Last week NCRM reported on a legally-married same-sex couple who are in court – again. After having won their case months ago, the federal government appealed. They are battling the U.S. State Dept., which is insisting one of their twin boys is not a U.S. citizen, even though both twins are their biological children.
Andrew and Elad Dvash-Banks married in 2010. Andrew is an American citizen, Elad is not.
Trump’s State Dept. is actually ignoring settled law, according to Aaron C. Morris, executive director of Immigration Equality.
If you read that story and thought it was a one-off, some random act by the State Dept., it turns out it’s not.
The Daily Beast reports today that a different same-sex couple, both U.S. citizens, and had a daughter born in Canada with the assistance of an egg donor and a gestational surrogate.
The U.S. State Dept. is refusing to grant her U.S. citizenship.
“We are both American citizens,” Adiel Kiviti told The Daily Beast, saying, “we live in the U.S.; I have a business here, Roee has his job here; we file our taxes as a married couple here… and the State Department is saying that our daughter isn’t entitled to U.S. citizenship because she was born ‘out of wedlock.’”
Apparently, the State Dept. under Secretary Mike Pompeo, has redefined the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 which, “along with the 14th Amendment, codifies eligibility for U.S. birthright citizenship,” The Daily Beast explains.
Assisted reproductive technology, most of which did not exist in 1952, produces children born “out of wedlock,” according to the State Dept.’s flawed and very targeted interpretation.
“They basically take our marriage, and they say ‘it doesn’t mean anything. Your child was born out of wedlock,’” Adiel says. “We were there when she was born, she took her first breaths in our arms. Make no mistake: we are her parents—we are her only parents on her only birth certificate.”
The Daily Beast’s article includes the stories of another two married same-sex couples who experienced similar targeted discrimination from the U.S. State Dept.
There is no mistake here: The Trump administration is targeting U.S. citizen same-sex couples, doing everything it can to tear apart their families and depriving them of their 14th Amendment rights, merely because they are same-sex couples.
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.
Bill Barr’s DOJ Intervenes to Support Lawsuit Filed by Christian Photographer Refusing to Photograph Same-Sex Weddings
The U.S. Dept. of Justice under Attorney General Bill Barr has intervened in a pre-emptive lawsuit filed by a Kentucky wedding photographer who claims her interpretation of her Christian religion bars her from taking photos of weddings of same-sex couples.
No same-sex couple has ever tried to hire Chelsey Nelson to photograph their nuptials, but her attorneys, the far right wing Alliance Defending Freedom, filed the lawsuit against Louisville city officials anyway, according to the AP. The ADF appears on the Southern Poverty Law Center list of anti-LGBTQ hate groups.
And now the Justice Dept. in a 23-page “statement of interest” says the “Court should find that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.”
In other words, the DOJ has told the court hearing her case directly that it agrees with the ADF.
The Louisville law bans businesses from discriminating against LGBTQ people. Many legal experts agree that refusing to provide a service to an entire class of people is discrimination, hence the countless laws across the country that protect LGBTQ people and other minorities from being refused services their non-LGBTQ peers regularly pay for and receive without question.
The DOJ, however, in a press release claims the legal statement it filed explains that Nelson “is likely to succeed on her claim that requiring her to photograph weddings against her conscience constitutes government-compelled speech that violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”
“The First Amendment forbids the government from forcing someone to speak in a manner that violates individual conscience,” said Eric Dreiband, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The U.S. Department of Justice will continue to protect the right of all persons to exercise their constitutional right to speech and expression.”
The ACLU disagrees, and “filed a brief defending the city, arguing that the Nelson’s intent to offer wedding photography only to heterosexual couples violates the city law.”
The renowned civil rights group calls Nelson’s position “identity-based discrimination.”
The SPLC says the Alliance Defending Freedom “has supported the recriminalization of homosexuality in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has linked homosexuality to pedophilia and claims that a ‘homosexual agenda’ will destroy Christianity and society.”
Arizona Supreme Court Hands Major Pro-Discrimination Decision to Anti-Gay Christian Conservatives
The Arizona Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of a calligraphy and wedding invitation company whose owners claim their religion forbids them to sell to same-sex couples. Brush & Nib Studio owners Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski are represented by Alliance Defending Freedom. ADF also wrote their business operating agreement, according to ABC 10, before filing the lawsuit on the couple’s behalf.
The court ruled 4-3 that the City of Phoenix “cannot apply its Human Relations Ordinance … to force Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski … to create custom wedding invitations celebrating same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
This is a narrow ruling in that the court noted that its decision applies only to wedding invitations.
“We do not recognize a blanket exemption from the Ordinance for all of Plaintiffs’ business operations.”
“Duka and Koski’s beliefs about same-sex marriage may seem old-fashioned, or even offensive to some. But the guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion are not only for those who are deemed sufficiently enlightened, advanced, or progressive. They are for everyone. After all, while our own ideas may be popular today, they may not be tomorrow,” the court added.
At issue is the City of Phoenix’s six-year old anti-discrimination ordinance, which ADF attacked in court.
The lawsuit was first filed in 2016. The Duka and Koski are not suing because they have been accused of discrimination. They are preemptively suing for the “right” to reject lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender customers. The business owners lost a 2017 judgment and appealed in 2018.
The Southern Poverty Law Center includes the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) on its list of anti-gay hate groups. SPLC in 2017 reported Brush & Nib is also a vendor on Etsy, and “voluntarily and willingly agreed to the vendor terms of service for the site, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”
AZ Central notes that the state’s Supreme Court “has been packed by Gov. Doug Ducey with judges to his liking.” Ducey is a Republican.
Like many local non-discrimination ordinances, Phoenix’s bans discrimination “based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability,” AZ Central adds.
Next month the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in three cases of anti-LGBTQ discrimination. Their ruling will have historic effects.
This is a breaking news and developing story. Details may change. This story will be updated, and NCRM will likely publish follow-up stories on this news. Stay tuned and refresh for updates.
Georgetown Law Professor: Top Broadcaster ‘Likely’ Killed Interview Because Buttigieg Is Gay
A prominent Georgetown Law professor says Cumulus Media likely blocked an interview one of its country music station hosts had conducted with Pete Buttigieg from airing because the Democratic presidential candidate is gay.
After Huffpost reported that Blair Garner had been told by Cumulus Media he could not air any part of his interview with Buttigieg, Cumulus – the number three broadcaster in the nation of AM and FM radio stations – claimed the decision was based on the “equal time rule.”
Many quickly blasted Cumulus online.
But Talking Points Memo reached out to an expert, Georgetown Law Professor Andrew Schwartzman, who details his explanation but sums it up by saying Cumulus “likely” blocked the interview because Buttigieg is gay.
Schwartzman, a noted media attorney, told TPM the “equal time rule” does not apply to legitimate interviews.
“This was almost certainly a bona fide news interview,” Schwartzman says. “If another candidate asked for equal opportunity, equal time, the station could say no.”
TPM says Cumulus blocked the interview “under false pretenses.”
“This is much more likely to be about Cumulus not wanting to be seen as promoting a candidate who may not be particularly consonant with the proclivities of country station listeners since he is — how should we put this — gay,” Prof. Schwartzman concludes.
If there are any questions about Schwartzman’s bona fides, his stellar bio at Georgetown should put those to rest. It includes this:
From 1978 through 2012, Schwartzman headed Media Access Project (MAP). MAP was a non-profit public interest telecommunications law firm which represented the public in promoting the First Amendment rights to speak and to hear. It sought to promote creation of a well informed electorate by insuring vigorous debate in a free marketplace of ideas. It was the chief legal strategist in efforts to oppose major media mergers and preserve policies promoting media diversity.
- 'NO SHAME'2 days ago
‘You Singlehandedly Blocked the Emmett Till Antilynching Act’: Rand Paul Scorched Over His MLK ‘Commemoration’
- WTH?2 days ago
Lara Trump Thinks Microsoft Office Assistant ‘Clippy’ Is a Real Person Spying on Everything She Writes
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM3 days ago
Die-Hard MAGA Trump Supporters in Arizona Think ‘It’s Very Possible’ States Will ‘Decertify’ the 2020 Election
- 'WINDOW INTO WHERE THIS IS ALL HEADED'3 days ago
‘Avalanche of Lies’: Trump’s Arizona Speech Smacked Down by CNN Host
- 'WHAT'S THE NEXT LINE?'2 days ago
‘Performative Drivel’: Marco Rubio Mocked and Schooled After Taking MLK Quote Out of Context
- COMMENTARY24 hours ago
Legal Experts Blast ‘Jerk Gorsuch’ for Refusing to Wear a Mask – Forcing Sotomayor to Stay in Chambers
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM1 day ago
Former Top FBI Official: ‘Concerning’ Ginni Thomas Signed Letter Saying Jan. 6 Participants ‘Have Done Nothing Wrong’
- PARTNERING WITH HATE AND ANTI-IMMIGRANT GROUPS2 days ago
‘Unprecedented’: Trump Tried to ‘Exert Extreme Partisan Influence Over the Census Bureau’ Docs Reveal