Connect with us

Romney: Hospital Visitation For Gay Couples Are ‘Benefits’ Not Rights

Published

on

Mitt Romney wants you to know that allowing same-sex couples to visit each other in the hospital is a benefit — not a civil right — and he will let states take away that “benefit” if they want to. Two years ago, President Obama mandated that all hospitals treat same-sex couples with the same rights as married heterosexual couples, including visitation rights. (That’s also included, separately, in Obamacare.)

Also on the table, filed under “states rights” and not civil rights, is adoption of children by same-sex couples, and, presumably, single gay people.

“Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman,” Romney advisor Bay Buchanan told Buzzfeed today. “Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage.”

READ: ‘I Didn’t Know You Had Families’ Mitt Romney Told Group Of Gay Parents

While this should not be a surprise to anyone, since Romney signed the National Organization For Marriage‘s pledge in January, and told Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition that he would “propose and promote” a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the U.S.

Why toss this out into the media now? Two reasons. First, red meat for the base. President Obama is the first sitting president to state he supports same-sex marriage, and has done more for the LGBT community than all U.S. presidents combined.

READ: 22 LGBT Advances That (Probably) Will Disappear Under A President Romney

Second, as Buzzfeed’s Chris Geidner notes:

In a little-noted comment in the spin room following this past week’s presidential debate in New York, Romney campaign senior adviser Bay Buchanan, the sister of former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, told The Advocate‘s Julie Bolcer, “He very much supports traditional marriage, but he’s also a very strong advocate for the Tenth Amendment. It’s a state issue.”

The report also stated that when asked about how Romney’s opposition to same-sex couples’ marriage rights, including his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, would help same-sex parents, “Buchanan responded that Romney would not get in the way of what states decide to do on marriage and adoption.”

And what does the NOM pledge require? USA Today summed it up well:

  • Sending a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman to the states for ratification.
  • Defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which includes the traditional definition of marriage and bans states from recognizing gay marriage, in court.
  • Appointing federal judges and an attorney general who are opposed to a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
  • Appointing a commission to investigate claims of harassment against those people who support marriage as being only between a man and a woman.
  • Supporting legislation that would give people living in the District of Columbia the right to vote on marriage.

Mitt Romney’s website proudly states:

Like any family, the Romneys have faced hardship: Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998, and more recently fought a battle with breast cancer. She credits her husband’s unwavering care and devotion to her for helping her through these ordeals.

So, while Mitt and Ann recognize how important it is to face health crises together, he would actually allow states to prohibit same-sex couples from having the same hospital visitation rights that he and Ann have. We’re not allowed to exercise “unwavering care and devotion” like the Romneys.

It also adds:

The values that Mitt Romney learned in his home have enriched his life immeasurably. With his parents’ example before him, he married, had five sons, and now basks in the joy of eighteen grandchildren.

Marriage is more than a personally rewarding social custom. It is also critical for the well-being of a civilization. That is why it is so important to preserve traditional marriage – the joining together of one man and one woman. As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act – a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton – but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Mitt wants states to take away these civil right from same-sex couples. Actually, Mitt, like on every other issue, really just doesn’t care, about them, or about you.

Images: Mitt and Ann Romney, via MittRomney.com. Romney pledge via the National Organization For Marriage

Related:

Young Boy Banned From Swimming Pool Because He Has Two Dads

Governor Scott Walker Attempted To Kill Same-Sex Couples Hospital Visitation Rights

Obama: Our “Profoundly American” LGBT Work Is “At The Heart Of Who We Are”

Tennessee Lesbian Denied Hospital Visitation Rights

Scott Walker Is Dead Wrong On Hospital Visitation Rights For Gay Couples

‘We Don’t Have People Who Die Because They Don’t Have Insurance’ Says Romney

“Obamacare” — How The Affordable Care Act Helps Gays

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.

News

‘Going for the Jugular’: Legal Scholar Warns ‘Trumpers’ Want to End Major Civil Right

Published

on

One of the nation’s top constitutional scholars has issued a strong warning that the GOP will be working to overturn one of the most consequential, landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions in modern American history. Griswold v. Connecticut established the precedent for the right to privacy, laying the foundation for the right to contraception, abortion, same-sex intimate relationships, and same-sex marriage.

Two years ago next month, the right-wing justices on the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v.Wade, which for nearly 50 years had established the constitutional right to abortion. In his concurring opinion, embattled Justice Clarence Thomas issued a call for cases to be brought before the nation’s highest court, declaring that rulings that had also established the rights to contraception and same-sex marriage were, in his opinion, wrongly-decided. Justice Thomas declared the Court “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” — making clear he wanted the Court to overturn those rulings, and by doing so, strike down the constitutional rights to contraception, same-sex intimacy, and same-sex marriage.

“All three cases—and numerous other landmark decisions—are built upon the right to substantive due process found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, which prohibit the government from depriving ‘any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,'” as TIME reported in 2022.

READ MORE: Republicans Grind House to a Standstill After Democrat Says ‘Trump Is Not a King’

Griswold, decided in 1965, established the right of married couples to use contraception. The Justices at the time cited various reasons for declaring a Connecticut law banning the use of contraception unconstitutional, including by establishing the right to privacy, which far-right justices on today’s Supreme Court have indicated they do not support.

Months before the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling striking down abortion, U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who is now running for re-election, was attacking Griswold – and Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson along with it.

“Constitutionally unsound rulings like Griswold vs. Connecticut, Kelo v. the City of New London, and NFIB vs. Sebelius confuse Tennesseans and left Congress wondering who gave the court permission to bypass our system of checks and balances,” Blackburn said in her 2022 video. “It is the 11th hour and Judge Jackson’s stance on the Constitution remains a secret.”

Now, as far-right groups and the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party’s nomination for president work to advance opposition to the right to contraception, Blackburn’s extremist video has turned up again – this time in a social media post Wednesday from the Biden re-election campaign.

READ MORE: ‘Not an Accident’: Trump’s ‘Unified Reich’ Video Alarms Historians and Fascism Experts

The Biden campaign on Wednesday also posted these videos from far-right activist and Christian nationalist Charlie Kirk, and from Donald Trump.

University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University, Laurence Tribe, a professor of law and top constitutional scholar who wrote a major textbook on the U.S. Constitution, responded to the Biden campaign’s post featuring Sen. Blackburn by blasting “Trumpers,” the MAGA Republicans.

“The Trumpers are now going for the jugular in attacking the great 1965 precedent on which nearly all federal rights of privacy and personal autonomy depend, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, upholding the right to use contraceptives when having sexual relations,” Professor Tribe warned.

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Adviser Scanned and Saved Contents of Box That Had Classified Docs: Report

Continue Reading

News

Republicans Grind House to a Standstill After Democrat Says ‘Trump Is Not a King’

Published

on

Republicans ground the House to a halt Wednesday afternoon after U.S. Rep. Erin Houchin (R-IN) objected to remarks made by Rules Committee Ranking Member Jim McGovern (D-MA), during which he delivered a short overview of the 88 criminal charges Donald Trump is facing, and civil court findings including one deeming him an adjudicated rapist.

“Take down his words,” Congresswoman Houchin declared, interrupting Rep. McGovern. “I demand that his words be taken down.”

For more than one hour, according to Fox News’ Chad Pergram, the people’s business stopped as Republicans, angered by the Democrat’s factual remarks, had them investigated by the House Parliamentarian.

“Donald Trump might want to be a king, but he is not a king,” Congressman McGovern observed. “He is not a presumptive king. he’s not even the president – he’s a presumptive nominee.”

READ MORE: ‘Deeply Dangerous’: Critics Slam Trump and Allies Over False Biden Assassination Plot

“At some point,” McGovern told his congressional colleagues, “it’s time for this body to recognize that there is no precedent for this situation. We have a presumptive nominee for President facing 88 felony counts, and we’re being prevented from even acknowledging it. These are not alternative facts. These are real facts. A candidate for President of the United States is on trial for sending a hush money payment to a porn star to avoid a sex scandal during his 2016 campaign, and then fraudulently disguising those payments in violation of the law. He’s also charged with conspiring to overturn the election. He’s also charged with stealing classified information and a jury has already found him liable for rape and a civil court. And yet, in this Republican controlled House, it’s okay to talk about the trial but you have to call it a sham.”

The decision to strike McGovern’s “offensive” remarks appears to have come from U.S. Rep. Jerry Carl (R-AL), who was presiding over the chamber. He cited House Rule XVII, which Pergram reported “says House members are prohibited from impugning the motives of fellow House members, senators or the President. And in this case, the former President.”

Earlier, before Rep. Houchin demanded his remarks be stricken, McGovern also blasted Republicans for traveling to New York in their “cult uniforms,” to show support for Donald Trump at his criminal trial in Lower Manhattan.

The Massachusetts Democrat told his colleagues, “my friends over the other side of the aisle have pandered to their most extreme members over and over and over again. They let the extremists kick out their own Speaker. They let the extremists dictate the agenda on the House floor. They let the extremists take down seven rule votes since January 2023 – a stunning indictment of their ability to get anything done. And speaking of indictments, Republicans are skipping their real jobs to take day trips up to New York to try to undermine Donald Trump’s criminal trial. No time to work with Democrats, but plenty of time to put on weird matching cult uniforms and stand behind President Trump with their bright red ties like pathetic props.”

READ MORE: Trump Adviser Scanned and Saved Contents of Box That Had Classified Docs: Report

“Maybe they want to distract from the fact that their candidate for president has been indicted more times and he’s been elected. Maybe they don’t want to talk about the fact that the leader of their party is on trial for covering up hush money payments to a porn star for political gain, not to mention three of the criminal felony prosecutions he’s facing. Now I understand why my Republican friends want to distract from Donald Trump. They don’t want to talk about how Trump had the worst jobs record since the Great Depression, how we sold out our allies and empowered our adversaries. So they bring silly things like this to the floor to deflect blame and distract from the fact that they have no real vision, just division, and no real plans to make life better for the American people.”

But removing McGovern’s remarks procedurally required the Clerk to read them aloud:

Later, Rep. McGovern on social media remarked, “The point I was making is that saying Trump’s trial is a sham is *in order* on the floor. But simply saying there *is* a trial is against the rules. You can only talk about the trial on the House Floor if you’re using it to defend Donald Trump.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Incomprehensible’: More Classified Docs Were Found at Mar-a-Lago, Unsealed Court Filing Reveals

Continue Reading

News

‘Not Going to Comment’: Johnson Dodges Trump-Stormy Daniels Allegations

Published

on

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is refusing to comment on the allegations at the center of Donald Trump’s New York criminal trial, that he paid “hush money” to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

“You’ve been very clear about your disdain for the hush money case, but what about the underlying alleged conduct of paying off a porn star to keep this extramarital affair allegedly quiet?” CNN’s Manu Raju asked Speaker Johnson Wednesday (video below). “You’re a deeply religious man, a moral man, does that alleged crime cause you any concern about the former president’s character?”

Johnson, a Christian nationalist who has said the Bible is the basis for his “worldview,” and, “I am a Bible-believing Christian,” would not weigh in on the indicted ex-president’s alleged infidelity.

“At least 26 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct, with allegations stretching back to the 1970s and running through 2016,” Business Insider has reported.

READ MORE: ‘Deeply Dangerous’: Critics Slam Trump and Allies Over False Biden Assassination Plot

“Melania gave birth to the couple’s only son, Barron, in March 2006,” BI continues. “Adult film star Stormy Daniels alleged that she and Trump had a sexual encounter just four months later, in July 2006,” and “Playboy model Karen McDougal alleged that she started an affair with Trump even closer to the birth of Barron in June 2006.”

Trump has denied all the allegations.

Johnson ignored the 34 felony charges brought by the State of New York. They include falsification of business records with the intent to cover up the hush money payments to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election.

Instead, the Speaker claimed District Attorney Alvin Bragg is “going after” Trump “for who he is.”

But Johnson also promoted a Trump talking point, falsely claiming that “the case is patently absurd, you’ve had every legal analyst across the board acknowledge as much.”

Watch below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Not an Accident’: Trump’s ‘Unified Reich’ Video Alarms Historians and Fascism Experts

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.