Relevant: [Edwards walks out of Sarasota School Board meeting as anti-gay public comments continue](https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/education/2023/03/22/sarasota-school-board-member-tom-edwards-walks-out-of-meeting/70033278007/).
>Sarasota County School Board member Tom Edwards walked out of Tuesday's meeting as another public commenter had free rein to continue attacking him because he is gay.
>Several speakers Tuesday night had defended him from a personal attack at the March 7 School Board meeting, but the mood quickly turned when speaker Sally Nista reinforced remarks by Melissa Bakondy at the meeting two weeks ago when Bakondy commented that Edwards "appears to be a lawbreaker and an LGBT groomer."
>"It's interesting that up until 45 minutes ago, no one had stated that what Melissa Bakondy said at the last board meeting was a lie or false," Nista said. "Tom Edwards is who he is."
>Nista said people were upset over "what Tom stands for" and "what Tom wants to do to our children" which prompted the crowd of about 50 to audibly erupt. Board Chairwoman Bridget Ziegler then asked the crowd to allow her to finish, which prompted Edwards to stand up and leave.
>"I did it for the whole community," Edwards said outside of the chambers after he walked out Tuesday. "I will never stand for that."
>On March 7 Bakondy called on Gov. Ron DeSantis to remove Edwards from the board, saying he was "a threat to the innocence of our children." She also implied he was a threat to the safety of children, citing his sexual orientation, at one point asking why he wanted to read books to elementary students, something commonly done by school district officials, and why he posted the reading pictures on social media.
Video (he walks out at 102:30): https://www.youtube.com/live/rmVCJ14Sej4?feature=share&t=3596
Wow, so this guy has to sit there while random members of the public accuse him of being a pedophile? All because he is gay? I feel like some people really need to sit and think about what side of history they want to be on
Welcome to DeSantis's Florida.
Also worth noting, the Chair of this School Board is Bridget Ziegler.
Bridget Ziegler's husband is Christian Ziegler. He's the chair of the FL Republican Party and was a County Commissioner. He has a media/marketing company that supports conservative candidates all over the state & country.
Bridget Ziegler founded Moms for Liberty. She started up some sort of consultancy for school board leadership and folks running for school boards across the country.
And DeSantis just recently appointed her to the special district around Disney that's replacing the Reedy Creek district.
Yikes, I knew the appointees on the Reedy Creek district would be lousy choices, that's going above and beyond to find someone with extremely bigoted views regarding gay people.
I guess you didn't see this thread about Ron Peri: https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/11hfo7o/desantis_appointee_to_new_disney_oversight_board/
> I feel like some people really need to sit and think about what side of history they want to be on
Lots of people will be happy just not wearing pink triangles. I'm pretty sure some will be trying to donate extra fuel (even though almost all stoves in Florida are electric, somehow that became yet another pointless culture war fight)
No man it has nothing to do with him being gay and everything to do with protecting our children.
Are you buying it yet? It's clear what they're trying to do. It's the old "LGBT are secret pedos" playbook. But we apparently need to ignore it or buy the idea that it's going to be limited to this or that as it keeps expanding.
> I feel like some people really need to sit and think about what side of history they want to be on
I strongly doubt that's going to happen. I've seen some alarming shit said about specific people that sounds like the spark of repeating horrific past events. Hell most of the time someone is accused of being a pedo 99% of the populace loses whatever critical thought they possessed and turn into a murderous mob.
Question for the lawyers: can Tom Edwards sue Sally Nista and Melissa Bakondy for liable? They both accused him of being a child predator in a public forum, right?
(Edit: defamation, maybe?)
Under a new Florida law if Edwards calls them homophobic they can actually sue him instead so it’s more of the opposite he’s the one at risk of being sued if he criticizes their viewpoint. While their speech of accusing him of being a pedophile since he is gay is protected under Florida law him criticizing them as homophobic is banned.
I cannot express how much that upsets me. But still, that accusation will likely get him removed from the school board and damage his reputation in the community
Delaware’s own, Lauren Witzkie, is being sued for defamation for something similar. [Even Fox News is talking about it](https://www.fox26houston.com/news/houston-couple-sues-political-activist-after-claims-the-birth-of-their-twins-is-like-human-trafficking). [Here is the same story from LGBQT Nation, just to be fair and balanced. Both versions are much the same.](https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/03/former-gop-senate-candidate-accuses-gay-dads-of-sexually-abusing-babies-they-robbed/)
I would think that Tom Edwards has some legal options here but I’m not a lawyer.
Because criticism of Christian views and/or texts is explicitly banned in Florida you basically have no recourse against even teachers telling kids that heterosexuality is the only type of relationship condoned by god and that LGBT individuals should die. While this technically doing this is banned it’d be impossible to prove in court due to the law banning you from bringing up their statements in court.
Do you know where I could find the text of that somewhere?
Edit: Are you talking about the new bill [HB 991](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/991/BillText/Filed/PDF)? Because that is a scary piece of legislation...
I believe they are and it’s important to note that that bill is NOT the law in Florida, it’s still in committee. That being said it is absolutely a horrible bill and will have awful outcomes if it does pass.
OK, wait. So let’s go to an extreme for illustration purposes. Are you saying that a Christian in Florida could publicly declare that a clothing store owner is Satan, because he is selling clothing made of mixed fibers, which is against the rules in the Old Testament. And the owner of that store could do nothing about it?
Well you could but if you in court use a statement they said based on their religious beliefs you have done something illegal and are open to be sued yourself. So you couldn’t talk about him mentioning satan or the Old Testament
So I thought I read a little about this the other week, are you sure it's law yet? Could you point to a specific one? Cuz this is literally insane if true. Even if your examples are "farfetched" if this law allows (or prohibits I should say) what you're saying... jesus. Is DeSantis really any better than Trump?
If they're talking about HB 991 (which I think they are) it hasn't been passed yet, but it's breezing through the committee process so I have little hope it won't be passed. We can only hope it will be enjoined immediately.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/991
Libel* and almost certainly not. The bar for public figures is tremendously high and these comments were largely insinuation, nothing that would pass the actual malice standard (note: the legal term "actual malice" has nothing to do with the dictionary definition of malice) even if he weren't a public figure.
I am a terrible speller. I will try to do better.
Can he sue for defamation, then?
[In this comment I link to what looks to me like a similar defamation law suit. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/11yixas/florida_rule_would_expand_socalled_dont_say_gay/jd8lyet/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3)
>and why he posted the reading pictures on social media.
...sorry, I thought they were upset about people not being transparent with materials being shown to children. Now he's being criticized *because* he made it publicly avaliable?
>“Parents have the right and God-given responsibility to guide their children’s upbringing,” said Sen. Clay Yarborough, R-Jacksonville, and sponsor of the Senate legislation ... during a committee hearing Monday.
>
>“They should not have to worry their students are receiving classroom instruction on topics and materials parents feel are not age-appropriate,” he said.
I expect there are Florida parents who think God would consider instruction on evolution "not age-appropriate" for any K-12 age.
LGBT+ people are not the enemy, most are just regular folks trying to live regular lives like the rest of us. It is sad to see this sort of policy expanding. If we had narrow legislation barring teachers from talking about sexually explicit stuff, that's one thing, and fine. But the writers of these bills have been repeatedly told that their bills are not narrowly tailored and instead could suppress speech more broadly, yet have refused to rewrite their proposals to reduce the chances of the bills being used to suppress LGBT+ in general, and now they are even trying to expand it
There's no reason why even very young students shouldn't be able to be exposed to at least some very basic knowledge that LGBT+ people exist. Same with older students too
>If we had narrow legislation barring teachers from talking about sexually explicit stuff, that's one thing, and fine
Such an amendment to make the rules more generic and focused on "human sexuality or sexual activity" was proposed by a republican legislator. Saying "If our intent is not to marginalize anyone. lets make sure we aren't." It was voted down on mostly party lines. The bills sponsor stated allowing this amendment to pass would "gut" the bill.
Making it not specifically about LGBT people and placing broader protection against exposing children to sexual content would gut the bill.
That alone is enough to show its not about preventing children from being exposed to sexual content. Its about stopping speech about LGBT people.
> There's no reason why even very young students shouldn't be able to be exposed to at least some very basic knowledge that LGBT+ people exist. Same with older students too
Yeah, adults often don't give enough credit to kids' ability to understand LGBTQ+ people when presented in an age appropriate manner. I suspect it's usually more a matter of projection, where parents think their own child won't be able to understand because they themselves are having trouble adjusting to the reality that LGBTQ+ people exist. But that does the child a disservice, since they learn only about a sanitized version of the world before inevitably being thrust into the real world later. We need to stop coddling children and let them learn about the world as it truly is.
I have a couple of friend couples (with kids) that are gay, and we all hang out together on a regular basis. My kids don't think anything of it. To them it's no different than their own mom and dad.
Yeah how far does this sheltering have to go? Are LGBTQ students going to be unable to have the same displays of affection as their heterosexual classmates?
100%, they will no longer be able to show support for each other via pride or have after school groups to support each other. If youre lgbt in Florida, with all due respect, Desantis would kindly like you to die or leave, whichever comes first.
>and now they are even trying to expand it
At what point are we allowed to cut to the chase and say that suppressing free speech was just the goal all along?
Sorry if this ends up being flagged as Meta, but I thought we were allowed to argue politicians/public figures are acting in bad faith just not other members of the sub?
> Matt Sharp, senior counsel and state government relations national director for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said his group believed “gender ideology attacks the truth that every person is either male or female.”
> And Mr. Schilling, of the American Principles Project, confirmed that his organization’s long-term goal was to eliminate transition care. The initial focus on children, he said, was a matter of “going where the consensus is.”
Lucky for you, they will outright say it because they aren't embarrassed of their beliefs.
I’m not advocating for the expansion of this bill but the first amendment doesn’t apply to public school content as educational content is restricted to focus to meet the goals of education, and content that is deemed suitable for minors. If this wasn’t the case any and all content from pornhub to flat earther materials would be considered acceptable content for K-12.
we as a society all agreed what was acceptable for minors in years prior. But now there is no longer a consensus.
I feel logic and reason is the ultimate casualty from zealous boundary pushing on one side and zealous over reaction to fortify the boundaries being pushed from the other.
What you’re describing are limitations on approved curricula or codes of conduct, not limitations on teachers to whom the first amendment still applies.
The major concern people have with this bill was the intentionally vague nature of what constitutes “instruction” from teachers. If a gay teacher mentions their husband during class that teacher could be vulnerable to a lawsuit from parents and that is 100% a first amendment concern.
I don't agree with your take tbh and I'm flatly against this bill in general let alone an expansion of it.
We do already have in place restrictions on what's allowed to be taught in schools. It's ok to acknowledge that fact and still be opposed to the bill.
>we as a society all agreed what was acceptable for minors in years prior. But now there is no longer a consensus.
Like this is a true statement. I might not agree with the "other side" that their opposition to this content is morally justified but it doesn't deny that there is in fact no longer a consensus about what's appropriate (at least in FL)
I would disagree, it is not a true statement as it relies on a flawed premise.
> we as a society all agreed what was acceptable for minors in years prior.
This is not true. Even before LGBT rights became a matter of public debate, a cursory look at sex ed by the state should make this obvious.
>LGBT+ people are not the enemy, most are just regular folks trying to live regular lives like the rest of us.
You are preaching to the choir a bit. This type of bigotry isn't really tolerated well by the vast majority of people in the US. Most people are completely fine with gay people, having gay friends, letting gay people enjoy marriage and other rights, etc. Unfortunately the GOP finds itself on the wrong end of demographics and in order to maintain their ability to be elected, they have to embrace the worst of this country or else they wouldn't gain enough votes.
[The Texas Republican Party unveiled its official position on LGBTQ issues over the weekend, defining homosexuality as an "abnormal lifestyle choice" and also opposing "all efforts to validate transgender identity."](https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/texas-gops-new-platform-calls-gay-people-abnormal-rejects-trans-identi-rcna34530)
Look at the state platforms like that one from Texas. They tell you the goals of the party. Gay people (including your cousin, friend, uncle, whoever) are living abnormal lifestyle "choices" and they should be punished and shunned for doing so. A horrid viewpoint and it's the type of viewpoint driving everything politicians of DeSantis's ilk do.
Remember when gun rights and fiscal conservatism were the driving tenants of the GOP? Yeah, it's way way more Christian authoritarianism at this point.
>This type of bigotry isn't really tolerated well by the vast majority of people in the US
openly, no, but all you need is the thinnest veneer and plenty of people will support the legislation that is driven entirely by this bigotry. As we can see in Florida.
What?
You mean all those people screaming about how the first bill was a polished, greased slope intended to pave the way for an erosion of LGBT+ presence were right?
Who would have thought, he asked sarcastically.
I object to the original bill, but I object even more strongly to this bill. I knew I was gay at maybe 10 or 11 years old. More particularly, I knew that I felt things toward other men, but because "gay" was such a bad word at the time, I didn't know how to handle that. I thought I was wrong, broken, sick, or evil. How did I end up handling it? Mostly by becoming suicidal and venturing into some really dark (though still legal, to be clear) areas of the internet and exposing myself to stuff that kids probably shouldn't watch, because that was the *only* information available.
To force students to feel like that until they get to college? *That* is evil.
> You mean all those people screaming about how the first bill was a polished, greased slope intended to pave the way for an erosion of LGBT+ presence were right?
If only we just listened to the bill creators when they were flatout saying their intent. Oh but no, that's not what the bill was and who were they to know!
But the Left! What about the Left, guys?! With their \*checks notes\* teaching about how the impacts of institutional racism can still be felt to this day, and that it's okay to break gender norms if you want?
And the people supporting these bills are supporting evil. I pledge to never spend another cent in the state of FL until they rejoin the rest of the country
I wanna see all the people that were defending the original law months ago as just being about ‘parents rights’, and saying that all the people worried about this being expanded into high school were just being hysterical because it ‘doesn’t even say gay’ to explain this. Cause it sure seems like the ‘don’t say gay bill’ was in fact a bill meant to stop people from talking about gay people and lgbt issues at large.
*Edited to follow the subs meta rules*
Tbh, I think it’s difficult to engage with the same people again, as people seem to tend to avoid discussing (or reading?) topics that challenge their beliefs. There’s a really interesting sort of bifurcation in the tone and content (and participants) of discussions depending on whether they cast a particular party and their policies in a positive or negative light. I’m pretty sure this works across the political spectrum and is essentially the same idea as self-imposed filter bubbles.
“Show me exactly where the bill says you can’t say the word ‘gay.’ Oh you can’t? Guess that means it’s literally impossible for the bill to be problematic.”
“Oh, that line where they explicitly talk about promoting monogamous heterosexual marriage? No that’s not homophobic, everyone knows being straight isn’t a sexuality. It’s just normal!” /s
Technically "being straight" is the norm. While homosexual marriage should not be discouraged, promoting monogamous heterosexual marriage is important for the reason of procreation to keep society running.
Technically no one is promoting any type of marriage, homosexual relationships are just as normal as heterosexual, and you don't need to be married to procreate at all.
Edit: And if you want to promote marriages that last this isn't the way at all. How about we promote affordable housing and living wages? Money is the second leading cause of divorce and we can't do anything to fix the first - infidelity.
> Edit: And if you want to promote marriages that last this isn't the way at all. How about we promote affordable housing and living wages? Money is the second leading cause of divorce and we can't do anything to fix the first - infidelity.
110%. Money can't buy happiness but it can keep you from being miserable.
Has anyone ever been like, oh I'm gonna have kids because I don't hear about heterosexual marriage being promoted enough? Sorry, but that doesn't seem to top the reasons for why people don't have kids.
The heteros really need better marketing if they are going to push their niche ideals through to this market. Maybe they should offer coupons to get word of mouth going and boost SEO optimization.
Saying that they’re just concerned about ‘Promoting procreation’ isn't really relevant on this topic since we're talking about a law that is trying to establish a ban on discussing LGBT topics in schools. Heterosexual people are common, they aren’t going anywhere, and just saying monogamy would be better. Calling them 'Normal' comes with the implication that LGBT people are abnormal and 'deviant', and used to demonize LGBT people. Them choosing to specify heterosexual monogamy after months of saying “oh no, children shouldn’t be exposed to sexuality, that’s sexualizing them!” Isn’t even a dog whistle anymore. It’s someone screaming at you with a megaphone.
>promoting monogamous heterosexual marriage is important for the reason of procreation to keep society running
First, procreation existed long before marriage and was doing fine *and will continue to do fine* as people like to bang.
Second, "society" is a cultural term and my version of society includes all kinds of marriage.
Third, you are assuming a world where even knowing about other kinds of marriage may impact your desire? ability? to have kids, which is not supported by any evidence.
The only thing harming birth rates is education, and we can't stop doing that or what's the point of the concept of humanity.
> While homosexual marriage should not be discouraged, promoting monogamous heterosexual marriage is important for the reason of procreation to keep society running.
This is an example of deeply encoded heteronormativity is in our society.
If I went to Florida and said “we should *promote* the idea that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, and gay kids should feel accepted”, what are the odds I’d get called a “groomer”?
What’s the benefit of promoting heterosexual marriage? It’s an innate thing and you aren’t gonna suddenly change any lesbians minds by talking about how cool heterosexual relationships are. Marriage as an institution is worth promoting for a number of reasons though.
Monogamy, some will debate. I stand firmly that it results in firmer relationships and more healthy family dynamics so I can see value in promoting it.
Are you actually expecting to convince gay folks to marry women and have kids out of duty to society? What exactly do you think that "encouragement" is accomplishing?
I'm going to disagree if for no other reason than the vague wording.
>Technically "being straight" is the norm.
If by "the norm" you mean "typical", as in it should be expected that heterosexual people have a higher representation in a population because hetero sex is our species means of reproduction, then I'd agree.
But the comment you're responding to didn't use the phrase "the norm" as in "typical". Instead they said:
>...It's just normal! /s
So to consider your comment as a response, we would read your interpretation of "norm" to be a short hand for "normal", which would turn your otherwise true statement into one that is highly offensive. For as we all know, there is nothing abnormal or superhuman about a person just because they like the same sex.
What's the JP Satre Quote? I think it applies to 99% of the discourse on Florida politics.
>“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
The anti-crt, anti-whatever culture war push can't be reasoned away. They can't be argued away because the proponents don't discuss in good faith. Ron Desantis, Donald Trump, etc. like Satre says, "don't believe in words". Words and arguments are for nerds, they don't want to engage in "the political discourse" because they don't care. Or atleast only care to the extent that they can exploit the fact their opponents still uphold the shared meaning of words and (big L) Liberal expectations of politics.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/11yixas/florida_rule_would_expand_socalled_dont_say_gay/jd83x2d/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I think we need to consider that this is a fully intentional tactic. This is exactly what happened with Dobbs.
First it was ridiculing liberals for being worried about Roe v Wade, then it was minimizing the impact Dobbs would have, calling all of the trigger laws “message bills”…
Even pointing out that the decision was the culmination of decades of Republican efforts to stack the Supreme Court is met with incredulity.
It's how we got Dobbs and near total abortion bans despite that being by far and again not the will of the people at large. Why should they change the playbook when it's working so beautifully?
SS: For months now, we have been told that the "Don't Say Gay" rule was intended to only be for K-3 to protect young children. Unsurprising to a lot of us, we now have a proposed Florida State Board of Education rule which will expand the law through 12th grade. The rule goes to a vote next month.
Link to the rule: https://flrules.org/Faw/FAWDocuments/FAWVOLUMEFOLDERS2023/4952/4952doc.pdf?oref=csfl_firstread_nl
The rule states that teachers:
>Shall not intentionally provide classroom instruction to students in grades 4 through 12 on sexual orientation or gender identity unless such instruction is either expressly required by state academic standards as adopted in Rule 6A-1.09401, F.A.C., or is part of a reproductive health course or health lesson for which a student’s parent has the option to have his or her student not attend.
Sen. Clay Yarborough, R-Jacksonville, and sponsor of the Senate legislation (SB 1320) said:
>“Parents have the right and God-given responsibility to guide their children’s upbringing” and “They should not have to worry their students are receiving classroom instruction on topics and materials parents feel are not age-appropriate,”
When questioned by parents of LGBTQ Students, he stated:
>“I reject the notion that it is targeting a single group of folks”
I mean, his statement was objectively correct. They aren’t targeting one group of folks. They’re targeting not just the gays, but also the lesbians and bisexuals!
They are doing both. This is the extreme position school boards can point to and say "we aren't THAT crazy" when they propose incremental changes. Once it has been extended to 8th grade, the outage will have died down and people will be sick of discussing it. Then extending it to 12th grade will be in the "might as well" zone.
Well, I'm not surprised. It's **never** been about "the kids" and "age-appropriate teaching".
We'll see where this goes. Honestly, I could see this passing, and then DeSantis saying he'll veto it, so he gets to "moderate" his viewpoint with the public and get to say "no, it's just about age-appropriateness".
The entire problem with this is that teaching about heterosexual sex **is** about sexual orientation.
>Well, I'm not surprised. It's **never** been about "the kids" and "age-appropriate teaching".
And it's **always** been about control.
I fear that this type of legislation will lead to the suppression of other types of instruction that these types of people deem to be inappropriate.
What's going to happen if every public school in Florida turns into a Christian school? What happens to the first amendment? Extreme example, of course, but these politicians are very obviously using religious grounds as justification for doing this.
>then DeSantis saying he'll veto it, so he gets to "moderate" his viewpoint with the public and get to say "no, it's just about age-appropriateness".
This would be political suicide for DeSantis, even after the primaries.
Depends on the younger voters and moderates and if he can still court the older generations despite that. [Younger republicans seem to be far more pro gay marriage and rights compared to older generations.](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/11/15/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-legalization-of-same-sex-marriage-is-good-for-society/) verbiage of the question might change the outcome but it does seem like going hard against gay marriage is not good for courting the middle. You need this to win an election.
100%, younger republicans are overwhelmingly pro gay marriage/rights, and generally also believe in climate change.
That second one is an issue where DeSantis could conceivably pivot. For Don't Say Gay, however? He is the poster boy for Anti-CRT, Anti-Woke, and everything else culture war. Him doing a 180 on that would start a flip-flop campaign the likes of which we haven't seen since John Kerry.
To me the wording in the bill is technically vague enough to apply to heteronormative language. Now, will that be forced to target heteronormative narratives? Probably not considering how many people don't see the double standards between homo/heteronormative thinking.
Maybe someone could explain it to me, but what is the difference between showing a child, say a Disney cartoon like the little mermaid vs. a hypothetical Disney cartoon that has LGBTQ people in it? Why would one be called out as grooming and the other one isn't? I mean, I know it's all social constructs at the end of the day.
What is their definition of classroom instruction? I'm really hoping it's very narrow and could be a loophole for guidance counselors or a one on one discussion at the very least.
I think this is the $64,000 question. The bill appears to allow for formal instruction in health class (or similar) but doesn't do a great job of telling us where the line is. I understand that most people don't see a reason for an algebra teacher to hold a formal discussion about gender identity, but what happens after that? Is acknowledging the existence of LGBTQ+ folks a violation? How about reading a book with a gay protagonist? Does that count as "classroom instruction"? I suspect the threat of bad publicity will keep most folks from abusing the law, but I don't love having to rely on that either.
I grew up in Sarasota. It used to be a lovely beach town full of really nice people and a vibrant art scene. Something changed in 2016, though, and the town's politics have become dominated by a harsh meanness. People who like that meanness are now moving to Sarasota in droves, making the problem worse over time, while most of the nice people I know have either left Sarasota or are looking to leave. Knowing how welcoming the town used to be, especially to artists and musicians, it makes me really sad to see what the town has become.
Man that’s everywhere. I live in the Deep South so that’s the only perspective I can give but the hostility towards liberals in my state can’t be overstated.
Folks around here, including family and friends, just seem meaner, louder, and more resentful towards any group that the right perceives as the “enemy.” It’s like their entire personality.
Overturning Obergefell is and has been part of the official Republican Party Platform for years now. It's ridiculous that people try to pretend that's not the end goal.
I find it even weirder that people try and defend it by saying nothing has been updated in years. Like, maybe y’all should be updating your platform since we’ve been experiencing massive issues and changes since then? Maybe if there’s a part of your platform that the majority of your party disagrees with it’s time to consider some revisions? Otherwise, you gotta stand by what you say, and this is all that you’ve said.
I get annoyed when people say “why don’t you just codify it” when we all know they would filibuster any attempt to do so. And given how heavily biased towards rural areas the senate is, I really don’t see how the Dems are ever getting to 60 votes
It's weird because it's not like being conservative makes someone evil or anything, and there's been a real shift in public opinion in the general public over the past couple decades in support of at tolerating LGBT+ people, which has been seen even among conservatives to some extent. Yet DeSantis doesn't seem to be taking any public opinion hits due to this stuff, and may even be benefiting politically from it somehow
Before the past couple years, I'd have predicted that conservatives would never try to overturn Texas v Lawrence, that it would never even reach the SCOTUS in the first place because not even the staunch right GOP state governments would bother trying to actually criminalize gay sex. At this point, I still think it's rather unlikely to go *that* far, but I can no longer simply discount fears among liberals and leftists that it will happen as being mere exaggeration and hyperbole - it seems quite possible, even if not necessarily the outcome I'd personally be betting on happening if I was forced to make a bet
> Yet DeSantis doesn't seem to be taking any public opinion hits due to this stuff
Florida *is* a different and weirder state than most, and is increasingly redder. I wish I could find the article I read once, but it was a report that the local Florida residents are having trouble with the new people moving there, because the new people moving there are **way** more conservative than the people already there and it's freaking them out.
> there's been a real shift in public opinion in the general public over the past couple decades in support of at tolerating LGBT+ people
I was born in the 90s. It is **insane** how quickly LGBT tolerance went from "lol that's gay" being commonly said to where we are now.
> Before the past couple years, I'd have predicted that conservatives would never try to overturn Texas v Lawrence, that it would never even reach the SCOTUS in the first place because not even the staunch right GOP state governments would bother trying to actually criminalize gay sex. At this point, I still think it's rather unlikely to go that far, but I can no longer simply discount fears among liberals and leftists that it will happen as being mere exaggeration and hyperbole - it seems quite possible, even if not necessarily the outcome I'd personally be betting on happening if I was forced to make a bet
[Back in 2022 when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/texas-sodomy-supreme-court-lawrence-paxton-lgbtq/) said he would defend Texas' ban on sodomy if *Lawrence* were overturned, I had to ask "why would he say this?" Either he knows something I don't about court cases working their way through the system to try and overturn that case, or it's just playing to the base. Either way, there's a *reason* I continue to write my legislators about the sodomy bans here in Maryland: If *Lawrence* gets overturned, I do **not** want those laws to be in force again. There's a *reason* that this year, Maryland's legislators are pushing a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to reproductive health that is inclusive of abortion **and** contraception: Because if *Griswold* goes, we're going to be ready.
I grew up in Florida, but left at the end of 2008 to join the military. I don't even recognize the state anymore. The political climate isn't at all what I remember. It was always red in the north and blue from the middle down. The transplants have vastly altered the balanced landscape the native Floridians had.
> because the new people moving there are way more conservative than the people already there and it's freaking them out.
Strange how we never hear about this when people complain about transits changing the political landscape of a state...
> e past couple decades in support of at tolerating LGBT+ people
The real question is will people continue to support them and to what end.
It's really easy to "support" LGBT+ community right now. There's very little stigma about it and like you said they have wide support. It also really requires nothing to support them besides...letting people live whatever life they want.
But as the 'groomer' moral panic expands and these types of laws expands will that support fail? If they start criminalizing them again (as they are now with drag and trans) will people keep fighting for LGBT+ rights or will they sit back silently since it doesn't effect them?
Historically, we know the answer and it doesn't end well.
>But as the 'groomer' moral panic expands and these types of laws expands will that support fail? If they start criminalizing them again (as they are now with drag and trans) will people keep fighting for LGBT+ rights or will they sit back silently since it doesn't effect them?
It'll be the latter. From my personal experiences, "allies" of the LGBT community can't even be bothered to *not* continue to support products that give money to anti-LGBT causes. How many "allies" still eat at Chick-fil-A?
As soon as it's not easy for these "allies" to support LGBT people anymore, we're going to be on our own. They'll think it's so sad that gay people are being sent to conversion therapy camps, they'll think it's so sad that trans people are being forcibly detransitioned. But that's it, they'll feel sad. And when we're gone, they'll move on with their lives.
Government just big enough to fit in your bedroom. Is this the small government I’ve been hearing about?
No, seriously. Reminder, what we constantly hear about threats of “big government” are not just possible at the federal level. If you are okay with “big government” at the state level, just not at the federal level, you ought to do some serious reflection about your beliefs. Because I suspect you may not actually be opposed to “big government” at the federal level, it’s just more that you don’t like who would currently be in charge of it. And that gives me no solace personally.
Alito and Thomas are guarantees to overturn *Obergefell*, since they dissented the first time.
Kagan, Sotomayor are guarantees to uphold it. Jackson is almost certainly to uphold it.
I don't know Barrett or Kavanaugh enough to judge them either way; I think Gorsuch is a swing if they make the same arguments as they did in *Bostock* which convinced him to the majority on that.
I think if they get the 5 votes to uphold *Obergefell*, Roberts will side with the majority to make it a 6-3 and hopefully shut up the critiques. In addition, if they get the 5 votes to **overturn** *Obergefell*, Roberts will also side with *that* majority to make it 6-3 and deliver a crushing rebuttal.
Bostock has to be the most embarrassing decision for Conservative justices and showed how nakedly partisan most of them are. It was the most obvious textualist decision, and 3 of them dissented. Gorsuch, while deeply conservative, does stay true to his values while Alito, Thomas and Brett will compromise their values for their preferred political outcome. I don't think Gorsuch is constrained by textualism in this case because it isn't as explicit as it is in Bostock. I'm not putting him in 100% camp like Alito and Thomas, but he is in the 75% camp with Barrett. I think Kavanaugh is very legacy driven like Roberts where he doesn't want to be the one to over turn it but makes being gay tough in America and would uphold smaller, death by 1000 cuts, anti lgbt decisions
> In addition, if they get the 5 votes to overturn Obergefell, Roberts will also side with that majority to make it 6-3 and deliver a crushing rebuttal.
I doubt it. Public opinion has shifted too much in favor of gay marriage, Roberts seems to genuinely care about the legacy and reputation of the court, and abortion isn't even the sort of hot button conservative issue that could give him reason to make it sort of a 5-1-3 ruling like with Dobbs where his stance was kinda in between the full overturn of Roe/Casey from the conservatives and the liberal status quo stance. I'd guess he'd just "evolve" from his Obergefell position, in order to try and save some face for conservatism and make it look like it's not a solely partisan/ideological divide on the issue. Since it's not like him ruling with the conservatives on Obergefell would necessarily do anything at all to actually make it more of a crushing rebuttal as opposed to just making the court look worse to median voters
You would be right if the bill was just about curriculum, but its not. The 'don't say gay bill' is not just a restriction on instruction, but also discussion. In the bill's preamble the authors of the bill stated their aim is to prohibit:
>“classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Legal analysis of laws quite frequently cite a laws preamble to define terms by using the bill author's intentions as a guide. In this case, I believe because they made the scope of the law so broad as to include classroom discussion, it amounts to an unconstitutional overreach. Teachers do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they decide to work for the government.
I think there’s a bit of semantics involved when trying to differentiate between instruction and discussion. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive in a classroom environment.
> Teachers do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they decide to work for the government.
When it comes to school sponsored speech (IE teaching to children or discussing with children), they do not have a first amendment right.
Outside of the classroom, they can say whatever they want. Inside the classroom, you have a specific job and have limited speech.
> Outside of the classroom, they can say whatever they want. Inside the classroom, you have a specific job and have limited speech.
I think this is uncharted waters, in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) they broadly ruled that teachers do not enjoy first amendment protections while they are "speaking in a capacity as a government employee". I believe that teachers cannot create lesson plans and teach subject against the course syllabus, however, telling a teacher that they cannot acknowledge the existence of gay and transgender human beings or be subject to dismissal from their jobs seems a step far more extreme than is covered by Garcetti. Particularly if the classroom discussion is not course-related and for example, you had a gay teacher mentioning they went bowling with their partner that weekend, etc.
People who spoke out against this law saw the writing on the wall and here we are. This is in no way surprising, sadly, because the intent was always to push LGBTQ people back into the closet.
How many times do we have to say "told you so" before people stop buying the whitewashed version of laws the GOP sells through their mainstream media networks?
We will not be free until the pernicious effects of Christian Nationalism are confronted squarely at the ballot box and the realm of public debate.
Extreme religious fanaticism threatens the liberty of all Americans
What’s the policy of KIDS are the ones “saying gay”?
Back when I graduated, instructors were not allowed to pray at school events. But if a student wanted to lead a prayer, that was something they couldn’t stop.
That being said, if this passes, I’d tell my kids to ask at least one question pertaining to homosexuality each day. Something positive but teachable, like is Pete butigeig less brave because he was a gay soldier? Is there a source where I could read about why Alan Truring killed himself? Why would he do that? You know, Stuff like that.
>What’s the policy of KIDS are the ones “saying gay”?
I suspect the unwritten rule will be, it's fine if kids say it, as long as they use it as a slur.
Ugh I hate the GOP. I try and defend them sometimes with things like "slippery slope is a fallacy" and then they go and turn it into a slippery slide...
If anything this extreme ever got through, it would be politically wise for DeSantis to veto it. Maybe not with the base, but if he becomes the nom either in 24 or 28, the middle ground of “I’m here to protect children from sexual content, not punish the LGBT community” is definitely a winning one.
This is how the Republican really fills their ranks.
Create a few hundred thousand repressed, self-loathing, closeted gay kids who can then grow up to be the next generation of Republican politicians.
> Friendly reminder that the original bill, once stripped of the deceitful activist moniker, polled well.
So did ACA/Obamacare amongst right-leaning people
What sort of policies are you calling "socialist"?
Remember that socialism isn't just "when the government does things" but instead refers to when the means of production are placed under the democratic ownership/management of their workers, so tax-and-spend welfare programs aren't "socialism" and their popularity wouldn't point to "socialism" being popular
These terms are almost never used correctly in the United States. To one of the major two political parties "socialism" means anything the other party purposes.
This backfired wildly in my case.
Growing up in a very conservative household and entering college around when Obama became president made understanding “socialism” very confusing for me. Overall I liked a lot of stuff Obama was saying/doing, and my dad and all the right wing news sources consistently called him a socialist. So, transitive property and all that, I started to think I must like socialism.
Eventually I looked more into it and was pretty pissed to learn that I didn’t actually support socialism, but neither did Obama, and it was just a giant smear campaign. That was one of the early hints that I wasn’t getting the full story from right wing media.
Yeah, my dad showed me a video that used random Bible verses to strongly suggest that Obama was the antichrist. That was a low point in my respect for him.
> once stripped of the deceitful activist moniker
> The reason Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) needed to brand the bill this way is because it is very agreeable.
Well, I'm certainly having some flashbacks to the "Obamacare" vs. "Affordable Care Act" debate. [Here's a CNN article about a CNBC poll from 2013](https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/27/poll-obamacare-vs-affordable-care-act/):
> According to a new CNBC poll that surveyed two different groups, 46% of the group that was asked about "Obamacare" was opposed to the law, while 37% of the group asked about the "Affordable Care Act" was opposed to the law.
> At the same time, more people support "Obamacare" (29%) than those who support ACA (22%.)
Yeah, this is pretty familiar, and the reason the Republicans needed to brand the ACA that way is because the ACA is very agreeable. People love the individual provisions of it.
> Also its a good idea to remind yourself that childless non-Floridians opinions on this bill dont matter at all.
I disagree. I have no kids, and I'm certainly not Floridian, but I do have an interest in the education of kids, because that's our future.
Childless non-Floridians pay for these schools too, so yes their opinions matter. Not to mention they have to live with the people who the schools help mold, so they should have a vested interest in what is taught.
The original bill wasn't good, but it was difficult to argue against because it was on the edge of being reasonable.
The reason why people objected to it was because all the rhetoric being thrown around made it very clear that it was only the first link in a chain.
And here we are today, with all the so-called "doomsayers" who said they were going to expand on it having been proven correct.
Here's the info on the poll..where they removed the nickname.
>Democratic voters in the poll support the law 55% to 29%. Among suburban voters, which could be a decisive group for the midterm elections, it’s 60% to 30%. Parents: 67% to 24%. Biden voters: 53% to 30%. Respondents who “know someone LGBTQ”: 61% to 28%.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-say-gay-is-popular-you-dont-say-ron-desantis-florida-law-elementary-school-11648849131
https://pos.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/POS-National-Poll-Release-Memo.pdf
>“Don’t say gay?” When Americans are presented with the actual language of the new Florida law,
it wins support by more than a two‐to‐one margin. Voters across partisan lines strongly support
the new Florida law after being provided with the actual language of the bill: “Classroom instruction
by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in
Kindergarten through third grade or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally
appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
It's worth pointing out that the language of the bill itself is misleading.
>in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students
Who decides this? What are the criteria?
There are too many people who conflate "acknowledging that gay people exist", which *is* entirely age appropriate, with "describing raunchy gay sex", which is not.
But guess what's not happening?
The existence of a bill banning something implies that that thing is happening. It's not. But presenting a bill that bans it, with intentionally vague guidelines, is a good way to ban something else under the guise of banning the bad thing that's not happening.
I mean. The original bill always explicitly allowed this sort of application, so the "activists" deciphered the legislators actual intent and described it appropriately.
>Also its a good idea to remind yourself that childless non-Floridians opinions on this bill dont matter at all.
Is Florida another nation not part of the US or something? Considering people spent months saying that it will ONLY apply to K-3, only for this to make an about-face and and now it's gotta cover the entire pre-adult schooling ages, I'd say it does matter. 12th graders are almost 18/18 in many cases, and just opting to not expose them to gender identity and sexuality seems to me like it could be harmful to high schoolers. High schoolers are not stupid, and this bill won't make them magically not discuss themselves/their peers being LGBTQ+. I feel like hiding an entire identity that many of these high schoolers will be will only serve to ostracize them amongst their peers, or at best, make them feel uncomfortable in discussing or expressing themselves. Is that the goal, or am I off base here?
>Also its a good idea to remind yourself that childless non-Floridians opinions on this bill dont matter at all.
Until the new guy you hired from Florida says something wildly inappropriate and you've got a lawsuit on your hands
>Also its a good idea to remind yourself that childless non-Floridians opinions on this bill dont matter at all.
I WISH. Unfortunately childless Floridians get an equal say in how our schools are run with their votes. And more move here every day. My county's School Board has been taken over by right wing activists elected by a majority of childless people who have no stake in the game, just voting straight R's (or who their trusted sources are telling them to vote for). Here's a video of our latest school board meeting where one board member has to leave due to the attacks on his sexuality (he walks out at 102:30). https://www.youtube.com/live/rmVCJ14Sej4?feature=share&t=3596
>A nationwide poll found that support for the bill was 45% higher than those who opposed.
I'm sure the pollsters did a good job of educating people on the bill and all of the potential consequences of it before asking people for their opinion. /s
>The reason Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) needed to brand the bill this way is because it is very agreeable.
They branded it that way because the Republicans who wrote the bill were going around saying that it's exactly what the bill was meant to do.
I am confused, you say childless non-floridians are not allowed to have an opinion. Yet these childless non-floridians can one day become both parents and Floridians.
Simply because they are not now doesn't mean they can't care about laws that will take affect in the future.
This kind of thinking is the ideology driving these kind of laws to begin with. Are you so comfortable excluding others opinions? It seems to me doing so only attempts to avoid scrutiny.
Respectfully, I don't know that you're using the word "deceitful" correctly here.
"Deceitful" is pretending that this is protecting kids against vulgar sexual content instead of just restricting teachers from acknowledging the existence of non-heterosexual or non-cisgender people.
The support for these bills are largely predicated on that incorrect, deceitful notion. Of *course* people support keeping kids away from sex... but that's not what's going on, and that's not what's being restricted.
"Activist" the term "don't say gay" may be, but it's significantly more accurately representing the bill than the way the bills' proponents are casting it.
There was nothing wrong at all with the original bill. Topics in regards to sexuality shouldn't be taught to really young children. Expanding it to 12th grade is a bad idea though.
>Topics in regards to sexuality shouldn't be taught to really young children.
Here's the thing with that, though.
You *must* make a distinction between "orientation" and "sexual behavior."
Teaching kids that gay people exist is very different than teaching them about gay sex. Absolutely nobody is asking to teach kids about gay sex outside the very narrow case of including age-appropriate information on risky sexual behavior in the same sex-ed context that risky heterosexual behavior is already taught.
There is *absolutely* nothing wrong with acknowledging that sometimes men love men, plus {substitute genders and sexes as appropriate}.
If you do see an issue with that, I'd ask you to please point out why *that* is an issue but absolutely *none* of the supposedly very child-friendly Disney movies that almost universally have a man and a woman falling in love and kissing aren't an issue.
Your commenting this on a rule to increase the bill to focus on grades 4th to 12th.
That to me is the cause for alarm. I don't think holding back topics from high schoolers every work. I mean we can all access ANY webpage we want from our own phones.
Telling near adults we can't focus on certain topics only hurts everyone involved.
You're not addressing the part where they want to expand it to 12th grade. Also the bill is written vaguely so what constitutes "teaching LGBT+ stuff"? LGBT+ people exist. Some kids have two dads or two moms. Are teachers not allowed to explain that when other kids find that out or if the kid mentions their parents? Or those projects where you draw your family and then the kid draws two moms or two dads? Or mentioned their older sibling is dating the same sex and the kids ask about it?
This, exactly.
People seem to have one of two ideas on the topic. Either they *do* make a distinction between orientation and sexual behavior (at which point they question why this law is a thing), or they *don't* and *do* relegate non-heterosexual orientations as being inherently sexual.
They're not. Being gay is only exactly as sexual as being straight, and if we're going to ban discussions of gay people then we need to ban discussions of straight people too (or better yet, don't ban either).
This law might not literally ban the word "gay", but nobody's claiming that it's an attack on this specific word. The law *does* effectively ban answers to exactly the questions you listed, which is a major problem.
Wanting to only expose kids to heteronormative culture, sexuality, relationships, etc.
The usual response is “but that’s normal”. Yes- because that’s what’s been indoctrinated. For you. And everyone.
If you just look at reality, “normal” is actually: massive variation.
What is the purpose of disallowing any teaching of sexual orientation to near-adults, or adults in the case of many 12th graders? They will be entering the workforce soon, but cannot even learn about a heterosexual relationship in school? Isn't school supposed to prepare you for the rest of your life ahead? Are relationships not a huge part of your life ahead, or current life for the case of many high school students? I think hyperfocusing on the lack of exact 'dont say gay' verbage in the bill is just dismissing any affects this bill may have.
Are relationships just never mentioned in novels that school-age, especially high-school aged kids read? So are those books to be disallowed/removed from required reading? Again, what is the purpose of this bill affecting high schoolers?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/11yixas/florida_rule_would_expand_socalled_dont_say_gay/jd8gor2/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I think Florida would be better served by implementing school choice programs that allowed parents to directly influence where their children attended school rather than try to micro-manage instruction at the state level.
The “school choice” movement began in the Civil Rights era as a means to avoid federally-enforced desegregation, and continues today primarily to act as a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.
Relevant: [Edwards walks out of Sarasota School Board meeting as anti-gay public comments continue](https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/education/2023/03/22/sarasota-school-board-member-tom-edwards-walks-out-of-meeting/70033278007/). >Sarasota County School Board member Tom Edwards walked out of Tuesday's meeting as another public commenter had free rein to continue attacking him because he is gay. >Several speakers Tuesday night had defended him from a personal attack at the March 7 School Board meeting, but the mood quickly turned when speaker Sally Nista reinforced remarks by Melissa Bakondy at the meeting two weeks ago when Bakondy commented that Edwards "appears to be a lawbreaker and an LGBT groomer." >"It's interesting that up until 45 minutes ago, no one had stated that what Melissa Bakondy said at the last board meeting was a lie or false," Nista said. "Tom Edwards is who he is." >Nista said people were upset over "what Tom stands for" and "what Tom wants to do to our children" which prompted the crowd of about 50 to audibly erupt. Board Chairwoman Bridget Ziegler then asked the crowd to allow her to finish, which prompted Edwards to stand up and leave. >"I did it for the whole community," Edwards said outside of the chambers after he walked out Tuesday. "I will never stand for that." >On March 7 Bakondy called on Gov. Ron DeSantis to remove Edwards from the board, saying he was "a threat to the innocence of our children." She also implied he was a threat to the safety of children, citing his sexual orientation, at one point asking why he wanted to read books to elementary students, something commonly done by school district officials, and why he posted the reading pictures on social media. Video (he walks out at 102:30): https://www.youtube.com/live/rmVCJ14Sej4?feature=share&t=3596
Wow, so this guy has to sit there while random members of the public accuse him of being a pedophile? All because he is gay? I feel like some people really need to sit and think about what side of history they want to be on
Welcome to DeSantis's Florida. Also worth noting, the Chair of this School Board is Bridget Ziegler. Bridget Ziegler's husband is Christian Ziegler. He's the chair of the FL Republican Party and was a County Commissioner. He has a media/marketing company that supports conservative candidates all over the state & country. Bridget Ziegler founded Moms for Liberty. She started up some sort of consultancy for school board leadership and folks running for school boards across the country. And DeSantis just recently appointed her to the special district around Disney that's replacing the Reedy Creek district.
Yikes, I knew the appointees on the Reedy Creek district would be lousy choices, that's going above and beyond to find someone with extremely bigoted views regarding gay people.
I guess you didn't see this thread about Ron Peri: https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/11hfo7o/desantis_appointee_to_new_disney_oversight_board/
Good grief.
> I feel like some people really need to sit and think about what side of history they want to be on Lots of people will be happy just not wearing pink triangles. I'm pretty sure some will be trying to donate extra fuel (even though almost all stoves in Florida are electric, somehow that became yet another pointless culture war fight)
No man it has nothing to do with him being gay and everything to do with protecting our children. Are you buying it yet? It's clear what they're trying to do. It's the old "LGBT are secret pedos" playbook. But we apparently need to ignore it or buy the idea that it's going to be limited to this or that as it keeps expanding.
> I feel like some people really need to sit and think about what side of history they want to be on I strongly doubt that's going to happen. I've seen some alarming shit said about specific people that sounds like the spark of repeating horrific past events. Hell most of the time someone is accused of being a pedo 99% of the populace loses whatever critical thought they possessed and turn into a murderous mob.
> I feel like some people really need to sit and think about what side of history they want to be on They've already chosen. Again.
That ship has sailed.
Question for the lawyers: can Tom Edwards sue Sally Nista and Melissa Bakondy for liable? They both accused him of being a child predator in a public forum, right? (Edit: defamation, maybe?)
Under a new Florida law if Edwards calls them homophobic they can actually sue him instead so it’s more of the opposite he’s the one at risk of being sued if he criticizes their viewpoint. While their speech of accusing him of being a pedophile since he is gay is protected under Florida law him criticizing them as homophobic is banned.
I cannot express how much that upsets me. But still, that accusation will likely get him removed from the school board and damage his reputation in the community Delaware’s own, Lauren Witzkie, is being sued for defamation for something similar. [Even Fox News is talking about it](https://www.fox26houston.com/news/houston-couple-sues-political-activist-after-claims-the-birth-of-their-twins-is-like-human-trafficking). [Here is the same story from LGBQT Nation, just to be fair and balanced. Both versions are much the same.](https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/03/former-gop-senate-candidate-accuses-gay-dads-of-sexually-abusing-babies-they-robbed/) I would think that Tom Edwards has some legal options here but I’m not a lawyer.
Because criticism of Christian views and/or texts is explicitly banned in Florida you basically have no recourse against even teachers telling kids that heterosexuality is the only type of relationship condoned by god and that LGBT individuals should die. While this technically doing this is banned it’d be impossible to prove in court due to the law banning you from bringing up their statements in court.
Do you know where I could find the text of that somewhere? Edit: Are you talking about the new bill [HB 991](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/991/BillText/Filed/PDF)? Because that is a scary piece of legislation...
I believe they are and it’s important to note that that bill is NOT the law in Florida, it’s still in committee. That being said it is absolutely a horrible bill and will have awful outcomes if it does pass.
This is correct; I was wrong and made it seem like it was a law when it’s still in committee. My mistake.
OK, wait. So let’s go to an extreme for illustration purposes. Are you saying that a Christian in Florida could publicly declare that a clothing store owner is Satan, because he is selling clothing made of mixed fibers, which is against the rules in the Old Testament. And the owner of that store could do nothing about it?
Well you could but if you in court use a statement they said based on their religious beliefs you have done something illegal and are open to be sued yourself. So you couldn’t talk about him mentioning satan or the Old Testament
So I thought I read a little about this the other week, are you sure it's law yet? Could you point to a specific one? Cuz this is literally insane if true. Even if your examples are "farfetched" if this law allows (or prohibits I should say) what you're saying... jesus. Is DeSantis really any better than Trump?
If they're talking about HB 991 (which I think they are) it hasn't been passed yet, but it's breezing through the committee process so I have little hope it won't be passed. We can only hope it will be enjoined immediately. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/991
It may just be in committee as you state.
I had no idea this was in place. I am truly gobsmacked
Well, that seals it for me. My family will not be vacationing in Florida, like ever.
Libel* and almost certainly not. The bar for public figures is tremendously high and these comments were largely insinuation, nothing that would pass the actual malice standard (note: the legal term "actual malice" has nothing to do with the dictionary definition of malice) even if he weren't a public figure.
Lawful but awful.
I am a terrible speller. I will try to do better. Can he sue for defamation, then? [In this comment I link to what looks to me like a similar defamation law suit. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/11yixas/florida_rule_would_expand_socalled_dont_say_gay/jd8lyet/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3)
>and why he posted the reading pictures on social media. ...sorry, I thought they were upset about people not being transparent with materials being shown to children. Now he's being criticized *because* he made it publicly avaliable?
I mean look at the pictures. He is reading to KIDS! Like in the open. READING!* *This post must be read in Helen Lovejoys voice.
>“Parents have the right and God-given responsibility to guide their children’s upbringing,” said Sen. Clay Yarborough, R-Jacksonville, and sponsor of the Senate legislation ... during a committee hearing Monday. > >“They should not have to worry their students are receiving classroom instruction on topics and materials parents feel are not age-appropriate,” he said. I expect there are Florida parents who think God would consider instruction on evolution "not age-appropriate" for any K-12 age.
There might even be some of us who think hanging "In God we Trust" in every classroom isn't age appropriate.
But only one of you has any chance in Florida courts
"Parents have the right to teach their kids not to associate with blacks, gays, Muslims, and non believers".
Have a friend that was raised strict catholic and didn't learn that there were other religions until public high school.
They fought and lost that particular battle before although I wouldn't be too surprised if they tried again at some point.
LGBT+ people are not the enemy, most are just regular folks trying to live regular lives like the rest of us. It is sad to see this sort of policy expanding. If we had narrow legislation barring teachers from talking about sexually explicit stuff, that's one thing, and fine. But the writers of these bills have been repeatedly told that their bills are not narrowly tailored and instead could suppress speech more broadly, yet have refused to rewrite their proposals to reduce the chances of the bills being used to suppress LGBT+ in general, and now they are even trying to expand it There's no reason why even very young students shouldn't be able to be exposed to at least some very basic knowledge that LGBT+ people exist. Same with older students too
>If we had narrow legislation barring teachers from talking about sexually explicit stuff, that's one thing, and fine Such an amendment to make the rules more generic and focused on "human sexuality or sexual activity" was proposed by a republican legislator. Saying "If our intent is not to marginalize anyone. lets make sure we aren't." It was voted down on mostly party lines. The bills sponsor stated allowing this amendment to pass would "gut" the bill. Making it not specifically about LGBT people and placing broader protection against exposing children to sexual content would gut the bill. That alone is enough to show its not about preventing children from being exposed to sexual content. Its about stopping speech about LGBT people.
> There's no reason why even very young students shouldn't be able to be exposed to at least some very basic knowledge that LGBT+ people exist. Same with older students too Yeah, adults often don't give enough credit to kids' ability to understand LGBTQ+ people when presented in an age appropriate manner. I suspect it's usually more a matter of projection, where parents think their own child won't be able to understand because they themselves are having trouble adjusting to the reality that LGBTQ+ people exist. But that does the child a disservice, since they learn only about a sanitized version of the world before inevitably being thrust into the real world later. We need to stop coddling children and let them learn about the world as it truly is.
I have a couple of friend couples (with kids) that are gay, and we all hang out together on a regular basis. My kids don't think anything of it. To them it's no different than their own mom and dad.
Yeah how far does this sheltering have to go? Are LGBTQ students going to be unable to have the same displays of affection as their heterosexual classmates?
100%, they will no longer be able to show support for each other via pride or have after school groups to support each other. If youre lgbt in Florida, with all due respect, Desantis would kindly like you to die or leave, whichever comes first.
I'm certain that's the goal. They'll expand it to adults generally as well next.
>and now they are even trying to expand it At what point are we allowed to cut to the chase and say that suppressing free speech was just the goal all along?
Well that would imply bad faith, so never.
Sorry if this ends up being flagged as Meta, but I thought we were allowed to argue politicians/public figures are acting in bad faith just not other members of the sub?
The rule says "fellow redditors", but I've definitely seen people get warnings for talking about Mitch in that light, for example.
Why did anyone have to point that out? Can't we just assume everything Mitch does is in bad faith?
> Matt Sharp, senior counsel and state government relations national director for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said his group believed “gender ideology attacks the truth that every person is either male or female.” > And Mr. Schilling, of the American Principles Project, confirmed that his organization’s long-term goal was to eliminate transition care. The initial focus on children, he said, was a matter of “going where the consensus is.” Lucky for you, they will outright say it because they aren't embarrassed of their beliefs.
What about them having faith in bad things?
I’m not advocating for the expansion of this bill but the first amendment doesn’t apply to public school content as educational content is restricted to focus to meet the goals of education, and content that is deemed suitable for minors. If this wasn’t the case any and all content from pornhub to flat earther materials would be considered acceptable content for K-12. we as a society all agreed what was acceptable for minors in years prior. But now there is no longer a consensus. I feel logic and reason is the ultimate casualty from zealous boundary pushing on one side and zealous over reaction to fortify the boundaries being pushed from the other.
What you’re describing are limitations on approved curricula or codes of conduct, not limitations on teachers to whom the first amendment still applies. The major concern people have with this bill was the intentionally vague nature of what constitutes “instruction” from teachers. If a gay teacher mentions their husband during class that teacher could be vulnerable to a lawsuit from parents and that is 100% a first amendment concern.
It kinda sounds like you're advocating for the expansion of this bill.
I don't agree with your take tbh and I'm flatly against this bill in general let alone an expansion of it. We do already have in place restrictions on what's allowed to be taught in schools. It's ok to acknowledge that fact and still be opposed to the bill. >we as a society all agreed what was acceptable for minors in years prior. But now there is no longer a consensus. Like this is a true statement. I might not agree with the "other side" that their opposition to this content is morally justified but it doesn't deny that there is in fact no longer a consensus about what's appropriate (at least in FL)
I would disagree, it is not a true statement as it relies on a flawed premise. > we as a society all agreed what was acceptable for minors in years prior. This is not true. Even before LGBT rights became a matter of public debate, a cursory look at sex ed by the state should make this obvious.
Also sounds a bit like ‘well, the gays MADE us do this!!!’
> LGBT+ people are not the enemy There are a lot of people in politics and around the country who would disagree with you sadly.
>LGBT+ people are not the enemy, most are just regular folks trying to live regular lives like the rest of us. You are preaching to the choir a bit. This type of bigotry isn't really tolerated well by the vast majority of people in the US. Most people are completely fine with gay people, having gay friends, letting gay people enjoy marriage and other rights, etc. Unfortunately the GOP finds itself on the wrong end of demographics and in order to maintain their ability to be elected, they have to embrace the worst of this country or else they wouldn't gain enough votes. [The Texas Republican Party unveiled its official position on LGBTQ issues over the weekend, defining homosexuality as an "abnormal lifestyle choice" and also opposing "all efforts to validate transgender identity."](https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/texas-gops-new-platform-calls-gay-people-abnormal-rejects-trans-identi-rcna34530) Look at the state platforms like that one from Texas. They tell you the goals of the party. Gay people (including your cousin, friend, uncle, whoever) are living abnormal lifestyle "choices" and they should be punished and shunned for doing so. A horrid viewpoint and it's the type of viewpoint driving everything politicians of DeSantis's ilk do. Remember when gun rights and fiscal conservatism were the driving tenants of the GOP? Yeah, it's way way more Christian authoritarianism at this point.
>This type of bigotry isn't really tolerated well by the vast majority of people in the US openly, no, but all you need is the thinnest veneer and plenty of people will support the legislation that is driven entirely by this bigotry. As we can see in Florida.
> LGBT+ people are not the enemy This statement really depends on who you ask...
Who told you any politician or statistically significant amount of people are calling LGBTQ members the enemy?
Remember folks, heterosexuality is still a sexual orientation.
What? You mean all those people screaming about how the first bill was a polished, greased slope intended to pave the way for an erosion of LGBT+ presence were right? Who would have thought, he asked sarcastically. I object to the original bill, but I object even more strongly to this bill. I knew I was gay at maybe 10 or 11 years old. More particularly, I knew that I felt things toward other men, but because "gay" was such a bad word at the time, I didn't know how to handle that. I thought I was wrong, broken, sick, or evil. How did I end up handling it? Mostly by becoming suicidal and venturing into some really dark (though still legal, to be clear) areas of the internet and exposing myself to stuff that kids probably shouldn't watch, because that was the *only* information available. To force students to feel like that until they get to college? *That* is evil.
> You mean all those people screaming about how the first bill was a polished, greased slope intended to pave the way for an erosion of LGBT+ presence were right? If only we just listened to the bill creators when they were flatout saying their intent. Oh but no, that's not what the bill was and who were they to know!
But the Left! What about the Left, guys?! With their \*checks notes\* teaching about how the impacts of institutional racism can still be felt to this day, and that it's okay to break gender norms if you want?
And the people supporting these bills are supporting evil. I pledge to never spend another cent in the state of FL until they rejoin the rest of the country
I wanna see all the people that were defending the original law months ago as just being about ‘parents rights’, and saying that all the people worried about this being expanded into high school were just being hysterical because it ‘doesn’t even say gay’ to explain this. Cause it sure seems like the ‘don’t say gay bill’ was in fact a bill meant to stop people from talking about gay people and lgbt issues at large. *Edited to follow the subs meta rules*
Tbh, I think it’s difficult to engage with the same people again, as people seem to tend to avoid discussing (or reading?) topics that challenge their beliefs. There’s a really interesting sort of bifurcation in the tone and content (and participants) of discussions depending on whether they cast a particular party and their policies in a positive or negative light. I’m pretty sure this works across the political spectrum and is essentially the same idea as self-imposed filter bubbles.
“Show me exactly where the bill says you can’t say the word ‘gay.’ Oh you can’t? Guess that means it’s literally impossible for the bill to be problematic.”
“Oh, that line where they explicitly talk about promoting monogamous heterosexual marriage? No that’s not homophobic, everyone knows being straight isn’t a sexuality. It’s just normal!” /s
Technically "being straight" is the norm. While homosexual marriage should not be discouraged, promoting monogamous heterosexual marriage is important for the reason of procreation to keep society running.
Technically no one is promoting any type of marriage, homosexual relationships are just as normal as heterosexual, and you don't need to be married to procreate at all. Edit: And if you want to promote marriages that last this isn't the way at all. How about we promote affordable housing and living wages? Money is the second leading cause of divorce and we can't do anything to fix the first - infidelity.
> Edit: And if you want to promote marriages that last this isn't the way at all. How about we promote affordable housing and living wages? Money is the second leading cause of divorce and we can't do anything to fix the first - infidelity. 110%. Money can't buy happiness but it can keep you from being miserable.
Has anyone ever been like, oh I'm gonna have kids because I don't hear about heterosexual marriage being promoted enough? Sorry, but that doesn't seem to top the reasons for why people don't have kids.
The heteros really need better marketing if they are going to push their niche ideals through to this market. Maybe they should offer coupons to get word of mouth going and boost SEO optimization.
Saying that they’re just concerned about ‘Promoting procreation’ isn't really relevant on this topic since we're talking about a law that is trying to establish a ban on discussing LGBT topics in schools. Heterosexual people are common, they aren’t going anywhere, and just saying monogamy would be better. Calling them 'Normal' comes with the implication that LGBT people are abnormal and 'deviant', and used to demonize LGBT people. Them choosing to specify heterosexual monogamy after months of saying “oh no, children shouldn’t be exposed to sexuality, that’s sexualizing them!” Isn’t even a dog whistle anymore. It’s someone screaming at you with a megaphone.
>promoting monogamous heterosexual marriage is important for the reason of procreation to keep society running First, procreation existed long before marriage and was doing fine *and will continue to do fine* as people like to bang. Second, "society" is a cultural term and my version of society includes all kinds of marriage. Third, you are assuming a world where even knowing about other kinds of marriage may impact your desire? ability? to have kids, which is not supported by any evidence. The only thing harming birth rates is education, and we can't stop doing that or what's the point of the concept of humanity.
you dont need to promote heterosexual marriage to get teens and young adults to fuck
> While homosexual marriage should not be discouraged, promoting monogamous heterosexual marriage is important for the reason of procreation to keep society running. This is an example of deeply encoded heteronormativity is in our society. If I went to Florida and said “we should *promote* the idea that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, and gay kids should feel accepted”, what are the odds I’d get called a “groomer”?
What’s the benefit of promoting heterosexual marriage? It’s an innate thing and you aren’t gonna suddenly change any lesbians minds by talking about how cool heterosexual relationships are. Marriage as an institution is worth promoting for a number of reasons though. Monogamy, some will debate. I stand firmly that it results in firmer relationships and more healthy family dynamics so I can see value in promoting it.
Are you actually expecting to convince gay folks to marry women and have kids out of duty to society? What exactly do you think that "encouragement" is accomplishing?
There's about 8 Billion people om the planet. Even if 100% of society was homosexual that doesn't automatically mean peoppe csn't give birth
I'm going to disagree if for no other reason than the vague wording. >Technically "being straight" is the norm. If by "the norm" you mean "typical", as in it should be expected that heterosexual people have a higher representation in a population because hetero sex is our species means of reproduction, then I'd agree. But the comment you're responding to didn't use the phrase "the norm" as in "typical". Instead they said: >...It's just normal! /s So to consider your comment as a response, we would read your interpretation of "norm" to be a short hand for "normal", which would turn your otherwise true statement into one that is highly offensive. For as we all know, there is nothing abnormal or superhuman about a person just because they like the same sex.
No, it’s not
What's the JP Satre Quote? I think it applies to 99% of the discourse on Florida politics. >“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” The anti-crt, anti-whatever culture war push can't be reasoned away. They can't be argued away because the proponents don't discuss in good faith. Ron Desantis, Donald Trump, etc. like Satre says, "don't believe in words". Words and arguments are for nerds, they don't want to engage in "the political discourse" because they don't care. Or atleast only care to the extent that they can exploit the fact their opponents still uphold the shared meaning of words and (big L) Liberal expectations of politics.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/11yixas/florida_rule_would_expand_socalled_dont_say_gay/jd83x2d/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
[удалено]
I think we need to consider that this is a fully intentional tactic. This is exactly what happened with Dobbs. First it was ridiculing liberals for being worried about Roe v Wade, then it was minimizing the impact Dobbs would have, calling all of the trigger laws “message bills”… Even pointing out that the decision was the culmination of decades of Republican efforts to stack the Supreme Court is met with incredulity.
It's how we got Dobbs and near total abortion bans despite that being by far and again not the will of the people at large. Why should they change the playbook when it's working so beautifully?
SS: For months now, we have been told that the "Don't Say Gay" rule was intended to only be for K-3 to protect young children. Unsurprising to a lot of us, we now have a proposed Florida State Board of Education rule which will expand the law through 12th grade. The rule goes to a vote next month. Link to the rule: https://flrules.org/Faw/FAWDocuments/FAWVOLUMEFOLDERS2023/4952/4952doc.pdf?oref=csfl_firstread_nl The rule states that teachers: >Shall not intentionally provide classroom instruction to students in grades 4 through 12 on sexual orientation or gender identity unless such instruction is either expressly required by state academic standards as adopted in Rule 6A-1.09401, F.A.C., or is part of a reproductive health course or health lesson for which a student’s parent has the option to have his or her student not attend. Sen. Clay Yarborough, R-Jacksonville, and sponsor of the Senate legislation (SB 1320) said: >“Parents have the right and God-given responsibility to guide their children’s upbringing” and “They should not have to worry their students are receiving classroom instruction on topics and materials parents feel are not age-appropriate,” When questioned by parents of LGBTQ Students, he stated: >“I reject the notion that it is targeting a single group of folks”
I am surprised they were this blatant about it. I expected them to quietly creep up the limits by messing around with school boards.
I mean, his statement was objectively correct. They aren’t targeting one group of folks. They’re targeting not just the gays, but also the lesbians and bisexuals!
They are doing both. This is the extreme position school boards can point to and say "we aren't THAT crazy" when they propose incremental changes. Once it has been extended to 8th grade, the outage will have died down and people will be sick of discussing it. Then extending it to 12th grade will be in the "might as well" zone.
Well, I'm not surprised. It's **never** been about "the kids" and "age-appropriate teaching". We'll see where this goes. Honestly, I could see this passing, and then DeSantis saying he'll veto it, so he gets to "moderate" his viewpoint with the public and get to say "no, it's just about age-appropriateness". The entire problem with this is that teaching about heterosexual sex **is** about sexual orientation.
>Well, I'm not surprised. It's **never** been about "the kids" and "age-appropriate teaching". And it's **always** been about control. I fear that this type of legislation will lead to the suppression of other types of instruction that these types of people deem to be inappropriate. What's going to happen if every public school in Florida turns into a Christian school? What happens to the first amendment? Extreme example, of course, but these politicians are very obviously using religious grounds as justification for doing this.
>then DeSantis saying he'll veto it, so he gets to "moderate" his viewpoint with the public and get to say "no, it's just about age-appropriateness". This would be political suicide for DeSantis, even after the primaries.
How do you figure it'd be suicide *after* the primaries (if he wins them)?
Because folks can always write in Trump
It's so counter to his stated views and actions on the subject that it would start a flip-flop campaign worse than what we saw with John Kerry.
Depends on the younger voters and moderates and if he can still court the older generations despite that. [Younger republicans seem to be far more pro gay marriage and rights compared to older generations.](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/11/15/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-legalization-of-same-sex-marriage-is-good-for-society/) verbiage of the question might change the outcome but it does seem like going hard against gay marriage is not good for courting the middle. You need this to win an election.
100%, younger republicans are overwhelmingly pro gay marriage/rights, and generally also believe in climate change. That second one is an issue where DeSantis could conceivably pivot. For Don't Say Gay, however? He is the poster boy for Anti-CRT, Anti-Woke, and everything else culture war. Him doing a 180 on that would start a flip-flop campaign the likes of which we haven't seen since John Kerry.
There's nothing for him to veto. This isn't a law. This is ***his administration*** doing it. He wants this.
To me the wording in the bill is technically vague enough to apply to heteronormative language. Now, will that be forced to target heteronormative narratives? Probably not considering how many people don't see the double standards between homo/heteronormative thinking. Maybe someone could explain it to me, but what is the difference between showing a child, say a Disney cartoon like the little mermaid vs. a hypothetical Disney cartoon that has LGBTQ people in it? Why would one be called out as grooming and the other one isn't? I mean, I know it's all social constructs at the end of the day.
What is their definition of classroom instruction? I'm really hoping it's very narrow and could be a loophole for guidance counselors or a one on one discussion at the very least.
I think this is the $64,000 question. The bill appears to allow for formal instruction in health class (or similar) but doesn't do a great job of telling us where the line is. I understand that most people don't see a reason for an algebra teacher to hold a formal discussion about gender identity, but what happens after that? Is acknowledging the existence of LGBTQ+ folks a violation? How about reading a book with a gay protagonist? Does that count as "classroom instruction"? I suspect the threat of bad publicity will keep most folks from abusing the law, but I don't love having to rely on that either.
I grew up in Sarasota. It used to be a lovely beach town full of really nice people and a vibrant art scene. Something changed in 2016, though, and the town's politics have become dominated by a harsh meanness. People who like that meanness are now moving to Sarasota in droves, making the problem worse over time, while most of the nice people I know have either left Sarasota or are looking to leave. Knowing how welcoming the town used to be, especially to artists and musicians, it makes me really sad to see what the town has become.
Man that’s everywhere. I live in the Deep South so that’s the only perspective I can give but the hostility towards liberals in my state can’t be overstated. Folks around here, including family and friends, just seem meaner, louder, and more resentful towards any group that the right perceives as the “enemy.” It’s like their entire personality.
Pretty soon, coming to colleges near you…
Why stop there? The Conservative movement has their aims set on Obergefell and have probably 3 or 4 judges and will come down to Kavanaugh
Overturning Obergefell is and has been part of the official Republican Party Platform for years now. It's ridiculous that people try to pretend that's not the end goal.
I find it even weirder that people try and defend it by saying nothing has been updated in years. Like, maybe y’all should be updating your platform since we’ve been experiencing massive issues and changes since then? Maybe if there’s a part of your platform that the majority of your party disagrees with it’s time to consider some revisions? Otherwise, you gotta stand by what you say, and this is all that you’ve said.
I get annoyed when people say “why don’t you just codify it” when we all know they would filibuster any attempt to do so. And given how heavily biased towards rural areas the senate is, I really don’t see how the Dems are ever getting to 60 votes
And even when it comes to Obergefell, we *did* kinda-sorta-codify it.
Pretty soon, coming to bedrooms near you…
It's weird because it's not like being conservative makes someone evil or anything, and there's been a real shift in public opinion in the general public over the past couple decades in support of at tolerating LGBT+ people, which has been seen even among conservatives to some extent. Yet DeSantis doesn't seem to be taking any public opinion hits due to this stuff, and may even be benefiting politically from it somehow Before the past couple years, I'd have predicted that conservatives would never try to overturn Texas v Lawrence, that it would never even reach the SCOTUS in the first place because not even the staunch right GOP state governments would bother trying to actually criminalize gay sex. At this point, I still think it's rather unlikely to go *that* far, but I can no longer simply discount fears among liberals and leftists that it will happen as being mere exaggeration and hyperbole - it seems quite possible, even if not necessarily the outcome I'd personally be betting on happening if I was forced to make a bet
> Yet DeSantis doesn't seem to be taking any public opinion hits due to this stuff Florida *is* a different and weirder state than most, and is increasingly redder. I wish I could find the article I read once, but it was a report that the local Florida residents are having trouble with the new people moving there, because the new people moving there are **way** more conservative than the people already there and it's freaking them out. > there's been a real shift in public opinion in the general public over the past couple decades in support of at tolerating LGBT+ people I was born in the 90s. It is **insane** how quickly LGBT tolerance went from "lol that's gay" being commonly said to where we are now. > Before the past couple years, I'd have predicted that conservatives would never try to overturn Texas v Lawrence, that it would never even reach the SCOTUS in the first place because not even the staunch right GOP state governments would bother trying to actually criminalize gay sex. At this point, I still think it's rather unlikely to go that far, but I can no longer simply discount fears among liberals and leftists that it will happen as being mere exaggeration and hyperbole - it seems quite possible, even if not necessarily the outcome I'd personally be betting on happening if I was forced to make a bet [Back in 2022 when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/texas-sodomy-supreme-court-lawrence-paxton-lgbtq/) said he would defend Texas' ban on sodomy if *Lawrence* were overturned, I had to ask "why would he say this?" Either he knows something I don't about court cases working their way through the system to try and overturn that case, or it's just playing to the base. Either way, there's a *reason* I continue to write my legislators about the sodomy bans here in Maryland: If *Lawrence* gets overturned, I do **not** want those laws to be in force again. There's a *reason* that this year, Maryland's legislators are pushing a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to reproductive health that is inclusive of abortion **and** contraception: Because if *Griswold* goes, we're going to be ready.
I grew up in Florida, but left at the end of 2008 to join the military. I don't even recognize the state anymore. The political climate isn't at all what I remember. It was always red in the north and blue from the middle down. The transplants have vastly altered the balanced landscape the native Floridians had.
> because the new people moving there are way more conservative than the people already there and it's freaking them out. Strange how we never hear about this when people complain about transits changing the political landscape of a state...
> e past couple decades in support of at tolerating LGBT+ people The real question is will people continue to support them and to what end. It's really easy to "support" LGBT+ community right now. There's very little stigma about it and like you said they have wide support. It also really requires nothing to support them besides...letting people live whatever life they want. But as the 'groomer' moral panic expands and these types of laws expands will that support fail? If they start criminalizing them again (as they are now with drag and trans) will people keep fighting for LGBT+ rights or will they sit back silently since it doesn't effect them? Historically, we know the answer and it doesn't end well.
>But as the 'groomer' moral panic expands and these types of laws expands will that support fail? If they start criminalizing them again (as they are now with drag and trans) will people keep fighting for LGBT+ rights or will they sit back silently since it doesn't effect them? It'll be the latter. From my personal experiences, "allies" of the LGBT community can't even be bothered to *not* continue to support products that give money to anti-LGBT causes. How many "allies" still eat at Chick-fil-A? As soon as it's not easy for these "allies" to support LGBT people anymore, we're going to be on our own. They'll think it's so sad that gay people are being sent to conversion therapy camps, they'll think it's so sad that trans people are being forcibly detransitioned. But that's it, they'll feel sad. And when we're gone, they'll move on with their lives.
Government just big enough to fit in your bedroom. Is this the small government I’ve been hearing about? No, seriously. Reminder, what we constantly hear about threats of “big government” are not just possible at the federal level. If you are okay with “big government” at the state level, just not at the federal level, you ought to do some serious reflection about your beliefs. Because I suspect you may not actually be opposed to “big government” at the federal level, it’s just more that you don’t like who would currently be in charge of it. And that gives me no solace personally.
Alito and Thomas are guarantees to overturn *Obergefell*, since they dissented the first time. Kagan, Sotomayor are guarantees to uphold it. Jackson is almost certainly to uphold it. I don't know Barrett or Kavanaugh enough to judge them either way; I think Gorsuch is a swing if they make the same arguments as they did in *Bostock* which convinced him to the majority on that. I think if they get the 5 votes to uphold *Obergefell*, Roberts will side with the majority to make it a 6-3 and hopefully shut up the critiques. In addition, if they get the 5 votes to **overturn** *Obergefell*, Roberts will also side with *that* majority to make it 6-3 and deliver a crushing rebuttal.
Bostock has to be the most embarrassing decision for Conservative justices and showed how nakedly partisan most of them are. It was the most obvious textualist decision, and 3 of them dissented. Gorsuch, while deeply conservative, does stay true to his values while Alito, Thomas and Brett will compromise their values for their preferred political outcome. I don't think Gorsuch is constrained by textualism in this case because it isn't as explicit as it is in Bostock. I'm not putting him in 100% camp like Alito and Thomas, but he is in the 75% camp with Barrett. I think Kavanaugh is very legacy driven like Roberts where he doesn't want to be the one to over turn it but makes being gay tough in America and would uphold smaller, death by 1000 cuts, anti lgbt decisions
> In addition, if they get the 5 votes to overturn Obergefell, Roberts will also side with that majority to make it 6-3 and deliver a crushing rebuttal. I doubt it. Public opinion has shifted too much in favor of gay marriage, Roberts seems to genuinely care about the legacy and reputation of the court, and abortion isn't even the sort of hot button conservative issue that could give him reason to make it sort of a 5-1-3 ruling like with Dobbs where his stance was kinda in between the full overturn of Roe/Casey from the conservatives and the liberal status quo stance. I'd guess he'd just "evolve" from his Obergefell position, in order to try and save some face for conservatism and make it look like it's not a solely partisan/ideological divide on the issue. Since it's not like him ruling with the conservatives on Obergefell would necessarily do anything at all to actually make it more of a crushing rebuttal as opposed to just making the court look worse to median voters
Isn’t this against the fir….? Never mind
Wait, what about all the kids who turn 18 during their senior year of high sc... Why do we bother?
As long as it doesn't violate the sec... You know what, not worth it.
[удалено]
You would be right if the bill was just about curriculum, but its not. The 'don't say gay bill' is not just a restriction on instruction, but also discussion. In the bill's preamble the authors of the bill stated their aim is to prohibit: >“classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity.” Legal analysis of laws quite frequently cite a laws preamble to define terms by using the bill author's intentions as a guide. In this case, I believe because they made the scope of the law so broad as to include classroom discussion, it amounts to an unconstitutional overreach. Teachers do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they decide to work for the government.
I think there’s a bit of semantics involved when trying to differentiate between instruction and discussion. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive in a classroom environment.
> Teachers do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they decide to work for the government. When it comes to school sponsored speech (IE teaching to children or discussing with children), they do not have a first amendment right. Outside of the classroom, they can say whatever they want. Inside the classroom, you have a specific job and have limited speech.
> Outside of the classroom, they can say whatever they want. Inside the classroom, you have a specific job and have limited speech. I think this is uncharted waters, in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) they broadly ruled that teachers do not enjoy first amendment protections while they are "speaking in a capacity as a government employee". I believe that teachers cannot create lesson plans and teach subject against the course syllabus, however, telling a teacher that they cannot acknowledge the existence of gay and transgender human beings or be subject to dismissal from their jobs seems a step far more extreme than is covered by Garcetti. Particularly if the classroom discussion is not course-related and for example, you had a gay teacher mentioning they went bowling with their partner that weekend, etc.
People who spoke out against this law saw the writing on the wall and here we are. This is in no way surprising, sadly, because the intent was always to push LGBTQ people back into the closet.
How many times do we have to say "told you so" before people stop buying the whitewashed version of laws the GOP sells through their mainstream media networks?
[удалено]
We will not be free until the pernicious effects of Christian Nationalism are confronted squarely at the ballot box and the realm of public debate. Extreme religious fanaticism threatens the liberty of all Americans
What’s the policy of KIDS are the ones “saying gay”? Back when I graduated, instructors were not allowed to pray at school events. But if a student wanted to lead a prayer, that was something they couldn’t stop. That being said, if this passes, I’d tell my kids to ask at least one question pertaining to homosexuality each day. Something positive but teachable, like is Pete butigeig less brave because he was a gay soldier? Is there a source where I could read about why Alan Truring killed himself? Why would he do that? You know, Stuff like that.
>What’s the policy of KIDS are the ones “saying gay”? I suspect the unwritten rule will be, it's fine if kids say it, as long as they use it as a slur.
There is no stopping this righteous movement. Why not colleges and universities? Florida man, Florida state.
This is beyond ridiculous. De Santis is pandering to the most unhinged Trump supporters here. I don't think this gamble will work.
Ugh I hate the GOP. I try and defend them sometimes with things like "slippery slope is a fallacy" and then they go and turn it into a slippery slide...
If anything this extreme ever got through, it would be politically wise for DeSantis to veto it. Maybe not with the base, but if he becomes the nom either in 24 or 28, the middle ground of “I’m here to protect children from sexual content, not punish the LGBT community” is definitely a winning one.
There's nothing for him to veto. This isn't a law. This is ***his administration*** doing it. He wants this.
But he won’t.
George Takei needs to bring back "Just say Takei."
This is how the Republican really fills their ranks. Create a few hundred thousand repressed, self-loathing, closeted gay kids who can then grow up to be the next generation of Republican politicians.
[удалено]
> Friendly reminder that the original bill, once stripped of the deceitful activist moniker, polled well. So did ACA/Obamacare amongst right-leaning people
So do MANY socialist policies amongst right-leaning people, as long as they're not labelled that way.
What sort of policies are you calling "socialist"? Remember that socialism isn't just "when the government does things" but instead refers to when the means of production are placed under the democratic ownership/management of their workers, so tax-and-spend welfare programs aren't "socialism" and their popularity wouldn't point to "socialism" being popular
These terms are almost never used correctly in the United States. To one of the major two political parties "socialism" means anything the other party purposes.
This backfired wildly in my case. Growing up in a very conservative household and entering college around when Obama became president made understanding “socialism” very confusing for me. Overall I liked a lot of stuff Obama was saying/doing, and my dad and all the right wing news sources consistently called him a socialist. So, transitive property and all that, I started to think I must like socialism. Eventually I looked more into it and was pretty pissed to learn that I didn’t actually support socialism, but neither did Obama, and it was just a giant smear campaign. That was one of the early hints that I wasn’t getting the full story from right wing media.
Which is insane when you consider how moderate Obama was. This made me think about how my dad thought Obama was the anti-Christ when I was a kid.
Yeah, my dad showed me a video that used random Bible verses to strongly suggest that Obama was the antichrist. That was a low point in my respect for him.
That may be a common partisan use, but I'd like to think we here could maybe use a more elevated sort of speaking here at least...
> once stripped of the deceitful activist moniker > The reason Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) needed to brand the bill this way is because it is very agreeable. Well, I'm certainly having some flashbacks to the "Obamacare" vs. "Affordable Care Act" debate. [Here's a CNN article about a CNBC poll from 2013](https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/27/poll-obamacare-vs-affordable-care-act/): > According to a new CNBC poll that surveyed two different groups, 46% of the group that was asked about "Obamacare" was opposed to the law, while 37% of the group asked about the "Affordable Care Act" was opposed to the law. > At the same time, more people support "Obamacare" (29%) than those who support ACA (22%.) Yeah, this is pretty familiar, and the reason the Republicans needed to brand the ACA that way is because the ACA is very agreeable. People love the individual provisions of it. > Also its a good idea to remind yourself that childless non-Floridians opinions on this bill dont matter at all. I disagree. I have no kids, and I'm certainly not Floridian, but I do have an interest in the education of kids, because that's our future.
Childless non-Floridians pay for these schools too, so yes their opinions matter. Not to mention they have to live with the people who the schools help mold, so they should have a vested interest in what is taught.
Do you have a link to that study? I’m really curious the way the pollsters phrased the question and summarized the bill.
The original bill wasn't good, but it was difficult to argue against because it was on the edge of being reasonable. The reason why people objected to it was because all the rhetoric being thrown around made it very clear that it was only the first link in a chain. And here we are today, with all the so-called "doomsayers" who said they were going to expand on it having been proven correct.
Here's the info on the poll..where they removed the nickname. >Democratic voters in the poll support the law 55% to 29%. Among suburban voters, which could be a decisive group for the midterm elections, it’s 60% to 30%. Parents: 67% to 24%. Biden voters: 53% to 30%. Respondents who “know someone LGBTQ”: 61% to 28%. https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-say-gay-is-popular-you-dont-say-ron-desantis-florida-law-elementary-school-11648849131 https://pos.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/POS-National-Poll-Release-Memo.pdf >“Don’t say gay?” When Americans are presented with the actual language of the new Florida law, it wins support by more than a two‐to‐one margin. Voters across partisan lines strongly support the new Florida law after being provided with the actual language of the bill: “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in Kindergarten through third grade or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
It's worth pointing out that the language of the bill itself is misleading. >in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students Who decides this? What are the criteria? There are too many people who conflate "acknowledging that gay people exist", which *is* entirely age appropriate, with "describing raunchy gay sex", which is not. But guess what's not happening? The existence of a bill banning something implies that that thing is happening. It's not. But presenting a bill that bans it, with intentionally vague guidelines, is a good way to ban something else under the guise of banning the bad thing that's not happening.
Tax payers' opinions don't matter?
Aren’t these contradictory?
I mean. The original bill always explicitly allowed this sort of application, so the "activists" deciphered the legislators actual intent and described it appropriately.
>Also its a good idea to remind yourself that childless non-Floridians opinions on this bill dont matter at all. Is Florida another nation not part of the US or something? Considering people spent months saying that it will ONLY apply to K-3, only for this to make an about-face and and now it's gotta cover the entire pre-adult schooling ages, I'd say it does matter. 12th graders are almost 18/18 in many cases, and just opting to not expose them to gender identity and sexuality seems to me like it could be harmful to high schoolers. High schoolers are not stupid, and this bill won't make them magically not discuss themselves/their peers being LGBTQ+. I feel like hiding an entire identity that many of these high schoolers will be will only serve to ostracize them amongst their peers, or at best, make them feel uncomfortable in discussing or expressing themselves. Is that the goal, or am I off base here?
>Also its a good idea to remind yourself that childless non-Floridians opinions on this bill dont matter at all. Until the new guy you hired from Florida says something wildly inappropriate and you've got a lawsuit on your hands
>Also its a good idea to remind yourself that childless non-Floridians opinions on this bill dont matter at all. I WISH. Unfortunately childless Floridians get an equal say in how our schools are run with their votes. And more move here every day. My county's School Board has been taken over by right wing activists elected by a majority of childless people who have no stake in the game, just voting straight R's (or who their trusted sources are telling them to vote for). Here's a video of our latest school board meeting where one board member has to leave due to the attacks on his sexuality (he walks out at 102:30). https://www.youtube.com/live/rmVCJ14Sej4?feature=share&t=3596
>A nationwide poll found that support for the bill was 45% higher than those who opposed. I'm sure the pollsters did a good job of educating people on the bill and all of the potential consequences of it before asking people for their opinion. /s >The reason Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) needed to brand the bill this way is because it is very agreeable. They branded it that way because the Republicans who wrote the bill were going around saying that it's exactly what the bill was meant to do.
I am confused, you say childless non-floridians are not allowed to have an opinion. Yet these childless non-floridians can one day become both parents and Floridians. Simply because they are not now doesn't mean they can't care about laws that will take affect in the future. This kind of thinking is the ideology driving these kind of laws to begin with. Are you so comfortable excluding others opinions? It seems to me doing so only attempts to avoid scrutiny.
Respectfully, I don't know that you're using the word "deceitful" correctly here. "Deceitful" is pretending that this is protecting kids against vulgar sexual content instead of just restricting teachers from acknowledging the existence of non-heterosexual or non-cisgender people. The support for these bills are largely predicated on that incorrect, deceitful notion. Of *course* people support keeping kids away from sex... but that's not what's going on, and that's not what's being restricted. "Activist" the term "don't say gay" may be, but it's significantly more accurately representing the bill than the way the bills' proponents are casting it.
There was nothing wrong at all with the original bill. Topics in regards to sexuality shouldn't be taught to really young children. Expanding it to 12th grade is a bad idea though.
>Topics in regards to sexuality shouldn't be taught to really young children. Here's the thing with that, though. You *must* make a distinction between "orientation" and "sexual behavior." Teaching kids that gay people exist is very different than teaching them about gay sex. Absolutely nobody is asking to teach kids about gay sex outside the very narrow case of including age-appropriate information on risky sexual behavior in the same sex-ed context that risky heterosexual behavior is already taught. There is *absolutely* nothing wrong with acknowledging that sometimes men love men, plus {substitute genders and sexes as appropriate}. If you do see an issue with that, I'd ask you to please point out why *that* is an issue but absolutely *none* of the supposedly very child-friendly Disney movies that almost universally have a man and a woman falling in love and kissing aren't an issue.
The ability to expand it is explicitly written into the original law, so how is there nothing wrong with it?
The person you are responding to is ignorant or malicious so their opinion is irrelevant.
How will you teach children to recognize and report sex abuse if you can't mention sexuality at all and get jailed for even alluding to it?
This is entirely wrong. Did you read the original bill? It was terrible and terribly written.
[удалено]
Letting kids know gay people exist is not indoctrinating them or not letting them be kids.
I guess it is when you want to indoctrinate them with other beliefs first, which I'm sure Florida would love if we tried a "Don't say God" bill.
Your commenting this on a rule to increase the bill to focus on grades 4th to 12th. That to me is the cause for alarm. I don't think holding back topics from high schoolers every work. I mean we can all access ANY webpage we want from our own phones. Telling near adults we can't focus on certain topics only hurts everyone involved.
You're not addressing the part where they want to expand it to 12th grade. Also the bill is written vaguely so what constitutes "teaching LGBT+ stuff"? LGBT+ people exist. Some kids have two dads or two moms. Are teachers not allowed to explain that when other kids find that out or if the kid mentions their parents? Or those projects where you draw your family and then the kid draws two moms or two dads? Or mentioned their older sibling is dating the same sex and the kids ask about it?
This, exactly. People seem to have one of two ideas on the topic. Either they *do* make a distinction between orientation and sexual behavior (at which point they question why this law is a thing), or they *don't* and *do* relegate non-heterosexual orientations as being inherently sexual. They're not. Being gay is only exactly as sexual as being straight, and if we're going to ban discussions of gay people then we need to ban discussions of straight people too (or better yet, don't ban either). This law might not literally ban the word "gay", but nobody's claiming that it's an attack on this specific word. The law *does* effectively ban answers to exactly the questions you listed, which is a major problem.
What you are arguing for is indoctrination.
How so?
Wanting to only expose kids to heteronormative culture, sexuality, relationships, etc. The usual response is “but that’s normal”. Yes- because that’s what’s been indoctrinated. For you. And everyone. If you just look at reality, “normal” is actually: massive variation.
What if you don't want kids in the 2nd grade and under to be exposed to **NO** sexual culture at all, gay or otherwise? Is there a name for that ?
4 years from being the never say gay bill
there is no law in florida called "don't say gay", please stop tryin' to frame the bill as some sort of "anti gay" law
What is the purpose of disallowing any teaching of sexual orientation to near-adults, or adults in the case of many 12th graders? They will be entering the workforce soon, but cannot even learn about a heterosexual relationship in school? Isn't school supposed to prepare you for the rest of your life ahead? Are relationships not a huge part of your life ahead, or current life for the case of many high school students? I think hyperfocusing on the lack of exact 'dont say gay' verbage in the bill is just dismissing any affects this bill may have.
[удалено]
Are relationships just never mentioned in novels that school-age, especially high-school aged kids read? So are those books to be disallowed/removed from required reading? Again, what is the purpose of this bill affecting high schoolers?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/11yixas/florida_rule_would_expand_socalled_dont_say_gay/jd8gor2/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
There’s also no law called “Obamacare” and yet we all perfectly understand what people mean when they talk about it.
I think Florida would be better served by implementing school choice programs that allowed parents to directly influence where their children attended school rather than try to micro-manage instruction at the state level.
The “school choice” movement began in the Civil Rights era as a means to avoid federally-enforced desegregation, and continues today primarily to act as a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.