ReportWire

Tag: LGBTQ rights

  • Biden says efforts to restrict transgender rights ‘close to sinful’ | CNN Politics

    Biden says efforts to restrict transgender rights ‘close to sinful’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden called efforts to restrict transgender rights in Florida “close to sinful” in an interview released Monday, suggesting federal laws should be passed to protect those rights in all states.

    “What’s going on in Florida is, as my mother would say, close to sinful. It’s just terrible what they’re doing,” Biden said during an interview with Kal Penn for “The Daily Show.”

    Biden’s comments came as an unprecedented number of measures are introduced in state legislatures this year that are seeking to restrict LGBTQ rights. The proposed bills cover a wide range of policies, including some that seek to restrict transgender people from competing on sports teams or using bathrooms that align with their gender identity.

    Youth and medical care is a growing legislative focus. Florida will soon enact a measure banning gender-affirming medical care for youth, including barring doctors from prescribing puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgeries for patients under 18. Tennessee passed a law this month banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth.

    Biden didn’t specify which rules he found offensive, but said that efforts to restrict the rights of trans individuals were “cruel.”

    “It’s not like a kid wakes up one morning and says, You know, I decided I wanted to become a man or want to become a woman or I want to change. I mean, what are they thinking about here? They’re human beings. They love, they have feelings, they have inclinations,” he said.

    “It just, to me, is, I dunno, it’s cruel,” he went on.

    “And the way we do it is make sure we pass legislation like we passed on same-sex marriage. You mess with that, you’re breaking the law, and you’re going to be held accountable,” he said.

    At least 385 bills targeting LGBTQ rights and queer life have been introduced around the country through March 7, according to data compiled by the American Civil Liberties Union. The number of bills has already surpassed last year’s total of 306, according to ACLU data shared with CNN.

    In the interview, Biden also affirmed his support for same-sex marriage, describing an epiphany when he was young after seeing two “well-dressed men” kissing outside an office building in Delaware.

    “I’ll never forget – I turned and looked at my dad. He said, ‘Joey, it’s simple. They love each other,’” he said.

    Despite the early view into same-sex relationships, Biden still voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 when he was a senator, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

    His views on the issue evolved, and in 2012, when he was serving a vice president, Biden delivered an unexpected endorsement of same-sex marriage in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

    At the end of last year, Biden signed into law landmark new federal protections for same-sex and interracial couples, capping both a personal and national evolution on an issue that’s enjoyed growing acceptance over the past decade.

    In the interview, Biden lightly ribbed Penn – an actor who also worked in the Obama White House – for putting off marriage after getting engaged to his partner five years ago.

    “Listen to your auntie and your uncle: get married. Do it now. Don’t wait,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republicans elevate ‘parental rights’ as top issue while looking to outflank each other heading into 2024 | CNN Politics

    Republicans elevate ‘parental rights’ as top issue while looking to outflank each other heading into 2024 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Republican presidential hopefuls have begun casting themselves as impassioned defenders of “parental rights,” turning schoolbooks and curricula, doctors’ offices, and sports leagues into a new political battleground as they work to distinguish themselves ahead of the 2024 GOP primary.

    The issue had already emerged as a major vein in the GOP bloodstream, emanating partly from the coronavirus pandemic, when school closures and vaccine mandates upended family routines and rankled vaccine-hesitant parents. But it took off after Republicans watched Glenn Youngkin defeat Democrat Terry McAuliffe in Virginia’s 2021 gubernatorial election following a campaign that placed “parents’ rights” at its center.

    While critics have denounced the theme of parents’ rights as oppressive, 2024 Republicans have nevertheless plowed ahead, seeking to one-up each other with provocative campaign pledges and legislative actions – the most obvious moves in recent weeks coming from former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

    Several Republican governors – many with presidential ambitions – responded to Youngkin’s success by championing parental rights in their states, enacting bills that give parents and guardians unfettered access to school curricula, books and learning materials, and, in some instances, requiring school principals to review parental complaints about textbooks and lesson plans before they can proceed with using the material in classrooms. In some states, such as Texas, Florida and Iowa, parental permission is now needed to discuss certain topics with students. Other states, such as Georgia, have put parents and school communities in charge of vetting books their children could encounter at school for signs of race-related or sexual themes, appealing to conservatives who have voiced concerns about “radical” literature.

    But Republicans have also since turned parents’ rights into an umbrella term for a host of cultural issues. Declaring that parents deserve a say in what their children are taught, some GOP power players have pushed to end diversity and equity programs in public schools. Others have sought to restrict lessons about sexual orientation or gender identity. And some have looked to prevent schools from using a child’s preferred pronouns without parental permission.

    “We saw it with Youngkin’s race, and [Florida Gov. Ron] DeSantis has been playing it up for the last year. The issue has been building from Covid and extended to where we are now,” said Jennifer Williams, who in 2016 became the first openly transgender delegate to the Republican National Convention. Both DeSantis and Youngkin are said to be eyeing 2024 presidential campaigns.

    The sprint to get ahead on the issue is likely to play out over a combative presidential primary, while allies and advisers see it as an opportunity to appeal to a broader electorate if their candidate becomes the next GOP presidential nominee.

    “There are more parents than teachers, so it’s an easy equation. If you’re on the side of parents, that’s going to win you at the local level, and it’s going to win you at the national level,” said Keith Naughton, a longtime Republican consultant. Still, he also cautioned Republicans against “moving too far away from the consensus.”

    But public opinion around parental rights remains murky.

    A Quinnipiac poll released in February 2022 found that nearly 8 in 10 Americans considered efforts to ban books in schools and libraries purely political, versus 15 percent who said the efforts stemmed from content concerns. And as Republicans confront sensitive issues such as transgender rights while championing what they describe as parental empowerment, they could face similar political peril. A separate November poll by Marquette University Law School found that while a majority of Republicans (82%-18%) believed transgender athletes should be prohibited from participating in sports competitions – a topic the GOP has devoted much attention to in recent years – independent voters were nearly evenly split on the matter. The same survey showed that Republicans favored the 2020 Supreme Court decision that the 1964 Civil Rights Act bars employers from discriminating against gay and transgender workers by a 47-point margin, underscoring the political risks 2024 GOP hopefuls could encounter as they link LGBTQ rights to their parental rights push.

    Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of the LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD, said Republicans are using the guise of parental rights “to eliminate people, history books and marginalized communities.”

    “This is not about parents. It’s a tactic that DeSantis found really whipped up his base in Florida and so [Republicans] are taking it out for a run to see how it does. Their goal, it seems, is that these politicians are trying to turn parents against each other and make classrooms a battleground so they can further their political ambitions,” Ellis said.

    GLAAD is expected to launch a messaging campaign in March that Ellis said will “fill the knowledge gap” that Republicans have “exploited.”

    “They tap into the worst anxieties of any parent,” said Ellis, a parent herself.

    Trump, currently the only declared candidate in the GOP presidential field, is one of several 2024 hopefuls who have elevated “parents’ rights” to new prominence as they work to curry favor with the party’s base.

    Trump pushed to create a “patriotic education” commission and ordered the federal government to end diversity trainings during his term in office, though much of his focus over the past two years has been on relitigating the 2020 election. Recently, though, he has refocused his attention on the kinds of cultural battles that have enabled some of his likeliest rivals – most notably DeSantis – to gain considerable popularity among Republican voters.

    In two straight-to-camera videos this week, Trump suggested that parents should select school principals through a “direct election” process and threatened to end federal funding for schools that teach “a child that they could be trapped in the wrong body” if he were to win another term.

    Even those who agreed with Trump’s proposals suggested he was playing catch-up with his fellow culture warriors – especially as he also went on the attack against DeSantis recently, calling the Florida governor “disloyal” and a “globalist RINO” in separate broadsides.

    “Obviously, DeSantis taking on Disney has shown a lot of leadership on this issue and frankly, I think it’s why Trump came out with his statements this week because in a lot of ways he sees himself running against DeSantis,” said Bob Vander Plaats, a social conservative activist who runs the Iowa-based Family Leader coalition. Vander Plaats was referring to the Florida governor’s push to strip the Walt Disney Company of its special governing powers after the company criticized his legislative efforts to restrict lessons on LGBTQ rights and gender identity in Florida classrooms.

    “Trump is saying, ‘How do I get to the right of DeSantis on this issue?’” Vander Plaats added.

    Allies of the former president rebuffed suggestions that he is taking cues from rivals rather than setting the agenda. They pointed to actions Trump took during his term in office to develop a counter-curriculum to the 1619 Project, an initiative launched by The New York Times to teach American students about slavery but which conservatives have decried as “propaganda.” And they cite the many instances in which Trump has condemned the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports, a topic he first weaved into his stump speech at the 2021 Conservative Political Action Conference and one that tends to draw some of the biggest applause lines at his campaign rallies.

    “This isn’t anything new,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said. “On the school education stuff and critical race theory, he’s been talking about it since 2019 and 2020. And when he talks about gender ideology, he’s been mentioning that in his rallies, too.”

    “He’s a candidate now, and he’s focused on forward-looking policy proposals,” Cheung added.

    Some conservative activists who are still waiting to see how the 2024 primary field takes shape said Trump appears to be taking steps to ensure he isn’t outflanked by opponents on the issues that currently animate Republican base voters. Terry Schilling, executive director of the socially conservative American Principles Project, said Trump is “trying to play catch-up, but it’s good.”

    Referring specifically to Trump’s recently unveiled plan to curtail transgender rights, including ending medical treatments for transgender teens, Schilling suggested the former president was “making sure he’s the most conservative candidate on this issue.”

    “I think he’s just trying to ensure he doesn’t lose any ground or get outflanked. … It’s tough because DeSantis and Youngkin have actually been changing the policies on it, which is why I think he is going above and beyond … to kind of get a leg up,” Schilling said.

    A spokesman for DeSantis’ political operation declined to comment, but the Republican governor’s actions suggest he will not cede the issue by any stretch as he marches toward a potential campaign for president. This week, DeSantis released a 2023 budget framework that repeatedly emphasized the importance of “protecting parents’ fundamental rights,” nearly a year after he signed a “Parents Bill of Rights” into law that banned instructions on sexual orientation and gender identity to K-3 grade students.

    During the 2022 midterms, DeSantis took the unprecedented step of vetting, endorsing and campaigning for school board candidates, generating a wave of like-minded conservatives to carry out his agenda in districts across the state. Meanwhile, at DeSantis’ urging, a state medical board stacked with his appointees has effectively banned medication and surgeries for minors seeking gender transitions. DeSantis has decried such interventions as “chemical castration.”

    In leading these cultural clashes, DeSantis has become a superstar among highly engaged conservatives. He and his wife, Casey, were treated like rock stars at last year’s Tampa summit of Moms for Liberty, a group that mobilizes conservative matriarchs across the country, where he was heralded onstage as an “American hero” and a “shining light” for parents across the country who wish that “Ron would be their governor.” The Florida Republican was reelected to a second term in November by a 19-point margin, a victory he touted at a news conference earlier this week following a fresh round of attacks from Trump.

    Tiffany Justice, a co-founder of Moms for Liberty, said parental rights weren’t on the forefront of minds during Trump’s first campaign in 2016 or when DeSantis first ran for governor in 2018. But DeSantis was among the first to recognize during the pandemic the parental angst around closed schools, mask mandates and an apprehension to ideological creep into the classroom, she said, and it has him well positioned when parental rights becomes “a litmus test for all candidates in 2024.”

    “He’s being rewarded already by having his colleagues and peers watching what he is doing and emulating him across the country,” Justice said. “Ron DeSantis stood up for parents when no one else was. I think he’s a leader that way, and parents across the country have recognized him for that.”

    Indeed, DeSantis’ actions have spawned copycat bills in statehouses across the country this year. The National Center for Transgender Equality is tracking 231 bills in state legislatures across the country that seek to curb transgender rights – 86 of which would restrict access to transgender care. In a sign of how swiftly Republicans have pivoted to this issue, as recently as 2019, not a single state legislature in the country was debating cutting off access to gender affirmation treatment or surgeries, said Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen, executive director of the center.

    “If you rewind to 2018, this was not a political matter. There were no bills in statehouses. There were no presidential candidates talking about it. Transgender people were getting health care without a problem, and it was universally recognized as essential care by leading medical institutions,” Heng-Lehtinen said. “It was almost literally overnight we saw these bills pop up.”

    “And the places where we’ve seen the most aggressive actions against transgender people,” he added, “are in states where there’s a governor with all points suggesting they are seeking higher office.”

    Among those governors is Texas Republican Greg Abbott, whose administration has investigated parents of transgender teens for child abuse. In Iowa, where GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds already signed a bill to give parents and guardians more access to their children’s educational lives, lawmakers are now considering whether to ban instruction of sexual orientation or gender identity through eighth grade. Another potential 2024 Republican candidate, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, authored and signed a bill in 2022 that banned transgender women and girls from female scholastic sports, and in December her administration canceled a transgender advocacy group’s contract with the state’s Department of Health. There is also Youngkin, the term-limited Virginia governor who held a donor summit last fall to explore a possible presidential campaign and who recently rolled out a series of policy changes aimed at transgender students, one of which seeks to require parental sign-off for students who wish to use names or pronouns that diverge from what is listed on their official record.

    But not every Republican agrees with the policy fights being waged by the party’s potential presidential contenders as they aim to give parents more control over their childrens’ education.

    “When Youngkin and DeSantis do things like this, they aren’t taking into account the discrimination that can result,” said Williams, the former RNC delegate. “If parental rights are constantly about gender identity and critical race theory, it doesn’t seem to be about education. It seems to me it’s about making sure I can shield my kid from anything other than what I want them to know.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • We Sold Everything To Travel The U.S. In An RV. There’s One Thing We Never Expected.

    We Sold Everything To Travel The U.S. In An RV. There’s One Thing We Never Expected.

    [ad_1]

    “Hopefully, the pig is friendly,” I muttered to my wife as we started walking toward the outdoor bar area. We were deep in Texas and staying at an RV site that boasts award-winning pulled pork, apple pie fries, and a giant pig named Minnie Pearl. She was, indeed, friendly and loved being petted. She was also surprisingly chatty for a pig.

    As two lesbians traveling full time in an RV, there are places where we fear our gayness may stir an angry reaction from people who disagree with our “lifestyle.” When that happens, we walk a few feet apart and exude a “we’re just friends” vibe. This was one of those times.

    Nearing the bar, we distanced ourselves and acted casual. We had our heads on a swivel, taking in our surroundings like covert operatives in enemy territory. We spotted two women eyeing us without even trying to be discreet. “This should be interesting,” I murmured under my breath.

    To our surprise, as we got closer, the women waved and welcomed us to the bar as if we were old friends. They invited us to grab a beer and sit at a neighboring table. We were shocked and relieved because the last thing we expected to see in a small-town Texas bar was another lesbian couple. You never know what you’ll find when you live on the road.

    When we decided to sell everything and move into an RV, we were looking for an unencumbered life. We both retired early from stressful careers in health care and longed for a relaxed pace untethered from responsibility. Not a week goes by that we don’t acknowledge how lucky and privileged we are to have been able to choose to retire earlier than most. We’ve been on the road for more than a year and have had some unique and incredible experiences.

    The author and her wife with Minnie Pearl, the pig at Lone Star Bar in Fredericksburg, Texas, in October 2021.

    Courtesy of Kim Kelly Stamp

    Recently, at a campground in Grand Canyon National Park, we had a once-in-a-lifetime experience. My partner was planning to do a one-day, 26-mile, rim-to-rim hike, and we’d arrived a couple of days early to enjoy the area before her grueling adventure. We were awakened on our first morning by a strange, almost harmonic sound.

    Scrambling out of bed, I threw on some clothes and opened the shades of our camper to look around. “Holy shit,” I shouted. “There are two elk with huge racks right outside.”

    The bull elk were about 50 feet away, and a few females were grazing farther out. I fumbled with my phone, trying to bring up the camera without the help of my glasses, and stumbled out of our teardrop trailer to take a video of the unfolding scene.

    The bulls were bugling and sounded oddly similar to whales under the sea. The nearby cow elk were bleating in response. The bulls began charging each other, slamming their expansive racks together, stopping only when the females cried. These beasts were so close that we could see the mist from their breath swirling around their snouts as they bugled. The rising sun filtering through the trees added to the magnificent display of nature.

    We envisioned epic moments like this when we decided to bail on the conventional American dream to live a nomadic life of adventure. We romanticized giving up our jobs, home, and the semblance of security we’d previously taken for granted. We idealized every part of full-time RV living, giving little thought to the potential drawbacks.

    We hadn’t envisioned dealing with an overflowing septic tank at a random dump station that caused waste from our black tank to spill all over the ground. We never considered handling severe winds whipping our trailer side to side as we drove through The Gorge in Oregon. And we didn’t spend much time thinking about how we might be perceived in the conservative areas of our country.

    The author and her wife at Garrapata State Park beach in California in April 2022.
    The author and her wife at Garrapata State Park beach in California in April 2022.

    Courtesy of Kim Kelly Stamp

    Before setting off on our journey, we lived in a liberal western Washington city that celebrated diversity as though they had invented it. Pride flags and Black Lives Matter posters are displayed in businesses and homes throughout our town. Being a lesbian couple in that environment lulled me into believing that being gay was widely accepted and supported. I should have known better, but I was too busy being idealistic.

    There is little diversity within the RV and tent camping communities. We don’t see many people of color and rarely run into gay couples. We’ve observed that conservative, straight, white people primarily enjoy RVing, and we often sense the eyes of judgment and disdain when it registers with our campground neighbors that we are gay.

    It’s not uncommon to see RVs flying Trump flags, and we once observed a camper adorned with a life-size window decal of Trump’s smiling face. It’s commonplace to hear disparaging comments about liberals and even more familiar to watch people trying to avoid eye contact with us. We quickly learned to be as stealthy as possible.

    I can’t imagine the luxury of enjoying RV life as a straight couple. I wonder what it would feel like to go for an after-dinner walk through a campground or RV park and feel like you fit in. The sense of belonging may be so pedestrian to straight couples that they are unaware of their freedom.

    It didn’t occur to me when we embarked on this journey that I might feel the need to hide who I am again. It took me nearly 50 years to come out of the closet, so it’s disheartening to feel my safety is in jeopardy unless I closet my gayness. We’ve seen too many YouTube videos of gays being physically attacked to consider holding hands during our evening walks when camped in the South.

    A couple of months into our grand adventure, I started feeling cynical whenever we pulled into an RV park. I’d judge people based on their license plates, deciding in advance who would and wouldn’t be accepting of us. I assumed Texans would be judgmental and unwelcoming even before we rolled into the Longhorn State. This is why our experience at The Lone Star Bar in Fredericksburg was such a surprise.

    The author and her wife at Bryce Canyon in Utah in September 2022.
    The author and her wife at Bryce Canyon in Utah in September 2022.

    Courtesy of Kim Kelly Stamp

    We ended up sitting with the lesbian couple who welcomed us to the bar and had a great time. They were regulars and relayed the story of how a local woman came to own the bar. We heard how each of them ended up in Texas and why they decided to stay. And they encouraged us to introduce ourselves to the resident (giant) pig, Minnie Pearl.

    Over beers, pulled pork, and apple pie fries (reason alone to visit the Lone Star), we swapped stories with our new friends and felt at ease and connected. Late that night, after a unique moment with Minnie Pearl, we wandered back to our trailer with full bellies and happy hearts.

    As we climbed into bed, we talked about the irony of the situation and how our preconceived beliefs were shattered over caramel-drizzled apples that were cut and fried to resemble French fries. We acknowledged our tendency to judge others we think will judge us.

    Yes, queer people are still in danger in this country just because of who they are. Frighteningly, with “Don’t Say Gay” bills being passed in several states, rampant anti-trans sentiment, and more new threats popping up regularly, it often feels like we’re going backward. But this is a big country with good people everywhere.

    We know we have to be careful ― and we are. But we’ve also been pleasantly surprised on our journey, and we’re challenging ourselves to be more fluid in our thinking and to foster an openness that waits and watches before making judgments based on nothing more than a license plate on the back of an RV.

    Kim Kelly Stamp is a writer, essayist, and espresso enthusiast. She travels with her wife around the country in a 21-foot teardrop trailer. You can follow her on Twitter @KimKellyWrites and read more of her work at medium.com/@kimkellywrites.

    Do you have a compelling personal story you’d like to see published on HuffPost? Find out what we’re looking for here and send us a pitch.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The fine print of the Respect for Marriage Act | CNN Politics

    The fine print of the Respect for Marriage Act | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story first ran in July. It also appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    Let’s start with the positive: Republicans and Democrats are coming together to protect same-sex marriage from the Supreme Court. The Respect for Marriage Act, which safeguards the right to same-sex marriage nationwide, passed the House with bipartisan support earlier this week and now awaits a Senate vote.

    The Respect for Marriage Act codifies marriages and came about amid worries among Democrats that the same conservative majority on the Supreme Court that took away the right to abortion will target same-sex marriage in the future.

    The version that overcame a filibuster in the Senate passed the Senate Tuesday. A dozen Republican senators from across the country voted with Democrats before Thanksgiving to limit debate and move toward a final vote.

    RELATED: Meet the 12 Republicans who voted to consider the Respect for Marriage Act

    It next goes to the House for approval before President Joe Biden can sign it into law.

    But there is a fair amount of fine print.

    First, the bill does not require all states to allow same-sex marriage, even though that is the current reality under the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Rather, if the Supreme Court overturned Obergefell and previous state prohibitions on same-sex marriage came back into effect, the Respect for Marriage Act would require states and the federal government to respect marriages conducted in places where it is legal.

    There are religious exceptions. Republican supporters have emphasized the elements in this Senate version that protect nonprofit and religious organizations from having to provide support for same-sex marriages.

    “I will be supporting the substitute amendment because it will ensure our religious freedoms are upheld and protected, one of the bedrocks of our democracy,” said West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito in a statement after helping break the filibuster.

    It took months of behind-the-scenes effort to bring 10-plus Republicans on board.

    This is all academic right now. The bill is only being passed in case the now-solidly conservative Supreme Court, which has taken delight in upending precedent, were to revisit the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that created a national right to marriage for same-sex couples.

    Two of the justices who voted in favor of that ruling have been replaced by Republican-appointed conservatives, which means that if the case were heard today, there’s a real likelihood it would be decided differently.

    While Justice Samuel Alito seemed to want to wall off the abortion rights precedent upended by the Supreme Court earlier this year, CNN’s Ariane de Vogue has written about how the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization could affect issues like marriage. Read her story.

    Here’s a brief history of marriage equality playing a role in prior election years:

    Today, it’s Republicans and Democrats, along with a Democratic president, working together to protect same-sex marriage from a government institution.

    During that time, public support for same-sex marriage grew from about a quarter of the public in the year the Defense of Marriage Act was enacted to 71% in Gallup polling this year.

    The issue has played a role in multiple US elections, including, arguably, the one that just took place.

    Here’s a brief history of marriage equality playing a role in prior election years:

    In 1996, Republican majorities in the House and Senate sensed a political opening after then-President Bill Clinton failed to allow gay people to openly serve in the military.

    They were also trying to get ahead of a Hawaii court decision that could have legalized same-sex marriage in that state. Fearing every state might have to recognize same-sex unions, Republicans pushed the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA.

    It declared marriage as between one man and one woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize marriages. It also withheld federal benefits from married same-sex couples. In 2013, a part of DOMA was found to be unconstitutional.

    DOMA had broad approval. Democrats like then-Sen. Joe Biden voted for the bill. Current Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and many other Democrats whose names you’d recognize, were among the 342 who voted for the bill in the House.

    Current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was among the 67 members to vote “no,” along with Rep. Steve Gunderson, who at the time was the House’s only openly gay Republican.

    In 2004, placing anti-gay-marriage amendments on ballots in key states like Ohio was smart politics. It helped George W. Bush win reelection to the White House and the GOP gain seats in the US Senate.

    Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The Democratic candidate, John Kerry, also opposed same-sex marriage at the time.

    In 2008, even as more in his party began to publicly support marriage equality, Obama continued his opposition.

    He has more recently said and written that he always personally supported same-sex marriage rights. His campaign aide David Axelrod has written that Obama made a calculated decision to oppose gay marriage.

    “He grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union,’” Axelrod wrote in a memoir.

    In 2012, following the lead of then-Vice President Biden, Obama officially evolved on the issue and said he now supported marriage equality. It was a big moment.

    A few years later, in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide.

    “I’m fine with it,” Trump said in 2016 during an interview with “60 Minutes.”

    He’d go on to brag about being a champion for gay rights, although many LGBTQ activists would disagree.

    The politicians of the ’90s have largely evolved with the country.

    But one of the Supreme Court’s relics from the ’90s, Justice Clarence Thomas, recently questioned the 2015 marriage decision he opposed. As a result, Republicans and Democrats are coming together again, in less than a generation, to undo what they did in 1996, and try to guarantee marriage as a right for all Americans.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Mental health, Russia-Ukraine War’: What got single people talking on Tinder in 2022

    ‘Mental health, Russia-Ukraine War’: What got single people talking on Tinder in 2022

    [ad_1]

    Tinder dating trends: Stances on social issues were considered important for making or breaking matches this year as 75 per cent single Indians sought a match respectful of or invested in social issues on the online dating app Tinder. The top five social issues that got people talking in 2022 were LGBTQ+ rights, environment, mental health, feminism, and the Russia-Ukraine crisis, as per Tinder’s Year in Swipe report.  

    Other issues that got Tinder users talking were cyber safety, inflation, work-life balance, animal welfare, and politics whereas mentions of activism and voter rights saw an increase in profiles.

    Life Coach and Tinder’s Relationship expert Dr. Chandni Tugait said, “Young adults are feeling more confident, recognise what healthy dating looks like, and know what positive signs to look out for when swiping. They are able to focus on the positive characteristics and attitudes that they believe will keep them happy, content, and feeling valued throughout their relationship.” 

    She added, “So while they may go on blind dates, they no longer turn a blind eye to red flags and increasingly look for green flags or positives in a match or a relationship.” Due to the increasing awareness about green and red flags in a match and/or a relationship, red flag, mending heart, and gaslighting emojis were trending on the platform. 

    Apart from red and green flags in a relationship, young single Indians are also clear about the qualities they prefer in a partner. Young Indians prioritised attributes like loyalty (79 per cent), respect (78 per cent), someone who is clear about what they want and has good hygiene (73 per cent), and open-mindedness (61 per cent) over looks (56 per cent).

    Also read: Tinder’s ‘Let’s Talk Gender’ online glossary is the guide we all needed

    Also read: Tinder dating trends 2022: Users want hygienic partners, prefer coffee dates over dinner

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • BBC Reporter And Ex-Player Alex Scott Trolls Qatar World Cup Ban On The Field

    BBC Reporter And Ex-Player Alex Scott Trolls Qatar World Cup Ban On The Field

    [ad_1]

    BBC broadcaster Alex Scott carried on with the gay-rights demonstration that players had to abandon Monday at the World Cup in Qatar. (Watch the video below.)

    Scott, a former star for England’s national women’s team, wore a “One Love” rainbow-heart armband to protest the host country’s criminalization of same-sex relationships.

    The gesture on the live TV buildup to England’s easy victory over Iran put an exclamation point on FIFA announcing hours earlier that players would be issued yellow cards for wearing them.

    Captains for England, Wales, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands had planned to wear the band, which promotes diversity and inclusion. But the penalty was too steep.

    Scott’s colleague Kelly Somers proudly called attention to Scott’s gesture — as did her employer on Twitter.

    “As you can see, Alex Scott is wearing the One Love armband. As [England manager] Gareth Southgate confirmed to me, the England players will not be wearing that,” Somers said. “Instead, they will be wearing the FIFA armband.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senate clears key procedural step on bill to protect same-sex marriage | CNN Politics

    Senate clears key procedural step on bill to protect same-sex marriage | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Senate on Wednesday cleared a key procedural hurdle toward historic passage of the bipartisan bill to protect same-sex and interracial marriage, voting 62-37 to break a filibuster.

    There could be additional votes before final passage, but Wednesday’s successful test vote signals the bill is on a glide path to succeed, a remarkable turn of events given how contentious the issue of same-sex marriage was just a few years ago.

    While the bill would not set a national requirement that all states must legalize same-sex marriage, it would require individual states to recognize another state’s legal marriage. So, in the event the Supreme Court might overturn its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage, a state could still pass a law to ban same-sex marriage, but that state would be required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.

    All 50 members of the Democratic caucus voted to start debate on the bill as well as 12 Republicans.

    It’s unclear when the chamber will vote on final passage. Without an agreement to speed up passage of the bill which needs consent from all 100 senators, final passage will likely occur after the Senate returns from Thanksgiving recess.

    Still, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told CNN he wants his chamber’s bill to pass by Thursday before senators leave for their Thanksgiving recess all next week.

    “We’re hoping that could happen,” he said.

    Earlier this week, Schumer expressed “hope” that after the vote Wednesday, “both sides can work quickly together to move this bill through the Senate and on to the president’s desk.”

    “It already passed the House earlier this year with significant 47 Republican votes and I’m optimistic we can achieve a significant result in this chamber,” he added.

    Once the bill passes the Senate, it will need to be passed again through the House before going to President Joe Biden’s desk to be signed into law. Supporters of the bill hope to pass the legislation through the House before the end of the year as Republicans appear on track to take control of the chamber in the next Congress.

    Earlier this week, the bipartisan negotiators who worked on the legislation, announced they were “confident” the bill has enough votes to pass and were hoping the bill could be put to the floor for a vote.

    The bipartisan group, which includes Republican Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Democratic Sens. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, said in a statement Monday that they “look forward to this legislation coming to the floor.”

    Lawmakers had hoped to pass the bill before leaving for recess ahead of the midterm elections, but the chamber punted on a vote until after the November elections as negotiators asked for more time to lock down support. That gamble appears to have paid off for the bill’s supporters given the 12 Republican votes to break the filibuster Wednesday.

    In a sign of how much support has grown in recent years for same-sex marriage, the bill found backing from GOP senators including those in deeply red states.

    Republican Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming told CNN’s Manu Raju that she voted to advance the Senate’s same-sex marriage bill due to “Article 1, Section 3 of the Wyoming Constitution,” which she read to reporters and includes an anti-discrimination clause.

    “That’s why we’re called the equality state,” she added.

    Utah Sen. Mitt Romney said the “bill made sense” and “provides important religious liberty protections.”

    “While I believe in traditional marriage, Obergefell is and has been the law of the land upon which LGBTQ individuals have relied,” Romney said in a statement. “This legislation provides certainty to many LGBTQ Americans, and it signals that Congress—and I—esteem and love all of our fellow Americans equally.”

    This story and headline have been updated to reflect additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Candace Cameron Bure criticized by JoJo Siwa and others over ‘traditional marriage’ comment | CNN

    Candace Cameron Bure criticized by JoJo Siwa and others over ‘traditional marriage’ comment | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Months after they had a public back and forth, JoJo Siwa is voicing her disappointment with Candace Cameron Bure.

    The singer/dancer, 19, posted on her verified Instagram about Bure after the former “Full House” star talked to the Wall Street Journal about her work with the faith-based channel, Great American Family.

    When asked if the Great American Family will include LGBTQ storylines in their projects, Cameron Bure said, “I think that Great American Family will keep traditional marriage at the core.”

    Siwa identifies as queer and shared a screen grab of a headline which read, “Candace Cameron Bure’s plans for new cable channel: No gays.”

    “Honestly, I can’t believe after everything that went down just a few months ago, that she would not only create a movie with intention of excluding LGBTQIA+, but then also talk about it in the press,” Siwa wrote. “This is rude and hurtful to a whole community of people.”

    In July Siwa posted a video on TikTok that went viral in which she shared a photo of Cameron Bure as the “rudest celebrity” she had ever met, later revealing she had felt ignored by the star at an event when she was a child and tried to meet her.

    Cameron Bure responded in a video on her verified Instagram account explaining that she was “shocked” by the designation and said everything was “all good” after the pair connected and discussed it.

    Siwa wasn’t the only one upset by Cameron Bure’s recent comment.

    Actress Hilarie Burton slammed her and Bill Abbott, chief executive of Great American Media, for “bigotry.”

    “That guy and his network are disgusting,” Burton tweeted. “You too Candy. There is nothing untraditional about same-sex couples.”

    CNN has reached out to reps for Bure and Great American Media for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How a GOP Congress Could Roll Back Nationwide Freedoms

    How a GOP Congress Could Roll Back Nationwide Freedoms

    [ad_1]

    If Republicans win control of one or both congressional chambers this week, they will likely begin a project that could reshape the nation’s political and legal landscape: imposing on blue states the rollback of civil rights and liberties that has rapidly advanced through red states since 2021.

    Over the past two years, the 23 states where Republicans hold unified control of the governorship and state legislature have approved the most aggressive wave of socially conservative legislation in modern times. In highly polarizing battles across the country, GOP-controlled states have passed laws imposing new restrictions on voting, banning or limiting access to abortion, retrenching LGBTQ rights, removing licensing and training requirements for concealed carry of firearms, and censoring how public-school teachers (and in some cases university professors and even private employers) can talk about race, gender, and sexual orientation.

    With much less attention, Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate have introduced legislation to write each of these red-state initiatives into federal law. The practical effect of these proposals would be to require blue states to live under the restrictive social policies that have burned through red states since President Joe Biden’s victory in 2020. “I think the days of fealty [to states’ rights] are nearing an end, and we are going to see the national Republicans in Congress adopting maximalist policy approaches,” Peter Ambler, the executive director of Giffords, a group that advocates for stricter gun control, told me.

    None of the proposals to nationalize the red-state social agenda could become law any time soon. Even if Republicans were to win both congressional chambers, they would not have the votes to overcome the inevitable Biden vetoes. Nor would Republicans, even if they controlled both chambers, have any incentive to consider repealing the Senate filibuster to pass this agenda until they know they have a president who would sign the resulting bills into law—something they can’t achieve before the 2024 election.

    But if Republicans triumph this week, the next two years could nonetheless become a crucial period in formulating a strategy to nationalize the red-state social-policy revolution. Particularly if Republicans win the House, they seem certain to explore which of these ideas can attract enough support in their caucus to clear the chamber. And the 2024 Republican presidential candidates are also likely to test GOP primary voters’ appetite for writing conservative social priorities into national law. Embracing such initiatives “may prove irresistible for a lot of folks trying to capture” the party’s socially conservative wing, Patrick Brown, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, told me.

    It starts with abortion. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina in September introduced a bill that would ban the procedure nationwide after 15 weeks of pregnancy. In the House, 167 Republicans have co-sponsored the “Life Begins at Conception Act,” which many legal analysts say would effectively ban all abortions nationwide.

    In elections, Senator Rick Scott of Florida has proposed legislation that would impose for federal elections nationwide many of the voting restrictions that have rapidly diffused across red states, including tougher voter-identification requirements, a ban on both unmonitored drop boxes and the counting of any mail ballots received after Election Day, and a prohibition on same-day and automatic voter registration.

    In education, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas has proposed to federalize restrictions on how teachers can talk about race by barring any K–12 school that receives federal money from using “critical race theory” in instruction. Several Republicans (including Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri) have introduced a “Parents’ Bill of Rights,” which would mandate parental access to school curriculum and library materials nationwide—a step toward building pressure for the kind of book bans spreading through conservative states and school districts. Nadine Farid Johnson, the Washington director for PEN America, a free-speech advocacy group, predicts that these GOP proposals “chipping away” at free speech are likely to expand beyond school settings into other areas affecting the general population, such as public libraries or private companies’ training policies. “This is not something that is likely to stop at the current arena, but to go much more broadly,” she told me.

    Representative Mike Johnson of Louisiana, along with several dozen co-sponsors, recently introduced a federal version of the “Don’t Say Gay” legislation that Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida pushed into law. Johnson’s bill is especially sweeping in its scope. It bars discussion of “sexually-oriented material,” including sexual orientation, with children 10 and younger, not only in educational settings, but in any program funded by the federal government, including through public libraries, hospitals, and national parks. The language is so comprehensive that it might even prevent “any federal law enforcement talking to a kid about a sexual assault or sexual abuse,” David Stacy, the government-affairs director at the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group, told me.

    Johnson’s bill is only one of several Republican proposals to nationalize red-state actions on LGBTQ issues. During budget debates in both 2021 and 2022, Republican senators offered  amendments to establish a nationwide ban on transgender girls participating in school sports. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia has introduced a bill (the “Protect Children’s Innocence Act”) that would set felony penalties for doctors who provide gender-affirming care to minors. Cotton, in a variation on the theme, has proposed to allow any minor who receives gender-affirming surgery to sue the doctor for physical or emotional damages for the next 30 years.

    Meanwhile, Senator Steve Daines and Representative Richard Hudson of North Carolina have introduced legislation requiring every state to accept a concealed-carry gun permit issued in any state—a mechanism for overriding blue-state limits on these permits. When Republicans controlled the House, they passed such a bill in 2017, but the implications of this idea have grown even more stark since then because so many red states have passed laws allowing residents to obtain concealed-carry permits without any background checks or training requirements.

    Ambler told me he expects that the NRA and congressional Republicans will eventually seek not only to preempt blue states and city limits on who can carry guns, but also to invalidate their restrictions on where they can do so, such as the New York State law, now facing legal challenge, barring guns from the subway.

    Brown, of the conservative EPPC, said it’s difficult to predict which of these proposals will gather the most momentum if Republicans win back one or both chambers. Some congressional Republicans, he said, may still be constrained by traditional GOP arguments favoring federalism. The strongest case for contravening that principle, he said, is in those instances that involve protecting what he calls “fundamental rights.” Graham’s national 15-week abortion ban can be justified on those grounds because “we are talking about, from my perspective, the life of an unborn baby, so having a federal ceiling on when states can’t encroach on protecting that fetus in the womb in the later stage of pregnancy makes a lot of sense to me.”

    In practice, though, Brown thinks that congressional Republicans may hesitate about passing a nationwide abortion ban, particularly with no hope of Biden signing it into law. He believes they are more likely to coalesce first around proposals to bar transgender girls from participating in sports and to prohibit gender-affirming surgery for minors, in part because those issues have proved “so galvanizing” for cultural conservatives in red states.

    Stacy, from the Human Rights Campaign, said that although Senate Republicans may be less enthusiastic about pursuing legislation restricting transgender rights, he hasn’t ruled out the possibility of a GOP-controlled Congress advancing those ideas. “It’s hard to know how far a Republican majority in either chamber would go on these issues,” he told me. “But what we’ve seen again and again in the states is that when they can, they have moved in these directions. Even when you take a look at more moderate states, when they have the power to do these things, they move these things forward.” That precedent eventually may apply not just to LGBTQ issues, but to all the red-state initiatives some Republicans want to inscribe into national law.

    These approaching federal debates reframe the battle raging across the red states during the past few years as just the first act of what’s likely to become an extended struggle.

    This first act has played out largely within the framework of restoring states’ rights and local prerogatives. As I’ve written, the red-state moves on social issues amount to a systematic effort to reverse the “rights revolution” of the past six decades. Over that long period, the Supreme Court, Congress, and a succession of presidents nationalized more rights and reduced states’ leeway to abridge those rights, on issues including civil rights, contraception, abortion, and same-sex marriage.

    Now the red states have moved to reverse that long trajectory toward a stronger national floor of rights by setting their own rules on abortion, voting, LGBTQ issues, classroom censorship, and book bans, among other issues. In that cause, they have been crucially abetted by the Republican-appointed Supreme Court majority, which has struck down or weakened previously nationally guaranteed rights (including abortion and voting access).

    But the proliferation of these congressional-Republican proposals to write the red-state rules into federal law suggests that this reassertion of states’ rights was just a way station toward restoring common national standards of civil rights and liberties—only in a much more restrictive and conservative direction. “All of these things have been building for years,” Alvin Tillery, the director of the Center for the Study of Diversity and Democracy at Northwestern University, told me. “It’s just that Mr. Trump gave them the idea they can succeed being more [aggressive] in the advocacy of these policies.”

    Like many students of the red-state social-policy eruption, Tillery believes that Republicans and social conservatives feel enormous urgency to write their cultural priorities into law before liberal-leaning Millennials and Generation Z become the electorate’s dominant force later this decade. “The future ain’t bright for them looking at young people, so they are acting in a much more muscular and authoritarian way now,” he said.

    With Republicans likely to win control of the House, and possibly the Senate, the next two years may become the off-Broadway stage of testing different strategies for imposing the red-state social regime on blue America. The curtain on the main event will rise the next time Republicans hold unified control of the White House and Congress—a day that may seem less a distant possibility if the GOP makes gains as big as those that now seem possible this week.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • A White House speechwriter on writing for Obama, Biden as Kool-Aid man and being a ‘full Swiftie’ | CNN Politics

    A White House speechwriter on writing for Obama, Biden as Kool-Aid man and being a ‘full Swiftie’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The idea for Cody Keenan’s New York Times best-selling first book came from a viral tweet storm.

    It’s a genesis rich with irony for a man who rose to prominence as President Barack Obama’s chief speechwriter, toiling in a windowless West Wing office (the “speech cave,” as Obama’s wordsmiths called it) as he drafted tens of thousands of words for the 44th President.

    But the fact it took two years for Keenan to fully grasp the depth of meaning captured by the weight and stakes of a 10-day period that shaped the country underscores the reality of his job – really any job – in a White House.

    At the end of June 2015, Keenan and his team were responsible for drafting remarks on Supreme Court rulings that would eventually uphold the Affordable Care Act and establish the fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples – as well as remarks if the court had ruled differently on each case.

    That was all happening as Keenan grappled with his own personal struggle – and Obama’s – to find the words to come to terms with the nationwide horror resulting from the murder of nine Black Americans attending a Bible study at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

    Keenan is an engaging and almost charmingly self-deprecating Chicago native in person and has been traveling the country on a full-throttle book tour over the course of the last several weeks. But as I read the book on a recent Air Force One trip with President Joe Biden to the West Coast, I kept thinking of things I wanted to ask him that would expand on various elements of the book.

    Full disclosure, I was covering the White House during the time period the book focuses on for Bloomberg News and knew Keenan at the time. He is unflinchingly loyal to Obama, who he continued to work for in the four years after they left the White House. He is a true-blue Democrat, even if that’s more of a backdrop of his experience than a defining feature.

    But the reason I shot him a note asking to chat was to see if he’d dive a little deeper into his writing process – both in speechwriting and as an author – and into the rich portrait he paints of what it’s like to work in a White House at the most senior level.

    A few days after giving his daughter, Gracie, the experience of her first Northwestern University football tailgate – his alma mater lost to Wisconsin by five touchdowns, which Keenan admirably acknowledged was a valuable early life lesson – we connected as I sat a couple hundred feet away from the building that he called his office for eight years.

    CNN: Part of the reason I wanted to read the book is obvious – I was covering the White House at the time, it was a tsunami of history and news and I was kind of intrigued to see it from your end. But I think the more salient thing for me is that I’m fascinated by the process, just the insight into how anyone at a high level approaches their job – there’s so much you can learn. And there’s an extraordinary amount of detail in here on exactly that. But one thing I kept wondering throughout was, man, were you just taking copious notes like 24/7 while you were here?

    Keenan: I was not, I promise, because when we first joined the White House – this is gonna sound like a joke, but it’s not – they were very adamant that any notes you take, any journals you take belongs to the National Archives and not you. So, they actually cautioned us against keeping notes.

    But one of the lucky things is within the Oval Office, I would transcribe all of my conversations with the President on my laptop, because that’s how I wrote my speeches – I would ask, and prompt, and get him going.

    So, all of our conversations in the Oval are verbatim, just because I would type it down super-fast because I needed that material for speech writing. So, I did have those.

    But the rest of it is memory – there’s a mix of emails to myself. But there was no notebook or journal or anything like that.

    CNN: As you’ve talked to people since the book has been out, what are the elements that you hear … from people who don’t understand how this place works, that they’re most surprised about? Beyond the fact that you worked in a cave.

    Keenan: A lot of people been surprised by a few things. Number one, and this is gonna make you roll your eyes, but how much we all liked each other, which I think is really rare in any company, any business, let alone a White House. We were family – I mean literally, I met and married my wife (Kristen Bartoloni, the White House research director) there.

    But also, that it’s just a slog. And I wanted to convey the struggle to do good work. Because you don’t just ride into town and do everything you said you were gonna do. It is really, really difficult. And for the 2,922 days we were there, a good night was when you could go home just feeling like you’ve moved the ball forward a little bit. Because all of those inches eventually add up to a touchdown.

    You know, the Obamacare ruling, the marriage equality ruling – those were the result of not just years of our effort, but decades of other people’s effort. Democracy is hard. That’s what I wanted to convey.

    Also, there’s still people out there who aren’t convinced that Barack Obama was an active speechwriter. He was our chief speechwriter. He was involved in every speech – you know this from being there. Writing for him was very, very difficult just because he was so good at it and expected a lot from us. And we expected a lot of ourselves we tried to get in the first draft.

    CNN: I wanted to dig in on that, because you’re very candid about the kind of “imposter syndrome” that almost seemed pervasive. The reason it struck me is one, because I think I identify with it, and I think many rational people probably would. But two, in this town where everybody acts like they know everything and often know nothing at all, you don’t usually see it laid out in such a detailed manner.

    Did it come from who you were working for and his reputation as a writer and orator? Or is that just you generally?

    Keenan: It’s mostly working for him and never really believing I earned it.

    But we all felt that way, whatever our jobs were. None of us felt like we had earned the right to be there, or just deserve to be there. We all had impostor syndrome – and I think that’s a good thing. Because that is what constantly pushed us to do our best work and prove that we deserved to be there.

    And you know, maybe this is a little unfair because I don’t actually know any of the Trump people, but I never got the sense that they felt the same way. I always got the sense they felt like they were entitled to be there and deserved to be there. And I think as a result, the country didn’t get their best effort.

    CNN: You get into it a little bit, but the process of working underneath (Obama’s first chief speechwriter Jon Favreau) to being “the guy” – what was that like? How did you become the heir apparent?

    Keenan: The great thing about Favs was for all of his fame – and he became famous on the first campaign because Obama’s speeches were different, you know Favs was the wunderkind who dated actresses and was famous. But he never acted that way, he did not have an ego. Everyone wanted to be around him, but he was a patient and generous mentor who taught me almost everything I know about speechwriting.

    The way it just kind of unfolded was when we moved into the White House, I was the junior speechwriter on the team and so I made myself a workhorse. I did like four speeches a week and just worked my butt off.

    But I drafted the Tucson eulogy (for the victims of the 2011 shooting in the attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords), and (White House press secretary Robert) Gibbs outed me on the plane to everybody without my knowledge. We were flying back from the eulogy and some of the press corps asked, “Who helped the President with those?” And Gibbs said it’s Cody Keenan, and then he took the … step of spelling out my name to the press corps.

    I still don’t know who asked, but obviously there’s a lot of Northwestern grads in the press corps and one of them said “proud Northwestern Wildcat.” We got back to (Joint Base) Andrews at like 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. or something, and I just slept in. I slept in till like 10 before going back to work. And I woke up to 300 emails and a bunch of missed calls. And that’s a little unusual.

    And Savannah Guthrie was calling and trying to get me on the show and I was just like “what the f— is happening?” I didn’t know at that point that Gibbs had done that and that was weird.

    Losing your anonymity is a little uncomfortable. And there were reporters calling my parents and my sister and I don’t blame them because you guys are just – the way this system works is you guys are desperate for news. But that was a little a little scary to lose your anonymity like that.

    But shortly after that, Favs named me his deputy and I moved over (from the Eisenhower Executive Office Building) to the West Wing into an office with him. That’s when I got to start working with Obama more closely. It was a flight back from LA, Favs was with him on Air Force One and he said, “Look, I’ve been with you for eight years now and I think it’s time for me to move on.”

    And Obama asked him, “Do you have anybody in mind to replace you?” And he said, “Yeah, I think it’s Cody.” Then Obama said, “I think that’s right.” It was as simple as that, but still, when he told me that when he got home, I was like, “You’ve gotta be kidding me!”

    CNN: How did that change the dynamic of your relationship with the President?

    Keenan: It’s hard to be speechwriter for somebody if you don’t spend a lot of time with them. And just the way the White House works, junior speechwriters didn’t get to spend a lot of time with him. Favs was good about making sure we got to if there was a big speech, but from then on, I was with Obama almost every single day. That’s really the best way to get into his head and be able to understand not just what he wants to say, but why. And that changed everything. I got email privileges to email him, I got walk-in privileges to the Oval and that just kind of vaulted me up the ranks, not just in title, but also as a better speechwriter for him.

    CNN: You reference “the muse” in the book – the moments when the President fully engaged on a speech you’d drafted and really elevated something in his own voice. Was that a crutch as a writer? Could you count on that if you were stuck or was that a risk you couldn’t take?

    Keenan: It was a risk and it always made me nervous when he’d say – and he didn’t say it often – but sometimes he’d say, you know, “We’ll see if the muse strikes.” And we were just like “Oh, no.” And sometimes it didn’t. But when it did, it would hit in a big way.

    Like Charleston, you know, I’m very clear about this in the book, he just kind of tore up the back half figuratively. And fortunately, the muse hit really hard. The speech that I’d spent three days agonizing over, he re-wrote in three hours and that came from a mixture of things. The muse hit for him, it was what those families did, forgiving the killer. It was his correspondence with his pen pal, Marilynne Robinson, who I didn’t know existed. And it was the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled on marriage by morning and it just kind of gave him this open heart.

    But, man, there were times when I would turn in a draft and be like, God, I hope he can make this better.

    CNN: When he struck out the last two pages of the Charleston draft, I think you wrote that he just put a giant X through the pages – honestly, if an editor did that to me, I’d be ready to fight them. How do you react to that and not want to lose your mind?

    Keenan: I wasn’t ready to fight him because I knew he was right. And I knew when I turned it in, and I told him as much, that I just could not get it there. And it was his idea to use the lyrics to “Amazing Grace” not just to sing, but to build the structure to the back half of the speech.

    And again, it just sounds like Kool-Aid drinking, but this is the kind of boss he was he could have just given it back to me and said, you know, you need to do better. Or even worse, you could have just excised me from the equation. He could have given them back to Denis (McDonough, the chief of staff) or Valerie (Jarrett, Obama’s closest adviser), and just said, “give this to Cody” and not talked to me at all. But the fact that he brought me in, walked me through them and told me, made me feel better and said, “Listen, we’re collaborators. You gave me what I needed to work with here.”

    I mean, just to take the little bit of time to do that makes all the difference in the world. It’s the difference between a speechwriter who loses his self-confidence forever, or one who just remains determined to keep doing better.

    CNN: Which I don’t think is necessarily the norm in terms of bosses in DC – which I guess I always had a sense of because you guys are all still so loyal to him, but this was one of the better anecdotal demonstrations of it that I’d read.

    Keenan: Yeah. It’s very rare in politics, but I think anywhere to have a boss like that. It’s just really special and makes a big difference to your team. We just had a wedding a couple of weeks ago, where two staffers got married to each other – Joe Paulson and Samantha Tubman – and Obama was there. You know, the fact that he flew across country just to attend their wedding is just to show you what kind of guy he is.

    CNN: But was there ever a time you – look, you say it didn’t bother you when he would cross out two pages or have three pages of handwritten notes because you knew he was right – but was there ever a time when you thought he was wrong?

    Keenan: It was pretty rare. But there were a couple of times, and he valued us pushing back on him. He liked it. He disdains groupthink. And it would really drive him nuts if everyone in the Oval would almost kind of nod and say I agree. I agree. Agree. He would find the person who didn’t, and he wanted to hear what that person had to say, and it didn’t necessarily mean he changed his mind, but sometimes he did.

    CNN: When did you actually know you want to write this book?

    Keenan: It’s interesting, not at the time. You know, you’re not thinking as you go through, OK, this is day six, you’re just living it with everybody else.

    And it really coalesced for me on the second anniversary of day 10 of the book, which is marriage equality and Amazing Grace and the White House lit up like a rainbow. Trump had done something that morning, who remembers what at this point. He was just pissing everybody off with an 8 a.m. tweet, and I realized it was the second anniversary of those 10 days, so I did like a mini tweet storm to kind of remind people about what happened in those 10 days … and what we were capable of and it just kind of took off.

    It was really like my first viral tweet and Esquire magazine wrote it up and that was the first time I thought that there’s a story here. I was still working for him. I worked for him for four more years and it didn’t feel right to write a book while he was paying me, so I didn’t start writing till 2021. But I started thinking about it in 2017.

    CNN: Were you pinging ideas off him at all or sending him drafts throughout? Or did you wait until it was done to show it to him?

    Keenan: I did. I told him all about it as I was thinking it through while I was still working for him. Then I left on New Year’s Eve 2020. And my wife got pregnant shortly after. Then the pandemic hit so everything kinda got put on hold. But I sent him a really early draft back in March and I took some risks. I knew that if there’s a book about him, it’s likely he’s going to read it quickly. And he got back to me within about four days.

    If you think that waiting for him to get his feedback on a speech draft is agonizing, try sending him your book. But he sent back nicer praise than he had ever sent me on speech. And he offered one edit for the book, just one, that actually really did make it better, because he just can’t help himself.

    But it was a relief to kind of get his stamp of approval, especially on the parts that I tried to be really honest about, which is what it was like to be a White speech writer writing for the first Black president I really wanted to make sure I didn’t get that wrong. And fortunately, to hear him say, “this is dead on,” was a nice thing.

    Keenan is seen on

    CNN: I was struck by that specific issue when I was reading. You’re very candid about your efforts to grapple with writing about race – particularly for the first Black president – as a White guy from the North Side of Chicago. It’s really the backdrop of the way you thread together the process of writing the Charleston speech. Was there ever a moment where you’ve felt comfortable with that dynamic, or you felt like you understood his perspective and voice so well that you weren’t going to have to grapple with that reality?

    Keenan: I think it’s related to imposter syndrome. And a lot of that actually became clear, too, after George Floyd, where we all tried to get better. And you can view yourself as being on the right side of these issues, but how do you really know if you’re actually doing injustice?

    To be a speechwriter you have to be able to write for anybody and it requires a sense of empathy and to be well read. But what does a White kid from the north side of Chicago really know about inhabiting the life of a Black man in America? There just – there are limits to the imagination. And so that’s why we’re trying to grab him before those bigger speeches and be like, “Help me with the story I’m trying to tell. Am I right? Is my take right on this or is my life experience getting in the way?”

    It helped that he was really our chief speechwriter, but he would also talk us through it and made sure that we were approaching these issues from the way he wanted us to approach them.

    CNN: Just a couple more before I have to jog over to Pebble Beach (on the White House North Lawn) and be on TV and you probably have another dozen events for your best-seller. Do you feel like you got better as a writer as the years went on?

    Keenan: Yes. You know, I look at my early stuff and I cringe. I still go back and edit some of our biggest speeches – that never goes away. I go back and edit my book, but I absolutely got better and that’s just a result of being around Jon Favreau, being around Barack Obama, being around my entire team – Ben Rhodes, Adam Frankel, Sarada (Peri) – everybody made me a better speechwriter. I’m very honest in the book, and I’m not just trying to be self-deprecating for self-deprecating’s sake. This was a hard, hard job. But I knew that by the end I was really good at it. That just doesn’t mean that you think you’re better than Barack Obama at this – you know you’re not. So, that’s what kind of always kept me on my toes and that’s why I stuck around for eight years.

    CNN: You don’t mention the current president a ton in the book, but you do mention his decision to get out in front of (President Obama) on gay marriage and I believe the reference was he was kind of like Kool-Aid man busting through the wall to announce his view – I think I remember that correctly.

    Keenan: *laughter*

    CNN: But unlike some in the administration – at least at the time – who weren’t pleased at all, you describe it in a way that seems to convey you found it somewhat endearing. And the context very much reflects of how his close friends/advisers describe how he operates – he’d had a personal experience a couple of weeks prior and just answered the question with what he was thinking.

    In that sense, how did you view him inside the White House when you were there, and how do you view him now?

    Keenan: The marriage equality thing was just Joe being Joe. I never saw – I was never like really in intense national security meetings with Biden and Obama. But I never saw Joe Biden to be calculating. He just does what he thinks is right. The people that need him are really what move him. There’s no way that Joe Biden sat there and calculated, “I’m going to come out before the President on this.” He was just with gay people and their kids and was like, “you know what, this is the right thing to do.” And as probably the highest, probably the highest-ranking Catholic in America, at least in politics, that makes a big difference. So, I love Joe Biden. He just governs with his heart, which I think is a great place for a politician to be.

    CNN: You also briefly mention Biden’s current (director of speechwriting) Vinay (Reddy) – you wrote he sent a thoughtful note to you before the Charleston speech. I’ve always had the sense that you have a similar approach to what Obama wanted, which is you’re just going to keep your distance from the folks that are in now because you dealt with plenty of people who thought they knew the best way to do things when you were there. Is that fair?

    Keenan: Absolutely. It drove me nuts whenever I saw pundits on TV saying look, here’s what Obama needs to say, here’s what Obama needs to say. We’ll figure that out. The last thing Vinay needs from me is me being out there saying, “Here’s what Joe Biden needs to say.” He knows. To be a speechwriter, it is hard to find the words sometimes, it is hard to juggle competing audiences and competing interests. Whenever Vinay has asked me for help, I have offered it, but otherwise I’m not going to jump in there.

    CNN: Last one, probably the most dangerous one: Do you feel like your reputation was bolstered or undercut by the admission that you listened to Taylor Swift’s “1989” on repeat while drafting the 2015 State of the Union address?

    Keenan: I have met people on tour who have proven it has bolstered (my reputation). I’m a full Swiftie-man now. My daughter was born to “Folklore.” That’s the album Kristen wanted playing when she was in labor. And you know what, her song “The One” puts Gracie to sleep instantly, so I will always be grateful to Taylor Swift.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democrats predict an ‘extremely busy’ lame duck. Here’s what’s on the agenda | CNN Politics

    Democrats predict an ‘extremely busy’ lame duck. Here’s what’s on the agenda | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A packed legislative to-do list awaits Congress when it returns to session after the midterms – and Democrats, who currently control both chambers, will face a ticking clock to enact key priorities if Republicans win back the House or manage to flip the Senate in the upcoming elections.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has predicted an “extremely busy” lame duck session – the period of time after the midterms and before a new Congress begins in January.

    “We still have much to do and many important bills to consider,” Schumer said in remarks on the Senate floor at the end of September. “Members should be prepared for an extremely, underline extremely, busy agenda in the last two months of this Congress.”

    The jam-packed agenda for the lame-duck session includes: Funding the government to avert a shutdown before the end of the calendar year, passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, the annual must-pass legislation that sets the policy agenda and authorizes funding for the Department of Defense, as well as a vote in the Senate to protect same-sex marriage and the potential consideration of other key pieces of legislation.

    Democrats are still limited in what they can achieve, however, given their narrow majorities in both chambers. With a 50-50 partisan split in the Senate, Democrats lack the votes to overcome the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold – and do not have the votes to abolish the filibuster. As a result, major priorities for liberal voters – like the passage of legislation protecting access to abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade – will still remain out of reach for the party for the foreseeable future.

    Government funding is the most pressing priority that lawmakers will confront during the lame duck. The current deadline for the expiration of funding is December 16 after the House and Senate passed an extension to avert a shutdown at the end of September.

    Since the funding bill is viewed as must-pass legislation it will likely become a magnet for other priorities that lawmakers may try to tack on to ride along with it. It’s possible that further aid for Ukraine could come up as Ukraine continues to counter Russia’s invasion of the country. While that funding has bipartisan support, some conservatives are balking at the pricey contributions to Ukraine and may scrutinize more closely additional requests from the administration, a dynamic that is dividing Republicans on this key issue.

    Democrats also want more funding for pandemic response, but Republicans have pushed back on that request.

    One issue that may come up during the government funding effort is money for the Department of Justice investigation into the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

    A House Democratic aide told CNN that final fiscal year 2023 funding levels have yet to be determined. Justice Department needs and resources are part of this ongoing conversation, but under the leadership of Rep. Matt Cartwright, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on commerce, justice, science, and related agencies, the House bill included $34 million that would allow DOJ to fund these prosecutions without reducing their efforts in other areas.

    House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro told CNN in a statement, “I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House and Senate appropriations committees and passing a final 2023 spending package by the December 16th deadline.”

    Meanwhile, the Senate has begun work on the NDAA, and is expected to pass the massive piece of legislation during the lame duck. Consideration of the wide-ranging bill could spark debate and a push for amendments over a variety of topics.

    Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa has called for punishing OPEC for its production cut by passing legislation that would hold foreign oil producers accountable for colluding to fix prices – and the senator has said he believes the measure can pass as an amendment to the NDAA. The legislation would clear the way for the Justice Department to sue Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations for antitrust violations.

    Senate Democrats will also continue confirming judges to the federal bench nominated by President Joe Biden, a key priority for the party.

    A Senate vote to protect same-sex marriage is also on tap for the lame-duck session. In mid-September, the chamber punted on a vote until after the November midterm elections as negotiators asked for more time to lock down support – a move that could make it more likely the bill will ultimately pass the chamber.

    The bipartisan group of senators working on the bill said in a statement at the time, “We’ve asked Leader Schumer for additional time and we appreciate he has agreed. We are confident that when our legislation comes to the Senate floor for a vote, we will have the bipartisan support to pass the bill.” The bill would need at least 10 Republican votes to overcome a filibuster.

    Schumer has vowed to hold a vote on the bill, but the exact timing has not yet been locked in. Democrats have pushed for the vote after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, sparking fears that the court could take aim at same-sex marriage in the future.

    The Senate could take up legislation during the lame duck in response to the January 6, 2021, attack by a mob of pro-Trump supporters attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

    Over the summer, a bipartisan group of senators reached a deal to make it harder to overturn a certified presidential election. The proposal would still need, however, to be approved by both chambers. Notably, the Senate proposal has the backing of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican.

    “I strongly support the modest changes that our colleagues in the working group have fleshed out after literally months of detailed discussions,” McConnell said at the end of September. “I’ll proudly support the legislation, provided that nothing more than technical changes are made to its current form.”

    If the bill passes the Senate, it would also need to clear the House, which in September, passed its own version of legislation to make it harder to overturn a certified presidential election in the future by proposing changes to the Electoral Count Act.

    Passing a bill to to restrict lawmakers from trading stocks is a priority for a number of moderate House Democrats – who may continue to push for the issue to be taken up during the lame duck, though whether there will be a vote is still to be determined and other pressing must-pass items like government funding could crowd out the issue. The House did not vote on a proposal prior to the midterm elections.

    “It’s a complicated issue, as you can imagine, as a new rule for members they have to follow, and their families as I understand, so I think it deserves careful study to make sure if we do something, we do it right,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told CNN last month.

    Meanwhile, it’s not yet clear when exactly the nation will run up against the debt limit and it appears unlikely for now that Congress will act to resolve the issue during the lame-duck session, especially as other must-pass bills compete for floor time. But political battle lines are already being drawn and maneuvering is underway in Washington over the contentious and high-stakes issue.

    A group of House Democrats recently sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Schumer calling for legislation to “permanently undo the threat posed by the debt limit” during the post-election lame-duck session. The letter, led by Pennsylvania Rep. Brendan Boyle, was signed by several prominent House Democrats, including Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries of New York.

    Biden on Friday gave a window into how he’s preparing for a looming political showdown over the debt ceiling, stating unequivocally that he will not relent to Republican lawmakers threatening to send the nation into default if he doesn’t meet their demands, but adding that he doesn’t support efforts from within his own party to abolish the debt limit entirely.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘NOT A TAME LION’ Wins Grand Prize Alternative Spirit Award (Documentary) at the 40th Rhode Island International Film Festival

    ‘NOT A TAME LION’ Wins Grand Prize Alternative Spirit Award (Documentary) at the 40th Rhode Island International Film Festival

    [ad_1]

    Press Release


    Aug 16, 2022

    Treading Yesterday LLC announces that ‘NOT A TAME LION’ has won the Grand Prize Alternative Spirit Award (Documentary) during the 40th Rhode Island International Film Festival, in addition to winning Best Documentary Feature at the 27th Indie Gathering International Film Festival during the film’s premiere weekend.

    NOT A TAME LION, the Documentary Feature, recounts the life and works of John Boswell, the Yale Professor who read and translated 14 ancient and modern languages, became a Yale Professor by age 30 and was granted full access to the highly classified and restricted Vatican archives from which he researched four award-winning books, making him a world-renowned expert in Medieval History and Linguistics. John Boswell was also openly gay without apology in an era that was neither tolerant nor accepting. NOT A TAME LION offers first-hand accounts of Boswell’s closest friends, students, colleagues and family members as they recount his life, his works and his final days during which he feverishly worked to complete SAME-SEX UNIONS IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE, a book that changed the trajectory of the Marriage Equality debate, all while privately battling the debilitating effects of AIDS, which led to his death on Dec. 24, 1994, at the age of 47.  

    The significance of winning the top award in two International Film Festivals during the films debut weekend is not lost on the filmmakers, who express thanks to the Family and Friends of John Boswell who participated in the film’s creation. According to Craig Bettendorf, the director, it’s the authenticity of NOT A TAME LION that resonates with both festival juries and the viewing public as they experience the story of a person who influenced society to such a great extent but who few remember in 2022.

    Treading Yesterday LLC focuses on the creation of LGBTQ+ stories, including its original series, TREADING YESTERDAY, set to debut on the Dekkoo streaming service on Sept. 27, 2022.

    NOT A TAME LION has just begun its participation in the Film Festival circuit with several more screenings planned during the last half of 2022, including Cinema Diverse, the LGBTQ+ Palm Springs Film Festival in September and the Fort Lauderdale International Film Festival in November. 

    NOT A TAME LION is written and directed by Craig Bettendorf, produced by Kai Morgan and represented by Alex Nohe of Blood Sweat Honey.

    Source: Treading Yesterday LLC

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge who suspended abortion pill failed to disclose interviews that discussed social issues | CNN Politics

    Judge who suspended abortion pill failed to disclose interviews that discussed social issues | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The federal district judge who first suspended the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the so-called abortion pill mifepristone failed to disclose during his Senate confirmation process two interviews on Christian talk radio where he discussed social issues such as contraception and gay rights.

    In undisclosed radio interviews, Matthew Kacsmaryk referred to being gay as “a lifestyle” and expressed concerns that new norms for “people who experience same-sex attraction” would lead to clashes with religious institutions, calling it the latest in a change in sexual norms that began with “no-fault divorce” and “permissive policies on contraception.”

    Kacsmaryk, a Trump-appointed federal district judge, made the unreported comments in two appearances in 2014 on Chosen Generation, a radio show that offers “a biblical constitutional worldview.” At the time, Kacsmaryk was deputy general counsel at First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit religious liberty advocacy group known before 2016 as the Liberty Institute, and was brought on to the radio show to discuss “the homosexual agenda” to silence churches and religious liberty, according to the show’s host.

    Federal judicial nominees are required to submit detailed paperwork to the Senate Judiciary Committee ahead of their confirmation process, including copies of nearly everything they have ever written or said in public, in order for the committee to evaluate a nominee’s qualifications and personal opinions. Neither interview is listed in the paperwork Kacsmaryk provided to the Senate during his judicial nomination process, which first began in 2017.

    The radio interviews were not included in the 22 media works Kacsmaryk disclosed, which included three radio appearances and 19 written pieces.

    A spokesperson for Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told CNN the interviews weren’t in their archived files from Kacsmaryk’s confirmation, which included all paperwork submitted for his nomination.

    In a statement sent to CNN, Kacsmaryk said he did not locate the interview when searching for media to disclose and he did not recall the interview.

    “I used the DOJ-OLP manual to run searches for all media but did not locate this interview and did not recall this event, which involved a call-in to a local radio show,” he told CNN. “After listening to the audio file supplied by CNN, I agree that the content is equivalent to the legal analysis appearing throughout my SJQ and discussed extensively during my Senate confirmation hearing. Additionally, the transcript supplied by CNN appears to track with the audio and accurately recounts my responses during the phone call—when quoted in full.”

    The Washington Post reported last week that Kacsmaryk removed his name in 2017 from a pending law review article criticizing protections for transgender people and those seeking abortions during his judicial nomination process, a highly unusual move for a judicial nominee.

    Kacsmaryk did not respond to the Post’s request for comment, but a spokesperson for his old employer First Liberty claimed Kacsmaryk’s name had been a “placeholder” on the article and that Kacsmaryk had not provided a “substantive contribution,” despite the final version being almost identical to the one submitted under Kacsmaryk’s name according to the Post.

    Kacsmaryk later submitted supplemental material in 2019 to the committee to reflect interviews and events he participated since in 2017, but neither of the 2014 radio interviews were included.

    Democratic senators grilled Kacsmaryk on his positions on abortion and LGBTQ rights during both his nomination hearing and in written questions in 2017.

    While Kacsmaryk worked at First Liberty, one of his colleagues, general counsel Jeff Mateer, was also nominated for a federal judgeship. But Mateer came under scrutiny in 2017 for comments unearthed during his confirmation process in which he once compared the US to Nazi Germany on Chosen Generation – the same radio program Kacsmaryk appeared on and whose interviews he did not disclose.

    Mateer’s nomination was later rescinded; Kacsmaryk was later confirmed in 2019.

    The interviews were shared by Kacsmaryk’s employer, the Liberty Institute, at the time on social media. A guest from First Liberty appeared once a week, according to the show’s radio host in the broadcast and archives available online.

    In one interview from February 2014, in response to a question on the “homosexual agenda,” Kacsmaryk expressed concerns that new social norms surrounding “same-sex marriage” and “people who experience same-sex attraction” would lead to clashes with religious institutions.

    “I just want to make very clear, people who experience a same-sex attraction are not responsible individually or solely for the atmosphere of the sexual revolution,” Kacsmaryk said. “You know it. It’s a long time coming. It came after no-fault divorce. It came after we implemented very permissive policies on contraception. The sexual revolution has gone through several phases. We just happen to be at the phase now where same sex marriages is at the fore.”

    “But through that progression or regression, I think you can see five areas where there will be a clash of absolutes between the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage and the revisionist, redefined vision of marriage that you saw in last term’s Supreme Court opinions,” he said before outlining those areas as over tax exempt statuses, adoption services, federal government programs, and discrimination at universities.

    He appeared on the program to discuss the federal government’s view of same-sex marriage and opponents of it following the court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. The host suggested opponents of same-sex marriage could be viewed as “hostile” enemies of the government in line with al-Qaeda, which Kacsmaryk agreed with.

    “Yeah, and I can speak from immediate firsthand experience,” he said, citing his work formerly in the Justice Department. “That is very much in vogue now in the federal government to characterize opposition to same sex marriage and related issues as irrational prejudice at best and a potential hate crime at worse,” he continued.

    “It really has infused the entire federal service top to bottom as the administration has declared that they will join this culture war, that there’s one side that is destined to win and that you’re on the wrong side of history in the federal government if you are on an opposing side,” he added.

    Kacsmaryk also appeared on the program in July 2014 to discuss an executive order signed by then-President Barack Obama that banned federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity which did not exempt faith-based groups.

    Kacsmaryk linked changes in Democrats’ views on the issue of religious freedom to the “emergence of this very powerful constituency in the LGBT community,” which he said the Obama administration made campaign promises to fulfill. Kacsmaryk said religious organizations entering into contracts with the federal government would have risk under the executive order and face a “real burden” for dissenting from “the new sexual orthodoxy” on gay rights.

    The new rules, Kacsmaryk suggested, were poorly written and didn’t differentiate between gay people who lived “celibate” lives and those who made being gay “a lifestyle,” in a discussion of how religious groups would comply with the new rules.

    “If you look at the letter that was issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, they point out that the category sexual orientation is problematic because it’s not defined,” he said. “Most Abrahamic faith traditions will draw a distinction between someone who experiences the same sex attraction but is willing to live celibate and somebody who experiences the same sex attraction and makes it a lifestyle and seeks to sexualize that lifestyle. Those are two different categories that most Abrahamic faith traditions recognize.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Buttigieg says Supreme Court case was designed for ‘clear purpose of chipping away’ at LGBTQ equality | CNN Politics

    Buttigieg says Supreme Court case was designed for ‘clear purpose of chipping away’ at LGBTQ equality | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Sunday slammed the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of a Christian web designer in Colorado who refuses to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings out of religious objections, saying the case was designed “for the clear purpose of chipping away” at LGBTQ equality.

    “It’s very revealing that there’s no evidence that this web designer was ever even approached by anyone asking for a website for a same-sex wedding,” Buttigieg, the first out Cabinet secretary confirmed by the Senate, told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”

    The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, in a 6-3 opinion, ruled Friday for Lorie Smith, the Colorado web designer, on free speech grounds, with Justice Neil Gorsuch writing, “All manner of speech – from ‘pictures, films, paintings, drawings, and engravings,’ to ‘oral utterance and the printed word’ – qualify for the First Amendment’s protections.”

    Smith said in court filings that a man had inquired about her services for his same-sex wedding. But as CNN previously reported, the man in question says that he never reached out to Smith – and that he’s straight and married to a woman.

    “There’s something in common between this Supreme Court ruling and what we’re seeing happening in state legislatures across the country, which is kind of a solution looking for a problem,” Buttigieg said Sunday. “In other words, sending these kinds of things to the courts and sending these kinds of things to state legislatures for the clear purpose of chipping away at the equality and the rights that have so recently been won in the LGBTQ+ community.”

    Two contenders for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination took a different stance on the Supreme Court ruling in separate interviews Sunday on “State of the Union.”

    Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said the decision “protects all of our First Amendment rights,” adding that “the government doesn’t have the right to tell a business the nature of how they need to use their expressive abilities.”

    Former Texas Rep. Will Hurd acknowledged that the ruling made him “uncomfortable because we’re protecting speech that I don’t agree with. And I don’t agree with an anti-LGBTQ sentiment.”

    “But we have to be protecting the speech even if we don’t like or agree with the speech. That’s a foundational element in our country,” Hurd said.

    In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that the court’s decision in the Colorado case would be more far-reaching.

    “The decision’s logic cannot be limited to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity,” she wrote.

    “The decision threatens to balkanize the market and to allow the exclusion of other groups from many services,” Sotomayor said, adding that “a website designer could equally refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, for example.”

    Christie pushed back Sunday on that characterization.

    “What Sonia Sotomayor … was saying in her opinion was that … this decision could be used to deny people of LGBTQ backgrounds the ability to access this business. That’s simply not true,” he told Bash.

    “They can access this business. They just can’t force the owner to do something that is against her personal religious beliefs. And so, if they want to come in and they want a web design for their business, they want a web design for a charity, they want a web design for anything else that they’re doing, they could certainly do that,” he added.

    Meanwhile, Buttigieg was asked about a recent video shared by a campaign Twitter account for Ron DeSantis’ 2024 presidential bid that attacked rival Donald Trump over his past promises to protect LGBTQ rights and highlighted measures championed by the Florida governor to curb such protections.

    After cautioning that he was “going to choose my words carefully, partly because I’m appearing as secretary, so I can’t talk about campaigns,” Buttigieg said the bigger issue when sees such videos was: “Who are you trying to help? Who are you trying to make better off?”

    “I just don’t understand the mentality of somebody who gets up in the morning thinking that he’s going to prove his worth by competing over who can make life hardest for a hard-hit community that is already so vulnerable in America,” the secretary said.

    The DeSantis campaign has come under criticism for marking the end of Pride Month by re-posting the video from the DeSantis War Room Twitter account. Both Christie and Hurd on Sunday also criticized the sharing of the video.

    In response to the online criticism, Christina Pushaw, the rapid response director for the DeSantis campaign, said Pride Month was “unnecessary, divisive, pandering.”

    “Opposing the federal recognition of ‘Pride Month’ isn’t homophobic,” Pushaw said in a tweet. “We wouldn’t support a month to celebrate straight people for sexual orientation, either.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Second-Time Surrogate Delivers ‘Surrobaby’ for Same-Sex Couple

    Second-Time Surrogate Delivers ‘Surrobaby’ for Same-Sex Couple

    [ad_1]

    Previous nurse and surrogacy case manager delivers healthy baby for second set of gay intended parents, now parents

    Press Release



    updated: Dec 16, 2019

    Second-time surrogate and surrogacy case manager Jennifer Lange delivered a healthy baby boy on Nov. 14 at Adventist HealthCare Shady Grove Medical Center in Rockville, Maryland. The parents were able to be present for the birth and are now at home enjoying their first few weeks of parenthood. This is Jennifer’s second surrogacy journey with a second set of gay intended parents – her first surrogacy delivery was in March of 2018. Some intended parents and surrogates prefer no contact during a surrogacy journey, however, Jennifer and both sets of intended parents were thankfully able to develop a close friendship after being matched via surrogacy agency Creative Family Connections. Recently, the new parents brought their baby boy to visit Jennifer’s three children, giving them the opportunity to meet the baby and see him where he belongs, which is in his fathers’ arms.

    Throughout both of her surrogacy journeys, Jennifer wrote about her incredible experiences in two blogs, which she has shared with her friends, family, and the intended parents’ families. Read more about her first journey here, and her second journey here.

    Jennifer Lange, Surrogacy Case Manager

    ​Jennifer became a case manager with surrogacy agency Creative Family Connections in September of 2018 after completing her first surrogacy journey for a set of gay intended parents. Jennifer’s role at Creative Family Connections is to provide direct support to intended parents and gestational carriers (surrogates who have no biological connection to the intended parents) throughout their journey. Jennifer earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Nursing from York College of Pennsylvania and has spent over 10 years working as a registered nurse in various areas of health care, including nursery and pregnancy postpartum care before joining Creative Family Connections.

    Jennifer has always had a passion for helping others, both as a registered nurse and during her own surrogacy journeys as a gestational carrier. This passion for helping others build their families has carried over into her professional career as she loves sharing her firsthand knowledge of surrogacy. Jenn resides in Maryland with her husband and three children. She loves to run in her free time and enjoyed running during both of her surrogate pregnancies. 

    Source: Creative Family Connections

    [ad_2]

    Source link