Connect with us

News

A Texas Judge Is Trying to Use the SCOTUS Anti-LGBTQ Ruling to Refuse to Marry Same-Sex Couples

Published

on

In 2019, Waco, Texas Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley received an official “public warning” from the state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct for refusing to officiate weddings for same-sex couples.

The warning, while public, did not come with any fine nor any severe sanctions or censure, as NCRM reported at the time, yet Judge Hensley sued. She retained a far-right wing anti-LGBTQ Christian activist group with ties to Trump, First Liberty Institute, to represent her in her $10,000 lawsuit for damages.

Three years later, almost to the day of her warning, a Texas bipartisan appeals court panel in Austin ruled against her.

“She failed to make her case, the three-member panel wrote,” The Dallas Morning News reported.

Her case essentially was “that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct [had] violated her religious freedom by reprimanding her for performing weddings solely for heterosexual couples,” the paper explained.

READ MORE: Abortion, Diversity, Drag Shows, EVs, and Trans People: Tennessee AG Waging Massive Multi-State Culture War

Hensley was not merely asking that she be allowed to refuse to wed same-sex couples, she was asking the Commission and its members be prevented “from investigating or sanctioning judges or justices of the peace who recuse themselves from officiating at same-sex weddings on account of their sincere religious beliefs.”

In their public warning, the Commission on Judicial Conduct had cited the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that a “judge shall conduct all of the judge’s extra-judicial activities so that they do not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge.”

The Commission determined Hensley “should be publicly warned for casting doubt on her capacity to act impartially to persons appearing before her as a judge due to the person’s sexual orientation in violation of Canon 4A(l) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.”

The Dallas Morning News later added that “Hensley, who is represented by former Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell, indicated on Dec. 19 that she intends to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.”

Jonathan Mitchell is the attorney who devised the legal mechanism, the basis for Texas’ controversial “vigilante,” or “bounty hunter” abortion ban that relies not on government officials but instead, “deputizes ordinary citizens to enforce an effective ban on abortions — and offers them a financial incentive to do so” as The New York Times explained.

READ MORE: Architect of Texas Abortion Ban Also Criticized ‘Court-Invented Rights to Homosexual Behavior and Same-Sex Marriage’

Attorney Mitchell, The Dallas Morning News also reported, after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, set his “sights on gay marriage.”

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court in 303 Creative ruled last month in favor of a private business owner who claims her personal religious beliefs prevent her from designing wedding websites for same-sex couples despite having never formally been asked to do so, Hensley is once again suing for the “right” to not marry same-sex couples.

And Mitchell is reportedly once again her attorney.

Hensley’s new “lawsuit alleges that the commission violated her rights under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Her lawsuit was dismissed by a lower appeals tribunal, but last month, the Texas Supreme Court said it will hear arguments on whether to revive the state judge’s lawsuit,” The Texas Tribune reports.

Hensley “argues that though the Supreme Court used the First Amendment and not state law in the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis case, the decision is also applicable in her lawsuit.”

Some legal experts have told The Texas Tribune the Supreme Court’s 303 Creative case is far different from Hensley’s case.

READ MORE: GOP Senators and Right-Wingers Freak Out Over Biden Ordering 3000 Reservists to Ready for Possible Deployment to Europe

“The law of the land is marriage equality. It’s as simple as that,” Johnathan Gooch, a spokesperson for Equality Texas told the Tribune. “If judges and justices of the peace were empowered to only enforce the laws that they agreed with, we would quickly descend into anarchy.”

Meanwhile, Jezebel also points out that “Hensley’s lawyer is none other than Jonathan Mitchell, the architect of Texas’ bounty hunter abortion ban known as S.B. 8 and counsel for the Texas man suing his ex-wife’s friends for allegedly helping her obtain abortion pills. Unsurprisingly, Mitchell opposes gay rights and said in a Supreme Court brief that Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling that legalized marriage equality, is a court-invented right that is just “as lawless as Roe [v. Wade].” He also attacks LGBTQ rights more broadly: In 2018, Mitchell represented a group seeking exemptions to anti-discrimination rules so they could refuse to hire LGBTQ people it if countered their religious beliefs and he’s the lawyer arguing that insurance shouldn’t have to cover PrEP drugs.”

 

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
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

‘Fundamental Miscalculation’: Columnist Says Democrats Have ‘Little Chance’ in Midterms

Published

on

Democrats made a “fundamental miscalculation” in the redistricting wars and now have “little chance” in the November midterms, argues Eric Garcia at The Independent.

Calling the Virginia Supreme Court’s nullification of a voter-led ballot initiative that allowed the creation of four Democratic congressional districts a “massive body blow,” Garcia also points to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision “virtually nullifying the Voting Rights Act” by requiring Louisiana to redraw its congressional map. There is also the Tennessee legislature turning majority-Black Memphis into another GOP seat — erasing the only Democratic seat in that state.

“And this does not count the redrawing of congressional districts in Missouri and North Carolina before the Supreme Court decision, or Alabama, which is under a court order to not redraw its map until 2030,” Garcia says. He notes that California has been the only state to respond, doing so by adding five Democratic seats to the state.

Zachary Donnini, the head of data science at VoteHub, a political news outlet, “put it bleakly for Democrats.”

Donnini says that now, instead of having to flip just three seats to take the majority in the House, Democrats will have to flip an additional nine seats — a total of twelve in all.

Democrats tried to “lead by example,” but, Garcia says, they turned their states into “laboratories for democracy” by creating “unilateral” disarmament “on behalf of the Democrats” — an act, he labels, a “fundamental failure.”

But he offers Democrats a little hope.

Texas’s redistricting plan relied on Hispanic voters, “after flirting with Trump,” to stay aligned with the GOP. That might have changed. The situation is the same in South Florida, “where the state’s normally conservative Cuban Americans have been caught in the Trump immigration dragnet.”

Pointing to inflation, the economy overall, and Trump’s Iran war, Garcia says Republicans holding on to the House might be “even more difficult.”

Democrats, however, made a “fundamental miscalculation,” Garcia concludes. “By creating guardrails and rules, Republicans did not see a reason to compromise and meet them halfway. It made them targets for weakening. Now, Democrats have put themselves in a bind. They only have themselves to blame.”

 

Image: Public Domain by Architect of the Capitol via Flickr

Continue Reading

News

Trump Is Bored With His Iran War — Iran Isn’t: Columnist

Published

on

President Donald Trump is “bored” with his Iran war, but Iran is not — and isn’t ready for the war to be over, argues Jonathan Lemire at The Atlantic.

The president, now in a “bind,” is tired of the war he started, and has declared victory several times, while Iran “does not want the war to come to a close.”

Trump’s GOP “is warily watching rising gas prices and falling poll numbers,” while the president “doesn’t want to be bogged down in a Middle East conflict like some of his predecessors were. He doesn’t want it to upend his high-stakes summit next week in China. He is ready to move on.”

“The president, five aides and outside advisers told me, is convinced that he can sell any sort of agreement as a win. But at least for now, the man who wrote The Art of the Deal can’t even get Iran to the negotiating table.”

Iran hasn’t even responded to Trump’s one-page memo “that is far more of an extension of the cease-fire than a treaty to end the conflict.”

Trump, Lemire says, did not expect the war to go like this. After his successful excursion into Venezuela, he “set his eyes on Iran, telling confidants that it would ‘be another Venezuela,’ a pair of outside advisers told me.”

It has not been that.

Trump expected his Iran war to last days, or maybe a week or two. It has now been months.

And while administration officials believe the blockade will be successful, experts say Iran can withstand it for months, time the president, with the midterms coming, does not have.

“It then becomes a matter of pain: Which side can withstand the most economic hardship?” Lemire asks.

Trump, impatient, has debated declaring victory and moving on.

“Secretary of State Marco Rubio went so far as to say earlier this week that the war was over,” Lemire notes. “But doing so now would leave the conflict’s goals, as outlined at various times by the president and his aides, unfulfilled.”

The president, says Lemire, “wants the war to end. He wants a deal. But deals take two parties, and there’s no evidence that Iran is interested in bailing Trump out of a dilemma of his own making.”

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Lauren Boebert Knows What Aliens Really Are: ‘Fallen Angels’ — and Possibly Demonic

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) says that aliens from outer space are actually “fallen angels and Nephilim” from the Old Testament of the Bible, according to Right Wing Watch. On Friday, President Donald Trump released declassified government UFO files.

“God is the creator of the universe,” Congresswoman Boebert says in recorded video published Friday by Right Wing Watch. “He’s never not going to create.”

The Colorado Republican lawmaker said that it’s “always been something in my mind to say, ‘Well, how can we be the only ones?’ Like, God’s not going to stop creating just with us.”

“But the more I look into this,” she continued, speaking from inside a car, “the more I see the Old Testament and what was told to us there, of fallen angels, and Nephilim.”

She defended her take by saying, “this is in the Bible,” and there’s “nothing that says that fallen angels, that Nephilim just disappeared. And so I believe that this could be an aspect of it.”

Boebert went on to say that “things that we have seen…could resemble portals,” although in the video she does not explain further.

“And, you know, I mean, this is, we serve an infinite God, a God of the universe. And to say that this is the only realm, is ignorant.”

She denied that aliens are a “Marvin the Martian kind of thing.”

“But I do believe that this is more spiritual, and if you really want to go there, demonic.”

 

Image via Shutterstock 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.