A drag show on the floor of the Oregon House of Representatives has sparked sharp debate over the proper use of legislative space.

Reports indicate that on Wednesday, a performance by drag queens took place in the Oregon House chamber, an event tied to a Democratic resolution honoring Black drag queens. As reported by Breitbart, this unusual display has drawn both attention and criticism from lawmakers and citizens alike.

The event was first hinted at on Tuesday when Oregon state Rep. Dwayne Yunker, a Republican, shared that two drag queens were scheduled to lip-sync in the chamber as part of the resolution. Yunker called it “outrageous” and a misuse of taxpayer resources. One has to wonder if the state’s pressing issues—like infrastructure or education—couldn’t use that funding more effectively.

Legislative Chamber or Performance Stage?

On Wednesday, the performance unfolded as planned, with drag queens singing and dancing on the House floor. Rep. Yunker posted a video of the event on X, confirming it was meant to celebrate Black drag queens.

“I’m not sure the Founding Fathers envisioned taxpayer-funded legislative chambers being turned into platforms for political theater,” Yunker remarked. With all due respect to artistic expression, it’s hard to argue that a lawmaking chamber is the right venue for such displays.

Yunker further emphasized that the House floor should be reserved for serious debate and lawmaking, not “partisan spectacles” pushing cultural agendas. His point resonates when one considers the weighty responsibilities entrusted to elected officials. Shouldn’t governance take precedence over performance?

Public Reaction Highlights Deep Divide

The video of the event quickly spread across social media, prompting a wave of public reaction. Many expressed frustration and embarrassment over the use of the legislative space for this purpose.

“Oregon sucks…I’m so embarrassed,” wrote one user on X, capturing a sentiment of disillusionment. It’s understandable why some residents feel their state’s priorities seem misaligned when public resources are spent this way.

Another commenter pointed out a perceived double standard, noting that a Republican representative was previously silenced for reading controversial school material aloud in the chamber. “But this is allowed on the floor?” they asked. The inconsistency in what’s deemed acceptable raises valid questions about fairness in legislative conduct.

Taxpayer Funds Under Scrutiny

Critics on social media also questioned the financial implications of the event. “And taxpayers likely paid for it and the tips,” one person commented. It’s a fair concern—public money should serve the broader interests of Oregonians, not fund symbolic gestures.

Another user quipped, “Perfect example of why we think Democrats are a joke,” reflecting a broader frustration with progressive priorities. While the intent behind honoring cultural figures may be sincere, the execution in a taxpayer-funded space feels tone-deaf to many.

One social media post posed a thought-provoking hypothetical: “How many of them would be offended if some members decided to have a Catholic Mass in the chamber tomorrow?” It’s a sharp point—if one form of expression is permitted, where is the line drawn for others?

Debating the Role of Legislative Spaces

The drag performance has ignited a larger conversation about what belongs in a legislative chamber. While diversity and recognition are important, many conservatives argue that such events risk turning governance into a platform for ideological agendas rather than practical problem-solving.

Rep. Yunker’s critique that the House floor is meant for serving all Oregonians, not staging spectacles, strikes a chord with those who value tradition and fiscal responsibility. The progressive push for cultural statements often clashes with the expectation that government spaces remain neutral and focused on policy.

Ultimately, this incident in the Oregon House of Representatives underscores a deepening divide over how public resources and spaces should be used. It’s a reminder that while symbolism has its place, the primary duty of lawmakers is to address the tangible needs of their constituents, preferably without the song and dance.