An LGBT Roadmap for President Trump

By Stefano Gennarini Published on July 29, 2017

Whatever the conventional criticism of President Trump’s style and experience, he should be congratulated for the decision to bar individuals who identify as transgender from serving in the military. The president will reverse a poor decision of the Obama administration that went against science and common sense, and undermined the readiness and effectiveness of the U.S. military.

There was something delightfully refreshing about President Trump’s announcement. He made the decision suddenly and without fanfare. It attests to his pragmatism and intellectual flexibly. Here is a President who does not hold ideological beliefs on the LGBT issue. After eight years of LGBT propaganda from the White House it is a breath of fresh air.

From the news reports, you would think transgenderism was always accepted in the military. In fact, Obama only announced the decision last year. It had yet to come into effect when he left office. And Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis delayed its implementation. It is a straight reversal of Obama’s own executive action.

President Trump should also be congratulated for bypassing Congress. He removed a snag in congressional negotiations. He spared us hundreds of hours of tedious hearings for the sole purpose of trumpeting fake science and sentimental tropes. More importantly, he denied the LGBT fascists an opportunity to threaten and intimidate legislators.

It shows once again that President Trump is more interested in his accountability to the American people than the reaction of the Washington establishment and the fake news media. Bravo Mr. President! Now let’s hope the rules change is just as direct and sophisticated.

Standing Up to the LGBT Bullies

President Trump was not always so brave when it came to staring down LGBT bullies.

President Trump was not always so brave when it came to staring down LGBT bullies. As a candidate he made several overtures to the LGBT cause.

He said the Supreme Court settled the issue of homosexual faux marriage. He promised to support the LGBT cause at the Republican National Convention. He tweeted support for transgenderism. And he waived a rainbow flag during the campaign. Despite all this, he carried less of the LGBT vote than any president in recent memory.

Perhaps the president realizes he stands to gain nothing by pandering to the LGBTs. Maybe he is courting social conservatives. Maybe he is following Mattis’s suggestions. Perhaps he is just exercising common sense or pragmatism. Whatever the case, critics and fans alike should take his positions on social issues more seriously than they took his presidential campaign. The President is more willing to undo the Obama administration’s damage to the moral fabric of America than anyone previously thought.

In June, he did not issue an “LGBT Pride” proclamation like Obama did each year. His Supreme Court appointment, Justice Gorsuch, may vote to reverse Obergfell if the occasion arises. And whatever its defects, President Trump’s executive order on religious freedom was more offensive to intractable LGBT groups than social conservatives.

LGBT Activism in U.S. Foreign Relations

Sadly, there is one area where Trump’s pragmatism on the LGBT issue has yet to be tested: U.S. Foreign Relations. LGBT activism seems to remain unchanged at the State Department since Trump took office. This is possibly due to Senate confirmation delays from Democrats and the new State Department’s need to gain its footing. But more than anything, it is the result of bureaucratic inertia carrying over from the Obama presidency.

The Obama administration engaged in a global crusade to impose social acceptance of homosexuality. During his first term, Obama officially made it a priority to promote the LGBT agenda abroad. State Department bureaucrats, whose job is to ensure this issue is at the forefront, have dug in. There has yet to be any indication that anything will change.

The President is more willing to undo the Obama administration’s damage to the moral fabric of America than anyone previously thought.

The U.S. delegation at the U.N. continues to make statements, sponsor events, and carry out activities at the U.N. and in foreign countries in support the LGBT cause. We are still part of something called the “LGBT Core Group,” a group of little more than a dozen U.N. member states engaged in a quixotic struggle to make the entire world gay-friendly.

And positions carrying over from the Obama years are radical. The U.S. supports a deliberately fraudulent reading of binding international treaties to read LGBT rights into them. No U.N. treaty includes anything even remotely connected to LGBT rights. And the U.S. even opposes any mention of the family in U.N. policy unless the family is re-defined to include homosexual relations.

We are essentially holding the world hostage until the U.N. system is able to impose homosexual faux marriage on the entire globe. It is easy to see how this does not bode well for U.S. credibility and influence.

Let’s Go Back to LGBT “Lite”

Continuing to promote the LGBT agenda hampers important U.S. foreign policy priorities.

If LGBT issues are a priority of U.S. foreign relations what other objectives are we willing to sacrifice to obtain LGBT friendly results? Promoting civil and political rights? Defending Israel at the United Nations? Nuclear non-proliferation?

Even aside from the unlikelihood that this standoff ever pays off, it undermines efforts to hold the U.N. bureaucracy accountable. U.N. bureaucrats already take liberties with binding human rights treaties as if they were a “living documents.” This contributes to states ignoring their human rights obligations. Why should they buy into human rights if the ground is constantly shifting under them?

Every time the U.S. promotes LGBT rights, it alienates countries where sodomy is illegal and where homosexuality is not socially accepted. That includes most countries outside of Europe and the Anglosphere. It also allows countries to claim the U.S. is causing unrest within their borders and interfering in their internal affairs.

But those who stand to lose the most from U.S. LGBT advocacy are probably individuals who identify as LGBT. Their lives are endangered when the U.S. promotes the LGBT agenda internationally. LGBT activists themselves have criticized American and European LGBT groups for their aggressive campaigns. If President Trump adopts an LGBT “Lite” approach, he will still have the vote of moderate LGBT supporters. He will only lose the vote of LGBT fanatics. They would never vote for him anyway.

U.S. diplomats need to go back to silent diplomacy. Critics will say it is paying lip service to LGBT rights while avoiding LGBT results. They are right. But moral grandstanding and ultimatums is not an effective strategy at all. And undermining international law is even more dangerous.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • JP

    good insights. The presidents needs to be commended for standing up against these thugs.

  • Gary

    lgbtq had better be thankful that I am not President. I would reverse every pro-homosexual policy the US Government has, and I would make it my top priority. Trump does not believe homosexuality is immoral, or perverse, and that is one reason he has not done more to undo the damage the sodomites have done.

    • What you think is “immoral” and “perverse” is irrelevant from a constitutional perspective, Gary.

      • Andrew Mason

        Increasingly what’s constitutional is decided by the prejudice of 5 men and women not what the constitution actually says.

        • Laws just pass constitutional muster. The Founding Fathers knew this, which is why we have a Supreme Court.

          • Andrew Mason

            I was talking about SCOTUS – 5 men and women dictate was is and is not legal irrespective of what the Constitution actually says.

      • Gary

        There is nothing in the US Constitution that requires homosexuality to even be legal, let alone for rights to be based on it.

        • Lawrence v. Texas proves you wrong.

          • Gary

            No, it doesn’t. The court found nothing in the Constitution that requires homosexuality to be legal. They just lied about it like they lied about same-sex marriage and abortion being required to be legal.

          • Obviously you have a better grasp of the law than the Supreme Court does. How nice.

          • Gary

            I have read the US Constitution many times. I know what it says, and what it does not say. I dare anyone, even supreme court judges, to prove from the text of the US Constitution that homosexuality must be legal, or that same-sex marriage must be legal. The words are simply not to be found. And everyone knows it, including you and those lying judges who abused their office.

          • You’ve already said, “There was nothing at all unconstitutional with heterosexual only marriage.”
            Why would you say that? The word “marriage” doesn’t even OCCUR in the Constitution.

          • Gary

            I said it because it is true. The Constitution says nothing about marriage. That is why the five lying supreme court judges were wrong to claim the Constitution requires ssm to be legal. And why they should be impeached.

    • JM

      ”I would reverse every pro-homosexual policy the US Government has, and I would make it my top priority” I would do the exact same thing if I was president

  • Obergefell will never be reversed. It is quite possible that the Supreme Court addresses some other issue related to marriage, but whatever decision is issued will affect Gay couples and Straight couples equally. The 14th Amendment demands it.

    • Gary

      The 14th Amendment DOES NOT demand it. There is no support for homosexuals to be found in the US Constitution.

      • Gary, there is no support for HETEROSEXUALS to be fund in the US Constitution, either. But there are 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities affecting marriage that have been delineated by the federal government. Under the 14th Amendment, they must apply as equally to Gay couples as they do to Straight couples. The courts have repeatedly acknowledged this.

        • Gary

          The US Constitution makes no requirements of the government regarding marriage. And no, the protections and responsibilities affecting marriage do NOT have to apply to gay couples. All the Constitution requires is that whatever rules the government makes, it must apply to everyone. That means that the government can limit marriage to a man and a woman, put age minimums on marriage, prohibit polygamy and marrying close kin without violating the rights of anyone, as long as the rules apply to everyone, which they did. The government could have made marriage same-sex only, had they wanted to, and that would not have violated the Constitution either. SSM does not violate the Constitution. The problem is, the court insisted that the Constitution REQUIRED ssm, which is certainly DOES NOT DO. There was nothing at all unconstitutional with heterosexual only marriage. The judges LIED!

    • Andrew Mason

      Actually the 14th Amendment if anything demands Obergefell be repealed. By making SSM law the rights and privileges guaranteed citizens of the US have been abridged. Frankly the decision wasn’t merely bad, it was dangerous.

      • Don’t be hysterical. Obergefell has precisely ZERO impact on heterosexual couples. It didn’t inhibit Straight couples from marrying, nor has it caused a single heterosexual marriage to end. Straight couples continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that was ever going to change whether (or not) Gay couples were allowed to do the same.

        • Andrew Mason

          Why assume I’m thinking about couples? I was actually thinking that it clashes with the First Amendment. Freedom of speech, and religion, amongst other things, are supposed to be sacrosanct, and yet on the issue of SSM, the First Amendment might as well not exist. As for preventing non-homosexuals from marrying, that’s actually debatable. If marriage is no longer marriage then regular folk can’t get married. Instead they get something the government deems marriage, or they reject the government’s forms altogether and either shack up or get an ecclesiastical marriage – not aware of any denomination yet offering this but I could have missed something. I know several churches around the world have mooted this as a possibility but I’m not aware of any having pursued this option. As a side note, and while not specifically a legal consideration, it might be worth noting that it would appear that countries which redefine marriage to cater for homosexuality see marriage rates decline. SSM is obviously not the sole driver, but it does reinforce the notion that marriage is an irrelevant undesirable institution. Given Europe is now in decline with fertility rates below replacement levels, and in the Nordic nations most children that are born are born outside marriage and to unstable homes, it might be worth reconsidering the status quo in that part of the world, and other such parts following their model.

          • Marriage rates were declining long before marriage equality for Gay couples was even an issue.

          • Andrew Mason

            Oh I’m not disputing that rising secularism in the Nordic countries especially put marriage in trouble, but homosexual marriage merely exacerbates the issue. Do those who value marriage really want to be seen as associated with sodomy?

          • Sodomy is just one part of the variety of human sexual expression, and that includes ALL couples, regardless of sexual orientation.

  • Jeremy L

    So, in regards to foreign relations, we should not try to stop the blatant oppression and sometimes execution of foreign LGBT people by foreign governments? Because it will save the lives of American LGBT people? So the American LGBT people are the only LGBT people who should be able to live, but not in any meaningful way (i.e., can’t get married, must have second-class citizen status, etc.) for the sake of “religious liberty”? And the people who want to let foreign LGBT people endure government-sanctioned oppression and silence and subdue domestic LGBT people believe they are being “bullied” and that their actions will restore “moral fabric”? Mmmmmmm yeah, no. Nothing about this “roadmap” is moral. And Mattis wasn’t even vying for trans people to be banned from the military, so no Trump was not following any “suggestions” of his. The conversation being had was about whether funds would go to sex changes, not whether we should kick all trans people out of the military. Trump tweeted to kick them all out to appeal to his base, who hate LGBT.

    • Gary

      People, and the government, can either cater to lgbtq, or to Christians, but they can’t do both. Christianity and lgbtq are incompatible. There are a lot of people who endorse lgbtq, so they have a lot of friends and can live among them.

Inspiration
Is Your Heart Heavy? God Knew It Would Be
Charles Spurgeon
More from The Stream
Connect with Us