>

As a lifelong suburbanite Republican,  it seems Oklahoma has bigger issues ...
💥Because #FactsDoMatter ‼💥These states and territories have the highest percentages of poverty in the country: Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Arkansas, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, the District of Columbia, South Carolina, and Oklahoma.These States receive MORE GOVERNMENT BENEFITS/SUBSIDIES than any other states in the UNION‼#Facts #PornHub did a study on their demographics and subscribers. They found that their biggest audience in the United States was in the BIBLE BELT ‼So it seems there is a LOT of hypocrisy in your statement. You can easily check where I culled my data, remember Google and Bing and many other search engines can help you in your quest to pull up these data points I listed‼👍
I'm willing to bet there's no law in Oklahoma prohibiting taking a minor to Hooters. >


"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a
location, other than an adult cabaret, that features topless
dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, drag queens or
similar entertainers, who provide entertainment that appeals to the
prurient interest, regardless of whether or not the performance is
for consideration;

so maybe its hooters is outlawed now?  ¯\ (ツ)/¯ >

“People without many clothes on… and then these heavily clothed people who we don’t dig their taste in clothes…”  you gotta have worms in your brain to be a conservative.  That’s some stone cold stupid to actually put in writing. >

Also a complete misunderstanding of why gay dudes dress in drag. Gay men aren't dressing up as women to entice other gay men to fuck them. They do it because they think its fun. They aren't attracted to women! It's 100% not the same thing as going to see strippers. It's like making cowboy hats illegal for anyone who doesn't actually herd cattle. >

They do it the same reason Bing Crosby and Danny K do it in the goddam movie we all watch every Christmas.  It’s fucking crazy town with this shit. >

Don't forget that Buggs Bunny did it a bunch of times!!! >

So many memories. >


defining "drag queen" as a "male or female performer who adopts a flamboyant or parodic feminine persona with glamorous or exaggerated costumes and makeup."

So, like... Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Madonna, Cher, that sort of thing? >

The UK has a history of over 120 years of pantomimes made for children with a male performer playing a flamboyant or exaggerated female character. >

That goes all the way back to a guy playing the role of nurse in Romeo and Juliet, making jokes about sex. >

Keep going further back. Men played female roles in Ancient Greek theatre too — lots of sex jokes in those plays too >

Wasn't that because women weren't permitted? Or am I thinking of a different civilization >

The War on Drags. >

So the GOP position is that school children can psychologically handle active shooter drills, and even active shooters… but they can’t handle a story time where the reader is wearing a feather boa and sparkly clothes?
Got it. >

And tell me none of these guys watched Milton Berle perform as a woman on TV as a kid? Or Harvey Korman and Tim Conway doing so on Carol Burnett? Benny Hill? John Travolta in Hairspray? Robin Williams as Ms. Doubtfire? Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie? Tom Hanks in Bosom Buddies? Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon in Some Like it Hot? 
It's another case of when they find something entertaining, they are perfectly well adjusted and it's just good fun, But if somebody else finds very similar behavior entertaining, it's disgusting and should be illegal. It's infuriating, and also just plain wrongheadedness. >

Their only context for trans people is as a tab they click on PornHub. Their image of a drag show is that it's like the sad truckstop stop joints they visit. Given that, and some quarter-truths spun by billionaire backed messaging like Daily Wire, it's easy to come to a complete misunderstanding of what's actually happening at a drag story hour - i.e. that it's anything other than just a bombastic fully-dressed performer experienced in character work volunteering their time to preform books at the local library. >

What about the Bugs Bunny eps where he goes in drag? Will they fine WB? >

Isn't it interesting how Bugs Bunny generally only wore women's clothing. >

When Donald Duck gets out of the shower, he puts a towel around his waist. I mean. What’s that about.? >

To cover his low hanging tits that are usually bound in his shirt. >

Republicans. Always coming up with a cure in search of a problem. >

If I watch Too Wong Foo with my teenagers present, do I get fined or do the actors in the movie? >

Only if you don't counter-program them with Roadhouse. >

The problem there is that Patrick Swayze might make them a feel a little funny too. >

Especially in the movie where he plays a drag queen
Edit: I forgot that To Wong Foo was the title of that movie >

Haha. You got the spirit though! >

Frankly, I don't really care about drag, but this is obviously the entry point to start policing how people dress. Whether that means women wearing pants instead of a skirt, or making it illegal to be transgender in public if you don't pass.
Then of course, police demanding to see the gender on your driver's license if some Karen thinks you might be trans, which usually means harassing cis women for not being feminine enough. >

Oh man, there are a LOT of cis women that would get harassed for looking masculine in Oklahoma. >

Steel Panther has entered the chat >

Banning books, suppressing free speech, and restricting freedom of expression. The party of “freedom” has gone full fascist. >

Then they turn around and cry about "cancel culture" in defense of racists who get banned from social media.
Everything the party says that they stand for, they actually do the exact opposite. >

Meanwhile crickets about doing anything about a mentally ill person buying a gun to shoot up a hospital. >

How dare you! Oklahoma GOP is taking on the boogeyman! Be thankful. >

Bull shit! John Wick would never work for the GOP. >


Mrs. Doubtfire is going up the fucking river! >

That won't last in court. First amendment ambush. >

It’s SCOTUS. You can rape babies if you’re a Republican. >

That’s the price they have to pay though. Pass and uphold unconstitutional laws and your rulings become law in unpredictable and undesirable ways. It’s a lesson they’ve had the luxury of ignoring for 50 years and they should be taught it sooner than later. >

what about priests and GOP members? >

Or the entire cast of Brave Heart??? Seriously, is it possible the common sense of the GOP base has eroded to the point this kind of nonsense will garner votes for the GOP as being done in defense of the public? >

Yes it is possible and yes it has.  The GOP sold them all these lies and now they have to follow through with the performative legislation.  How can they say they lied to the people who they scared into voting for them? >

I guess no Monty Python reunions in Oklahoma then. >

What constitutes “drag”?  Is it defined in this bill?  Hair tie in a pony tail - jail.  Pink shoes - jail.  Be a guy and call someone girlfriend - straight to jail.
I was raised primarily in Oklahoma and I haven’t been back in almost 20 years.  I’ll likely never return >

It's not explicitly defined in the bill. For instance, the definition of "Drag Queen" below is in the bill

"Drag queen" means a male or female performer who adopts a

flamboyant or parodic feminine persona with glamorous or exaggerated
costumes and makeup;
HB2186
And yeah, this law would probably get laughed out of court given it's clearly not content neutral and is using fairly vague definitions. That definition above would make showing Mrs Doubtfire or Monty Python in public illegal for instance. >

Not just in public. "Or at a location where it can be witnessed by minors" >

Can anyone explain to me how this would not violate the drag performers first amendment rights? >

Sure.  The supreme court decides whether something violates the first amendment or not.  This court will of course have no problem with this law.  So it does not violate the first amendment. >


West's bill specifically named drag queen story hours as events that would be considered unlawful, as well as other forms of "adult cabaret" performances.
The bill compared drag performers to strippers and topless dancers, defining "drag queen" as a "male or female performer who adopts a flamboyant or parodic feminine persona with glamorous or exaggerated costumes and makeup."

jesus fucking christ, these fucks are nuts
edit: and from the bill:

C. 1. It shall be unlawful for a person to organize or
authorize the viewing of a drag queen story hour on public property
or in a location where the drag queen story hour could be viewed by
a person who is a minor >

"glamorous or exaggerated costumes and make-up"
will this also extend to the toddlers&tiaras type "beauty" pageants? >

People should protest the child beauty pageants.  Use the same groomer and pedophile accusations that are aimed at the drag show performances. >

Absolutely. >

Never had an interest in doing Drag, but would be open to doing a Drag parade in OK. >

I know a Republican congressman you could recruit. >

Why does the GOP think drag shows are always sexual? >

The other comments saying cause they give them boners are wrong in my opinion (though that may be a joke). 
“Purity” has always been valued and sex has always been demonized because of our large Christian conservative population and history. By associating drag queens with sex, they are able to also to demonize and sexualize drag. (Also the fact that many drag shows are sexual in nature, but those aren’t the events kids are also at. But that is too nuanced for them.)
By sexualizing and demonizing drag and associating it with kids, they’re able criminalize it. Extend this to several things predominantly popular with the LGBT community, soon it is effectively criminalized to be gay in public. 
People seem to forget that Republicans law markers aren’t dumb because of the composition of their voting base. They’re well educated and deliberate. This isn’t just a one off law that they came up with cause they’re attracted to drag queens. It’s a calculated effort to make being gay illegal >

Ultimately its all about trying to force fundamentalist Christian values and morals on society. >

Yes absolutely >

Are Gaetz and trump still allowed to rape children? >

So what happens if someone reports me and my grandkid sitting on the couch watching Ru Paul's Drag Race or watching Deafies in Drag on youtube? >

What about LipSync Battle?? Channing Tatum? >

America, Land of the Free, as fantasized by the party of "Small Government". >

How about Trump? He wears more make-up, hair products and fake tanner than most women. >

What a strange law. The goal seems to be to inhibit sexual displays in front of children. To a certain degree I'd think most people would agree with that.
But "flamboyant parody of femininity" is not sexual displays, and punishing those presentations overcorrects when trying to address sexual displays in front of children.
It's like trying to lock up homosexuals by making wearing an ascot illegal just because a few gay men were seen wearing an ascot before.
Association fallacy at its finest. >

Fascism rising. TX, FL, OK, all going down that route. >

Oklahoma sounds like a pretty crapass place to live and I live in Alabama. >

An ex bf of mine from outside OK City once asked if I had ever seen the what the earth looked like when it was dead, and I was like "yeah, I've driven through a fresh lava plain a few times" and he was like, "no, dead." And the look on his face was chilling. >

The morality police at work again.   :( >

Talibangelists. >

The GOP is more obsessed with LGBTQ+ than the LGBTQ+ population. >

when you see a headline like this, keep in mind that these are the same people who proudly and publicly post videos of themselves doing firearms training with their toddlers in their living room >

Wth? 
Im old
They might as well say that sesame street has furries for characters
Not hating on furries, just saying, the republican fringe is out of their frigging minds 
I love going to drag shows. 
Our nation is in a screwed up time line 
Jmo >

I've been to two drag shows and had the BEST TIME!  My gawd... they're usually the clubs with the least violence( UNLESS an armed Republican is near)... no brawls... the place smelled fabulous and the bathrooms are immaculate. >

I'm curious if Republicans know parents can take kids to R-rated movies. Seems like something they'd want to ban. >

would mrs doubtfire be R rate now? >

Banned for sexualizing elderly nannies. >

I'm a straight cisgender male, and I'm considering dressing in drag just as a big middle finger to these assholes. >

Imagine if they put this much effort into real issues like poverty and gun violence. >

Shouldn't the onus be on the parents? If a kid wanders into a strip club, it's not the stripper's job to make sure there are no kids there. >

I don't know if I should be dismayed that the GOP is preoccupied with this stupid shit or be glad the the GOP is preoccupied with stupid shit and distracted from causing bigger problems. >

So I get the sentiment, but with these things "drag" is intentionally nebulously defined so it can include trans people.  (For reference, being trans and wearing drag aren't the same thing or even strictly related outside of the conservative imagination)
This isn't really a silly thing they're wasting their time on, even if it gets struck down.  Trying to make it harder for certain groups to exist in public ("perform" is sure to be as nebulously defined as "drag" is in this case) is at best a dog whistle to their base about their intent to cause harm for harm's sake.  At worst it's an overture towards intent to commit genocide. >

Trans women existing in public will definitely be litigated as “performing drag”. It’s a very real and ongoing attack on trans folks. >

I would like to know where the outrage is against couples divorcing, or “living in sin” or pre-marital, extra-marital sex, the public shaming of bastards etc. All the things that are actually destroying “family values”. Pathetic hypocrite hate mongers >

They’re going after birth control and already have their greedy little paws inside our uteruses after revoking Roe v Wade, so the outrage you mention is definitely around. 
Once abortion is basically illegal (aka making 4 week bans & requiring miscarriages to end “naturally”) they’ll take away birth control, create general “sodomy” bans where you can’t do anything but hetero missionary (shout out to Texas), and probably make divorce illegal or something. Really wish that all of those things sounded unrealistic but, here we are. >

The GQP hates women so much... they're even going after people who dress like women. >

I really like the idea that a bunch of people are going to have to figure out a very legally binding definition of what “drag” is.  Time for loopholes! >

The strategy for these kinds of laws is to put in a broad definition for the "crime" and then enforce it very selectively. >

some of these stupid fucking Republicans think if you’re in the same room as a gay person you’ll spontaneously turn gay. Their kids are going to be exposed to this regardless of any law, they should try being responsible parents and explain to the kid what’s going on/have conversations about it. Wake up you dumb Republicans and demand actual laws that help normal people out, not this garbage. fucking shameful >

Party of small government. Drag queens and trans people are the new bogeyman instead of focusing on things to help the people of this country. Culture war bs and zero spine is all the gop can do. >

Right - so lip synching and dancing is legal.  And reading books is legal.  Wearing a dress, heels and makeup is legal.  Doing each of these things individually, in front of children, is legal.  But put them altogether and bam, you've got a felony?  
Methinks the 1st Amendment might apply here. >

Stage 4 of the 10 stages of genocide : dehumanization, when one group treats another group as second class citizens. 
Borderline, 
Stage 5 of the 10 stages of genocide :
 Genocide is organized, USUALLY BY THE STATE. 
This is going in a very disturbing direction. When are we going to show up and tell these people to lay off our drag & trans friends? Or are we going to watch another holocaust happen to Trans folks and folks in drag, and likely the rest of the gays? 😒 >

The party of small government and free speech, everyone. >

I wonder if the ACLU might go after these sorts of bullsh*t laws. >

this sounds a lot like a modern footloose >

Ridiculous. Wasteful. Transparent. Inane. Infantile. Arrogant. Biased. Foolish. >

Time for a men-in-skirts fashion fad to really take off >

So, one man shows will be illegal in Oklahoma if they have characters of the opposing gender in them? >

1st amendment says no >

They’re drawing up a warrant for Bugs Bunny RN >

You’re born naked, the rest is drag. >

With Sky high rents, inability to pay for housing prices, lack of healthcare, almost inevitable climate catastrophe, massive wealth inequality, unending college debt, and political corruption, THIS is the problem that needs our greatest attention. SMH
When there is only the culture war, there is no energy for the people to organize and fight against the class war being waged on them. >

What about high school powder-puff football games? No one goes to those to see girls play flag football, the real attraction is the football team dressed in drag and cheerleading. >

I wonder how George Santos feels about this. >

How long before they ban “Mrs. Doubtfire”? >

Still not working on a solution to keep children from being murdered in school though.
Protect the children from seeing a man in a wig but not from seeing their friends bleed to death. >

Bugs Bunny dresses in drag >

Serving a minor alcohol in OK is only a $500 fine and up to 1 year in jail. Just saying. >

There’s plenty of real issues to worry about here in Oklahoma. My state is an embarrassment. >

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present small government conservatives. The highest order of hypocrisy. >

Isn't this an obvious violation of the First Amendment? >

That's the point. When they get these laws before the theocratic authoritarians on the supreme court, republicans can gut the First Amendment for the whole country. >

You're not wrong. But some good news .. we've only got 90 seconds left on the Doomsday clock. >

Does this include lady folk wearing pantsuits? Cause that shit is getting me all confused about what I want to sex with, so that needs to stop. /s >

What about my parental rights? >

Oklahoma hates freedom. >

The party of “liberty” wants the state to control people’s fashion choices. This is fascism >

So much for free speech >

And the right to assembly. >

This is where they want to put their energy?  What morons! >

The law would be unenforceable and a 1st amendment violation. It’s dumb with a capital D. >

Wouldn't this violate free speech? >

Unconstitutional 1st Amendment infringement. >

When was the last time the GOP in congress or in any state proposed a bill that actually helps fucking people?!? I honest to goodness can’t think of anything. Maybe I’m biased but it’s all been culture war crap that I can think of. >

If u don’t believe in freedom for everyone then u don’t believe in freedom >

Hey with all these right wingers going after drag queens reading books to kids, I fully expect them to be putting the same energy into child beauty pageants. No they aren't? I'm shocked, just shocked. They aren't going after people dressing kids up in revealing clothing and getting them to perform on stage for a room full of adults. 
My conclusion is, they don't really care about.the kids, they just hate books. >

Hey, does that include the Catholic archdiocese every time they have their little ceremonies >

What about youth pastors diddling kids? >

That's quietly swept under the Republican rug of"we didn't see anything". >

"Hello, First Amendment? Yes, I've got a WILD one for you today... you won't believe what these fuckhead GOP are trying to ban now!" >

Doesn't this sound like the sort of bad legislation the Constitution is designed to stop? >

Can these lawmakers grow the fuck up and actually make competitive policy that matters? Like christ, get a grip. >

At that point, what’s the definition of “preform”? Walking down the street as a drag queen? Instant fine. Might as well just come out with a law that says they shouldn’t exist, oh wait…😒 >

Talk about cancel culture! >

Wonder how the GOP feel about the first amendment’s right to freedom of speech and expression? >

Time for some of that ironclad Second Amendment logic:  "Why legislate it?  Drag performers will just break the law anyway!" >

Oklahoma prohibiting taking a minor to Hooters. >

Things never change in Oklahoma.  One of my favorite memories as an OKC reporter, was of Oklahoma County DA Curtis Harris (circa 1970) threatening Hugh Hefner with arrest if Hefner ever came to OKC (Hefner never did), and then tried to extradite Hefner on indecency charges (never happened).  All this while Harris had an office full of Playboy magazines (for legal reasons he said...😉) >

Unbelievable. Drag queens are in zero ways portrayed in a sexual manner. >

What world do you live in? >

Does this include child beauty pageants or are those somehow exempt? >

Drag queens are clowns. They are dressed up, in character, to entertain others for money. That same definition applies to WWE wrestlers as well. >

Santos sweating >

Why does Oklahoma think it can make parenting decisions for everyone else’s kids >

Yikes. So is Shakespeare out too? Dudes plays are full of men in women’s clothing. >

Santos should move there. >

Completely unenforceable and violates the first amendment. >

Meanwhile guns continue to be the biggest cause of death for children. >

I’d love for them to first define drag…
A woman wearing pants?
A man with long hair?
Anyone wearing too much eye liner?
Oh this is going to be good. >

Sarah Sanders (now governor of Arkansas) gave an executive order right after going into office a few weeks ago that made anything considered "drag" in any kind of performance considered indecent, basically making them have to follow the same rules as strip clubs. And it's intentionally vague. >

I guess George Santos won’t be visiting Oklahoma anytime soon >

Freedom of expression? >

“But go sit on Santa’s lap.” >

So no KISS concerts I’m guessing
The bill defines “drag queens as a "male or female performer who adopts a flamboyant or parodic feminine persona with glamorous or exaggerated costumes and makeup." >

So no more pantsuits for women? >

I guess Liberace is not touring anymore >

Are there drag shows children shouldn’t go to? Yeah. Doesn’t mean you have to ban them all Jesus. Lewd content shouldn’t be displayed to minors. Most drag shows are not lewd (in my experience at least) >

GOP: Defenders of the 2nd Amendment, but the 1st Amendment? What's that? >

I love these policies clearly intended to entrap people. >

This could literally ban women in makeup looking "feminine" in public. So GOP. >

Next will be movies like “Mrs. Doubtfire”, “Some Lie It Hot”, “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” etc. >

“The bill compared drag performers to strippers and topless dancers, defining "drag queen" as a "male or female performer who adopts a flamboyant or parodic feminine persona with glamorous or exaggerated costumes and makeup."”
No offense to her but wouldn’t this definition include Dolly Parton??? >

I know another man who wears exaggerated makeup that looks flamboyant, his entire personality is a parody of a rich person, and does a not so convincing performance of a politician. >

“ defining "drag queen" as a "male or female performer who adopts a flamboyant or parodic feminine persona with glamorous or exaggerated costumes and makeup."
Congratulations you just banned party clowns. >

So, what happens if I take my kids to watch the musical Hairspray? Isn’t the mom usually played by a male in that musical? >

Time for this June's National Drag Queen Convention to be relocated to Tulsa then!  The parade on Saturday is gon be LIT!! >

Pretty sure that would be an infringement of the 1st amendment, no? >

Yes >

And how exactly are they going to define drag? Jeans with earrings? Prom dress and a bolo tie? Maybe the lawmakers who vote for this nonsense are hoping to do the inspections themselves. >

There are musicals like Peter Pan that are geared towards children, where the main character is typically played by a female... I think the Trunchbull in Mathilda is played by a man or something. These shows are FOR children. >

GQP doesn’t care >

I have a better idea: How about jail time for anyone who displays a gun in front of a minor? >

Has anyone told Giuliani? He’s going to be pissed. >

Because there are NO OTHER PROBLEMS more pressing than writing hostile, discriminatory laws out of ignorance and fear. 
How bout healthcare? food? education? housing? social security? addiction? Too complex? How bout mass murders? Maybe they would like to discuss 
THAT instead? >

What's to stop some asshat conservative from showing up with their kid to a drag show and calling the cops? >

Today it’s just drag performers. Next they’ll say a male wearing women’s clothes for any reason in front of a minor counts as performing drag. After that, they’ll criminalize gay men wearing any clothes that they think is too feminine. And then, they’ll go for the ultimate prize: making it illegal to be openly gay.
We all know that’s what they really want. I’d like to think that democracy will prevent them from ever getting that far, but the fact that they’re even able to try for step one is concerning. >

Any trans woman in the presence of a child will be considered a drag queen performing in front of minors. Great way to make being a trans woman in public illegal. >

Oklahoma 2023?  No....you mean Salem 1692 >

Republicans really hate the Constitution. >

Ah yes, the party of free speech and small government at it again. 
Seriously, if the GOP should know a thing or two about putting on a costume to put on a performance. >

I gotta ask, what's next? Banning children from watching Mrs. Doubtfire? Tootsie? What about plays? >

the most evil thing the gop has done is conflate “gay” with “sexual” >

But your kid can go to the range and practice with murder tools all day >

This bill should apply to preachers too. >

Minors are under the care of their parents or legal guardians. If they see a drag show, the parent or legal guardian is responsible. Punish them or nobody. Stop trying to punish drag performers because they make you uncomfortable. This is not a pressing problem anywhere, except in Crazytown. >

so if a kid watches ms doubtfire are the gonna posthumously fine robin williams? >

Land of the free mother fuckers >

What's the fine for old weirdos conducting Beauty Pageants for minors? >

All your dumbest legislation are belong to us. >

I'm just gonna say it.
If you have a problem with anything lgbtq+ related, it's because you have homosexual feelings most likely. So you feel like exposing children to the same things that turns you on, will make them feel that same way.
It's projection, plain and simple.
I can look at another man and appreciate his attractiveness, but I'm not gay so I don't feel any type of romanticism or sexual desire toward him. 
So it isn't threatening to me. I have no problem with them expressing themselves publicly, in front of the entire world. 
The only type of exposure that makes kid decide their sexual affiliation, is the kid already secretly having those thoughts and suddenly finding a role model brave enough to be what the kid aspires to be one day. >

While the pervs are stalking them in church and betting some in support of this bill are pervs themselves. >

The freedom to stomp on others' freedom is a sacred republican value. >

But it’s ok for kids to be in the presence of priests? Got it. >

Well duh. This is all about saving our kids…….
…… from knowing about ideas other than the ones we want to indoctrinate them with. >

Maybe do the clergy in one of those Bills next? Seems like they’re far of a risk to children than a person in drag. Just a thought. >

Wow this is stupid. I really feel like there should be a way to nope out of paying taxes in some of these states since I'm pretty sure this and other similar bills aren't fixing roads, putting food on tables... >

Why do i get the feeling that this is another GOP distraction because they don't know how to govern on anything that would actually help the majority of Americans. >

Next up, the movies Tootsie and Mrs. Doubtfire to be banned from streaming services.
These people are so fucking stupid. >

Yet conservatives just love clowns. Look how many are in congress. >

Wtf >

That's so sad. My kids would love that! >

Cue Bugs Bunny >

Rudi Giuliani,  he warned >

the bill would make it "unlawful for a person to engage in an adult cabaret performance" in public before a minor.  Sounds like reading to them in a library would get a pass.  no cabaret in that case. >


C. 1. It shall be unlawful for a person to organize or
authorize the viewing of a drag queen story hour on public property
or in a location where the drag queen story hour could be viewed by
a person who is a minor. >

How about a story half hour. >

how about 3.50 >

Man, I have killed ants I liked more for less. >

Funny enough, this recent rash of GOP trying to use government power to disproportionately criminalize and punish benign acts that they do not agree with...it's not new. Its roots go way back to the time right after enslaved people were "freed". They used bs vagrancy laws to effectively re-enslave Black people. Don't have a job? Felony punishable by years in prison, hard labor. Caught stealing food worth pennies to a dollar? Felony punishable by years in prison, hard labor. 
$20,000 and 2 years in jail for performing drag in front of a minor? WTF. $10,000 bounty collectable by anyone for the crime of getting an abortion or "helping" someone get an abortion. >

This is just fucking ridiculous. >

But of course they have no problems with child marriage. >

Ahem:  the persons in charge of those minors should be the ones charged.  Not the performer. >

Blatantly unconstitutional, but SCOTUS is a terrorist organization so who tf knows >

WTF are they gonna do about Bugs Bunny cartoons from the 1950s?  Fucking idiots. >

Freedom of speech assholes. >

George Santos in shambles >

So glad they are focused on their constitutes REAL problems! 
/s >

So are they going to add Clowns and Mimes now they are pure evil. >

The GOP seems more like the Party Of Drag with Santos having played a women many times and McCarthy trying to play a man. >

If only the democrats could just make bills that brazenly ignore the will of republican voters and pass them so we can actually see some good news for once. >

Glad OK is focusing on such pressing issues.  /s >

Isn't it wonderful that there are no real, pressing problems in Oklahoma and their state legislature can spend so much time on things like this.  /s >

land of the free >

So I guess their inflation plan is just bread and circus and then blame the democrats in 2024. >

I think theres a little pesky thing called the first amendment that would prevent this. >

Ah perfectly worded so they can pick and choose who and how they prosecute! >

If you see a priest wearing robes, it should be twice the penalty for being in drag AND for molesting children. >

Welcome to nazi Germany! >

Dungeon & dragons all over again. >

can we call the gop what they are? fascists? they keep showing more and more that they are fascists and a threat to society >

Seems like a First Amendment violation to me, restricting content of speech that is not considered obscene. >

Define ‘perform’ >

Unenforceable, performative hate legislation. >

It’s legal to rape children if you’re married to them in Oklahoma. Because of the sanctity of marriage. 
Im just so tired of the hypocrisy. Cross dressing in front of a child is evil but raping them is sacred. Disgusting >

I can’t believe these GOP culture wars are their whole platform. ffs >

Honest question, are clowns exempt? Like, there's plenty of professional clowns that are men and have women characters >

Year of the Drag Kings, baby!!! >

Define: "performing"
From what I gather, conservatives think that drag queens performances are strip shows, burlesque, and orgies.
A person reading a book, while wearing a dress does not fit that description. >

ACLU and institute for justice would have a field day with this. >

Okay, well what about Shakespeare or Opera or any other theatre performance that has men playing women or vice versa? Does that count? How do they define a “drag performer”? >

Disgusted with the state I live in. My area in tulsa is very progressive and I have seen and participated in calling out any nonsense from racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. no room for it in my area, but as for the rest of the state.. I’m gravely offended, disappointed, and disheartened that those who are supposed to make our lives flow more easily are getting off on taking rights away, creating blockades for progress within minorities, and literally wasting our tax dollars spent on bullshit that likely has never honestly impacted their life or anyones whose opened up to him/paid him. 
Disgusting. >

The GOP maybe should read the constitution? >

Fascists gonna fascists.  
To every non-fascist out there - vote EVERY Republican out of office. >

While they are at it, they'll probably ban the Dustin Hoffman movie "Tootsie". >

This should also include Hooters, which is obviously sexualizing children. Idiots! >

Will they be banning Mrs Doubtfire as well? >

How is this not a First Amendment violation? >

What if George Santos Showed up?? >

America is seriously fucked up. Why do people put so much time, money, and effort into hating other people? >

Good thing we don't live in Oklahoma or my 3-year old nephew would have been put in jail for playing Pretty Pretty Princess with my 5-year old niece. >

This is absolute madness. This will be used to hunt down any trans or gender nonconforming person in Oklahoma. Please if you are reading this and have any power at all to influence this, just... just stop. >

Performing what? It’s illegals to read a book in women clothing? Who determines what is drag or not. So are Scottish kilts consider drag? For a group of people that claim freedom and small government, they sure like to take peoples rights away and tell them how to live their fucking lives. >

"I'm not dressed as a woman.  I'm dressed as an '80s hair metal band member." >

This country is hurtling backwards leaps and bounds. >

Leave it to the GOP to let the country burn while targeting a community of maybe 50,000 people nationwide. >

My dad put me on a stool for my 13th birthday at a Hooters. A bunch of women surrounded me. No one batted an eye. >

Yet, we can watch people get torn to fucking shreds on tv. So, violence is fine, men in dresses no. The fuck is this? >

But bring on those snake wielding, dancing "christians" with kids all around. >

I don’t do drag, it’s a tribute to original Shakespearean actors. Men had to play female roles. >

So when are people going to start suing over all these first amendment violations? >

How about fining priest for giving sermons in front of boys? >

How is this the drag queens fault? >

Someone else said ot but this would’d this also applie to “WWE” i guess it says “feminie” so its only a problem to be or appear to be a girl? >

Because people in clothes hurts kids? >

Great-so you are taking away something that actually brings kids INTO the library. One would think they’d be happy about that…except they’re stupid af. >

Well yeah. An educated populace means less for the school-to-prison pipeline. >

Sooo men on Halloween cannot dress up as a funny woman costume? Men can’t wear women’s clothes at any time?
Alternatively, men cannot wear make up?
Holy shit this is sooo wild. >

Taking care of the important things in life I see. >

Reinforcing why Oklahoma is a shit hole. >

At this rate just send the queens and other trans people to one singular prison and we can just take it over and make it an independent nation >

I used to think that OK was chill. Not so much these days. >

Is Oklahoma okay?
First, the silly electric vehicle ban (which was immediately overturned because it was dumb).
Now, clear limitations on the first amendment (which will also get immediately overturned). >

What does "performing" mean, exactly? Is walking or sitting "performing"?  How about reading? Eating? >

Won't they be surprised when one of the horsemen of the apocalypse shows up in drag. >

I fucking hate the useless gop and their identity politics >

So no more circus clowns? >

Republicans are such insecure little pussies >

Let’s fine Repugs for appearing in public. They’re a national health threat. They make me SICK! #EndTheGOP >

Blatantly unconstitutional. >

Since women sometimes wear pants and some men wear kilts would a man wearing pants or a kilt be considered a drag performer. >

Isn’t this a first amendment violation? >

Last time I checked priests wear dresses . >

The fact that they’re banning drag but not the wearing of thongs and banana hammocks in public proves that this is not about protecting the children. >

None of the people who back these lunatics ask themselves: who is next? >

This is a fabricated problem with real world consequences for those targeted >

Times like this make me think of the George Washington era of history. Guys in high heals and wigs, wearing makeup…. So I guess modern day “proud Americans” don’t support anybody from that era in American history? But they love tradition and historical American culture? I’m so confused. >

Are they going to band cheerleading at sports events? >

No more Mrs Doubtfire in OK. >

Panto season is ducked then >

Let me make sure I have this right: drag corrupts but lots of high-powered guns are okay, including shooting animals. Okay, got it. God bless the USA and its family values. >

Everyone get your bricks out!  It’s time for Stonewall 2: Electric Boogaloo! >

“How many times do you have to get hit over the head until you figure out who’s hitting you.”
   ― Harry S. Truman >

A drag queen is really no different than a clown.  Are they going to outlaw clowns now? >

Cue a bunch of Republicans trying to sneak children in….. >

Conservatives have been doing this for generations. They hate these minority groups, or at least think they’re disgusting weirdos, and they come up with ways to persecute them. And they hide behind some moral high ground to do it, like ‘protecting’ kids, or saying people protesting injustice and inequality are doing it ‘the wrong way.’ >

Oklahoma Witch Trials? >

Dear God stop the Drag Queens!!!   Seriously, this is what they are waisting time on? Such BS >

Does this apply to priests that wear dresses? >

Wow so much party of small government aren’t they >

So we’re all recognizing that this isn’t going to be limited to drag queens right? Watch out trans people in OK. If the government sees you looking too feminine or acting too flamboyantly near children, you’re next. >

And what constitutes “performing”? Existing, probably. >

Lmao this is not the party of free speech. It’s pro censorship. Every GOP allegation is a confession. >

Love all this freedom >

The age of consent in Oklahoma is 16. That means that these people would rather be able to have sex with a minor than allow them to see a drag show? >

Why not make it a crime to bring your children instead? Seems more logical. Even though it’s all stupid. Oklahoma is a dumb dump tho. >

The GOP theocracy will soon to introduce a bill for a morality police to make sure you are obeying Christianity in everything --  whatever flavor of the day interpretation of it they feel like. >

What about people dressed in drag in movies?  Is that to be considered obscene material, even if it's a PG-rated movie or musical?