Connect with us

GOP Lawmaker Pushes ‘Religious Freedom’ To Kill Bill Allowing Gays Equal Adoption Rights



Powerful Utah Republican Committee Chair Ensures Law Giving Different-Sex Couples Preferential Treatment Remains Intact

Republican State Rep. LaVar Christensen is the original sponsor of Amendment 3, Utah’s constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage. That amendment of course was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal court, and ultimately deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Rep. Christiansen has not given up his war against LGBT people, however. In addition to creating an entirely new concept, “marriage sovereignty,” to “reserve” rights for the State of Utah over the federal government – rights against same-sex couples – in a bill that surely is as unconstitutional as was his same-sex marriage ban, Christiansen Wednesday managed to ensure a bill that would merely allow same-sex couples equal rights in adopting children, failed.

Christiansen is the powerful chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Wednesday HB 234 failed in a 5-5 vote, thanks to Christiansen and four other Republicans. The bill, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Angela Romero, would merely have removed language from current adoption law that gives preferential treatment to different-sex couples, and allowed same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities as all other couples.

What a portion of the new law would like like had the bill passed

“I have a lot of constituents who are very loving parents. For us to deny them a right because of who they love is ridiculous,” Romero told her Judiciary Committee colleagues during the vote, the Deseret News reports.

Christiansen, however, has chosen to interpret the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell as simply confined to marriage, and no other aspect of family life, telling committee members HB 234 “is based on a flawed premise,” namely, that same-sex couples should have equal rights.

Rep. Christensen “said the Supreme Court’s decision affirming the rights of same-sex couples to marry did not compel states to change laws that impact families, citing language from the case, Obergefell vs Hodges, that said religions still have the right to advocate for their beliefs,” Fox 13 reports.

State GOP Rep. Merrill Nelson, Christiansen’s vice chairman, backed him up.

“States are required to give gay couples marriage licenses. They are not required to give gay couples children either through foster placements or adoptive placements,” Nelson claimed.

Same-sex couples and LGBT rights groups should now sue the State of Utah, to ensure equality prevails.

Here’s Rep. Christiansen in 2014, two years after his amendment banning same-sex marriage was ruled unconstitutional, ensuring an audience opposed to same-sex couples marrying that the amendment would ultimately prevail:


Image: Screenshot via YouTube 


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.


Justice Clarence Thomas Believes Media Criticism of Decisions ‘Jeopardizes Any Faith’ in the Supreme Court



Justice Clarence Thomas complained about the harsh criticism the Supreme Court has received since allowing a controversial anti-abortion law to go into effect in Texas.

Thomas delivered the 2021 Tocqueville Lecture at the University of Notre Dame on Thursday, where he complained about media criticism, The Washington Post reported.

“I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference. So if they think you are anti-abortion or something personally, they think that’s the way you always will come out. They think you’re for this or for that. They think you become like a politician,” Thomas said.

“That’s a problem. You’re going to jeopardize any faith in the legal institutions,” he said.

A second Post report on the speech noted Thomas’ remarks on the ongoing mistrust of the court.

“The court was thought to be the least dangerous branch and we may have become the most dangerous,” Thomas said. “And I think that’s problematic.”

The newspaper noted the lecture was interrupted by protesters who yelled, “I still believe Anita Hill.”


Continue Reading


‘Genius’ Madison Cawthorn Mocked for Claiming the Constitution Prohibits Airlines From Requiring Vaccinations



U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn is once again being mocked, this time for yet again not understanding the very basics of American democracy.

On Thursday the Republican from North Carolina claimed it is “illegal” and unconstitutional for airlines to require passengers to be vaccinated, because “you actually have a constitutionally protected right to free, unrestricted travel within the United States.”

That last part has a tiny shred of truth to it. Just not in the way Congressman Cawthorn thinks.

(Those inteested in the legal mechanics should examine this and this.)

Anyone could take a minute to come up with arguments why his claim is false, including that anyone driving a car is required to have a driver’s license and insurance, and wear a seat belt.

The freshman Congressman was quickly mocked:



Continue Reading


29 Months Later Bill Barr’s Super Secret Russia Special Counsel Files His Second Indictment – for Alleged Lying



In April of 2019 then-Attorney General Bill Barr ordered the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut to open and lead an investigation into Russia – not into how Russia has been attacking the United States via cyber warfare, undermining Americans’ trust in American institutions, and using social media to do it, but into whether or not the Federal Bureau of Investigation had been warranted in opening an investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, including its investigation of Donald Trump.

On Thursday, 29 months after Barr first appointed John Durham (photo, right) to lead that super-secret investigation, 11 months after Barr secretly turned Durham into a special counsel to ensure the investigation would continue past his and Trump’s tenure, and after spending untold millions of taxpayer dollars, the Dept. of Justice has announced Durham has obtained a second indictment.

“A prominent cybersecurity lawyer was indicted on a charge of lying to the F.B.I. five years ago during a meeting about Donald J. Trump and Russia, the Justice Department announced on Thursday,” The New York Times reports.

The lawyer, Michael Sussmann, “of the law firm Perkins Coie, which has deep ties to the Democratic Party — is accused of making a false statement about his client at the meeting.”

Mr. Sussmann’s defense lawyers have denied the accusation, saying that he did not make a false statement, that the evidence he did is weak and that who he was representing was not a material fact in any case. They have vowed to fight any charge in court.

At issue is who was Sussman working for when he “relayed concerns by cybersecurity researchers who believed that unusual internet data might be evidence of a covert communications channel between computer servers associated with the Trump Organization and with Alfa Bank, a Kremlin-linked Russian financial institution.”

Apparently not at issue is if the Trump Organization or campaign had a secret communications channel to a Kremlin-linked organization.

Frequent viewers of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow are likely familiar with her reporting on Alfa Bank, including this segment from October 2018:

Durham has not obtained any indictment against anyone in Russia, any Russian operatives, any Trump Organization or campaign official, or anyone who may have been involved in Russia’s attack on the United States.

The only other indictment Durham has obtained from his two-plus year investigation? The Times in 2019 reported on a “low-level” FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who “altered an email that officials used to prepare to seek court approval to renew the wiretap,” on Carter Page, a Trump campaign advisor.

One expert calls the indictment “weak.”


Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.