Trying to legislate sexual identity is a fool’s errand. Plenty of Arizona state fools are backing a bill that attempts to do that, though. When you can’t figure out how to stop people from outward displays of their sexual identity, you start getting unconstitutional in a hurry.
This bill — now being booted about by the Arizona state legislature — is an unconstitutional mess. The First Amendment right to freely associate is on the chopping block here. The law — highlighted by Erin Reed on Twitter — proposes the state government should be able to tell people how they can dress, depending on who they associate with and (squints at bill [PDF]) when they do it.
The bill is a “response” to an overblown concern by performative hystericists — people who somehow believe the (ultra-rare) appearance of drag queens (to use the legislators’ preferred taxonomy) at public venues somehow presents an issue worth violating the First Amendment to address. These fears of “indoctrination” (which apparently involves showing children sexuality isn’t binary ¯\
(ツ)/¯) have prompted legislators to get stupid. Behold the unconstitutional mess Arizona legislators are pushing forward — one that would basically criminalize plenty of non-“drag queens at libraries” activities.
The proposed law suggests so-called “drag queens” obtain licenses from the state to perform. Then it limits where they can perform, using language that would outlaw plenty of non-drag queen activity. Please pardon the all-caps, something demanded by the printed copies of proposed alterations to established laws. (Cromulent parts embiggened by the author of this post.)
“DRAG PERFORMER” MEANS A PERSON WHO DRESSES IN CLOTHING AND USES MAKEUP AND OTHER PHYSICAL MARKERS OPPOSITE OF THE PERSON’S GENDER AT BIRTH TO EXAGGERATE GENDER SIGNIFIERS AND ROLES AND ENGAGES IN SINGING, DANCING OR A MONOLOGUE OR SKIT IN ORDER TO ENTERTAIN AN AUDIENCE.
“DRAG SHOW” MEANS A SHOW OR PERFORMANCE FOR ENTERTAINMENT AT WHICH A SINGLE PERFORMER OR GROUP OF PERFORMERS DRESS IN CLOTHING AND USE MAKEUP AND OTHER PHYSICAL MARKERS OPPOSITE OF THE PERFORMER’S OR GROUP OF PERFORMERS’ GENDER AT BIRTH TO EXAGGERATE GENDER SIGNIFIERS AND ROLES AND ENGAGE IN SINGING, DANCING OR A MONOLOGUE OR SKIT IN ORDER TO ENTERTAIN AN AUDIENCE OF TWO OR MORE PEOPLE.
LOL
WTAF
First off, the **** does “gender at birth” even mean? There’s fluidity in gender and what may be present on a birth certificate doesn’t solidify a person’s gender identity for the rest of their life. And how will law enforcement confirm “opposite of the person’s gender at birth?” Will Arizona residents now be required to carry around their birth certificates in addition to other forms of ID to avoid being rung up on drag queen charges (or whatever the ****)?
That’s just the logistics side. Then there’s the common sense side. This law, if passed, would outlaw a great deal of heretofore considered “normal” behavior, especially in the field of artistic expression. I mean, if you need to find a marshal for your parade of horrors, there’s no better option than Rudy Giuliani, who once appeared in drag at a charity dinner (for more than two people), an event subsequently covered by TV reporters, spreading his illegal (under this bill) transgression to a wider audience.
The law says a performance like Giuliani’s must be restricted to adult entertainment venues (nightclubs, strip clubs) and only at certain hours legislators think are acceptable for hobnobbing with a future president.
A DRAG SHOW SHALL NOT BE CONDUCTED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 1:00 A.M. AND 8:00 A.M. ON MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY AND BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 1:00 A.M. AND 12:00 NOON ON SUNDAY.
Yep. Can’t have churchgoers being outshone by men who wear their Sunday best dresses better than Arizona’s perpetually angry Republican housewives.
Under this bill, things that compose a vast amount of pop culture history would be treated as illegal. The legislators backing this bill apparently feel the state would be better off by cutting itself out of the artistic loop. “Dressed in clothing and physical markers opposite of gender at birth” would turn Arizona into a state that can’t stomach Robin William’s performance in “Mrs. Doubtfire” or Diane Keaton’s wardrobe choices in “Annie Hall.” Disney’s “Mulan” violates the law. So does the classic film “Some Like It Hot.” With a law like this in place, Tom Hanks would likely never have become a star.
It also would make about 70% of influential sketch troupe Kids In The Hall’s output illegal. (Lord only knows where the “Chicken Lady” fits on the “opposite gender” continuum created by this proposal…)
Yeah, it’s a proposed amendment to address the “dogs participating in co-living arrangements with cats” hypothetical suggested by a very unserious scientist when a portal ushering in a hellish invasion threatened New York City back in 1984.
Hopefully, this won’t become law. But this is Arizona we’re talking about, so pretty much anything is possible. What won’t happen is the law surviving a constitutional challenge, considering it restricts how people can dress, who they can associate with, and when they can do it. There is literally no legitimate government interest being served here. There’s only the interests of people who fear things they don’t immediately understand. And that’s not enough to allow the state to inflict massive damage on residents’ First Amendment rights.
