The Inevitable Backlash: States Restrict LGBTQ Protections Amidst Supreme Court Scrutiny

With sixteen states actively trying to have the Supreme Court restrict protections for LGBTQ workers, the question arises: are we surprised? This issue reflects a broader trend in policy-making where state-level advocacy often results in half-hearted and ineffective outcomes.

Why the Surprise?

Surprisingly, many may find this development shocking. However, the author is not among those taken by surprise; it's considered a very predictable outcome. The core issue lies in the fragmented approach to achieving rights on a state-by-state basis rather than a comprehensive federal policy that includes LGBTQ protections under the 14th Amendment.

The Pitfalls of Fragmented Advocacy

The legalization of gay marriage on a state-by-state basis is a prime example of why a piecemeal approach can lead to incomplete and unsatisfactory results. This strategy can yield half-assed outcomes as it often leaves gaps that subsequent legislation has to fill.

Even the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which was drafted in 1921, faced similar challenges. Critics argue that the vagueness of the amendment regarding the definition of "sex" could lead to interpretational issues and may not have the desired impact. The amendment's vagueness sparked questions such as whether firing someone for having sex with pigs in an employee break room would be considered a violation of the amendment.

The Reality of Political Manipulation

The root of the problem is not just the fragmented advocacy but also the influence of politicians who prioritize their re-election over the greater good. Politicians often bend to the will of financial donors and interest groups who can fund their campaigns and offer favors in return. This prioritization of self-interest over public interest is a hallmark of modern political systems.

The Historical Context of the U.S.

The U.S. has consistently lagged behind other civilized nations in progressive policy changes. This can be seen in issues such as the abolition of slavery, women's rights, the death penalty, civil rights, universal healthcare, tobacco legislation, religious freedom, gay rights, and marriage equality. The U.S. has often been decades behind global trends, with the states mentioned in the Supreme Court cases likely to enforce such restrictions being particularly far behind.

The 10th Amendment Misinterpretation

The misinterpretation of the 10th Amendment is another factor contributing to these restrictions. This amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people, has been invoked repeatedly to justify state-level actions. However, in most cases, it has been used to argue against rather than for progressive policies. The use of the 10th Amendment in these scenarios is indicative of states' attempts to maintain their prerogatives and resist federal intervention, often at the expense of progressive rights.

Conclusion

The continuing struggle for LGBTQ rights in the U.S. highlights the need for a cohesive, unified, and comprehensive federal approach to these issues. The fragmented nature of state-level advocacy and the political maneuvering underscore the importance of a robust, inclusive, and federal framework to protect and enhance the rights of marginalized communities.