The Surge of LGBTQ Patriotism in American Society! A Structural Component That Maintains Liberty. The Radiation of Queer Criminology and its Good for the United States

Queer Criminology, Constitutional Rights, and the Alleged Disrespect

Megan Rapinoe drew attention because of her kneeling during the playing of the national anthem due to her disdain toward inequality in the United States.  This caused an international uproar about the hypocrisy of the United States’ history and current sociological and governmental practices.  Rapinoe – a well respected soccer player – delivered notions to civilians that encompass proper comprehensions of inequality, false understandings of democracy, and how poor lawmaking should be challenged when it is on the brink of becoming enacted or already is set into place.  Yet, a significant amount of blowback was given out about her patriotism and dedication to virtues that are encompassed in living in the United States.  The negative media attention was swayed in a manner that criminalized freedom of speech and demonized anyone who agreed with the statement that Rapinoe was making, and, in turn, inferred that patriotism in the United States includes being subservient to conservative Christian virtues and biased understandings of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.  Because of this, opposing parties who blasted Rapinoe created a discussion that is unnecessary given the provisions within the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

 

Elaborating more, freedom of speech and protection for it are the fundamental concepts that the United States was founded upon.  Thus, the claim of a lack of respect for these American virtues that takes place when icons like Rapinoe deliver their disdain toward biases that are supposed to be checked and already set into place is absurd and, most importantly, not in line with the concepts of freedom of speech and equal protection of the law even with the allowed ability to disagree with the specifics of such acts that radiate beliefs and values.  In other words, the opposition to expelled patriotism by Rapinoe and the alike is not inline with American values of freedom of speech and equal protection of the law because the biases that exist.  Case in point, if the prejudices did not exist then there would no merit to peaceful demonstrations – kneeling during the national anthem and other decrees about societal biases – but the fact is that the prejudices do exist.  So, the opposing beliefs are not necessarily proper contrary forms of freedom of speech and equal protection of the law given the virtues that the United States claims to be operating on.  The discrimination toward the LGBTQ community is an example of this and the protestations on international platforms emanates a structural component that maintains liberties in the United States.  Without such activities, many discrepancies would arise that bypass the notions found within freedom of speech and equal protection of the law clauses that are engraved in American culture. 

All of the above-mentioned falls in the realm of the field of queer criminology.  Hatred and insecurities about perceived conventionalism and the analyzation of how such processes disturb society’s progress are the underlying premises for this recent branch of criminology.  Media attention about how iconic figures in the United States – especially individuals who are part of the LGBTQ community – are, again, disgracing the United States and, simply put, untrue and the media deliverances that suggest that this is unpatriotic are incorrect and appear to be behaviors that include insecurities and hatred toward sexual identifications and activities. 

The News Media is Not Always Right

News media – especially in television format – has transitioned from presenting basic facts about current events to political and opinionated commentary about current events in our society.  So-called television journalists are now political utilities and talk show hosts that rarely cover the full breadth of current events.  Rather than simply depicting news is a basic format that allows an audience to learn about it in an unbiased manner, news television networks present short stories and then deliver their and their guests’ opinions about the covered event.  Furthermore, the television news networks are bilaterally divided by their sponsorship of a political party.  That is, the covered current events and commentary is all based on the desired output of the political sponsorship.  Regarding LGBTQ issues in contemporary society, the liberal news media networks will cover events like Rapinoe’s protestations in a favorable manner; whereas conservative television programming will typically depict the protestations in a negative fashion and produce commentary that backs-up their erroneous claims of unpatriotic engagements.

Regardless of political affiliation and favorable news media, the displays that include derogatory remarks about individuals exercising their constitutional rights and who are associated in the LGBTQ community are a prejudiced-double standard.  Elaborating more, the First and Fourteenth Amendments allow parties to peacefully redress their government and to do so in a manner that does not subject them to government prosecution.  Incorporating international platforms into such practices is an intelligent decision by the protestors and this, for some unintelligent reason, is part of the critical media’s dissent toward the protestations about inequalities in the United States.  Conservative media is infamously known for projecting these double standards into society and, in turn, discouraging people from participating in their constitutional rights and even broadcasting false notions about what they should include.  Moreover, the conservative media even subtlety infers that such participants should be subjected to social out-casting and governmental persecution.  Once more, these projections are a farcical projection of what the freedom of speech and equal protection of the law concepts include in the United States. 

The Surge of LGBTQ Patriotism is a Good Thing

Seeing celebrities like Megan Rapinoe and the alike challenging poor understandings of equality in the United States allows civilians to determine which biases are apparent and how they should be dealt with.  In addition to this, the protestations teach the younger generations not only the fundamental concepts in the First and Fourteenth Amendments, but also how equality in the United States has been biasedly distributed and that true versions of equality should be striven for.  From a perspective that includes kind-hearted living, there is nothing wrong about this, and anyone who disagrees has hate in their heart and believes that innate characteristics should be reined in on by the criminal justice system and that specific individuals should be deemed as deviants because of their protected rights.  In contrast, teaching hate via biased personal views and through news media is contradictory to American values of equality and goes against the ideas that are conveyed in the Constitution.  Finally, suggesting that freedom of speech and equal protection of law includes dissenting opinions is not a valid argument when the hatred by such parties is fully understood and is not even close to being congruent to the notions found within the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The Contradiction Has Been Noticed, Again

The United States has a long history of contradictory behaviors when it comes to equality and freedom of speech, and the recent protestations by Megan Rapinoe and the alike figures has promulgated a sincere appreciation for proper government in respect to the concepts of freedom, justice, and equality that the United States advertises to the world.  The embarking of opposing viewpoints to this form of protesting are no longer constitutional, and the allowed evolution of law by the United States courts and legislative branch have proven this ideation to be correct.  The only questions that needs to be asked is this:  What has the First and Fourteenth Amendments evolved to?  Does it include protestations about inequality on an international platform?  The answer is yes.  

Photo Credit: Benjamin J. Bolton