecific bill so I can’t exactly determine what the Delaware GOP means by this in detail.
Overall, likely because they don’t mention marriage or trans rights at all on either parts, this is so far the most open and I suppose progressive in terms of LGBT people so far.
Florida
So, Florida’s GOP. I expected, given everything about them and their actions such as the Don’t Say Gay law and expansions for it, DeSantis’s continued fight against queer people, and the label of groomer towards any and all queer people diagreeing with them or existing around children, that the Florida platform would be real meaty and fun to dig into. Instead, there’s a Mission Statement and as mission statements tend to be, it says nothing, really. It’s action pages lead you to signing your name for things rather than talking policy. I glanced through their press release article post things, and didn’t really find a comparable document. Ballotpedia says they follow the National and the Seminole County Platform just leads to the national platform so I suppose that’s true.
Georgia
Georgia’s GOP does have something new in a way that I quite appreciate with links at the bottom of the webpage that send you to Google drive folders with past platforms which is really nice for easy record keeping and investigation.
They mention that “the traditional family is the strength of our nation” and traditional family is generally used as a statement against same-sex couples and other family structures.
They “endorse the Nation Platform” so they get the fun time of have all of the fun bits of that including the support for conversion therapy.
Their statement of equality under the law only says “all” and there’s no mention of any sort of “regardless of” or anti-discrimination language so we have to assume the National Platform applies here which purposefully did not include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Point 8 is all about how kids and civilization need families with mommies and daddies, and if it weren’t for the immediate mention of “traditional family,” you could think they’re suggest queer polycules are best for child rearing. But they’re not. They’re doing “but the children” as a reason to deny gay marriage and claim that our marriages go against that “cornerstone” of civil society.
There’s a vague statement about parental rights to making healthcare and educational decisions. When combined with that love for the national platform, that seems almost like an endorsement of conversion therapy. When taken with their bill banning gender affirming care except in cases of immenint suicidality, it almost seems as if they don’t trust parents to make those medical decisions. Curious.
On their 2021 conversion resolutions page, there’s a long transphobic ramble against trans students, teachers, and staff, including a condescending scare-quote on “indentify” to describe trans people, saying schools that go against them should lose state funding.
Hawaii
Hawaii GOP, thank you for having a platform, and for making the choice to have it on your webpage in all red font. That is your unique choice.
The section on family does go on about the importance of fathers, but it states “when possible.” It talks about the importance of extended family regardless of blood relation. It’s interesting. The section about fatherhood does imply that lesbian families may have averse impacts on children despite the evidence not backing that assertion up, but they don’t outright say that.
On education, after saying they’re against comprehensive sex ed, which makes no sense if you consider the studies and the impact of various sex ed programs in which comprhensive sex ed leads to the best outcomes, but they say they think sex ed should only be about reproduction. So, that removes talk about STDs, consent, contraception, and other safe sex practices, but it also removes queer students from the conversation about what sex even is.
Idaho
Idaho! Your first Google result immediately sent me to your PDF. Thank you!
Their statement on equality once again leaves out sexual orientation and gender identity.
“We are strongly opposed to any social justice indoctrination” in regards to education, and in that list of theories they’re against, they inclue “diversity, equity and inclusion, … queer theory.” They don’t want that in “policies, curriculum, and/or course materials.” So. What? Do you mean you’re against the idea that diversity is good? That people should be included in things? That gay people exist? By social justice, do you mean civil rights fights, specifically in regards to LGBT people?
There’s another statement about parental rights to choose what children learn. What do you mean? Do you mean if a parent disagrees with evolution, carbon dating, other instances of science, they can reject lessons on that or opt their child out? Does that mean parents can object freely to any mention of sexual orientation and gender identity, including the historic LGBT civil rights efforts and SCOTUS cases?
There’s a statement in their healthcare section about allowing people to not “participate in practices” if their religious beliefs thell them not to. Apparently they’re against mandatory vaccination, which is interesting. But. So then are they in agreement that employers should be able to not provide health coverage for PrEP or general coverage for HIV/AIDS?
When you mention the supreme authority of parents in medical decisions for children, do you agree with the national platform and include the decision to put their child through conversion torture as one of those medical treatments parents should be allowed to choose?
Oh hey, they have the same talk about traditional marriage being the foundation of America, and say the “breakdown of the family” is to blame for “(m)any of the ills of society.” So we gays are ruining society. They explicitly talk about their opposition to gay marriage and actually state that Idaho is entitled to completely ignore Obergefell.
They “oppose any person, entity, or policy that attempts to confuse minords regarding their biological gender.” What exactly does that mean? Does that mean opposition to all gender affirming care? Do you consider gender affirming care, including talk therapy, to be child abuse? If so, why don’t you call out the actual child abuse of conversion therapy? Do you mean the existence of trans people in general? Do you mean anyone who advocates against traditional gender roles? Depictions in art and entertainment? Drag? Crossdressing?
So they’re explicitly homophobic and transphobic both in their rhetoric and their apparent policy goals.
Illinois
The Illinoisy GOP isn’t super unique, but they include links to both their platform and the resolutions passed in the same year but not as a Google Drive folder so that qualifies as a new thing, I’d say.
In their bit about marriage, they say children are best cared for by “traditional” families, or one man one woman marriages. They say all laws must consider children and families immediately after, implying that laws need to be made based around the idea that kids don’t get good outcomes when raised by single parents or gay parents. The data does not agree. There are no differences in outcome between two parent homes of any gender.
They advocate for a constitutional amendment overturning Obergefell and defining marriage as one man, one woman, so taking away my right to marry.
Oh, also the building block of society is traditional family and strengthening that “improve(s) life for everyone,” which gives the implication that marriage equality is the opposite of that.
They say states shouldn’t regulate non-public schools at all, which to me says private schools should be allowed to operate whilst receiving federal and state dollars without being subject to the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, or any education standards.
So, this is nearer the start of the Platform and I wanted to read on before commenting on it, assuming it would come up in some other way later that would be clearer. Its statement about “freedoms for all people” includes the nondiscrimination phrase “regardless of race, color or creed.” So anti-colorism which is cool. But. And I think this is an example of incompetence moreso than malice. They don’t include sex, national origin, diability, age. I’m assuming religion is under creed here. Of course, given the homophobia, it wouldn’t include sexual orientation or gender identity even if it was competently written, but it wasn’t. And I know this is me being a bit of a nitpicky asshole. But these things matter when you are trying to run a governmental party that wants to convince the citizenry of your competence to run the government. Fix it, guys. It’s an easy fix, and something you should be conscious of going forward.
Indiana
The Indiana GOP’s contribution to keeping my amusement and sanity while reading through these is that this platform has this fun graphic and very light blue background. It’s giving yearbook. It’s giving “what about the pica spacing” arguments. Oh, also, thank you for having the document the first result on Google instead of making me navigate your website.
We have another statement that straight marriage is the foundation of society or whatever, though this is another one that at least acknowledges and embraces that there are other family structures, though they never mention gay couples. The implication is that gay families are not part of this.
There’s an anti-trans girls in sports section.
Indiana took an interesting choice in their anti-discrimination statement by not necessarily making one clear blanket statement, instead having individual section contained within other areas. There are sections on women, the elderly, disabled folks, and so on. Though of course there’s no such commitment anywhere to supporting LGBT Hoosiers.
Iowa
Iowa has a very interesting thing wherein it seems like their Platform page is the one page of the website that’s slightly broken with the header and footer. As such, it looks very mid-2000s internet.
They want justices who “respect tradition family values” which, guys, I want to call out the homophobia, but… And look, typos happen. They do. But this is a professional political document from 2018. I have a thousand typos everywhere, but I’m also not a political party.
Anyway, they talk about straight marriage being the “foundation to a stable, enduring, and healthy civilization” which is why they then say they want any laws letting us queers get married to be repealed. So obviously the implication is that gay marriage is destablizing, injurious, civilization ending apocrypha. Which is clear homophobic nonsense.
They want religious people to be able to discriminate. And when you first read that bullet point, you might think, surely that’s limited to performing marriages. But then they specifically say that sexual orientation shouldn’t be included in any nondiscrimination laws at any level of the government. Because they want to discriminate against us. Because they are bigots. Incompetent bigots.
They also mention prohibiting any organizations from “promoting promiscuous behavior” on school grounds. But what do they mean by that? They are not specific. What would they call promiscuous? What would they call sexual? Is comprehensive sex ed encourging of promisuity? How about guest speakers come to talk about consent or sexual assault? Gay straight alliances? Is this an instance of the Florida GOP who considers the mere existence and discussion of queer people to be inherently sexual and inappropriate merely by means of our existence?
This is unrelated but they want the 17th Amendment repealed which I just had to point out because that was wild to read.
They suggest that courts have no actual powers, effectively saying SCOTUS is merely an advisory branch of government, and thereby making meaningless every court case ever including all the LGBT rights ones.
Their anti-discrimination statement includes only race, gender, and disability. So I suppose age, religion, and gender identity are all up for free grabs. We already know they think sexual orientation is something they MUST be allowed to discriminate against.
Kansas
The Kansas GOP has a fun weird border frame around the margins of each page which is interesting and new, but I’m more interested in that the file name for the platform starts with… Microsoft Word. I laughed.
They have their transphobia against trans girls in sports there.
I was confused by the lack of homophobia until I got to the “Preserving Traditional Families” section. Guess where Kansas gets entirely fucked.
They make a natural law argument against gay marriage, say only straight marriages should get the legal benefits of marriage, and that hey, gay marriage will probably doom the country. Great.
They make the unscientific claim that straight marriages lead to the best outcomes for children. The data does not support this.
They use that lie to advocate for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman.
In this same section, where they go against gay people over and over, they say, “Parents must be free to train and discipline their children in love and direct their education and health care according to their beliefs and values without government intrusion.” Which to me sounds like an endorsement of a Don’t Say Gay bill and a declaration, given that it is in a section focused on attacked queer families, that the Kansas GOP is opposed to any bans on conversion therapy. Parents have a right to torture their kids if they want. Disgusting.
Kentucky
Kentucky’s GOP has a… odd distinction in that my web browser said “not secure” while on their website. Um. Guys. That is unique, I’ll give you that, but it shouldn’t be the case.
Anyway, Kentucky doesn’t have a specific platform, sending people to go read the national platform, so you can assume that entire section applies here.
Louisiana
Well, with the Louisiana GOP I think we hit our first “not unique” which I suppose is unique in a way. Anywho, they also just lead you to the national platform.
Maine
Maine. I don’t know, there’s nothing special about Maine.
Says schools shouldn’t promote hormones or surgery in regards to trans affirming healthcare, though I have to wonder what exactly they consider promoting, especially given that it says teaching about trans people is something they consider child sexual abuse. They specifically say that child sex abuse is now “the teaching or promotion of biological genders other than those of male and female homo sapiens”. Adding on that homo sapiens bit makes it seem like teaching about male and female flies, for instance, would be child sex abuse. Sure hope selective breeding and Darwin aren’t important parts of biology classes.
Says schools cannot withhold information regarding “identity changes, or group activities” to guardians. In a section that has been discussing trans people, that to me is a clear statement that the Maine GOP thinks schools have a right, no, a duty to out students to their parents, to tell them that they are trans or gay or questioning or even simply involved in a gay straight alliance regardless of their personal identity, when no. The teachers don’t have that right. The right to come out only resides in the individual. I will reiterate that over and over. Parents do not have the right to know that about their child. And often, parents, it has nothing to do with you if your child doesn’t come out to you. The process of coming out looks different for every person and dozens of things can go into it. Maybe they aren’t sure. Maybe they’re scared because a party is telling them that adults simply affirming them and nothing else are abusing them. Maybe you’ve made a throw away comment that has stuck with them. It doesn’t matter. That is their information to share as they please. Not the schools. Not yours. Theirs.
It then has Don’t Say Gay-esque language where it doesn’t define what “sexually-based” material it prohibits from schools and third parties are prohibited from sharing and may invite, they go on to say, lawsuits from parents for including. Shakespeare shows are filled to the brim with dick jokes. Is it now child sexual abuse to teach Shakespeare? To answer a student when they ask what it means? Is kissing or holding hands sexually-based material? Then there goes the majority of literature. Is it just LGBT people existing? Then that’s dehumanizing bigotry. Be specific.
Yet another “no trans girls in sports” bit.
And here we go, a statement that says schools cannot include material that “encourage(s) [students] to choose their own gender, sexual orientation, or personal pronouns.” There we go. A statement that being trans or gay is a choice. A statement that students should not know about LGBT people. A statement that teachers and materials should have no ability to affirm students in their identity. It’s England’s Section 8.
Then they say the government should only recognize straight marriage, the “foundation and strength of a stable society,” which obviously means gay marriage destablizes society.
A statement that parents are the best to make “medical, disciplinary, and educational decisions,” which, unfortunately, I can only assume based on the national platform, the homophobia and transphobia present elsewhere in this platform, and the entire premise of this section, means that parents should be allowed to send their child to and engage themselves in attempted conversion torture to their queer children.
An implied support for adoption servies discriminating against LGBT people.
Oh, hey, they don’t have an anti-discrimination statement except in regards to some nonexistent “social credit” score thing. So.
Maryland
Maryland GOP, another “just go to the national platform” place so that entire section applies here. They have a cooler elephant logo though I guess.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts had some vague “we believe statements.” Ballotpedia gives an overview of what it says is the 2014 platform but the link was dead and I don’t want to assume a platform nearly a decade old still applies. As such, I’m going to assume that the national party platform speaks here, but I truly do not know.
Michigan
Michigan’s GOP has a short About Me that isn’t very detailed. Ballotpedia says it follows the National Platform so everything I said in that section applies here.
Minnesota
Minnesota GOP, thank you for having an actual platform to read through.
A statement that businesses and individuals should be able to discriminate against people in regards to marriage which seems to me, since it is unspecific, to include: hotels, secular venue owners, cab and rideshare companies, newspaper announcements, government county clerks who issue marriage licenses. Be specific, or the most uncharitable vague reading will be taken because that is how law works.
They wants religious institutions, including schools and hospitals, to be allowed to discriminate in hiring practices, presumably for LGBT people.
They want healthcare professionals to be able to use religion as an excuse not to perform practices or give medication for things they don’t agree with, presumably so religious queerphobes can discriminate in health against LGBT people, including the dispensing and filling of prescriptions, handling of contraceptives, use of PrEP, potential HIV/AIDs medication, education to patients about LGBT people and healthcare, and so on.
A transphobic mention about bathrooms.
Oh hey, they’re against all vaccine mandates, assumedly in opposition to the COVID vax which, by the way, is not governmentally mandated. That has little to do with LGBT issues but it is entirely stupid and against public health which does affect all of us.
Oh, hey, in this platform they are “Recognizing a right to voluntary reparative therapy.” Reparative therapy is the fun fucking label people use so they don’t have to say “conversion therapy,” both of which are misnomers for torture. So let me ask you a question, Minnesota. A minor is subjected to conversion therapy. Their parent consented to it. Does that count as voluntary consent? So then, that is not a child choosing it. That is a parent choosing it. In other words, a parent subjecting, forcing their child to go through mental, spiritual, and emotional abuse for a practice which has no medical evidence in its support. Beyond that, therapy is a medical practice. Any practitioner engaging in torture in the name of medicine, a practice that has no evidence for and countless evidence against, is directly violating their code of ethics. If someone is convinced to go through conversion torture becuase of the spiritual abuse of those around them, at the advice of employers or the insistence of public officials, is that voluntary? No. No it’s fucking not. THe Minnesota GOP is openly advocating for the torture of LGBT people under the guise of medical choice and the false belief that LGBT people are choosing to be LGBT.
Oh, in their education statements, they say they support the appeal of the Minnesota anti-bullying law. So I went and read that law to see what must be so awful. Well, I went to stopbullying.gov to see what that law is. There are several statutes, and this platform does not specify which stuatute it wants repealed. So we could assume they mean each statute mentioned. But I’m going to save us time and assume they mean “121A.031 School Student Bullying Policy.”
Subd. 2. Definitions, secition (g) “Intimidating, threatening, abusive, or harming conduct may involve, but is not limited to conduct … directed at any student or students, including those based on a person’s actual or perceived race, ethnicity, color, creed, religion, national origin, immigration status, sex, marital status, familil status, socioeconomic status, physical appearance, sexual orientation, including gender identity and expression…”
Is that what they take issue with? The defining of bullying as including harassment against the aforementioned attributes? I don’t know, because they’re not specific. They are not specific. What is it you take issue with? How would you replace it? Because you say it’s to put power back in local communities, how will you make sure that minority students are prevented from racing targeted harassment in a community filled with people who agree with the prejudice that leads to that harassment and therefore don’t want to call it bullying?
They want to ignore actual science and put in the idea that creationism is a valid intellectual idea instead of religious nonsense, which therefore implies that they don’t care about actual data. That’s why they also oppose Comprehensive Sexual Education. Given their later discussion on marriage, we can then say they think that LGBT students should be excluded from their abstinence only education.
“Teachers should not discuss or teach about alternative sexual lifestyles,” by which they mean non-straight people should not be mentioned or discussed, queer civil rights should not be mentioned or discussed, and in which they imply a normal and an abnormal, a functional and nonfunctional status to orientation which is clear disrciminatory intent and bigotry.
Given what they say later about marriage, when they say teachers should teach that “extramarital sex is wrong” there’s a clear indication that they think teachers should be teaching that sex between gay people is morally wrong.
They want state and national amendments to only allow straight marriage AND say that domestic partnerships should not receive any of the governmental benefits marriage gives.
This disgusting article was written and approved in 2022.
Mississippi
Mississippi’s GOP has a platform page with collapsable entries, so thank you for that, I suppose, for anyone who wants to quickly look at specific areas. On an unrelated note, there’s a paragraph break on your “Taxes” section that doesn’t need to be there and another one in your “Public Safety” section.
Guess what the very last thing they say on their last entry, “Values,” is. The thought the Mississippi GOP wants to leave you on is that they think marriage should only be for straight people. That’s the end note. End on a statement that they might like to take away my right to get married.
Missouri
Missouri’s GOP specifically says it’s a 2023 platform. This could be a colorblind thing, but the header combination of color with font color for the top text makes it unreadable there. Their platform is broken up into separate web pages which is… annoying. Make it a single document, please.
They have a section going against trans kids being able to use the bathroom.
A statement against marriage equality.
Support for religious people to be able to discriminate while using their religion as an excuse.
They make some vague statement about parental rights in education and healthcare and based on the trend, my go to assumption is that this includes conversion torture but does not include gender affirming care.
Montana
Montana GOP. Your claim to fame seems to be a slightly smaller font choice. Congrats.
They oppose “any educational activity that demonizes or disparages any individual or group based on race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or political affiliation.” Now, under Bostock, that means sexual orientation and gender, but the GOP tends to not like that, so I’m assuming the lack of inclusion here means they are find with educational activities that demonize LGBT people.
They mention restricting marriage to only straight marriage, specifically straight cis-marriage, actually, as a thing the “people of Montana” approved, which lets them say “yeah, no marriage equality” while blaming their constituents instead of taking responsibility for their own viewpoint.
An implication that people should be allowed to use religion to discriminate in personal, public, and business matters.
Nebraska
The Nebraska GOP’s platform just jumps straight into the planks and also labels each plank as a plank which is accurate but also odd. There’s no title or preamble on the document, by the way, which is also odd.
“We object to the use of the United States military to further social agendas that conflict with good order, morale and discipline.” Now, that doesn’t really say anything specific, but if you remember back to Ted Cruz and Mike Pence, that was the sort of argument used to oppose the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and was used to defend the Trump Trans Military Ban
They want schools to use chromosones to define “male and female” as a transphobic dig before going after trans kids in sports and using the bathroom. They’re ignoring, again, chromosonal variance amongst cis people. And the existence of intersex people.
They want Obergefell overturned and that marriage should be straight only.
They want adoption agencies to be able to discriminate against LGBT people.
They want judges appointed who believe in straight marriage only.
Nevada
Nevada’s GOP platform. Can I say, this “click here to read the platform” after having a specific page about your platform… Is it possible to just have it be on the page? Is that hard? Anyway, they’re unique in have their lines clearly numbered on each page and having everything but the title left justified, including section headings.
In their statement against discrimination, they actually include both gender and sexual orientation. Whether gender identity is included in that is a guess.
There’s an implication that religious people should be allowed to discriminate.
They say they don’t want school time in any way including “radical sex eduation, gender identity issues” amongst other things. I don’t know what they mean by the first one but it is odd.
They follow that with a screed against trans students in sports or using the bathroom.
They’re against hormonal and surgical treatments for any minor, not just trans ones, which seems like it might have a negative impace on some potentially necessary medical procedures, based on the need to protect minor fertility which I know what they mean but it just feels gross.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire. They have an odd way of organizing in that their subsection headings are in larger font than their section headings.
Oh hey, there’s a statement about wanting only straight marriage to be only marriage while also saying to recognize it as a sacred thing, putting government support behind religion so that’s fun.
New Jersey
New Jersey sends us to the National Platform so all of that applies here, too. Next.
New Mexico
New Mexico’s GOP has an about page with sections you think are going to links but they’re actually cards that flip around so you can read brief statements which is definitely a choice. I guess it’s fun? But I just want to access the information and the specifics.
They want a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man, one woman.
The don’t have much info in general though!
New York
New York GOP’s website has an about page which starts with a long spiel about their current chairman because I guess learning about this egoist is more important than informing the people about your views policy prescriptions.
Nothing on the website approached a platform. Ballotpedia says to go to the National platform so all of that here, again.
North Carolina
North Carolina GOP - another one whose document starts with Microsoft Word as the title which, come on guys, just change the file name after saving it. Anyway, your font size is a bit too small for your body text.
In the Preamble they say they’re against “bigotry, racism, sexism, anti-semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance.” Right, what do you include under bigotry? Ageism? Ablism? You named a few specific things but declined to say homophobia or transphobia. Are those included under bigotry?
They say straight marriage is the foundation of a civil society so therefore the implication is gay marriage erodes civility. Anyway, they want Obergefell overturned and the ability to define marriage in a discriminatory way.
They want “all institutions” to be able to use religion to deny healthcare and discriminate against people, assumedly against LGBT people.
Unrelated, but Article V - you start numbering your points at number 9, not accidentally starting with the wrong number, but literally not numbering until 9. That looks incompetent. There’s also an issue with formatting on point 10 that is very obvious to the eye and should have been caught.
Anyway, in a FADA-esque statement, they want the state to not be allowed to “discriminate” against someone for their religious/moral convictions. Now, is that a statement against general discrimination based on religion, such as forcing a Jewish person to work on the sabbath? Or is that a statement that the government should not be able to take action against individuals and organizations when they use religion as their excuse to violate non-discrimination laws?
“Public schools should not be permitted to teach children about homosexual behavior and gender identity.” What do you mean? Can they have books which include LGBT people in their school libraries? Can they learn about our fights for Civil Rights? Can they discuss current events in high school history courses in the instances where LGBT people and are our status as LGBT is pertinent to the event? Can schools discuss what being gay or trans even is? What is “homosexual behavior?” Everything I do, as I am a homosexual, is technically homosexual behavior. Stop hiding behind slightly vague language and say what you mean.
Oh, they want abstinence only outside of marriage which they already stated they only want to be straight, so therefore leaving their queer students to fend for themselves or to be told that any expression of their sexuality is and always will be wrong which, you might have guessed, is emotionally scarring and I would qualify as abuse.
They say trans girls shouldn’t be in sports.
Sudden center justification at the end. WHY?
North Dakota
North Dakota’s GOP has their platform as a list of dropdown entries and I don’t know, maybe I appreciate that. I’ve been reading so many of these fucking platforms I don’t really care anymore. Every entry is short and not very informative.
They say policies should encourage straight marriage without outright calling for gay marriage to be banned, but isn’t that the implication?
Oh, also they say they don’t believe being trans is a thing.
Ohio
Ohio looks like it’s another National Platform thing so copy paste here.
Oklahoma
Okay, GOP, now let’s look at your platform.
They want straight marriage.
A vague statement about parents and health care which based on previous platforms and the national one is about the right to refuse vaccines and force their kids into conversion torture.
Oh hey, any benefits married people get, taxpayers get to opt out of them if they’re homophobic and the couple is queer.
Religious people should get to discriminate.
A statement of transphobia and biology.
They want abstinence only education which given their thoughts on marriage means queer students are shut out and uneducated.
They want conversion torture for trans kids and oppose affirming therapy.
They want gender affirming care to be seen as child abuse and malpractice.
They do not want government oversight on religious counseling which, to me, is a clear statement that religious based conversion torture for anyone is a religious right.
They don’t want anti-discrimination laws for anyone’s “sexual preference or lifestyle choices,” clearly implying that sexual orientation is a choice, which it is not, and morally wrong, which it is not. Why would they say this? Because they want to discriminate against LGBT people.
They want schools to teach that families are only straight families so I guess we’re teaching homophobia and transphobia in schools now and telling kids to bully each other. Great.
They want public schools to allow “the teaching of the Judeo-Christian worldview” which one must assume is their version of religion and is an expressly homophobic and transphobic one.
They want creationism to be taught alongside evolution with equal time as if it’s a legitimate scientific thing instead of religious bullshit with no evidence. That’s important because they then go on to say the Bible should be able to be taught as a history text. That matters because then it’s a question of: are teachers now preachers or some sort? Are they going to state that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, even though that’s not what happens in the story, and have students believe that a historical event even though there is no evidence for that? Because then we have public schools teaching Christianity and presumably religious homophobia as fact.
They want trans kids not to be able to participate in sports or use the bathroom, and they use chromone language again, completely ignoring intersex people and chromosomal variance amongst cis people.
“We oppose the portrayal of homosexual or promiscuous behavior in a positive light in public schools.” Because of course.
Oh, and in case anyone had any doubts, they say, “We oppose any non-chomosomal gender re-education and the teaching of LGBTQ lifestyle, history, and demonstration in public schools.” So LGBT people don’t exist for them. We can’t be mentioned. Our fight for rights cannot be mentioned. Our protests, our history, anything. We must be demons who have nothing else.
They specifically want colleges to let everyone misgender and deadname people, pretty much saying “let them harass trans people all they want.”
They want all non-discrimination ordinances for LGBT people to be repealed and then banned.
They want a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Any private association to discriminate against anyone for whatever reason.
They want the reimplimentation of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
Fuck you, Oklahoma.
Oregon
Oregon’s GOP has a novel way of numbering things in each section, I don’t know. I’m turned off the whimsy I’d been doing by Oklahoma’s entire thing.
They want the government to get permission before discussing anything about sex or gender. Now, does that mean absolutely everything about gender? The Woman’s Rights Campaign? Mr. vs Mrs.? Does sex here mean only coitus or does it mean sexual orientation as well?
They don’t really want trans kids in bathrooms but, to their credit, they want everyone to be able to have a bathroom and schools to do their absolute best to accommodate, so maybe letting certain students use staff facilities and the like. Oh, and trans girls can’t be in sports.
They want only straight marriage.
They say there’s no such thing as trans people and also assert a biological essentialism in how sex should be expressed in feminine and masculine ways, so congrats on being both transphobic and very sexist.
They call gender affirming care “sexual exploitation.”
There’s an implication about letting healthcare providers use religion or morals as an excuse to discriminate potentially. Reading through the healthcare section, I get the idea that they support conversion torture especially when done by religious services and forced upon children by parents, but there’s nothing that outright says it, and it doesn’t imply as much as other platforms have.
They want religious people to be able to discriminate without impunity.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania’s GOP has vague statements on its about page and Ballotpedia says it goes by the national platform so that’s probably why I didn’t find many details or a document so copy and paste.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island’s GOP has an issues section which is similar to a platform I suppose. The only problem is, it doesn’t talk about a lot of issues. In fact, it barely talks about anything at all. So I found nothing relevant. Ballotpedia linked to a 2016 platform, but when I clicked the link, it was a jpeg of nothing relevant so I don’t want to go with what that one says. I guess assume the national platform applies in the areas not mentioned.
South Carolina
South Carolina. Why oh why did you choose a flyer type of layout for your platform.
Their idea of discrimination worth mentioning only applies to race and gender.
They want only straight marriage. They want that strictly taught by schools. And they want the state itself to use that when doing adoption and foster care services, a direct call to discriminate against LGBT people.
Religious adoption agencies get to discriminate.
They want religious people to get to discriminate however they want as long as it’s done in the name of religion.
They want only abstinence education, laughably after talking about teen pregnancy rates as if abstinence has any evidence showcasing its viability and good outcomes, but that education is also colored by the fact they don’t believe in gay marriage so again, queer children are shut out of education.
South Dakota
South Dakotan GOP, here we go.
They want to make their schools “free from inappropriate sexual and/or cultural information.” What does that mean? Is that a statement about sexual orientation and gender identity? Is it a statement about literally anything since it said cultural?
They say they don’t want trans kids to have proper acommidations or to be in sports or bathrooms. They also do the statement about chromosomes as if there aren’t intersex people and chromosomal variation amongst cis people.
They want marriage to be between one cis man and one cis woman. Then they say they “affirm” that’s the best arrangement for raising a child as if that’s a fact supported by data that they’re just supporting. The data does not support that point. That is a lie.
Tennessee
Tennessee’s GOP is a “look at the national platform” thing so what was there is here.
Texas
Alright. Here we go. Yeehaw.
A statement about natural law.
Desire for only straight marriage.
They call transition related medical procedures things “designed to fake transition.” They want to add penalties for companies who boycott Texas for any potential transphobia.
They want absolutely no sex education or mention of sexual orientation in public schools and prevent anyone from sharing information or offering materials that do.
They want a “more comprehensive” version of Florida’s Don’t Say Gay law to prohibit “instruction in sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools,” which, if you recall, instruction in that law really means discussion. So no queer people ever mentioned, our fights for rights never mentioned, current events involving us never able to be discussed, families shunned and unable to be mentioned, no efforts to curtail bullying or affirm children, no books or any other art form that contains any depiction of LGBT people, no discussion of gender play in historic theatre which means robbing Shakespeare of his context if he’s even allowed to be taught at all. They want anyone who breaks that law to have their education certification removed and then to prosecute them. You want Orwell? There’s Orwell.
They call Drag Queen Story Hour some sort adult sex entertainment when that is an incorrect categorization of the event. Story Hours involve appropriate dress and the reading of children’s books. That can only be sexual if you imagine any dressing outside of assumed gendered expectations to be sexual. In which case, can a man ever wear a dress? Can a woman wear pants? Or are both of those always instances of sexual adult entertainment?
They don’t want trans kids in sports.
They want schools to teach biological essentialism.
“We oppose transgender normalizing curriculum and pronoun use.” Since they want a Florida law and that law uses educational language to mean discussion, it seems here they want to completely abolish the idea of affirming a trans student. Preferred names and pronouns can’t be used. Students being harassed cannot be told that it is okay to be who they are. Harassers cannot be told that what they are doing is wrong. Trans people must be seen as wrong.
“We oppose using public funds for homosexuality, transgender, or diversity-equity-inclusion centers’ on college campuses.
“Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice.” It is not a choice, it is not a lifestyle, and it is not abnormal. The Texas GOP is a collection of bigots.
They oppose all anti-discrimination laws for LGBT people.
They oppose any action against those who discriminate against lGBT people.
They “oppose all efforts to validate trangender identity.” It seems as if a statement that their belief in validity is what makes a trans person really trans, an idea as if it might be a choice again.
They oppose gender affirming care for anyone 21 or younger. That’s right. Not only is it for minors, it’s for adults age 18-21.
They specifically say there will be no bans on people who want to do conversion torture on LGBT people. They attempt to give it creedence by calling it Reintegrative Therapy. So here’s a side tangent.
Reintegrative Therapy is a trademark because of course the GOP is shilling in the platform for a fucking company.
It tries to distance itself by saying it’s not conversion therapy. It doesn’t aim to change sexual orientation. It just happens to by resolving trauma, because obviously trauma is the cause of non-straight orientations. That is an assortment that has no actual evidence for it, by the way, and there is no evidence to support the idea that any sort of therapy can change sexual orientation.
Not only do they do that, but they also try to do damage control for conversion therapists, defending them from charges of harm and use of aversion techniques.
They say of evidence about conversion therapy’s negative side effects that there are “some. Reports vary.” They do not. There is no evidence that conversion therapy works. There are mounds of evidence that it is harmful. There are countless stories of harm inflicted onto individuals. There are numerous individuals who chose not to stick around on this earth because of the damage inflicted on them by conversion therapy. To play “oh who knows” is absolute horse shit.
They want to be very clear that they’re not conversion therapy. They’re just advertising and talking about their ability to suddenly change someone’s sexuality, a thing they’re sure they’re actually doing, and no, this thing they’re explicitly advertising isn’t the entire point, they’re surely not conversion therapy.
Reintegrative Therapy cites a long term study that shows their practice works. This claim is examined in an analysis of the group by Gregory Coles at The Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender. Now, that cetner is a Side B Christian organization, so, it as well is an inherently homophobic group meant to harm queer people. Despite that, Coles’ examination shows the study 1) is published not in a reputable journal and 2) does not seem to have data that supports its conclusion, not that the data is even gathered in a particularly useful way.
But let’s keep going. Reintegrative was founded by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Jr.. Who’s that? Well, his father, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, did “reparative therapy,” also known as conversion therapy, also known as debunked nonsense that does not work. He also founded the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, known as NARTH, a conversion therapy advocation group. A packet of their material is actually sort of the event that led to the Netflix documentary Pray Away. According to Mother Jones, they rebranded as the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity, advocating for continued conversion therapy for those with “unwanted homosexual … attractions.”
According to the director of Pray Away, the person who runs that new group is… Dr. Jr there.
Dr. Jr wrote an article for The Daily Signal decrying Amazon banning his daddy’s books. He defends his father’s legacy and pretends that reparative therapy works. The way he discusses his father’s efforts are quite similar to how he describes Reintegrative Therapy. He claims LGBT ideology is destroying proper science. Despite talks about how it was secular, Dr. Jr gives that away here by admitting it was due to his father’s religious beliefs and getting people to try to be straight because that’s what they think the Bible tells them to be.
Only, the American Pyschological Association calls bullshit on that. It quotes a former President of the APA as saying, “So-called reparative therapies are aimed at fixing’ something that is not a mental illness… and they have the potential to harm the client.”
The APA also disagrees with Dr. Jr’s assertion that reparative therapy is something else other than converion therapy. And it disagrees that there’s any indication that self-reported attraction models are accurate studies rather than people who may have wanted or been told to want to change have decided to not acknowledge their own attraction. The APA advocates for conversion therapy bans. Reparative therapy is included in that.
So then, we can imagine Dr. Jr has an invested interest in defending and supporting his father’s homophobic torture legacy. By heading his torture group and rebranding his torture methods, Dr. Jr is following his father’s footsteps and playbooks. It is quite beyond easy to say that Reintegrative Therapy is more pseudoscientific bullshit to defend inflicting harm on patients under the guise of pretending it is therapy instead of what it actually is: mental, spiritual, and emotional abuse.
That’s the specific, by name practice the Texas GOP endorses.
They want healthcare professionals to have the ability to discriminate.
They want businesses to be legally allowed to be as transphobic as they want. They want people to be able to discriminate and be cruel based on someone’s status as trans and not be able to be held liable for that which seems to be in direct opposition to Bostock.
They call being trans a mental health condition as if that is a fact when it is not. The APA does not agree. No major medical orgnization agrees.
They call gender affirming surgery “mutilation.”
They want the government to be unable to regonize gender identity on any documents.
They want detransitioners to be able to sue those from whom they accessed gender affirming care for malpractice.
They again state their opposition to gay marriage. Opposition to non-discrimination laws. Their desire to be able to not recognize gay marriages no matter where they were performed.
They want to outlaw any gender affirmation including allowance of social transition and general therapy. So discredited conversion torture is allowed, but medical best practice for trans kids is outlawed. Becuase Texas does not care about children. They care about control and inflicting harm on LGBT people.
They want to deny same-sex partners marriage benefits.
They explicitly call for Obergefell to be overturned.
The say “the State of Texas should all children to be adopted only by married or single heterosexuals.” So not only must you disclose your sexuality to the state if you’re a single person, you get to be discriminated against by the government on the basis of you or your partner’s sex. They pretend as if that is in the best interest of the child but, again, the evidence does not support that. Though, clearly, the Texas GOP does not care about the evidence. They actively ignore it and lie about it.
So that’s the worst platform. I had to go through this entire nonsense of reading the state platforms so as not to judge each state party by this platform. This is filled with disgusting rhetoric, lies, misrepresentations, calls for discrimination, and an explicit endorsement of torture of LGBT people.
That’s Texas.
Utah
Utah GOP. The first Google result was the 2009 platform which was odd. I don’t know, thanks for making me take a second after the absolute blast of anger that was Texas. Or so I thought. Until according to your website, it looks like the 2009 platform is STILL your platform. In which case. It’s been over a decade. Update it. The lives of your constituents and the reality of the world have changed in ways you need to rise to the occasion and explain how you will meet. I know you and I will disagree on what those solutions will be, but 2023 is not 2009 in almost any way. For the benefit of the people you serve, you owe it to them to be up to date. Please. Just show basic competency.
So. The fucking 2009 platform.
They mention the “traditional family” as the basic building block of society and I don’t know this isn’t 2009 but I imagine even back then that mean straight marriage good, gay marraige bad.
On their “Equal Rights” section they say “no individual is entitled to rights that exceed or supersede the God-given individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution…” and just what the fuck does that mean? I can only assume it’s backlash to the fight for LGBT rights but who knows, because it’s a sentence that is literally meaningless.
I wanted to read more, but there was nothing. Because apparently we’re in 2009.
Vermont
Vermont GOP. Oh hey, look, theirs is from 2022. A relevant and recent platform addressing the concerns of the day? WHO KNEW?
They have a statement on discrimination where they include sexual orientation as a class to be protected against discrimination, though they don’t include gender identity though maybe they meant to by listing gender.
And that’s it. There’s no mention about being anti-gay marriage. Nothing about how they hate trans people. I guess the Vermont GOP is the future of the party. You know, if they want to respect their fellow humans.
Virginia
Virginia. I lived there for a bit. Supposedly the brief “Creed” on the Our Party page is their version of a platform. Short statements without policy objectives or specific beliefs about the issues of our day. Frustrating. I can’t make any conclusions because it barely says anything. I want details.
I’m going to assume, since there isn’t anything called a “platform” that actually they adopt the National Platform because this page on the website is pathetic if it’s meant to be a platform.
Washington
Washington GOP. Your header and logo has some unique choices that I’m going to say don’t make sense to me because I’m colorblind and not because it’s an awful design.
They want religious exemption to non-discrimination policies for individuals and businesses.
They say there’s no such thing as trans people.
They say marriage should be between one man and one woman because they can have babies which is apparently the reason for marriage and definitely why we make couple have children and we watch them fuck and we make them take fertility tests and we dissolve marriages if one person loses fertility.
They support biological essentialism, so enforced gender stereotypes.
They want transwomen and trans girl out of sports.
They want school to not teach anything about LGBT people and also use the word transsexual, definitely a thing that the majority of trans people call themselves now.
They want absolute rights to make medical decisions in families so I guess anti-vaccine and potentially pro-conversion torture.
West Virginia
West Virginia’s GOP. I don’t know, they’re the first one that has an era of applicability so this is clearly stated to be from 2020 to 2024.
They don’t believe in gay marriage.
They don’t want trans people to be able to use bathrooms.
They want judges who will go against gay marriage.
They want anyone to be able to use religion to discriminate against gay people in regards to marriage.
They don’t like non-discrimination laws.
They want an RFRA, the type of thing that says, “Hey, you’re religious? Do whatever the fuck you want! Who cares if you’re discriminating.”
Wisconsin
I’m so close. So close to being done with this awful list.
There’s a sort of thought that straight families are superior and a preemptive “just because we don’t like gay marriage doesn’t mean we hate gay people!” But. They don’t outright say any of that. It’s just implied.
There’s a “the law shouldn’t discriminate in areas of justice” sort of statement that includes sexual orientation so that’s good.
It’s a relatively short platform that doesn’t necessarily have a lot of policy goals but more statements that might be expanded into policy goals if they so chose to actually be specific, but it’s not as terribly vague as some other states.
Wyoming
The last one. Finally. Your unique quality is telling us how long it takes to read. Thanks?
Implication that religious people should be allowed to use religion to discriminate against LGBT people.
An anti-trans religious statement.
Anti-gay marriage.
The lie that straight parents are better at raising children when that is not what the data says.
Great.
State Platform Data
Now. That’s all the GOP state platforms. So let’s do some data analysis.
GOP state parties against marriage equality, either outright wanting marriage restriction or saying that straight marriage is the biggest good of society and thereby implying gay marriage is harmful and bad: 45. 90%
That leave out sexual orientation on their statements for nondiscrimination or specifically call for it to not be included in nondiscrimination ordinances, though this doesn’t count the platforms that had no mention of any anti-discrimination statement and who knows what they think on it: 30. 60%
That leave out gender identity on statements about nondiscrimination or advocate for such discrimination, though again, this doesn’t include those platforms that don’t make blanket statements about non-discrimination, though, based on the other information, if they did, this number would be higher: 35. 70%
The ones that endorse, defend, or otherwise imply a commitment against bans of conversion therapy, AKA torture inflicted on LGBT people: 24. Now that number could go down by maybe about 5 depending on what exactly they mean in certain wordings. But lots of the platforms weren’t very specific, so who knows, it could also go up if they released updated, detailed platforms. At least 48%
That call for allowance for discrimination in adoption: 22. Those are only the platforms that mention adoption, however, and does not take into account general calls for discrimination to be allowed against LGBT people carte blanche for religious people, in which case, this number would likely be higher. A reminder that Texas specifically didn’t call for an allowance for discrimination but state mandated discrimination. However, I do want to point out the language that kids are best served by straight couples, which is a lie, I remind you, is placed there not only as a defense of straight-only marriage but must be extrapolated as to be the basis of a state interest in discriminating in adoption, foster care, and general child care. In that case, the number would be 45. So that’s anywhere between 44-90%
That call for religious people to be allowed to discriminate against LGBT people: 29. 58%
I had more statistics I wanted to tabulate, but as I was going through, I think it’s unfair to present more statistics this way because the years between now and the last version of the adopted platform does not take into account the fervor for anti-LGBT rhetoric that has striken conservatives with fervor. But I felt it was important to go through state by state to make it clear that this isn’t the fault of a single national committee. This is a party belief in nearly all places across the country.
コメント