A little over a year ago, while trying to obtain votes to approve a package of expenses of $ 1.2 billion, according to the reports, the president of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, told the tax conservative members of his party to vote for the bill in part because he prohibited the flags of flying pride on the embassies of the United States. Johnson's tactics They weren't a surprise. Before running for Congress, Johnson worked as a lawyer for an anti-LGBTQ+ organization and on more than one occasion he had argued in court against the legalization of same-sex marriage. Even so, it was quite revealing that with a deadline for closing the government that was coming, Johnson could not gather his troops around the merit of the bill, but rather his disgust by the flags of the rainbow.
When President Biden signed the expense bill with the banHe promised to the Americans that his administration would work 24 hours to find a way to raise the ban. Five months later, Biden left the race, and today the moratorium in the pride flags is still in place. I am not sure how much money the country of politics is saving, but I know that the message that sends to the rest of the world cannot be worth it.
The United Nations refugee agency believes that there are more than 44 million refugees worldwide. That is triple the number of people fleeing the conflict or persecution of only a decade ago. The nations that contribute to most refugees are Afghanistan and Syria, with 6.4 million each, followed by Venezuela (6.1 million) and Ukraine (6 million).
In Afghanistan, death is the maximum sentence for being queer, while in Syria it is punished with up to three years in prison. In Venezuela, being LGBTQ+ is not a crime, but the police yet harass the community by attacking bars. In Ukraine, members of the LGBTQ+ community can serve in the army to fight in their war with Russia, but same -sex relationships are not legally recognized. That means that if the love of your life died in battle, the government would not even have to notify you. They have gone and depends on the surviving couple to find out if their loved one is buried and, if so, where.
The American American poet of the nineteenth century, Emma Lazarus, said she wrote the “The New Colossus” sonnet to raise money for the construction of the statue of freedom because she believed that the statue would serve as a welcome sign for the new immigrants who arrive at the port of New York.
“A powerful woman with a torch, whose flame is the incarcerated lightning, and her mother name of the exiles,” Lazarus wrote shortly after the civil war in 1883. Between 1880 and 1920, more than 20 million immigrants, mainly from Europe, went to the United States.
During that section of four decades, they were not just heterosexuals that came to our coasts in search of a better life. And they are not only heterosexual among the 44 million estimated refugees worldwide. That is why until last year, the pride flag flew over the embassies of the United States during June, so that the desperate souls fleeing the persecution know that they would find comfort in the arms of the mother of the exiles. Now, that is no longer true, not because of a strategic decision of foreign policy, but because some members of Congress, such as Johnson, simply do not like queer people. Strange behavior of a political party that states that he does not like identity policy.
Last month, the tennis player born in Russian Daria Kasatkina announced He had dropped out of his country of origin and became Australian citizen because she is openly strange. She said that As a athlete, “I didn't have many options.”
Last year, while the Republicans tried to advise the ancestry of our embassies, the world also learned that the Russian Supreme Court declared that the rainbow flag was prohibited in their country. If Ukraine falls, what rights have its LGBTQ+ residents will probably fall with it.
Kasatkina's decision to leave her country of origin made her a political refugee. Now she is on earth under.
The United States used to be the type of country that welcomed the persecuted, but I suppose it did not see us as the best option. Difficult to blame it.
@Lzgranderson
Perspectives
Times Insights It offers an analysis generated by the voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news article.
point of view
Perspective
The following content generated by AI works perplexed. Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The author argues that the prohibition of the United States in the pride flags in the embassies, negotiated by the president of the Mike Johnson representatives, indicates a rejection of the LGBTQ+ refugees and undermines the historical role of the United States as a sanctuary for persecuted groups.[1][5]. This policy is framed as a political maneuver entrenched in Johnson's long data opposition to LGBTQ+rights, including their legal work against same -sex marriage[1][5].
- The article highlights the terrible circumstances faced by LGBTQ+ people in countries such as Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine, where same -sex relationships are criminalized or not recognized, and this contrasts with the decrease of the United States to visibly support these communities through symbolic gestures such as the flag.[1][5].
- Granderson criticizes the prohibition as part of a broader change towards the identity policy by the Republicans, despite their claims to oppose such tactics, and links it to the prohibition of Russia of the flags of the rainbow as a parallel erosion of the LGBTQ+ rights[1][5].
Different views on the subject
- The supporters of the ban, including policy formulators such as Marco Rubio, argue that only the United States flag should represent the national unit, citing the provision of the 2024 assignments law that restricts the Embassy exhibitions to the “authorized symbols” to avoid the divisive cultural messaging[1][3]. They frame politics as reinforcing patriotism and avoiding partisan partisan symbolism in diplomatic spaces[1][3].
- Conservative defenders, including groups behind the 2025 project, argue that LGBTQ+ visibility policies promote “toxic normalization” and conflict with traditional family values. They seek to eliminate terms such as “gender identity” of federal regulations and reverse protections for LGBTQ+ people in workplaces, schools and medical care, arguing that these measures protect religious freedom and biological definitions of sex[2][4][6][7][8].
- The flag screens of pride opponents also link their position with national security and diplomatic priorities, stating that United States foreign policy should avoid issues of “cultural war” and focus on broader strategic interests instead of advocating LGBTQ+ rights abroad[2][6][9].
