Attacking Entire LGBTQ Community
One South Dakota Republican state legislator is pushing several bills he has authored that would attack the entire LGBTQ community, and make it harder for anyone, regardless of who they married, to get divorced.
South Dakota state Rep. Tony Randolph‘s HB 1215 would make it illegal for two people of the same gender to marry. It would also ban benefits from being given to existing married same-sex couples, ban protections for LGBTQ people, ban any recognition of transgender people, ban conversion therapy, and even ban “drag queen storytime.”
One line in Rep. Randolph’s bill exposes what he thinks of LGBTQ people, looping them in with “zoophilia.”
The bill says: “The state may not enforce, endorse, or favor policies that” “Condone or affirm homosexual, transgender, zoophilia, objectophilia, polygamy, or sexual orientation doctrines.”
The policy director for the ACLU of South Dakota calls it “the legislative version of ‘saying the quiet part out loud.'”:
HB 1215 is the legislative version of “saying the quiet part out loud.” It lays bear what’s really happening in South Dakota. We are seeing an all out assault on the LGBTQ and two spirit communities. pic.twitter.com/p3evbiMO7d
— Libby Skarin (@LibbySkarin) January 31, 2020
Transgender advocate and triathlete Chris Mosier weighs in:
The #SDleg is out of control – lawmakers there have a clear agenda to attack, suppress, and remove LGBTQ+ people from South Dakota. HB1215 is the latest.
— The Chris Mosier (@TheChrisMosier) January 30, 2020
Rep. Randolph is not satisfied attacking just LGBTQ people. He’s also trying to make it harder for anyone in South Dakota to divorce.
HB 1158 would eliminate “irreconcilable differences” as a legal reason for filing for divorce. It would also swap “Conviction of felony” with a new reason: “Criminal conviction that resulted in incarceration.”
Last week a bill supported but not authored by Rep. Randolph easily passed through the South Dakota House.
HB 1057 would make it illegal for physicians to perform gender confirmation surgery on transgender youth or teens, and even make it illegal to prescribe hormones to them.
It would also legally define “sex” as “the biological state of being female or male, based on sex organs, chromosomes, and endogenous hormone profiles.”
Randolph is also the author of legislation that would make sex education “opt-in,” requiring parental approval before students are allowed to attend. HB 1162 would also direct that South Dakota sex education classes “Stress the importance and benefits of abstinence from all sexual activity before marriage,” “Stress the importance of fidelity after marriage for preventing certain communicable diseases and strengthen the bond between spouses,” and “Communicate that sexual abstinence is the only effective method of eliminating the risk of unplanned or out-of-wedlock pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases.”
That bill would also make sex education classes extremely ineffective:
“Sexual abstinence programs may not include models of instruction, based on risk reduction, encouraging or promote or provide instruction on the use of contraceptives products or methods. Materials and instruction may not be excessively graphic or explicit and may not include explicit descriptions of sexual activity that encourage erotic, lewd, or obscene behavior.”
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.
Flustered Jim Jordan Just Can’t Seem to Remember When or How Many Times He Talked to Trump on Jan. 6
U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), speaking before the House Rules Committee Wednesday appeared flustered and agitated when asked if he had talked to Donald Trump on January 6.
Jordan began by delivering a rambling, angry, lie-filled speech revealing he is far more angry about the investigation into the attack on American democracy than the actual attack on democracy.
The fast-talking Ohio GOP Congressman spewed a cornucopia of right wing talking points, including attacking the Biden administration in his remarks as the “worst administration in history.”
But his tune changed when he was asked questions.
“If you could just, for the record, was it before, during or after the attack –” Jordan was asked by Chairman Jim McGovern (D-MA).
“I talked to the president after the attack,” Jordan interrupted.
“So not before or during?” McGovern asked to confirm.
“Right,” Jordan agreed.
“Okay, and you –” McGovern continued before being interrupted by Jordan.
“And I have been clear about that. But here, let me ask you a question, you brought up January 6 –” Jordan continued, attempting to flip control of the questioning.
He was not successful.
“But, but my understanding is that you said to a reporter from Politico that you spoke to him during, so, it’s now after the attack?”
“During? No, I didn’t speak to the president during the attack,” Jordan insisted.
“So you admitted to speaking to the former president on January 6 the same day you voted to overturn the election,” McGovern concluded.
In July Jordan told Rolling Stone he talked to Trump on January 6 “countless times” but refused to reveal the content or time of those calls. He also told Spectrum News:
“Uhh, I’d have to go— I spoke with him that day after … I think after?” he stammered. “I don’t know if I spoke with him in the morning or not. I just don’t know. I don’t know when those conversations happened. I know that I spoke with him all the time.”
Ohio’s @Jim_Jordan confirms to me:
“I spoke with [Trump] on Jan. 6th.”
Before, during or after attack?
“I spoke with him that day, after? I think after. I don’t know if I spoke with him in the morning or not. I just don’t know…I don’t know when those conversations happened.” pic.twitter.com/h4fbuMYtk0
— Taylor Popielarz (@TaylorPopielarz) July 28, 2021
A simple review of his telephone records would make determining when he spoke to Trump much easier.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who previously said he didn’t know if he spoke with President Trump before, during, or after the 1/6 insurrection:
“No, I did not speak to the president during the attack.” pic.twitter.com/42VsgmY0t5
— The Recount (@therecount) October 20, 2021
‘Coup Memo’ Think Tank Encouraging ‘Secession-by-Sheriff’ With Latest Project: Report
A right-wing Claremont Institute is undermining law and order and encouraging secession one county at a time.
The think tank, where coup memo author John Eastman remains a member in good standing, is weaponizing “patriotic law enforcement officers” with its new “Sheriff’s Fellowship” that ties together conservative anger over Black Lives Matter protests, COVID-19 lockdowns and Donald Trump’s election loss to bring so-called “Constitutional Sheriffs” into the mainstream, reported The Bulwark’s Charlie Sykes.
“Our nation’s conservative movement needs a countervailing network of uncorrupted law enforcement officials,” the think tank announced. [We need sheriffs] “not beholden to bureaucratic masters, and whose geographic boundaries, jurisdictional latitude, and — most important — direct connection and responsibility to citizens, places them on the frontlines of the defense of civilization.”
The plan sounds a lot like the Constitutional Sheriffs movement, which has infiltrated law enforcement agencies around the country with specious claims borrowed from the sovereign citizen movement that places the county sheriff as the “highest legitimate law enforcement” in the U.S. and claims they have authority to determine which laws are constitutional.
“Think of it as militias with badges, guns, and formal law enforcement powers,” Sykes wrote. “Or, if you like, secession-by-sheriff.”
Trump and his administration encouraged the sheriffs’ movement and openly backed leading figures such as Arizona’s Joe Arpaio and Wisconsin’s David Clarke, and former attorney general Jeff Sessions praised the “Anglo-Saxon heritage” of the office — which the Claremont Institute also did in a recent fundraising letter.
“The current revolution against the American regime, involving as it does both crime and political malfeasance, requires a coordinated response from patriotic law enforcement officers,” the letter reads. “Sheriffs are appropriate for this response. Since their beginnings as ‘shire-reeves’ (‘county watchmen’) centuries ago in England, sheriffs have been intimately connected with, and answerable to, the people of their “shires” and therefore the first layer of protection, and last line of defense, for the people’s rights.”
Another Arizona sheriff, Pinal County’s Mark Lamb, has emerged as a leading figure among militia-minded right-wing sheriffs who are loyal to Trump and supportive of the Jan. 6 insurrection.
“If Claremont gets its way, there will be sheriffs like Joe Arpaio, David Clarke, and Mark Lamb all across the country,” Sykes wrote. “You are not worried nearly enough about what that might mean.”
Glenn Youngkin Brags About Support From Opponents of LGBTQ Equality Just Weeks Ahead of Virginia Election
Republican Glenn Youngkin is continuing to rally anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ extremists in his bid to become Virginia’s next governor. Most Virginians support legal equality, including marriage equality, and most Virginians believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, but Youngkin continues to seek and tout endorsements from groups that oppose LGBTQ equality and want to make abortion illegal. Youngkin has told activists that he will go “on offense” against reproductive choice once elected, and he has refused to say whether he supports marriage equality.
In a press release dated Oct. 8, Youngkin boasted about endorsements from the Family Research Council’s political arm, the Virginia Society for Human Life PAC, and longtime anti-abortion and anti-equality activist Penny Nance, head of Concerned Women for America.
FRC supports “total abortion bans” that criminalize abortion at all stages. The organization has been designated an anti-LGBTQ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and has long promoted anti-Muslim bigotry. None of that kept Youngkin from agreeing to speak at FRC’s annual conference for religious-right activists earlier this month, where speakers delivered Christian nationalist and bigoted messages. Delivering his own speech, Youngkin urged the activists, “Lock arms with me!”
A Youngkin campaign press release touting the latest endorsements included a long quote from FRC’s Tony Perkins smearing the Democratic nominee as a threat to religious freedom and claiming that Youngkin “understands the values that are important to Virginians.”
Nance has devoted much of her professional life to making abortion illegal and worked tirelessly to help former President Donald Trump pack the Supreme Court and other federal courts with like-minded judges. She spearheaded a $500,000 campaign backing the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Nance is also a strident opponent of LGBTQ equality, even opposingreauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act because CWA claimed it would create “new protections for homosexuals.” When the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated at a gay couple’s wedding, Nance sent an email with the subject line, “Ruth Traitor Ginsburg.”
Even though Virginians soundly rejected Trump, Nance claimed that the Trump-endorsed Youngkin will “uphold the values of Virginians.”
The Virginia Society for Human Life is an affiliate of National Right to Life, which supports abortion bans, including the recent extreme Texas law that bans abortion as early as six weeks and is now being challenged in federal courts. In September, Youngkin’s campaign touted National Right to Life’s endorsement, along with that of the anti-choice Susan B. Anthony List.
This article was originally published by Right Wing Watch and is republished here by permission.
- COMMENTARY2 days ago
‘Pig’ Donald Trump Slammed After Attacking Colin Powell for Being Treated ‘So Beautifully’ in Death
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM3 days ago
‘Utterly Godawful’ Fox News Reporter Blasted for Using Colin Powell’s COVID Death to Promote Vaccine Disinformation
- 'HIRED ACTOR'3 days ago
Psaki Again Destroys Doocy So Bad Some Are Asking if He Is a ‘Deep State’ Actor or a ‘Plant’ to Make Her Look Good
- RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM3 days ago
Preacher Who Suggests He Is Acting Like Christ Laments Government Isn’t Executing LGBTQ People
- 'DEMASCULATE'3 days ago
Watch: Madison Cawthorn Urges Mothers of Young Boys to ‘Raise Them to Be a Monster’
- News2 days ago
Trump Refuses to Answer Questions in Deposition Over Lawsuit That His Security Team Assaulted Protesters: Report
- 'REMARKABLY THIN'3 days ago
‘Flaccid Little Cry Baby’: Legal Experts Weigh in on Trump’s ‘Not Very Strong’ Lawsuit to Block Jan. 6 Committee
- RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM22 hours ago
Indicted Congressman Is ‘Longtime’ Member of Secretive Religious Org Tied to Uganda’s ‘Kill the Gays’ Bill: Report