"A Clear Attack On The Queer Community Under Pretext"

Republicans on Wednesday cast drag performers as immoral and predatory during a House committee hearing, invoking familiar rhetoric that equated drag with grooming and accused performers of subliminally pushing children to be transgender — arguments Democrats said revealed the true target of their bill that would limit drag performances: LGBTQ+ people.

Despite forceful pushback from Democrats, the bill advanced on party lines through the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee.

Democrats argued the committee selectively invoked parental rights while stripping them away when it came to LGBTQ+ families and communities. Rep. Alma Hernandez (D-Tucson), in a pointed exchange, said the committee had spent hours debating parental choice only to abandon it when convenient.

“We spent three hours talking about parents' rights,” Hernandez said. “And now it’s, ‘just kidding, we care about this.’”

“It is not our job to sit here and target one community,” she added, directing her remarks to Rep. Lupe Diaz (R-Benson), who had framed the bill as a matter of morality. “If it wasn’t about the gay community or the trans community, you wouldn’t just say what you did.… You talk about the Constitution, but you only apply it when it’s convenient.”

For more than half an hour before public testimony began, lawmakers traded barbs and debated whether the state should regulate morality, sexuality, and religion.

For Republicans, the clear answer was yes. Hernandez, though, pushed back: "I believe in the separation of church and state."

Outside that ideological clash, the stakes were made visible in the room itself.

Heels on and faces painted, drag performers from across Arizona packed the House hearing to oppose the bill that would make it a felony for minors to attend — or even be present at — their performances, placing shows in the same criminal category as aggravated assault and robbery.

The bill, HB 2589, would criminalize allowing a minor to view a drag performance or enter a venue where one is taking place. Violations would be classified as a Class 4 felony, a designation typically reserved for serious violent and property crimes.

Arizona is not alone. Lawmakers in South Carolina are considering similar legislation this session, including SB 733, which mirrors Arizona’s proposal, and SB 47, which would prohibit state funds from supporting literacy programs involving drag performers, such as Drag Queen Story Hour.

Performers said they organized carpools, coordinated testimony and filled the hearing room to prevent the bill from advancing quietly — and to force lawmakers to confront how the policy would function in real life, not just in theory.

A Flagstaff-based 28-year-old drag artist who performs as Miasma said the bill relies on fear-driven assumptions that conflate drag with sexual content.

“The underlying assumption here is a conflation between queerness and promiscuity,” she said.

Miasma described performing at all-ages events, including an annual celebration at Flagstaff’s Heritage Square, where her shows focus on costuming and character work.

“Kids love that kind of artistry. They love seeing people dress up,” she said. “To that kid, I’m a Disney princess right now.”

Dolor Darling, a local drag queen and organizer with the Arizona Students’ Association, said she attended the hearing to hold lawmakers from both parties accountable — particularly in an election year.

She said the bill relies on a flattened view of drag that ignores how performers already differentiate between adult and family-friendly spaces.

“There’s a reason why on drag show posters you see ‘21-plus,’ ‘18-plus,’ ‘family-friendly,’” Darling said. “I’m not going to do burlesque for a child.”

Both performers pointed to contradictions in how the bill defines drag, particularly its focus on “gender expression that differs from the person’s biological sex or normal gender presentation.”

Darling, a woman who performs as a female persona, said the bill would not apply to her in practice. Miasma, a transgender woman, said it would — both in and out of drag — opening the door to broad criminalization of gender-nonconforming expression.

“If I’m out in public wearing a dress and a kid is near me, how does that work out?” Miasma said. “If cross-dressing in and of itself was sexually explicit, they wouldn’t need another rule saying you also can’t be sexually explicit.”

Introduced by Rep. Michael Way (R-Queen Creek), the bill extends beyond performers and venues to parents and guardians who allow their children to attend — or potentially encounter — a drag performance.

HB 2589 is part of a broader wave of model legislation introduced nationwide in recent years. Similar measures have passed in Tennessee and Montana, while states including Florida, Texas and Arkansas have enacted restrictions on “adult performances” that critics say are used to target drag.

The proposal is one of 23 bills LOOKOUT is tracking this session that would limit LGBTQ+ civil rights or advance priorities long promoted by conservative advocacy groups in Arizona. A similar Arizona bill in 2023 sought to classify drag as burlesque and was vetoed by Gov. Katie Hobbs.

Lawmakers then also tried to argue that their bill didn’t target LGBTQ+ people. 

Way has also introduced legislation this session to further restrict access to pornography, aligning with proposals outlined in Project 2025’s “Mandate for Leadership,” a policy blueprint backed by the Heritage Foundation and allied organizations, including Alliance Defending Freedom, the Family Research Council and the American Legislative Exchange Council.

Way also holds a near-perfect score on Turning Point USA’s legislative tracker, which ranks lawmakers based on adherence to the group’s platform blending Christian ideology with public policy.

Way did not respond to requests for comment, but during the hearing he maintained a position that drag was dangerous and sexual in nature.

Rep. Brian Garcia (D-Tempe) said the bill was a “clear attack on the queer community under pretext,” he said. “I look forward to the governor’s veto.”