Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear: All other family forms involve higher levels of instability (the average length of same-sex marriages is half that of heterosexual marriages); financial stress or poverty; and poor behavioral, psychological, or educational outcomes.

For the sake of child well-being, programs should affirm that children require and deserve both the love and nurturing of a mother and the play and protection of a father. Despite recent congressional bills like the Respect for Marriage Act that redefine marriage to be the union between any two individuals, HMRE program grants should be available to faith- based recipients who affirm that marriage is between not just any two adults, but one man and one unrelated woman.

Republicans view heterosexual marriages as superior to homosexual marriages. Republicans came for Roe v. Wade and they are going to come for Obergefell v. Hodges. Gay men aren't done fighting for their rights no matter how old they are. Using intersectionality as a road map to allies in our fight for LGBTQ+ rights is essential. This includes the Palestinian people. Allowing ourselves to be divided plays right into the hands of the people who want to take our rights away.

[–] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Finding allies is one thing, but bringing periferal issues into the umbrella of “gay rights” is another. Don’t dilute our efforts and make us lose our focus (which is what they want). There are too many grassroot interests to place them all under the same umbrella of gay rights. Political strength will be watered down. Never assume all share your thoughts on every issue.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 7 points 1 year ago

to place them under the same umbrella of gay rights

This might be your key misunderstanding! 🙂 With emphasis, this is not what the article is saying nor what is happening.

When pride leadership associated itself with the Civil Rights Movement, it was not an adoption or enrollment of the Civil Rights Movement into LGBT rights. It was an alignment and an extension of mutual support and solidarity, recognizing that both communities had individuals and resources in common and faced a common enemy in the form of white supremacy.

When pride leadership associated itself with the feminist movement, it was not an adoption or enrollment of feminism into LGBT rights. It was an alignment and an extension of mutual support and solidarity, seeing that both communities had individuals and resources in common and a common enemy in the form of gender-based discrimination. Historically, many early feminist activists, such as those in the 1970s, also championed LGBT rights, recognizing the interconnectedness of their struggles.

When pride leadership associated itself with the labor movement, it was not an adoption or enrollment of the labor movement into LGBT rights. It was an alignment and an extension of mutual support and solidarity, understanding that both communities had individuals and resources in common and a common enemy in the form of economic injustice. For instance, the 1980s saw significant collaborations between LGBT activists and labor unions, particularly in advocating for workplace protections against discrimination.

When pride leadership associated itself with the indigenous rights movement, it was not an adoption or enrollment of the indigenous movement into LGBT rights. It was an alignment and an extension of mutual support and solidarity, acknowledging that both communities had individuals and resources in common and a common enemy in the form of colonialism and cultural erasure. During events such as the 2016 Standing Rock protests, many LGBT activists stood in solidarity with indigenous peoples, highlighting the shared struggles against marginalization.

When pride leadership associated itself with the Black Lives Matter movement, it was not an adoption or enrollment of BLM into LGBT rights. It was an alignment and an extension of mutual support and solidarity, recognizing that both communities had individuals and resources in common and faced a common enemy in the form of systemic racism. For example, during the 2020 protests, many LGBT organizations showed solidarity with BLM, acknowledging the unique challenges faced by black LGBT individuals.

When pride leadership associates itself with the pro-Palestine movement, it is not an adoption or enrollment of the pro-Palestine movement into LGBT rights. It is an alignment and an extension of mutual support and solidarity, seeing that both communities have individuals and resources in common and a common enemy in the form of occupation and human rights violations.

In all cases, this alignment of communities served to amplify the voices of all parties. “Dilution of political power” by doing solidarity is just not a thing that happens.

load more comments (11 replies)