Get In Line

Today I got an e-mail from Change.Org asking me to support the following:

End LGBT Discrimination!!! Demand that a LGBT Rights Amendment be ratified to the U.S. Constitution.


Urge the Urge the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate, and President Obama to pass a LGBT Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

What would be an LGBT Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

An LGBT Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, would be a constitutional amendment to the United States Constitution that would to affirm that people who are LGBT have equal rights under the law.

The text of the LGBT Rights Constitutional Amendment

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Supreme Court Justice Scalia has said women are not protected by the 14th or any other amendment to the Constitution, although corporations which are not mentioned in the Constitution are. (so much for original intent).

As for working to pass a Constitutional Amendment protecting  LGBT/T folks?

I’ll hop right on that one.  Right after they pass the Equal Rights Amendment making women equal instead of second class citizens.

I’ve experienced far more discrimination in my life simply for being a woman than I have for being lesbian or for that matter for having been transsexual.

But I am not only a woman, I am a feminist, some might even say I am a radical feminist in that I put women’s interests ahead of men’s.  I put women’s interests ahead of transgender people’s interests.

I believe one of the most important steps in becoming a woman is reaching a point when you’re being a woman is more important than your history.

So… I’m all for passing a Constitutional Amendment protecting LGBT/T people, right after they pass the ERA.

ERA Now!

12 Responses to “Get In Line”

  1. Andrea Rosenfield Says:

    Just when I think the misogyny couldn’t get any MORE obvious, the LGBT set has to go stepping in front of the ERA re-introduction. Madness.

    • Suzan Says:

      I agree.

      I am a woman even before lesbian and I have to reach way back in history to consider transsexual part of who I am in any way other than as a historical artifact.

  2. gwenelizabeth Says:

    Maybe it’s the cynic in me, but I’ll wager this gets passed before ERA. Sigh. This seems like a stunt. I would’ve thought that the majority of the legislative effort from LGBT groups would be focused on marriage equality, which I completely support.

    However, I completely agree about putting women’s issues before LGBT ones, as far as my own energy is concerned. Like a lot of you, I identify first and foremost as a woman. Hell, I’m straight, so I really don’t feel a part of the LGB community at all (the T changes day to day, lol). I just disagree with Suzan and some others on where the line is as far as who is ‘really’ a woman.

    • Suzan Says:

      Of course… Woman hating is more a basis of all religions than the imaginary sky daddy, who is just a booger man to scare the ignorant into giving big bucks to lazy scumbag con artists.

  3. Andrea Rosenfield Says:

    It’s worse than that even. Post-Lawrence, all private, non-commercial sexual behavior is constitutionally-protected. People can’t be “classified” based on how, and with whom, they choose to engage in such protected behavior.

    Unless… these idjits actually go changing the Constitution to mandate separate classification. That’s a huge step AWAY from equality. Again, madness.

  4. Andrea B. Says:

    Believe it or not, a constitutional amendment to guarantee equality between men and women would do more for human rights in the US than any other move. That should be the priority.

    Then follow that up with a LGBT amendment. That would sort out a lot.

    Doing it back to front would most likely backfire. Then again that might suit some of the lobbyists.

  5. Joann Prinzivalli Says:

    Suzan, I am *almost* in agreement with you. When I got up to your WTF, I had already come up with a different answer – why not incorporate “sex” into section 1, and fold the ERA right in?

    Like this:

    Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity.

    All it would involve would be the addition of one three-letter word, and a comma (and maybe a second comma after orientation).

    Why insist on ERA first? (Though I am appalled that ERA never got ratified in the first place – killing ERA was the first right-wing patriarchist flexing of the “bathroom bill” argument currently being used to oppose human rights laws that cover gender identity and expression.) Why not do it all at once?

    Women have always seemed to take a back seat to African-American men, the notable exception being the adoption of the 1964 Civil Rights Act – and even that parity was a fluke, since the addition of women to that bill was a last minute “poison pill” attempt by a segregationist Congressmember who expected his fellow patriarchist northern moderate colleagues to be appalled by the addition and to reject the whole thing. The attempt backfired.

    When it comes to gay and trans rights, trans people are in a similar position to that of women. Many LGBT organizations are primarily L&G motivated and funded, leaving T (and even more invisible, the B) behind when an advantage can be obtained (though many other LGBT organizations have stopped throwing the trans community under the bus)..

    Wouldn;t it be a great idea if an ERA that was inclusive of everyone who had previously been left out was put in place, all at once? Perhaps other immutable characteristics can also be included – the list of these can be cobbled together from the human rights laws of more civilized states and localities (Religion is already in the 1st Amendment, and race has already been covered, but how about elevating the rest to constitutional status?

    It’s a thought.

    If these things have to be done separately, though, I’d agree that the original ERA is way overdue.

    • Suzan Says:

      I don’t freaking think so. I’m a woman and a feminist and I want a stand alone ERA.

      Then I am a lesbian and I don’t need a “T” because transsexualism was something I had an operation to cure. It has been nearly forty years and I feel safe in saying the surgery worked because I’ve never felt the need to change my sex since having the operation.

      Your very suggestion is misogynistic.

  6. tinagrrl Says:

    Ah-Ha, so now we take 50% of American Citizens, the female sex – AKA: “women”, and make them a sub-set of LGB and T – is that the idea?

    We make equal rights for women (if not an outright majority, close to it) dependent on equal rights for any number of minorities (LGB and T’s).

    Has anyone asked “teh wimmins”?

    Then again, why would they? Aren’t “teh wimmins” SUPPOSED to “get in line” behind EVERYONE ELSE?

    Isn’t that the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and EVERY OTHER WAY?

    Misogyny is so completely a part of our society even “sensitive” people can’t see it.

  7. Andrea Rosenfield Says:

    Women as a special case of “transvestites?”
    I call Poe’s Law. I cannot distinguish reality from parody on this one.

  8. joannprinzivalli Says:

    I preached today based on Frederick Douglass’ 1841 4th of July speech. What is so wonderful about incrementalism? Women have been left behind African-American men in much the same way the trans people have been left behind by the L&G so often. As to the comment about women being a subclass of transvestites, I didn’t see transvestites in the inclusive proposal. Perhaps your definition of terms differs from mine. Of course, everyone is included in all the categories – everyone is assigned a sex, everyone has a sexual orientation, and everyone has a gender identity.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: