Connect with us

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence Questions Whether LGBT Civil Rights Are ‘Necessary or Even Possible’

Published

on

GOP Incumbent Says ‘Religious Freedom’ Takes Precedence Over Nondiscrimination

For a brief moment during Indiana Gov. Mike Pence‘s State of the State Address on Tuesday, it sounded as though he might have learned his lesson from the state and national outcry over his decision to sign an anti-LGBT “religious freedom” law last year.

It sounded as though, after 10 months of studying the issue, Pence would finally heed the calls of Democrats, some business-minded Republicans, LGBT advocates and hundreds of the state’s employers, by endorsing a statewide law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. 

“Our state Constitution declares that all people are created equal, and I believe that no one should be harassed or mistreated because of who they are, who they love, or what they believe,” Pence said near the end of his widely anticipated speech. “We cherish the dignity and worth of all our citizens. Here in Indiana, we are an open and welcoming state that welcomes anyone, and anyone that doesn’t know that doesn’t know Indiana.”

Then, things took a dramatic turn for the worse.

“Hoosiers also cherish faith, and the freedom to live out their faith in their daily lives,” Pence added. “Whether you work in a church or a synagogue or a temple or a mosque, religion brings meaning to the daily lives of millions of Hoosiers and no one should ever fear persecution because of their deeply held religious beliefs.” 

RELATED: As New Poll Shows 70% Support LGBT Protections, Mike Pence Says ‘Hoosiers Will Know Where I Stand’

Pence told lawmakers the question they face is “whether it is necessary or even possible” to pass LGBT protections while also preserving religious freedom.  

“Our Supreme Court has actually made it clear that our state Constitution protects both belief and practice,” Pence told said. “So, as you go about your work on other issues, know that I will always give careful consideration to any bill that you send me, but legislation must be consistent with the Indiana Constitution. I will not support any bill that diminishes the religious freedom of Hoosiers or interferes with the Constitutional rights of our citizens to live out their beliefs in worship, service or work.”

With that, Pence appeared to dash any hopes that the Legislature will pass a nondiscrimination law in 2016 that has the blessing of LGBT groups. According to professor Sheila Suess Kennedy, former director of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, the governor also committed political suicide. 

“He has chosen his side — the religious extremists, the people who really do not believe that gay and lesbian Hoosiers should be entitled to equal rights,” Kennedy told The Indianapolis Star. “And he is certainly entitled to do that, but I think politically it was suicide.”

In November, Pence will face Democrat John Gregg, who supports adding sexual orientation and gender identity to Indiana’s existing civil rights law. 

“Once again Mike Pence has proven he’s just an officeholder, not a leader,” Gregg said in a statement responding to Pence’s speech. “On issue after issue critical to the state of Indiana, he passes the buck, rather than doing the job he was elected to do. His refusal to take a stand for equality is unconscionable given the fact that he created this mess, which continues to damage Indiana’s economy and reputation.” 

Drew Anderson, a spokesman for the state Democratic Party, called Pence “delusional,” saying the governor’s decision to sign the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 2015 “threw Indiana into a $250 million economic panic.” In response to intense backlash over RFRA, lawmakers quickly passed an emergency “fix,” but LGBT groups say it doesn’t go far enough. Indiana remains one of about 30 states where anti-LGBT discrimination is legal, although cities like Indianapolis have passed local bans. 

“Mike Pence doesn’t ‘abhor discrimination’ — he actively promotes it, and that is why Indiana’s ‘Hoosier Hospitality’ reputation is in jeopardy,” Anderson said in response to Pence’s speech. 

This year, Indiana GOP lawmakers have introduced several bills purporting to ban anti-LGBT discrimination that contain broad religious exemptions. Lambda Legal, the LGBT civil rights group, said those bills “fail miserably to address the very real issues facing LGBT Hoosiers today.”

“Let’s remember the national fury unleashed on Indiana last spring, when the legislature passed, and Governor Pence signed, a religious refusal law that allowed businesses and service providers to discriminate against LGBT people,” Lambda Legal’s Christopher Clark said. “It is clear from tonight’s address that Governor Pence forgot all about it and he has once again, started to back himself into that same corner.”

The Human Rights Campaign accused Pence of “punting” on the issue of LGBT rights, and Freedom Indiana called his speech “a complete letdown.” 

Not surprisingly, though, socially conservative lawmakers and groups rallied to the governor’s defense. 

Ron Johnson Jr., executive director of the Indiana Pastors Alliance, told The Indy Star that Pence made a “pretty strong statement” and that LGBT protections would mean “people’s religious beliefs, and in particular here Christianity and Christian beliefs, become criminalized, because if you believe what the Bible says about sexuality, you are now a bigot.” 

RELATED: Indiana GOP Gov. Mike Pence Sends Pride Letter, Just Can’t Bring Himself To Mention LGBT People

“That’s what the law tells you — that it is a terrible thing for people of faith who simply respectfully disagree with the LGBT community,” Johnson said. 

Ironically, Pence concluded his speech by reciting lyrics from “Back Home Again in Indiana,” a song made famous by openly gay musician Jim Naibors, who sang it before the Indianapolis 500 for 30 years. 

“For the moonlight is still fair tonight along the Wabash, and from the fields still comes the breath of new mown hay,” Pence said. “The candle lights are still gleaming, thro’ the sycamores, on the banks of the Wabash, far away.” 

Below are a few more reactions to Pence’s speech from Twitter:

 

EARLIER:

Indiana GOP Introduces Nondiscrimination Bill LGBT Group Calls ‘Road Map For Discrimination’

Guess How Much $$ Indiana Spent Fighting Against Marriage Equality In Court

Indiana Spends Millions On PR Firm To Fix Image Fallout From ‘Religious Freedom’ Fight

 

 

Image: Screenshot via RTV6 | The Indy Channel/YouTube 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

President Hands Howard Stern Live Interview After NY Times Melts Down Over Biden Brush-Off

Published

46 mins ago

on

April 26, 2024

By

President Joe Biden gave an nearly-unannounced, last-minute, live exclusive interview Friday morning to Howard Stern, the SiriusXM radio host who for decades, from the mid-1990s to about 2015, was a top Trump friend, fan, and aficionado. But the impetus behind the President’s move appears to be a rare and unsigned statement from the The New York Times Company, defending the “paper of record” after months of anger from the public over what some say is its biased negative coverage of the Biden presidency and, especially, a Thursday report by Politico claiming Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger is furious the President has refused to give the “Grey Lady” an in-person  interview.

“The Times’ desire for a sit-down interview with Biden by the newspaper’s White House team is no secret around the West Wing or within the D.C. bureau,” Politico reported. “Getting the president on the record with the paper of record is a top priority for publisher A.G. Sulzberger. So much so that last May, when Vice President Kamala Harris arrived at the newspaper’s midtown headquarters for an off-the-record meeting with around 40 Times journalists, Sulzberger devoted several minutes to asking her why Biden was still refusing to grant the paper — or any major newspaper — an interview.”

“In Sulzberger’s view,” Politico explained, “only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency.”

But it was this statement that made Politico’s scoop go viral.

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“’All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,’ one Times journalist said. ‘It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.'”

Popular Information founder Judd Legum in March documented The New York Times’ (and other top papers’) obsession with Biden’s age after the Hur Report.

Thursday evening the Times put out a “scorching” statement, as Politico later reported, not on the newspaper’s website but on the company’s corporate website, not addressing the Politico piece directly but calling it “troubling” that President Biden “has so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his term.”

Media watchers and critics pushed back on the Times’ statement.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“NYT issues an unprecedented statement slamming Biden for ‘actively and effectively avoid[ing] questions from independent journalists during his term’ and claiming it’s their ‘independence’ that Biden dislikes, when it’s actually that they’re dying to trip him up,” wrote media critic Dan Froomkin, editor of Press Watch.

Froomkin also pointed to a 2017 report from Poynter, a top journalism site published by The Poynter Institute, that pointed out the poor job the Times did of interviewing then-President Trump.

Others, including former Biden Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon, debunked the Times’ claim President Biden hasn’t given interviews to independent journalists by pointing to Biden’s interviews with CBS News’ “60 Minutes” and a 20-minute sit-down interview with veteran journalist John Harwood for ProPublica.

Former Chicago Sun-Times editor Mark Jacob, now a media critics who publishes Stop the Presses, offered a more colorful take of Biden’s decision to go on Howard Stern.

The Times itself just last month reported on a “wide-ranging interview” President Biden gave to The New Yorker.

Watch the video and read the social media posts above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

 

 

Continue Reading

News

CNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial

Published

3 hours ago

on

April 26, 2024

By

Donald Trump’s Friday morning claim Manhattan’s Criminal Courts Building is “heavily guarded” so his supporters cannot attend his trial was torched by a top CNN anchor. The ex-president, facing 34 felony charges in New York, had been urging his followers to show up and protest on the courthouse steps, but few have.

“I’m at the heavily guarded Courthouse. Security is that of Fort Knox, all so that MAGA will not be able to attend this trial, presided over by a highly conflicted pawn of the Democrat Party. It is a sight to behold! Getting ready to do my Courthouse presser. Two minutes!” Trump wrote Friday morning on his Truth Social account.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins supplied a different view.

“Again, the courthouse is open the public. The park outside, where a handful of his supporters have gathered on trials days, is easily accessible,” she wrote minutes after his post.

READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Trump has tried to rile up his followers to come out and make a strong showing.

On Monday Trump urged his supporters to “rally behind MAGA” and “go out and peacefully protest” at courthouses across the country, while complaining that “people who truly LOVE our Country, and want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, are not allowed to ‘Peacefully Protest,’ and are rudely and systematically shut down and ushered off to far away ‘holding areas,’ essentially denying them their Constitutional Rights.”

On Wednesday Trump claimed, “The Courthouse area in Lower Manhattan is in a COMPLETE LOCKDOWN mode, not for reasons of safety, but because they don’t want any of the thousands of MAGA supporters to be present. If they did the same thing at Columbia, and other locations, there would be no problem with the protesters!”

After detailing several of his false claims about security measures prohibiting his followers from being able to show their support and protest, CNN published a fact-check on Wednesday:

“Trump’s claims are all false. The police have not turned away ‘thousands of people’ from the courthouse during his trial; only a handful of Trump supporters have shown up to demonstrate near the building,” CNN reported.

“And while there are various security measures in place in the area, including some street closures enforced by police officers and barricades, it’s not true that ‘for blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.’ In reality, the designated protest zone for the trial is at a park directly across the street from the courthouse – and, in addition, people are permitted to drive right up to the front of the courthouse and walk into the building, which remains open to the public. If people show up early enough in the morning, they can even get into the trial courtroom itself or the overflow room that shows near-live video of the proceedings.”

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

20 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.