Senator Schumer Filed A Bill To Give Rainbow Flag The Same Legal Standing As US Flag

[RAMROD 117,010]

 

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer has filed a bill to give the pride flag the same legal standing as the U.S. flag and military banners. 

The proposal, which faces long odds in the Republican-controlled Congress, comes in response to a simmering dispute over the Trump administration's decision to remove an LGBTQ pride flag from Stonewall National Monument in New York City.

Schumer said Stonewall is "sacred ground and Congress must act now to permanently protect the Pride flag and what it stands for" by granting federal protections that would allow it to be flown outside government buildings, and National Park sites. 

"Trump’s hateful crusade must end," Schumer said in a statement. "The very core of American identity is liberty and justice for all – and that is what this legislation would protect: each national park’s ability to make their own decision about what flag can be flown." 

The Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village is considered the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement. In 1969, a police raid at the gay bar sparked protests and skirmishes between rioters and police. Then-President Barack Obama designated the monument in 2016 during his second term. 

The Interior Department quietly removed the flag about two weeks ago, citing a 2023 federal directive restricting the kinds of flags that can be flown on National Park sites. The department said only U.S. flags, historical flags, military flags, or flags of federally recognized Tribal nations can fly within the parks. 

"Flagpoles at buildings under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of DOI are also not intended to serve as a forum for free expression by the public," the agency said in a memo. 

But Schumer and other New York Democrats accused the federal agency of trying "erase history" and gathered with LGBTQ activists at the monument on Thursday where they "re-raised" the rainbow flag.

While Trump hasn't personally targeted the Stonewall monument in his public statements, critics say the flag removal is the latest example of the Trump administration's efforts to purge federal institutions and landmarks of materials that conflict with the president’s political agenda. 

Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal, who joined other Democrats in re-raising the flag last week, is among those who support Schumer's proposal. He said the legislation "protects our legacy, our dignity, and the generations who will look to Stonewall as proof that progress, once won, must be defended." 

"Authorizing the Pride flag in federal law is about more than symbolism, it’s about permanence," he said in a statement. "It sends a clear message that LGBTQ+ history is not subject to political whims and that our visibility cannot be stripped away. Civil rights landmarks should not be vulnerable to shifting administrations." 

 

https://www.thecentersquare.com/new_york/article_f80339ca-c81f-4680-9675-14a9c219bac0.html

 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Sunday went after President Trump over the removal of a pride flag at New York City’s Stonewall National Monument, where the modern pro-LGBTQ movement started.

“This sacred ground is so important, and in 1969, as everybody knows, brave New Yorkers stood up here as an act of resistance targeting against discrimination,” Schumer said at a press conference.

“It sparked the beginning of a movement that changed America and the world forever, and we’re not going back, we’re not going back. The Trump administration’s removal of the pride rainbow flag from the Stonewall National Monument is a deeply outrageous action that must be reversed, it’s an effing disgrace.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/lgbtq/5740506-trump-removes-pride-flag/

Edited February 18 by RAMROD

[Cody James 1,543]

This would have been great to propose in the last administration… when will these leaders learn to preserve and protect these things when they have the actual likelihood of getting it passed. Firm believer that the pride flag needs to be protected as vandalism towards it is clear hate speech and those who do the vandalism need to be held accountable as such. 

[27monster27 15,850]

This is needed because this is a global symbol of a community. It applies to all LGBTQ+ people everywhere.

Heterosexists and pick-mes are gonna have a field day with this though, but they can seethe all they want.

[Lord Mayhem 3,416]

As if Trump wouldn't just sign some dumb executive order to ban all pride flags 

[MACATL 2,125]

Sorry, but what’s the point?  I don’t care what anyone thinks about a rainbow flag.    

[phantasmas 12,365]

THANK U CHUCK!!!!!!! Now when my gay ass gets dragged away to a death camp, i can look up at the building and thank YOU for thinking of my rights!!!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!! 

[RAMROD 117,010]

11 minutes ago, MACATL said:

Sorry, but what’s the point?  I don’t care what anyone thinks about a rainbow flag.    

Right now, a federal agency directive could decide when/where the flag can be displayed. This law would make it harder for future administrations to remove the flag from federal spaces simply by reinterpreting rules.

Direct impact to LGBTQ+ in USA (and maybe beyond), if this becomes law; It’s a formal federal acknowledgment of the LGBTQ+ community’s place in U.S. civil rights history. And LGBTQ+ communities and allies could have stronger legal grounds to fly the Pride flag at federal sites like Stonewall and possibly other monuments.

Even if it doesn’t change daily life, recognition in federal law sends a message, affirming that LGBTQ+ people belong in public and historical narratives of the U.S, which boosts morale and visibility.

 

[timdrake 1,901]

i'm hella gay and even I'm like.......... is this either the priority or the time to do this

it's gonna get shut tf down

it's a nice sentiment, but I don't see this conversation lasting more than 5 minutes 

Edited February 18 by timdrake

[Hadrian 2,627]

pfft WOW i feel so seen and appreciated at this time!!!!!!!!!! thanks chuck.

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,591]

Prime example of performative politicking that’s divorced from real world outcomes. Chuck’s gotta go atp.

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,591]

1 hour ago, 27monster27 said:

This is needed because this is a global symbol of a community. It applies to all LGBTQ+ people everywhere.

Heterosexists and pick-mes are gonna have a field day with this though, but they can seethe all they want.

Or, if he’s serious about the LGBTQ+ community’s rights, why not propose legislation that actually protects them instead of focusing on a symbolic gesture?

[PornoDanceFight 1,987]

Doing this for the flag but crickets for trans people and codifying federal protections for LGBTQ+ citizens   

[27monster27 15,850]

3 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Or, if he’s serious about the LGBTQ+ community’s rights, why not propose legislation that actually protects them instead of focusing on a symbolic gesture?

 

2 minutes ago, ****oDanceFight said:

Doing this for the flag but crickets for trans people and codifying federal protections for LGBTQ+ citizens   

Oo now this is some tea. I still think symbolic stuff helps, BUT y'all are eating here.

[Jill 31,812]

1 hour ago, RAMROD said:

Right now, a federal agency directive could decide when/where the flag can be displayed. This law would make it harder for future administrations to remove the flag from federal spaces simply by reinterpreting rules.

The problem with this line of thinking (and it is a major one) is that it reduces material struggle to a mere symbol or intangible idea.

In the event that this were to be approved (it won't be) what would even be the point of federal agencies being required to fly the LGBTQ flag if, on the streets, members of the community are still killed, kidnapped, and discriminated against freely and without limit? Well hey look guys don't complain! At least we have the flag everywhere!

Or, alternatively, what if the flag is simply reinterpreted  by reactionary forces in some other way?

I believe the opposite approach is more effective and lasting, though obviously more difficult: ensuring, through the State, that the material (not only symbolic) lives of the LGBTQ community actually improves. The flag is only a symbol, and like any symbol, it carries no weight except in relation to a specific struggle and its evolution. If the law applies only to the symbol, it's idealistic and will ultimately not accomplish much at all.

These types of proposals are not made with the community's best interests in mind because: 1. they are merely virtue-signaling that Chuck, given his vast experience, knows perfectly well will not succeed (it only serves to rally the most progressive wing of the dems and make Chuck look a bit better, as he is currently going through a delicate moment regarding his reputation); and 2. even if it were approved, it would achieve nothing, and Chuck (among others) knows that too.

What is truly needed are regulations that make a tangible, material difference in the lives of the community, not a "formalization of symbols", because symbols, once again, are nothing on their own. But the Democratic Party won't do this, because it would mean reevaluating and reforming itself, as well as its entire vision of what the U.S. should be.

Edited February 18 by Jill

[Jill 31,812]

Not to mention the fact (rarely explored and somewhat uncomfortable for certain sectors, but no less true for it) that the LGBTQ flag as we know it is not as "international" as many would like to think, but rather localized within a specific context (Occidental context mainly). To view it as something "international that could have repercussions in other countries" presumes that the American liberal sector is "enlightened" regarding LGBTQ rights and that it will set the course for what members do in other places or territories with vastly different contexts.

No matter how much we might want to believe otherwise, the flag IS NOT a global symbol, nor should it be: members of the community must have the freedom to adapt their struggles to the sociocultural context in which they live, and LGBTQ symbols MUST NOT be imposed in a "holier-than-thou" fashion, as has happened many times before. One must be wary of this imperialist and globalizing vision of the movement