In the News: Deborah Lipstadt / Transgender Issues

After delays largely because she was mean to Ron Johnson, Deborah Lipstadt was confirmed via voice vote as special envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.

Lipstadt to me is but one of many executive nominated officials who should either not be subject to confirmation vote or done so by a quick streamline process. Too much time -- months upon months -- is being spent voting for lower level positions. If it is just going to wind up like this, it is even more ridiculous. I support the cutback on debate on district judges put forth by the Senate Republicans when they were in control.

Lipstadt, who surely isn't somehow off the reservation (this might be non-PC to say) on antisemitism, called out Sen. Johnson for being too pro-white nationalist or such. You know, telling the truth. I read some things by her and saw her portrayed by Rachel Weisz in the movie version of her British libel suit against a Holocaust denier.  (His sort might rather be called a "belittler," since they tend to belittle the breadth of the Holocaust.)

I see that the Trump Administration was not that gung ho about the position. One article cited by Wikipedia noted:

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson isn't sure the State Department should have a special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism, with concerns the role could actually take attention away from efforts to combat anti-Semitism.

Bloomberg reported in late February that the White House was considering eliminating the envoy, as well as positions dedicated to issues such as climate change and Muslim communities.

Upon bipartisan opposition, they eventually found someone.  Trump was rather pro-Israel -- the leadership there being Trumpian -- but as compared to the other two, this very well might have been a power thing.  Anyway, those types aren't very pro-State Department in general.  

==

Meanwhile, yesterday was "Transgender Day of Visibility," and the Biden Administration not only honored trans people, but reminded people of the actions the Administration do to serve that community.  This includes the HHS noting the multiple health care needs and both HHS and the Justice Department noting that it is illegal to discrimination against them. 

Both matter has trans people are used as targets by the usual suspects (including during the Jackson Supreme Court Hearings) and states.  The latest (signed not quite on the same day as Transgender Day of Visibility) is the so-called "Don't Say Gay" law out of Florida. And, there are various laws targeting trans athletes, another hot button target. A few years ago, and probably some places today still, "bathroom bills" were popular.

As noted here, as the laws goes through the courts, a key issue is all the anti-gay judges Trump put there.  Clearly not partisan/ideological in nature. Don't want to make Breyer cry.  And, to be clear, trans is just low hanging fruit.  People have noted that same sex marriage and other gay and lesbian issues are still major partisan disputes. Gender issues as a whole (and abortion very well fits here) continue to dominate.  

One might think in 2022 we would be further along -- even trans issues have already been around for years now; apparently not.  

===

My state senator, Sen. Alessandra Biaggi, is running of a House district neighboring me.  But, for the rest of the year, we will have information about the cutely labeled "Biaggi Bills."  

One, as I noted in the past, would provide a one-off for secular wedding officiants.  It passed the Senate again though it has already been blocked in the assembly already.  I myself have split feelings about this bill, thinking it probably a good opportunity, but wishing the law was changed more.  

The usual approach is for people to self-ordain via an Internet ministry.  This would in theory mean they were no longer a "lay individual" though various people, and at least some time back a mid-level New York court, basically disagree.  They don't take it seriously as a "religious" minister, including by the somewhat unclear language of state law. 

This is generally relevant to the last news issue since people often used Universal Life Ministers etc. as a means to preside over same sex weddings.  Generally, there is an understanding that people should have a way to express themselves here following their own personal beliefs.  The law already partially reflects this by making a limited exception for certain ethical societies and as I recall Quakers (who self-marry). 

The Biaggi Bill is a limited mechanism here and does not really to my understanding clarify that dispute.  It specifically just provides a limited, if clear, means for "lay" marriages.  To the degree this helps provide people do something that has shown to be popular over the years, I support it.  

You at times have to do the best you can to move the needle. On that, Breyer is correct.  Sometimes, partial victories are worth the candle.