Montana Anti-Drag Bill Sponsor VERY UNHAPPY All You Rabble Showed Up To Laugh At His Stupid Bill

It's just mean.

Montana's Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing yesterday on yet another bill aimed at ostracizing LGBTQ+ people; this one is House Bill 359, a putrid attempt to outlaw drag performances in "libraries or schools that receive state funding," as well as drag performances in public where children might see — like at a pride parade.  

The bill, sponsored by MAGA Chud state Rep. Braxton Mitchell, bizarrely defines "drag performance" as a performance that "features topless dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, or male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest," and it labels any venue where a drag show takes place as a "sexually oriented business." The bill also says that any drag performance is obscene if it "excites lustful thoughts" in someone who sees it, regardless of the performer's intent.

Violators would face a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000 for a first offense, with penalties increasing to as much as $10,000 in fines and loss of business license for a third offense. Similar fines would apply to librarians or educators who allow drag shows, plus suspension for a year for a first offense, and permanent loss of professional credentials for a second.

The bill is pretty wildly unconstitutional, but it'll likely pass in the Republican-supermajority Montana Senate; it's already passed in the state House.

To be servicey, we watched the video of the testimony on HB 359; the pleasant surprise is that those testifying against it far outnumbered the proponents. (It was the last of four bills the committee heard, so the video starts at timestamp "8: 53." Sorry, can't embed it.) Before the testimony started, the committee requested that those testifying please refrain from hyperbole about drag performers "sexualizing children" or grooming them, or calling anyone a pedophile, please. Several Republicans then complained that was an assault on free speech.

Mitchell, the bill's sponsor, immediately ignored that request, insisting that he loooves parental rights, but only for the Right parents. If a parent attempts to "sexualize their child" (by letting them see a drag show), then sorry, that parent's rights "end at that point." He stopped short of actually calling for formal termination of parental rights for such parents, at least. Mitchell repeatedly insisted that drag inherently "creates a prurient interest" and said it's impossible for any drag show to be "family friendly," what with all the prurience.

Mitchell lied repeatedly, insisting that drag performers usually perform stripteases at all-ages events, and that four- and five-year-olds are regularly stuffing tips into performers' g-strings. That's some hooey. Nonetheless, Mitchell lamented, "This is where too many parents are failing, and why we must take action."

Two representatives of Moms for Liberty, the rightwing censorship club, offered online testimony; one claimed that as a child in California, she'd been taken to a drag show that left her traumatized because she knew, as a little child, that the performers were sexualizing her. (She didn't explain that, and didn't have to: They were in drag, ergo, sexualizing children.)

The second explained that Modern Science makes clear that "hypersexualized" drag performances confuse children's minds and may lead to early sexual experimentation, drug use, and mental illness, so that seems like some irrefutable science, although she failed to name any researchers who found that, please just believe her, don't you care about children you monster? At this point, state Sen. Jen Gross, the Democratic co-chair of the committee, stepped in to note that no court has ever defined what a "hypersexualized" performance even is, although obviously it means gay men in drag, particularly if they gyrate .

Opponents of HB 359 far outnumbered the supporters — by at least 10 to one — and they stressed, again and again, that the bill was a clear violation of the First Amendment, that it's so vague as to be unenforceable, and that the state would face expensive lawsuits over the bill if it passes — and that the state would almost certainly lose. Further, as one said, "it's just mean."

A theater director pointed out that productions of Peter Pan usually cast a woman in the lead role, and that the bill would likely make that illegal — and she also noted that drag has a long history and is a recognized art form in its own right. She suggested the best way parents can "protect" their kids from drag performances would be to not attend one, and to leave other people alone. A representative of state employees said that the bill's threat to revoke teachers' certification was probably illegal and outside the Legislature's power, and added that it would criminalize homecoming goofiness like football players dressing up as cheerleaders. A whole string of Democratic members of the state House came over to the Senate committee to oppose the bill, too.

Drag king Sarah Teague, who made a point of saying she's an Army vet and a rancher's daughter, addressed the supposedly impossible question of why anyone would want children to see a drag performance at all, explaining,

"We bring to children joy, laughter, understanding ... acceptance of who they are. Drag performers don't care if the audience is gay, straight, queer ... we care about getting our audience to smile and hopefully laugh and love each other as neighbors and friends."

Kevin Hamm, president of Montana Pride, said that Pride events, including drag performances on the streets, had nothing to do with "any prurient interests" — he paused to give Mitchell a fine side-eye — but are about "the innate human desire for acceptance in one's community. He testified that last year's Pride events brought Helena small businesses a total of a million dollars in business that they really needed after the pandemic. Hamm noted that this year will be Montana's 30th Pride celebration, recalling that the very first parades had only about 30 participants and were met with hostility and even violence. "Much has changed in 30 years," he said, "but that tenacity is not one of them." Goddamn right, sir.

Indie journalist Erin Reed, whose reporting on anti-LGBTQ+ legislation is required reading at Wonkette (seriously, it'll be on the midterm), testified that while several states have toyed with banning all drag performances, only one, Tennessee, has actually passed one — and that law was blocked by a federal judge before it could go into effect Saturday. The judge put the law on hold because it likely violates the First Amendment, as well as being overly broad and too vague.

As for the notion that drag is inherently sexual and prurient, drag king Lennon Keppen testified, wearing the outfit they wear to drag story hours, where they perform as "Holden Oliver Love." You probably won't need to send the kids into another room:

Keppen explained that of course drag performers consider their audiences and tailor their performances for all-ages audiences. During questioning, they added that they wouldn't dream of letting a child put money in a g-string, and neither would any other drag performer.

Thank goodness, things did get pleasantly silly at one point, when a witness said that she and her husband sometimes do cross-gender costumes for Halloween. "I dress as Peter Pan and my husband dresses as Tinkerbell. I cannot control other people's lustful thoughts." Even Republicans on the committee laughed, Reed reports.

Sen. Gross asked Mitchell about a photo she's seen online that "had a group of young children posing next to women who were wearing bikini tops, G-strings, bare buttocks exposed, and they were posing next to a sign that read expletive Biden." This one:  

“@isabellarileyus”

— Isabella Riley Moody (@Isabella Riley Moody) 1654368910 

Gross asked whether the bill would ban that sort of thing, and he refused to answer, although the bill does specify that bare buttocks for women are a crime against innocent children.

After the vast majority of testimony went against his bill, Mitchell whined that the only reason so many people opposed it was because the good people who support him are working, unlike the jobless rabble who oppose it.

“Look at the disdain this representative has for citizens of his state. Braxton Mitchell was so mad that he only got 3 people to testify in favor if his drag ban in Montana that he called the 50+ that testified against it "people with no jobs." https: //t.co/LNiY0dQlO6”

— Erin Reed (@Erin Reed) 1680642482 

Gosh, that's a new one. Haven't heard that since every single time rightwing counterprotestors were outnumbered by the progressives they were mad at.

The bill will now go for a vote in the Judiciary Committee, and if it passes there, may get a vote in the full state Senate by the end of the week. If it passes, it'll be time for the lawsuits.

[ Montana HB 359 / Montana Legislature video / CBS News / Erin Reed on Twitter / Erin in the Morning ]

Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please drag out your credit card and give $5 or $10 a month, so we can keep you up to date on what the bastards try next.

 Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons .