ReportWire

Tag: Same sex marriage

  • Commentary: MAGA launches another ‘save the children’ campaign targeting LGBTQ+ families

    [ad_1]

    The latest nauseant from MAGA types pretending to care about children was dished up last week, but amid the internment of kindergartners, the slashing of funds to catch child predators and a measles outbreak at a detention center, you are forgiven for missing it.

    I am talking about a coordinated campaign launched by the religious right to overturn gay marriage, arguing it harms children. The effort is a direct attack on the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell vs. Hodges decision making same-sex marriage a fundamental right of equality under the 14th Amendment, but also seeks to engage churches on the issue and change public opinion.

    Good luck with that last part. Most Americans support marriage equality. But the Supreme Court? That’s much iffier these days.

    But what disturbs me the most, while we wait for litigation, is that the campaign is yet another disingenuous ploy by MAGA to use children as an excuse for attacking civil rights, and attempting, Christian nationalist-style, to impose religious values on general society.

    MAGA frames so much hate — especially around immigrants and diversity — as protection of children, and through decades’ worth of conspiracy theory has attempted to paint LGBTQ+ parents as deviant and predatory. (QAnon, for example, was all about saving kids from gay and Democratic predators.)

    In reality, it’s the MAGA folks who are traumatizing children.

    “Our children are afraid. They’re terrorized,” Chauntyll Allen told me. She’s the St. Paul, Minn., school board member who was arrested recently for her part in the church protest of a pastor who is also an ICE official.

    “And we’re not just talking about immigrants,” she continued. All kids “are watching this, they’re experiencing this, and they’re carrying the terror in their body. What is this going to do for our society in 20 years?”

    This campaign to undo marriage equality, far from protecting kids, is just another injury inflicted on them for political gain. It features two California cases that are meant to show how terrible any form of same-sex parenting is, but mischaracterizes the facts for maximum outrage.

    The campaign also specifically targets in vitro fertilization and surrogacy as dangerous gateways to promoting LGBTQ+ families, an increasingly common position in far-right religious circles that would like to see more white women having babies through sex with white husbands.

    Attacking marriage equality isn’t about protecting children any more than deporting immigrants is about stopping crime. Allowing it to be framed that way actually puts in danger the stability of the approximately 300,000 kids nationwide who are being raised by about 832,000 couples in same-sex marriages.

    It endangers the physical and mental health of LGBTQ+ kids in any family who are growing up in a world that is increasingly hostile to them — with gender and identity hate crimes on the rise.

    And it endangers everyone who values a free and fair democracy that separates church and state by eroding the rights of the vulnerable as precedent for eroding the rights of whomever ticks them off next. If LGBTQ+ marriages aren’t legally protected, how long before racists come for the Loving decision, which legalized interracial marriage?

    If you doubt the MAGA agenda extends that far, when Second Lady Usha Vance recently announced her fourth pregnancy, one lovely fellow on social media wrote, “There is nothing exciting about this. We will never vote for your race traitor husband.”

    Hate is a virus that spreads how it pleases.

    Those behind the effort to undo marriage equality say that by legalizing the ability for LGBTQ+ folks to tie the knot, America put “adult desires” ahead of children’s well-being, which is dependent on being raised in a home that includes a married man and woman.

    Never mind the millions of kids being raised by single parents, grandparents (looking at you, JD Vance) or other guardians who aren’t the biological John-and-Jane mommy and daddy of conservative lore. Never mind the many same-sex marriages that don’t include kids.

    “Americans need to understand the threat that gay marriage poses to children and that natural marriage is directly connected to children protection,” Katy Faust, the leader of the campaign, said in an interview with a Christian news website.

    Of course, the campaign also makes no mention of the hundreds of children currently held in detention camps around the country — on some days, the number of children locked up just by ICE (not Border Patrol or in the care of other agencies) has skyrocketed to 400 under Trump, according to the Marshall Project.

    Outside of lockup, Black and brown children are being traumatized daily by the fear that they or their parents will be taken or even killed by federal agents. Thousands of kids across the country, including in California, have stopped going to school and other public places for fear of endangering themselves or their families. Don’t expect to see these folks campaigning to protect those kids.

    The campaign also ignores the fact that U.S. Department of Justice funding to combat sex crimes against children was just slashed, leaving victims and prosecutors without crucial resources to fight that real and undoubtedly harmful exploitation of our youth by sex traffickers.

    And Epstein. I cannot even start on save-the-children folks who seemingly ignore the victims of the sex crimes detailed in those files — many of them children at the time — while wringing their hands over families who don’t look like their own. It is a mind-blowing amount of hypocrisy.

    But of course, none of this is about saving children — yours, mine or anyone’s.

    But framing it around protecting children is a powerful manipulation — a last-ditch effort as same sex marriage does in fact become more accepted. Because who doesn’t want to save our kids? From whatever.

    Don’t be surprised if this effort gains traction in coming months. As we head into elections, the MAGA machine will attempt to turn the lens away from immigration and back to old-school issues such as feminism, abortion and same-sex marriage, which time and again its base has been willing to vote on regardless of what else is happening.

    Because they actually don’t care about kids. They care about power, and they’re perfectly willing to exploit kids to get it.

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • Supreme Court rejects call to overturn its decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a call to overturn its landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

    The justices turned away an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky court clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the high court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.

    Davis had been trying to get the court to overturn a lower-court order for her to pay $360,000 in damages and attorney’s fees to a couple denied a marriage license.

    Her lawyers repeatedly invoked the words of Justice Clarence Thomas, who alone among the nine justices has called for erasing the same-sex marriage ruling.

    Thomas was among four dissenting justices in 2015. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito are the other dissenters who are on the court today.

    Roberts has been silent on the subject since he wrote a dissenting opinion in the case. Alito has continued to criticize the decision, but he said recently he was not advocating that it be overturned.

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was not on the court in 2015, has said that there are times when the court should correct mistakes and overturn decisions, as it did in the 2022 case that ended a constitutional right to abortion.

    But Barrett has suggested recently that same-sex marriage might be in a different category than abortion because people have relied on the decision when they married and had children.

    Davis drew national attention to eastern Kentucky’s Rowan County when she turned away same-sex couples, saying her faith prevented her from complying with the high court ruling. She defied court orders to issue the licenses until a federal judge jailed her for contempt of court in September 2015.

    She was released after her staff issued the licenses on her behalf but removed her name from the form. The Kentucky legislature later enacted a law removing the names of all county clerks from state marriage licenses.

    Davis lost a reelection bid in 2018.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Sherman

    Source link

  • Same-Sex Marriage Precedent Faces New Supreme Court Test – LAmag

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court is weighing whether to hear a case that could challenge Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide

    As people gathered outside the Supreme Court to protest today, inside the Justices reviewed a case that could threaten the 2015 Obergefell v Hodges decision that legalized same sex marriage.  Taking place in a closed-door conference, which takes place yearly at this time, the Supreme Court is determining which appeals the Court will hear in the coming months. The decisions from today could be known as soon as Monday and could be held off as long as a couple of weeks. 

    The case in question is from 2015, regarding a former county clerk, Kim Davis, in Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. As the sole authority over issuing marriage licenses on behalf of the government in Rowan County, she was thrown in court for several days for violating a court order. Davis made multiple requests of the court, including protection from liability and a request to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. Davis cited her religious beliefs as justifiable reasons to withhold the marriage licenses. She was sued by David Ermold and David Moore for this decision, and the jury awarded the couple $100,000 in emotional damages as well as $260,000 in legal fees. Davis’s request specifically asks the court to overturn the lower court order for damages, as she believes the First Amendment’s religious protections should shield her from legal liability.

    Her petition stated that “anything less would leave the First Amendment’s promises hollow to those who agree to public service and are sued for exercising their religious beliefs during that time”. The 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this argument, explaining as Davis was operating within her capacity as a government official, the judges ruled she was not entitled to First Amendment protections. The judges went further to say, “When an official’s discharge of her duties according to her conscience violates the constitutional rights of citizens, the Constitution must win out”. It is also important to note that three years ago, Congress passed a federal law protecting same-sex and interracial marriage with bipartisan support. 

    In regard to Obergefell v. Hodges, it is possible that the court could take up the religion question without considering overturning the case despite Davis’s request. However, the Supreme Court has undergone massive change since 2015, with a now 6-3 conservative majority leaving the case vulnerable. Justice Clarence Thomas has made his position clear as he urged his colleagues to “reconsider” Obergefell v. Hodges in his opinion on the case that overturned Roe v. Wade due to the similarities in reasoning between the two cases.

    Justices Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito were dissenters in the 2015 case and remain on the Supreme Court today. Despite Justice Alito’s belief that Obergefell is inconsistent with originalist legal philosophy, he stated, “I am not suggesting that the decision in this case should be overruled… Obergefell is a precedent of the court that is entitled to the respect afforded by the doctrine of stare decisis”. Additionally, Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh have publicly signaled that they don’t believe same-sex marriage rights should be rolled back. 

    The Supreme Court considers whether Americans have become dependent on a decision when they weigh the possibility of overturning a precedent, and unlike abortion, this is true for same-sex marriage, as this includes child custody and financial planning, as about 600,000 same-sex couples were married after 2015, and around 300,000 children are being raised in these families. A sentiment echoed in Ermold and Moore’s brief “Overruling Obergefell could call into question the constitutional status of existing same-sex marriages and disrupt the lives of those who aspire to, plan their affairs around and benefit from same-sex marriage”. However, it can be countered that Obergefell is “not grounded in the nation’s history or traditions”, a precedent put into place by the Dobb’s case which overruled Roe v Wade. 

    Although many are hopeful that the Court will not take up Davis’s request to overturn Obergefell v Hodges, it may entice other officials to break laws they do not support in an effort to take the case to the Supreme Court. Already, at least 9 states have introduced legislation aimed at blocking new marriage licenses for LGBTQ people or have passed resolutions urging the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell at the earliest opportunity. Just last month, Texas put in place rules allowing judges statewide to refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for same sex couples, if it would violate their religious beliefs. 

    With the Supreme Court receiving 5000-7000 requests to consider cases a term, but only hearing oral arguments from 80 and issuing orders to just another 100, it is entirely possible that this case will be denied. Justices typically consider cases at each conference and tend to consider cases at multiple conferences before ever reaching a decision, so it is undetermined when we will hear about their choice.

    [ad_2]

    Taylor Ford

    Source link

  • Texas Supreme Court rules judges can refuse same-sex marriages

    [ad_1]

    Texas judges who refuse to perform same-sex marriages based on “sincerely held religious beliefs” do not violate the state’s rules on judicial impartiality, the Texas Supreme Court ruled on Friday. 

    The court’s ruling amended Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judges from letting any activities outside of their official judicial role cast doubt on their impartiality or interfere with their duties.

    The amendment reads: “It is not a violation of these canons for a judge to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief.”

    The decision, which was added to the state’s judicial conduct code on October 24 effective immediately, follows years of debate in Texas after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages in the country in 2015

    In 2019, Waco Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley was accused of violating the canon for refusing to marry people based on their sexual orientation, citing her Christian beliefs. At the time, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning to Hensley, rejecting the idea that she should have been entitled to “religious exemption.”

    This is a developing news story. More to follow.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Justice Amy Coney Barrett on same-sex marriage and abortion

    [ad_1]

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett tells CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell the Supreme Court should not “be imposing its own values on the American people.” The statement comes as part of her first television interview since joining the high court in 2020, ahead of the release of her new book, “Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Compare Trump and Harris’ views on LGBTQ rights and marriage equality

    Compare Trump and Harris’ views on LGBTQ rights and marriage equality

    [ad_1]

    Washington — Among the topics voters may consider in the 2024 presidential election are LGBTQ rights — and it’s an issue where former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have starkly different messages and backgrounds.

    A large majority of Americans support legal protections for LGBTQ people, according to a survey from the Public Religion Research Institute. But support is stronger in blue states than red states, and has declined overall in recent years — especially among Republicans. And support for same-sex marriage has also seen a slight decline.

    Meanwhile, 38% of Americans said LGBTQ rights are a factor in their voting decisions, and 30% say they will vote only for a candidate who aligns with them on the issue. 

    Here’s what to know about the candidates’ views and records on the issue:

    Donald Trump on LGBTQ issues

    The former president has been inconsistent on the issue during his time in the public eye, and his administration rolled back protections for LGBTQ people — especially transgender individuals.

    In the late 1990s and early 2000s, before he entered politics, Trump expressed support for domestic partnership laws that granted couples the same benefits of married couples — a position that the GOP widely opposed at the time — and often showed personal tolerance for LGBTQ issues more broadly. In a 1999 interview, where he also said he was “very pro-choice” Trump said that “it would not disturb me” for gay people to serve in the military. 

    Years later, Trump said in 2011, amid speculation about a possible presidential bid, that he was “opposed to gay marriage.” In 2015, he said he supports “traditional marriage.”

    Trump became the first GOP presidential nominee to mention LGBTQ issues in his 2016 RNC speech, pledging to protect the community in the aftermath of the Pulse nightclub shooting. 

    Trump chose a conservative running mate in 2016, Mike Pence, who had staunchly opposed same-sex marriage, but Trump’s own comments on the topic varied. 

    Trump said during his 2016 campaign that he would “strongly consider” appointing Supreme Court justices who would overturn the 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriages. Then, days after he was elected, he said he was “fine” with same-sex marriage and suggested he wouldn’t appoint justices to the high court with the goal of overturning the ruling. His wife, Melania Trump, called him “the first president to enter the White House supporting gay marriage” as he sought reelection in 2020.

    On transgender issues, Trump said in 2016, amid a controversy over a North Carolina bathroom ban, that transgender people should “use the bathroom they feel is appropriate.” But his administration went on to reverse a policy that required schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity, and his administration banned some transgender people from serving in the military while Trump was in office — a policy that President Biden reversed. Trump’s administration also tried to repeal health protections for transgender people and sought to end protections for transgender individuals in federal prison, among other policies.

    Anti-trans sentiments would go on to become a prominent talking point for Republicans on the campaign trail in the 2022 midterm elections. In early 2023, Trump said he would use his powers, should he return to the White House, to punish doctors who provide gender affirming care for minors and impose consequences for teachers who discuss it with students. 

    In the final months of the 2024 campaign, Trump and his allies leaned into anti-trans rhetoric, spending millions on advertisements focusing on the issue in battleground states.  

    Meanwhile, Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance, sponsored legislation in 2023 that would ban access to gender-affirming care for minors, along with a bill to bar the State Department from allowing the gender marker “X” on passports. The Ohio Republican also said he would vote no on the Respect for Marriage Act, which provided federal protections for same-sex and interracial marriages, while campaigning for Senate in 2022, citing religious liberty concerns.

    Kamala Harris on LGBTQ issues

    Harris has generally been an early adopter of pro-LGBTQ policies and stances, doing so before other prominent members of her party.

    The former San Francisco district attorney officiated some of the nation’s first same-sex marriages in 2004, after then-mayor Gavin Newsom directed the county clerk to approve the marriages although the law didn’t yet recognize them. The marriages were invalidated months later. Then, when she was elected as California’s attorney general in 2010, Harris said she would not defend in court a voter-approved measure known as Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage.

    As district attorney, Harris had prosecuted violence against LGBTQ people, establishing a hate crime unit to look into crimes against LGBTQ youth. As attorney general, she sought to end the “panic defense” that allowed homicide defendants to seek lesser sentences if they attested to being panicked by the victim’s sexual orientation. 

    Harris has been criticized by LGBTQ advocates for denying gender-affirming surgeries for transgender inmates when she served as attorney general; she said she was bound by the Department of Corrections policy in place at the time. She later expressed support for providing such care to inmates during her 2020 presidential bid. During that campaign, where she ran on a more progressive platform, Harris also said she supports decriminalizing sex work, though she noted that it’s not a simple issue.

    As a senator, Harris sponsored a handful of bills aimed at addressing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, along with other LGBTQ issues. Harris’ record has also been tied to the Biden administration, which expanded Title IX protections for LGBTQ students, although they were blocked by the Supreme Court. In 2022, Mr. Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law, enshrining federal protections for same-sex and interracial marriages. 

    Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, has a reputation as an advocate for LGBTQ rights. When Walz was a high school teacher, he served as the faculty adviser who helped form his school’s first gay-straight alliance in the ’90s.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Urgent Prop 3 community town hall will feature discussion about marriage equality with local LGBTQ+ leaders 

    Urgent Prop 3 community town hall will feature discussion about marriage equality with local LGBTQ+ leaders 

    [ad_1]

    Los Angeles Council District 14 (CD-14) candidates Ysabel Jurado and Kevin de León sparred over their qualifications in what could have been their last in-person debate before the November election. 

    Wednesday’s CD-14 debate, a district home to approximately 265,000 people, 70% of them Latin American, offered the public a chance to hear from both candidates and their stand on issues such as homelessness, public safety and affordable housing, among other things. 

    CALÓ News was one of the media outlets that were present inside Dolores Mission Catholic Church in Boyle Heights, where the debate was held. Below are our reporter’s main takeaways.  

    People showed up and showed out. More than 300 people attended the debate, which was organized by Boyle Heights Beat and Proyecto Pastoral. More than 260 people gathered inside the church and the rest watched via a livestream projected on the church’s patio. 

    The debate was bilingual, with translation services available for all, honoring the many Spanish speakers that live in the district, as Brendan P. Busse, pastor of the church, said in the opening statement. 

    As part of the event guidelines, Busse also shared that no applause or booing was to be permitted, a rule that was broken within the first ten minutes of the forum. “Where you are tonight is a sacred place. People who are in need of shelter sleep here and have for the last 40 years,” he said when referring to the church transforming into a homeless shelter at night for over 30 adults. “Power and peace can live in the same place.”

    That was the most peaceful and serene moment throughout the two-hour forum. 

    What followed was traded insults and competing visions from both candidates. 

    One of the first stabs occurred when De León accused Jurado of wanting to “abolish the police” and when Jurado reminded the public of De Leon’s “racist rhetoric,” referring to the 2022 scandal over the secretly recorded conversation with Gil Cedillo and Nury Martínez where they talked about indigenous Mexicans, Oaxacans, the Black and LGBTQ+ communities and councilman Mike Bonin’s adopted son.

    “I made a mistake, and I took responsibility. I have been apologizing for two years,” De León said. “Just as in the traditions of the Jesuits, love, reconciliation [and] peace, one must choose if we are going to be clinging to the past or move forward. I choose to move forward.” 

    When Jurado was asked about her stance on police, she said she had never said she wanted to abolish the police. “Don’t put words in my mouth,” she told De León. “I have never said that,” she said. “We put so much money into public safety into the LAPD yet street business owners and residents in these communities do not feel safer. The safest cities invest in communities, in recreation and parks, in libraries [and] youth development.”  

    De León and Jurado also discussed their plan to work with the homeless population, specifically during the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Los Angeles. In Los Angeles County, an estimated 75,312 people were experiencing homelessness, as stated in the 2024 homeless count. For CD-14 the issue of homelessness takes a higher level as it is home to Skid Row, which has one of the largest homeless populations in the U.S. 

    “We should continue to house our unhoused,” De León said. 

    He followed this by saying that under his leadership, CD-14 has built the most interim housing than “in any other place in the entire city of L.A.” He made a reference to the Boyle Heights Tiny Home Village and 1904 Bailey, both housing projects in CD-14. 

    “We need safety when the Olympics come,” he added. 

    Jurado said De León’s leadership has fallen short in his years in office, specifically when it comes to the homeless population and said that housing like the tiny homes is not sufficient for people in the district to live comfortably.

    “My opponent has governed this district, Skid Row, for over 20 years. Has homelessness in this district gotten better? We can all agree that it hasn’t,” she said. “County Supervisor Hilda Solís put up 200 units that are not just sheds; they have bathrooms, they have places and they have support services. Why hasn’t [CD-14] gotten something better than these tiny homes?”

    One of De León’s repeating arguments in various of his answers was the fact that Jurado has never held public office before. “I’ve dedicated my whole life to public service, to the benefit of our people. My opponent, to this day, has not done one single thing,” De León said in the first few minutes of the debate. 

    In one of the questions about low-income elders in the district, he listed some of his achievements when helping this population, including bringing free vaccines for pets of seniors of this district and food distributions, which, as De León noted, help people with basic food needs, including beans, rice and chicken. “The same chicken sold in Whole Foods,” he said.

    Jurado defended herself against the reality of never holding public office and said her work as a housing rights attorney and affordable housing activist have given her the tools and experience to lead the district in a different direction than the incumbent, De León.  “We can’t keep doing the same thing and expect different results,” Jurado said. ‘We need long-term solutions,” she said. 

    Last month, The L.A. Times also reported on Jurado’s past political experience, including working on John Choi’s unsuccessful 2013 run for City Council, as well as her work as a scheduler in Mayor Eric Garcetti’s office and how she was appointed by Garcetti to the Human Relations Commission in 2021.

    She later added that she was proud to already have the support of some of the L.A. City Council members, such as Eunisses Hernández, Nithya Raman and Hugo Soto-Martínez, which De León later referred to as the “socialist council members.” 

    After the debate, CALÓ News talked to both candidates and asked how they thought the debate went. 

    “It was a spirited debate, no question about it,” De León said. “Sometimes elections can take a real ugly twist that is very similar to Trump-ian characteristics. Like Donald Trump just says whatever he wants to say, no matter how outlandish [or] inaccurate it is.”

    When asked the same question, Jurado said, “ I think my opponent said a bunch of lies and said that he has plans for this district when he’s had four years to execute all of them. It’s really disappointing that only now he suddenly has all these ideas and plans for this district.”

    Both candidates told CALÓ News they will continue working until election day and making sure CD-14 residents show up to vote. 

    “But I think past the debate[s], it’s just [about] keeping your nose to [the] grindstone, working hard, and taking nothing for granted, knocking on those doors and talking directly to voters,” De León said. 

    Jurado said she still has a couple other events that she and her team are hosting before election day. “I’m out here talking to voters. We want to make sure that people know who I am and that they have other options. People are disappointed. We’re going to keep folks engaged and make sure that [they] turn out to the polls,” she said.

    Jorge Ramírez, 63, from Lincoln Heights, said he has been supporting De León since his time in the State Senate and said he will continue to vote for him because he doesn’t know much about his opponent. “He is the type of person we need. He’s done a lot for immigrants,” he said. “The other person, we don’t know much about her and she’s not very well known. She doesn’t have much experience in this field.”

    Alejandra Sánchez, whose daughter goes to school in Boyle Heights and lives in El Sereno, said she believes CD-14 has been in desperate need of new leadership and worries that many people will vote for De Leon just because he is who they have known for so long. “It’s very powerful to see a woman leader step in… It’s been an incredible year to see a woman president elected in Mexico, a woman running for president in the U.S. and a woman also running for leadership here in our community,’ she said. “That’s part of the problem… we are afraid to think about something new, about the new leadership of someone doing things differently.”

    General election day will take place on Tuesday, November 5, 2024. Early voting began on October 7. You can register to vote or check your registration status online on the California Online Voter Registration page.

    [ad_2]

    The Los Angeles Blade Editorial Board

    Source link

  • 80 percent of married same-sex couples worry about losing marriage equality

    80 percent of married same-sex couples worry about losing marriage equality

    [ad_1]

    (The Hill) — Around 80 percent of same-sex married couples are concerned about no longer having marriage equality, according to a new report.

    The report, from the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, found 79.3 percent of same-sex married couples said they were either “very” or “somewhat concerned” about Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the U.S., being overturned.

    “Overall, these couples appreciate the ways that marriage has strengthened their relationships with their partners, provided security for their children, and provided legal protections, financial security, and greater acceptance by family, friends, and the broader community,” the report reads. “They are also worried about the future of marriage equality and the increasingly hostile climate for LGBTQ+ people in many parts of the country — so much so that some are considering moving to another state.”

    Members of the Supreme Court, including Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, have criticized and expressed their opposition to the Obergefell decision in recent years. 

    Other findings in the report included 94.2 percent of the participants saying that the Obergefell ruling “made a difference for them,” with 62.8 percent marrying in the wake of the important decision by the nation’s highest court.

    “The many material, emotional, and symbolic benefits associated with marriage seem to have significant impacts on the lives and well-being of LGBTQ+ people,” Abbie E. Goldberg, psychology professor at Clark University and author of the study, said in a Thursday press release. 

    “While many LGBTQ+ people did not consider marriage a possibility growing up, it has made a profound difference in their lives, offering a greater sense of security, the ability to make important decisions together, and increased acceptance from both society and family.”

    The report features 484 respondents in a same-sex marriage from the 50 states and Washington, D.C. 

    The survey was conducted between October 2023 and February 2024.

    [ad_2]

    Tara Suter

    Source link

  • Banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a Japanese high court rules

    Banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a Japanese high court rules

    [ad_1]

    Tokyo — A Japanese high court ruled Thursday that denying same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and called for urgent government action to address the lack of any law allowing such unions.

    The court doesn’t have the power to overturn the current marriage law, which has been interpreted to restrict marriage as between a man and a woman. Government offices may continue to deny marriage status to same-sex couples unless the existing law is revised to include LGBTQ+ couples, or a new law is enacted that allows for other types of unions.

    The Sapporo High Court ruling said not allowing same-sex couples to marry and enjoy the same benefits as straight couples violates their fundamental right to have a family.

    A lower court issued a similar ruling earlier Thursday, becoming the sixth district court to do so. But the Tokyo District Court ruling was only a partial victory for Japan’s LGBTQ+ community calling for equal marriage rights, as it doesn’t change or overturn the current civil union law that describes marriage as between a man and a woman.

    Japan LGBTQ+
    A supporter of the LGBTQ+ community holds up a poster on March 14, 2024 as plaintiffs speak in front of media members at the main entrance of the Tokyo District Court after hearing the ruling regarding LGBTQ+ marriage rights, in Tokyo, Thursday, March 14, 2024. The poster reads, “Legalize the same-sex marriage.”

    Hiro Komae / AP


    Five previous court decisions in various districts said Japan’s policy of denying same-sex marriage is either unconstitutional or nearly so. However, unlike the Sapporo ruling, none of the low-level courts clearly deemed the existing marriage law unconstitutional

    Japan is the only country among the so-called G-7 industrialized nations that doesn’t allow same-sex marriage. But, reports CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer, momentum for change is growing, thanks in large part to couples who’ve stepped out of the shadows to push for equality and inclusion — despite the personal risks.

    Palmer says banners and the bunting were hung in July for Tokyo’s first full-scale Pride parade since the coronavirus pandemic. It was both a party, and a political rally to press for same-sex marriage rights.

    U.S. Ambassador Rahm Emanuel joined the crowds and lent his vocal support, saying he could already “see a point in Japan’s future” when, “like America… where there is not straight marriage… not gay marriage… there’s only marriage.”

    Proudly joining the parade that day were Kane Hirata and Kotfei Katsuyama, who have become poster boys for the cause.

    Asked why they believe their country is the only one in the G-7 that doesn’t yet allow same-sex marriage, Katsuyama told CBS News Japan’s ruling political party has close ties with fringe religious sects and staunchly conservative anti-LGBTQ groups.

    A powerful right-wing minority in Japan’s parliament has managed for years to block major changes to the country’s marriage laws.  

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Greece just legalized same-sex marriage. Will other Orthodox countries join them any time soon?

    Greece just legalized same-sex marriage. Will other Orthodox countries join them any time soon?

    [ad_1]

    Greece has become the first majority-Orthodox Christian nation to legalize same-sex marriage under civil law. At least for the near future, it will almost certainly be the only one.Eastern Orthodox leadership, despite lacking a single doctrinal authority like a pope, has been united in opposing recognition of same-sex relationships both within its own rites and in the civil realm. Public opinion in majority Orthodox countries has mostly been opposed, too.But there are some signs of change. Two small majority-Orthodox countries, Montenegro and Cyprus, have authorized same-sex unions in recent years, as did Greece in 2015 before upgrading to this week’s approval of full marital status.Video above: The world’s most welcoming places for 2024Civil unions may become more common among Orthodox countries gravitating toward the European Union. They remain off the table in Russia, which has cracked down on LGBTQ+ expression, and countries in its orbit.Following is a summary of church positions and public opinion in the Orthodox world, followed by the situation in individual majority-Orthodox lands. Eastern Orthodoxy is a socially conservative, ancient church with elaborate rituals and a strict hierarchy. Churches are mostly organized along national lines, with multiple independent churches that share ancient doctrine and practices and that both cooperate and squabble.Roughly 200 million Eastern Orthodox live primarily in Eastern Europe and neighboring Asian lands, with about half that total in Russia, while smaller numbers live across the world. Like other international church bodies, Orthodoxy has confronted calls for LGBTQ+ inclusion. A 2016 statement by a council of most Orthodox churches called marriage between a man and a woman “the oldest institution of divine law” and said members were forbidden from entering same-sex unions.In countries where they are a majority, Orthodox believers overwhelmingly said society should not accept homosexuality or approve same-sex marriage, according to surveys conducted in 2015 and 2016 by the Pew Research Center, a Washington-based think tank.Greek Orthodox showed relative tolerance, with half of Orthodox saying homosexuality should be accepted and a quarter favoring same-sex marriage. In more recent polls, Greeks overall narrowly supported the marriage law.The Greek law validates marriage in the civil realm but doesn’t require any church to perform such rites.Nevertheless, Greece’s Orthodox leadership unanimously opposed the law in January, saying the “duality of genders and their complementarity are not social inventions but originate from God.”Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis acknowledged the church’s position but said, “We are discussing the decisions of the Greek state, unrelated to theological beliefs.”Civil unions may be in some Orthodox countries’ near future, said George Demacopoulos, director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University in New York. “In terms of civil marriage, I think the countries that are in the European Union will eventually all do it,” Demacopoulos said. “My guess is the assemblies of bishops in those countries will offer some resistance to the measure, and depending on where you are, that may or may not delay it.” In Ukraine, same-sex couples cannot register their status legally.In 2023, the issue became acute as many LGBTQ+ people joined Ukraine’s armed forces. That year, a bill was introduced in Parliament to establish civil partnerships for same-sex couples, providing basic rights such as compensation if one of the partners is killed in action.The All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations — which includes Ukraine’s two rival Orthodox churches — opposed the draft law, contending that some international entities are using the country’s current vulnerability to force unwanted changes.The legislation remains pending.The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2023 that Ukraine violated the rights of a same-sex couple who sought legal protections provided to married heterosexual couples.Ukraine is majority Orthodox, with various religious minorities. In increasingly conservative Russia, President Vladimir Putin has forged a powerful alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church and has made “traditional family values” a cornerstone of his rule, juxtaposing them with “perversions” of the West.Putin effectively outlawed same-sex marriages in the 2020 constitutional revision that added a clause stipulating that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.In 2013, the Kremlin adopted what’s known as the “gay propaganda” law, banning any public endorsement of “nontraditional sexual relations” among minors.After sending troops into Ukraine in 2022, Russian authorities ramped up a campaign against what it called the West’s “degrading” moral influence, in what rights advocates saw as an attempt to legitimize the war.Patriarch Kirill of Moscow has assailed LGBTQ+ rights. As head of the Russian Orthodox Church, he oversees the world’s largest Orthodox flock. He depicted his country’s invasion of Ukraine as part of a metaphysical struggle against a liberal agenda that included “gay parades.”In November, Russia’s Supreme Court effectively outlawed LGBTQ+ activism, labeling what the government called the LGBTQ+ “international movement” as an extremist group and banning it in Russia. In 2021, a survey by Russia’s top independent pollster, the Levada Center, showed that only 33% of Russians completely or somewhat agree that gay men and women should enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals, a decrease from earlier years. Belarus’s Family Code defines marriage as a “union between a man and a woman.” There is also no legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.Homosexuality was decriminalized in Belarus in 1994, but the LGBTQ+ community faces heavy stigma and high suicide rates, advocates say.Human rights groups report hundreds of cases of the KGB – the country’s main domestic security agency – trying to recruit gay people and threatening to out them. Serbia and Montenegro, two conservative Balkan nations where the Serbian Orthodox Church holds huge influence, have had mixed results addressing LGBTQ+ rights as part of efforts to join the European Union.Tiny Montenegro passed a bill in 2020 allowing same-sex partnerships — not marriage and with fewer rights. In Serbia, a similar draft law never made it to a parliamentary vote.The Serbian Orthodox Church, which maintains close relations with the Russian church, has opposed the idea of same-sex marriages.Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vucic has said he would not sign off a bill on same-sex marriages, although Serbia has had an openly lesbian prime minister for years. Activists have been campaigning for legal partnerships.Pride marches in Serbia are routinely banned or held under tight security. In Montenegro, though same-sex partnerships are allowed, the highly male-oriented society of 620,000 people remains divided over the issue. Romania is one of the few European Union members that allows neither same-sex marriage nor civil unions, despite a growing social acceptance of LGBTQ+ people.In 2023, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Romania had failed to enforce same-sex couples’ rights by not legally recognizing their relationships. In early February in Romania, LGBTQ+ activists were allegedly assaulted while holding a peaceful protest outside the Bucharest headquarters of the country’s far-right AUR party.In 2018, Romania held a referendum — backed by the Orthodox Church — on whether to narrow the constitutional definition of marriage from a ″union of spouses″ to a ″union between one man and one woman.”Rights campaigners urged Romanians to boycott the vote, which failed due to low turnout.In neighboring Moldova, which isn’t an EU member but has official candidate status, neither same-sex marriages nor unions are allowed. Large majorities in both countries are Orthodox. Public opinion in Bulgaria is mostly hostile to gay people and more so to same-sex marriages. In the Balkan country, patriarchal family traditions still predominate.The European Court of Human Rights last year found that Bulgaria’s government was violating European human rights law in failing to legally recognize same-sex couples. The court also ruled that Bulgaria is obliged to adopt legal recognition for same-sex couples, but Bulgaria shows no signs of implementing the decision.Leaders of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which includes about 80% of Bulgarians, condemned the ECHR ruling and called on the government not to give in.Bulgaria’s constitution explicitly prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage. Amending the constitution requires a two-thirds majority in parliament on three consecutive votes. Such a scenario seems remote. Smith reported from Pittsburgh and Litvinova from Tallin, Estonia. Associated Press writers Jovana Gec in Belgrade, Serbia; Yuras Karmanau in Tallin; Stephen McGrath in Bucharest, Romania; Illia Novikov in Kyiv, Ukraine; and Veselin Toshkov in Sofia, Bulgaria, contributed to this report.

    Greece has become the first majority-Orthodox Christian nation to legalize same-sex marriage under civil law. At least for the near future, it will almost certainly be the only one.

    Eastern Orthodox leadership, despite lacking a single doctrinal authority like a pope, has been united in opposing recognition of same-sex relationships both within its own rites and in the civil realm. Public opinion in majority Orthodox countries has mostly been opposed, too.

    But there are some signs of change. Two small majority-Orthodox countries, Montenegro and Cyprus, have authorized same-sex unions in recent years, as did Greece in 2015 before upgrading to this week’s approval of full marital status.

    Video above: The world’s most welcoming places for 2024

    Civil unions may become more common among Orthodox countries gravitating toward the European Union. They remain off the table in Russia, which has cracked down on LGBTQ+ expression, and countries in its orbit.

    Following is a summary of church positions and public opinion in the Orthodox world, followed by the situation in individual majority-Orthodox lands.

    Eastern Orthodoxy is a socially conservative, ancient church with elaborate rituals and a strict hierarchy. Churches are mostly organized along national lines, with multiple independent churches that share ancient doctrine and practices and that both cooperate and squabble.

    Roughly 200 million Eastern Orthodox live primarily in Eastern Europe and neighboring Asian lands, with about half that total in Russia, while smaller numbers live across the world. Like other international church bodies, Orthodoxy has confronted calls for LGBTQ+ inclusion.

    A 2016 statement by a council of most Orthodox churches called marriage between a man and a woman “the oldest institution of divine law” and said members were forbidden from entering same-sex unions.

    In countries where they are a majority, Orthodox believers overwhelmingly said society should not accept homosexuality or approve same-sex marriage, according to surveys conducted in 2015 and 2016 by the Pew Research Center, a Washington-based think tank.

    Greek Orthodox showed relative tolerance, with half of Orthodox saying homosexuality should be accepted and a quarter favoring same-sex marriage. In more recent polls, Greeks overall narrowly supported the marriage law.

    The Greek law validates marriage in the civil realm but doesn’t require any church to perform such rites.

    Nevertheless, Greece’s Orthodox leadership unanimously opposed the law in January, saying the “duality of genders and their complementarity are not social inventions but originate from God.”

    Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis acknowledged the church’s position but said, “We are discussing the decisions of the Greek state, unrelated to theological beliefs.”

    Civil unions may be in some Orthodox countries’ near future, said George Demacopoulos, director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University in New York.

    “In terms of civil marriage, I think the countries that are in the European Union will eventually all do it,” Demacopoulos said. “My guess is the assemblies of bishops in those countries will offer some resistance to the measure, and depending on where you are, that may or may not delay it.”

    In Ukraine, same-sex couples cannot register their status legally.

    In 2023, the issue became acute as many LGBTQ+ people joined Ukraine’s armed forces. That year, a bill was introduced in Parliament to establish civil partnerships for same-sex couples, providing basic rights such as compensation if one of the partners is killed in action.

    The All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations — which includes Ukraine’s two rival Orthodox churches — opposed the draft law, contending that some international entities are using the country’s current vulnerability to force unwanted changes.

    The legislation remains pending.

    The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2023 that Ukraine violated the rights of a same-sex couple who sought legal protections provided to married heterosexual couples.

    Ukraine is majority Orthodox, with various religious minorities.

    In increasingly conservative Russia, President Vladimir Putin has forged a powerful alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church and has made “traditional family values” a cornerstone of his rule, juxtaposing them with “perversions” of the West.

    Putin effectively outlawed same-sex marriages in the 2020 constitutional revision that added a clause stipulating that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.

    In 2013, the Kremlin adopted what’s known as the “gay propaganda” law, banning any public endorsement of “nontraditional sexual relations” among minors.

    After sending troops into Ukraine in 2022, Russian authorities ramped up a campaign against what it called the West’s “degrading” moral influence, in what rights advocates saw as an attempt to legitimize the war.

    Patriarch Kirill of Moscow has assailed LGBTQ+ rights. As head of the Russian Orthodox Church, he oversees the world’s largest Orthodox flock. He depicted his country’s invasion of Ukraine as part of a metaphysical struggle against a liberal agenda that included “gay parades.”

    In November, Russia’s Supreme Court effectively outlawed LGBTQ+ activism, labeling what the government called the LGBTQ+ “international movement” as an extremist group and banning it in Russia.

    In 2021, a survey by Russia’s top independent pollster, the Levada Center, showed that only 33% of Russians completely or somewhat agree that gay men and women should enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals, a decrease from earlier years.

    Belarus’s Family Code defines marriage as a “union between a man and a woman.” There is also no legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

    Homosexuality was decriminalized in Belarus in 1994, but the LGBTQ+ community faces heavy stigma and high suicide rates, advocates say.

    Human rights groups report hundreds of cases of the KGB – the country’s main domestic security agency – trying to recruit gay people and threatening to out them.

    Serbia and Montenegro, two conservative Balkan nations where the Serbian Orthodox Church holds huge influence, have had mixed results addressing LGBTQ+ rights as part of efforts to join the European Union.

    Tiny Montenegro passed a bill in 2020 allowing same-sex partnerships — not marriage and with fewer rights. In Serbia, a similar draft law never made it to a parliamentary vote.

    The Serbian Orthodox Church, which maintains close relations with the Russian church, has opposed the idea of same-sex marriages.

    Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vucic has said he would not sign off a bill on same-sex marriages, although Serbia has had an openly lesbian prime minister for years. Activists have been campaigning for legal partnerships.

    Pride marches in Serbia are routinely banned or held under tight security. In Montenegro, though same-sex partnerships are allowed, the highly male-oriented society of 620,000 people remains divided over the issue.

    Romania is one of the few European Union members that allows neither same-sex marriage nor civil unions, despite a growing social acceptance of LGBTQ+ people.

    In 2023, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Romania had failed to enforce same-sex couples’ rights by not legally recognizing their relationships.

    In early February in Romania, LGBTQ+ activists were allegedly assaulted while holding a peaceful protest outside the Bucharest headquarters of the country’s far-right AUR party.

    In 2018, Romania held a referendum — backed by the Orthodox Church — on whether to narrow the constitutional definition of marriage from a ″union of spouses″ to a ″union between one man and one woman.”

    Rights campaigners urged Romanians to boycott the vote, which failed due to low turnout.

    In neighboring Moldova, which isn’t an EU member but has official candidate status, neither same-sex marriages nor unions are allowed.

    Large majorities in both countries are Orthodox.

    Public opinion in Bulgaria is mostly hostile to gay people and more so to same-sex marriages. In the Balkan country, patriarchal family traditions still predominate.

    The European Court of Human Rights last year found that Bulgaria’s government was violating European human rights law in failing to legally recognize same-sex couples. The court also ruled that Bulgaria is obliged to adopt legal recognition for same-sex couples, but Bulgaria shows no signs of implementing the decision.

    Leaders of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which includes about 80% of Bulgarians, condemned the ECHR ruling and called on the government not to give in.

    Bulgaria’s constitution explicitly prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage. Amending the constitution requires a two-thirds majority in parliament on three consecutive votes. Such a scenario seems remote.

    Smith reported from Pittsburgh and Litvinova from Tallin, Estonia. Associated Press writers Jovana Gec in Belgrade, Serbia; Yuras Karmanau in Tallin; Stephen McGrath in Bucharest, Romania; Illia Novikov in Kyiv, Ukraine; and Veselin Toshkov in Sofia, Bulgaria, contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Greece just legalized same-sex marriage. Will other Orthodox countries join them any time soon?

    Greece just legalized same-sex marriage. Will other Orthodox countries join them any time soon?

    [ad_1]

    Greece has become the first majority-Orthodox Christian nation to legalize same-sex marriage under civil law. At least for the near future, it will almost certainly be the only one.Eastern Orthodox leadership, despite lacking a single doctrinal authority like a pope, has been united in opposing recognition of same-sex relationships both within its own rites and in the civil realm. Public opinion in majority Orthodox countries has mostly been opposed, too.But there are some signs of change. Two small majority-Orthodox countries, Montenegro and Cyprus, have authorized same-sex unions in recent years, as did Greece in 2015 before upgrading to this week’s approval of full marital status.Video above: The world’s most welcoming places for 2024Civil unions may become more common among Orthodox countries gravitating toward the European Union. They remain off the table in Russia, which has cracked down on LGBTQ+ expression, and countries in its orbit.Following is a summary of church positions and public opinion in the Orthodox world, followed by the situation in individual majority-Orthodox lands. Eastern Orthodoxy is a socially conservative, ancient church with elaborate rituals and a strict hierarchy. Churches are mostly organized along national lines, with multiple independent churches that share ancient doctrine and practices and that both cooperate and squabble.Roughly 200 million Eastern Orthodox live primarily in Eastern Europe and neighboring Asian lands, with about half that total in Russia, while smaller numbers live across the world. Like other international church bodies, Orthodoxy has confronted calls for LGBTQ+ inclusion. A 2016 statement by a council of most Orthodox churches called marriage between a man and a woman “the oldest institution of divine law” and said members were forbidden from entering same-sex unions.In countries where they are a majority, Orthodox believers overwhelmingly said society should not accept homosexuality or approve same-sex marriage, according to surveys conducted in 2015 and 2016 by the Pew Research Center, a Washington-based think tank.Greek Orthodox showed relative tolerance, with half of Orthodox saying homosexuality should be accepted and a quarter favoring same-sex marriage. In more recent polls, Greeks overall narrowly supported the marriage law.The Greek law validates marriage in the civil realm but doesn’t require any church to perform such rites.Nevertheless, Greece’s Orthodox leadership unanimously opposed the law in January, saying the “duality of genders and their complementarity are not social inventions but originate from God.”Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis acknowledged the church’s position but said, “We are discussing the decisions of the Greek state, unrelated to theological beliefs.”Civil unions may be in some Orthodox countries’ near future, said George Demacopoulos, director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University in New York. “In terms of civil marriage, I think the countries that are in the European Union will eventually all do it,” Demacopoulos said. “My guess is the assemblies of bishops in those countries will offer some resistance to the measure, and depending on where you are, that may or may not delay it.” In Ukraine, same-sex couples cannot register their status legally.In 2023, the issue became acute as many LGBTQ+ people joined Ukraine’s armed forces. That year, a bill was introduced in Parliament to establish civil partnerships for same-sex couples, providing basic rights such as compensation if one of the partners is killed in action.The All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations — which includes Ukraine’s two rival Orthodox churches — opposed the draft law, contending that some international entities are using the country’s current vulnerability to force unwanted changes.The legislation remains pending.The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2023 that Ukraine violated the rights of a same-sex couple who sought legal protections provided to married heterosexual couples.Ukraine is majority Orthodox, with various religious minorities. In increasingly conservative Russia, President Vladimir Putin has forged a powerful alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church and has made “traditional family values” a cornerstone of his rule, juxtaposing them with “perversions” of the West.Putin effectively outlawed same-sex marriages in the 2020 constitutional revision that added a clause stipulating that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.In 2013, the Kremlin adopted what’s known as the “gay propaganda” law, banning any public endorsement of “nontraditional sexual relations” among minors.After sending troops into Ukraine in 2022, Russian authorities ramped up a campaign against what it called the West’s “degrading” moral influence, in what rights advocates saw as an attempt to legitimize the war.Patriarch Kirill of Moscow has assailed LGBTQ+ rights. As head of the Russian Orthodox Church, he oversees the world’s largest Orthodox flock. He depicted his country’s invasion of Ukraine as part of a metaphysical struggle against a liberal agenda that included “gay parades.”In November, Russia’s Supreme Court effectively outlawed LGBTQ+ activism, labeling what the government called the LGBTQ+ “international movement” as an extremist group and banning it in Russia. In 2021, a survey by Russia’s top independent pollster, the Levada Center, showed that only 33% of Russians completely or somewhat agree that gay men and women should enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals, a decrease from earlier years. Belarus’s Family Code defines marriage as a “union between a man and a woman.” There is also no legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.Homosexuality was decriminalized in Belarus in 1994, but the LGBTQ+ community faces heavy stigma and high suicide rates, advocates say.Human rights groups report hundreds of cases of the KGB – the country’s main domestic security agency – trying to recruit gay people and threatening to out them. Serbia and Montenegro, two conservative Balkan nations where the Serbian Orthodox Church holds huge influence, have had mixed results addressing LGBTQ+ rights as part of efforts to join the European Union.Tiny Montenegro passed a bill in 2020 allowing same-sex partnerships — not marriage and with fewer rights. In Serbia, a similar draft law never made it to a parliamentary vote.The Serbian Orthodox Church, which maintains close relations with the Russian church, has opposed the idea of same-sex marriages.Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vucic has said he would not sign off a bill on same-sex marriages, although Serbia has had an openly lesbian prime minister for years. Activists have been campaigning for legal partnerships.Pride marches in Serbia are routinely banned or held under tight security. In Montenegro, though same-sex partnerships are allowed, the highly male-oriented society of 620,000 people remains divided over the issue. Romania is one of the few European Union members that allows neither same-sex marriage nor civil unions, despite a growing social acceptance of LGBTQ+ people.In 2023, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Romania had failed to enforce same-sex couples’ rights by not legally recognizing their relationships. In early February in Romania, LGBTQ+ activists were allegedly assaulted while holding a peaceful protest outside the Bucharest headquarters of the country’s far-right AUR party.In 2018, Romania held a referendum — backed by the Orthodox Church — on whether to narrow the constitutional definition of marriage from a ″union of spouses″ to a ″union between one man and one woman.”Rights campaigners urged Romanians to boycott the vote, which failed due to low turnout.In neighboring Moldova, which isn’t an EU member but has official candidate status, neither same-sex marriages nor unions are allowed. Large majorities in both countries are Orthodox. Public opinion in Bulgaria is mostly hostile to gay people and more so to same-sex marriages. In the Balkan country, patriarchal family traditions still predominate.The European Court of Human Rights last year found that Bulgaria’s government was violating European human rights law in failing to legally recognize same-sex couples. The court also ruled that Bulgaria is obliged to adopt legal recognition for same-sex couples, but Bulgaria shows no signs of implementing the decision.Leaders of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which includes about 80% of Bulgarians, condemned the ECHR ruling and called on the government not to give in.Bulgaria’s constitution explicitly prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage. Amending the constitution requires a two-thirds majority in parliament on three consecutive votes. Such a scenario seems remote. Smith reported from Pittsburgh and Litvinova from Tallin, Estonia. Associated Press writers Jovana Gec in Belgrade, Serbia; Yuras Karmanau in Tallin; Stephen McGrath in Bucharest, Romania; Illia Novikov in Kyiv, Ukraine; and Veselin Toshkov in Sofia, Bulgaria, contributed to this report.

    Greece has become the first majority-Orthodox Christian nation to legalize same-sex marriage under civil law. At least for the near future, it will almost certainly be the only one.

    Eastern Orthodox leadership, despite lacking a single doctrinal authority like a pope, has been united in opposing recognition of same-sex relationships both within its own rites and in the civil realm. Public opinion in majority Orthodox countries has mostly been opposed, too.

    But there are some signs of change. Two small majority-Orthodox countries, Montenegro and Cyprus, have authorized same-sex unions in recent years, as did Greece in 2015 before upgrading to this week’s approval of full marital status.

    Video above: The world’s most welcoming places for 2024

    Civil unions may become more common among Orthodox countries gravitating toward the European Union. They remain off the table in Russia, which has cracked down on LGBTQ+ expression, and countries in its orbit.

    Following is a summary of church positions and public opinion in the Orthodox world, followed by the situation in individual majority-Orthodox lands.

    Eastern Orthodoxy is a socially conservative, ancient church with elaborate rituals and a strict hierarchy. Churches are mostly organized along national lines, with multiple independent churches that share ancient doctrine and practices and that both cooperate and squabble.

    Roughly 200 million Eastern Orthodox live primarily in Eastern Europe and neighboring Asian lands, with about half that total in Russia, while smaller numbers live across the world. Like other international church bodies, Orthodoxy has confronted calls for LGBTQ+ inclusion.

    A 2016 statement by a council of most Orthodox churches called marriage between a man and a woman “the oldest institution of divine law” and said members were forbidden from entering same-sex unions.

    In countries where they are a majority, Orthodox believers overwhelmingly said society should not accept homosexuality or approve same-sex marriage, according to surveys conducted in 2015 and 2016 by the Pew Research Center, a Washington-based think tank.

    Greek Orthodox showed relative tolerance, with half of Orthodox saying homosexuality should be accepted and a quarter favoring same-sex marriage. In more recent polls, Greeks overall narrowly supported the marriage law.

    The Greek law validates marriage in the civil realm but doesn’t require any church to perform such rites.

    Nevertheless, Greece’s Orthodox leadership unanimously opposed the law in January, saying the “duality of genders and their complementarity are not social inventions but originate from God.”

    Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis acknowledged the church’s position but said, “We are discussing the decisions of the Greek state, unrelated to theological beliefs.”

    Civil unions may be in some Orthodox countries’ near future, said George Demacopoulos, director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University in New York.

    “In terms of civil marriage, I think the countries that are in the European Union will eventually all do it,” Demacopoulos said. “My guess is the assemblies of bishops in those countries will offer some resistance to the measure, and depending on where you are, that may or may not delay it.”

    In Ukraine, same-sex couples cannot register their status legally.

    In 2023, the issue became acute as many LGBTQ+ people joined Ukraine’s armed forces. That year, a bill was introduced in Parliament to establish civil partnerships for same-sex couples, providing basic rights such as compensation if one of the partners is killed in action.

    The All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations — which includes Ukraine’s two rival Orthodox churches — opposed the draft law, contending that some international entities are using the country’s current vulnerability to force unwanted changes.

    The legislation remains pending.

    The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2023 that Ukraine violated the rights of a same-sex couple who sought legal protections provided to married heterosexual couples.

    Ukraine is majority Orthodox, with various religious minorities.

    In increasingly conservative Russia, President Vladimir Putin has forged a powerful alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church and has made “traditional family values” a cornerstone of his rule, juxtaposing them with “perversions” of the West.

    Putin effectively outlawed same-sex marriages in the 2020 constitutional revision that added a clause stipulating that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.

    In 2013, the Kremlin adopted what’s known as the “gay propaganda” law, banning any public endorsement of “nontraditional sexual relations” among minors.

    After sending troops into Ukraine in 2022, Russian authorities ramped up a campaign against what it called the West’s “degrading” moral influence, in what rights advocates saw as an attempt to legitimize the war.

    Patriarch Kirill of Moscow has assailed LGBTQ+ rights. As head of the Russian Orthodox Church, he oversees the world’s largest Orthodox flock. He depicted his country’s invasion of Ukraine as part of a metaphysical struggle against a liberal agenda that included “gay parades.”

    In November, Russia’s Supreme Court effectively outlawed LGBTQ+ activism, labeling what the government called the LGBTQ+ “international movement” as an extremist group and banning it in Russia.

    In 2021, a survey by Russia’s top independent pollster, the Levada Center, showed that only 33% of Russians completely or somewhat agree that gay men and women should enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals, a decrease from earlier years.

    Belarus’s Family Code defines marriage as a “union between a man and a woman.” There is also no legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

    Homosexuality was decriminalized in Belarus in 1994, but the LGBTQ+ community faces heavy stigma and high suicide rates, advocates say.

    Human rights groups report hundreds of cases of the KGB – the country’s main domestic security agency – trying to recruit gay people and threatening to out them.

    Serbia and Montenegro, two conservative Balkan nations where the Serbian Orthodox Church holds huge influence, have had mixed results addressing LGBTQ+ rights as part of efforts to join the European Union.

    Tiny Montenegro passed a bill in 2020 allowing same-sex partnerships — not marriage and with fewer rights. In Serbia, a similar draft law never made it to a parliamentary vote.

    The Serbian Orthodox Church, which maintains close relations with the Russian church, has opposed the idea of same-sex marriages.

    Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vucic has said he would not sign off a bill on same-sex marriages, although Serbia has had an openly lesbian prime minister for years. Activists have been campaigning for legal partnerships.

    Pride marches in Serbia are routinely banned or held under tight security. In Montenegro, though same-sex partnerships are allowed, the highly male-oriented society of 620,000 people remains divided over the issue.

    Romania is one of the few European Union members that allows neither same-sex marriage nor civil unions, despite a growing social acceptance of LGBTQ+ people.

    In 2023, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Romania had failed to enforce same-sex couples’ rights by not legally recognizing their relationships.

    In early February in Romania, LGBTQ+ activists were allegedly assaulted while holding a peaceful protest outside the Bucharest headquarters of the country’s far-right AUR party.

    In 2018, Romania held a referendum — backed by the Orthodox Church — on whether to narrow the constitutional definition of marriage from a ″union of spouses″ to a ″union between one man and one woman.”

    Rights campaigners urged Romanians to boycott the vote, which failed due to low turnout.

    In neighboring Moldova, which isn’t an EU member but has official candidate status, neither same-sex marriages nor unions are allowed.

    Large majorities in both countries are Orthodox.

    Public opinion in Bulgaria is mostly hostile to gay people and more so to same-sex marriages. In the Balkan country, patriarchal family traditions still predominate.

    The European Court of Human Rights last year found that Bulgaria’s government was violating European human rights law in failing to legally recognize same-sex couples. The court also ruled that Bulgaria is obliged to adopt legal recognition for same-sex couples, but Bulgaria shows no signs of implementing the decision.

    Leaders of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, which includes about 80% of Bulgarians, condemned the ECHR ruling and called on the government not to give in.

    Bulgaria’s constitution explicitly prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage. Amending the constitution requires a two-thirds majority in parliament on three consecutive votes. Such a scenario seems remote.

    Smith reported from Pittsburgh and Litvinova from Tallin, Estonia. Associated Press writers Jovana Gec in Belgrade, Serbia; Yuras Karmanau in Tallin; Stephen McGrath in Bucharest, Romania; Illia Novikov in Kyiv, Ukraine; and Veselin Toshkov in Sofia, Bulgaria, contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A Speaker Without Enemies—For Now

    A Speaker Without Enemies—For Now

    [ad_1]

    When Representative Mike Johnson arrived in Congress in 2017, he received an important piece of advice from a fellow Louisianan, Representative Steve Scalise. “Be careful about your early alliances that you make,” Scalise told Johnson, as the younger Republican recalled in a C-SPAN interview that year. Avoid getting “marginalized or labeled in any way.”

    Six years later, Johnson has followed that advice all the way to the House speakership, reaching a post that is second in line to the presidency faster than any other lawmaker in modern congressional history. Staunchly conservative and closely aligned with former President Donald Trump, the 51-year-old former talk-radio host made few headlines and fewer enemies as he climbed the ranks of his party.

    With a 220–209 House vote this afternoon, Johnson was able to forge a consensus that eluded three previous aspirants—including his own mentor, Scalise—to replace Kevin McCarthy. He earned unanimous support from Republican members, who stood and applauded when he clinched a majority of the chamber. His victory ends a weeks-long power struggle that immobilized the House as a war started in the Middle East and a government shutdown loomed.

    Johnson’s win was as sudden as it was improbable. Early yesterday afternoon, he lost a secret-ballot vote to become the House GOP’s third speaker nominee in as many weeks. But the winner of that tally, Representative Tom Emmer of Minnesota, faced immediate backlash from social conservatives and Trump allies over his support for same-sex marriage and his 2021 vote to certify Joe Biden’s election as president. More than two dozen Republicans told Emmer that they would not support him in a public floor vote, putting him in the same perilous position as the previous GOP speaker nominee, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio. While Emmer was trying to win them over, Trump denounced him as “a globalist RINO.” Emmer’s nomination was dead after just four hours.

    As the fifth-ranking House GOP leader, Johnson was next in line. Late last night, he captured the nomination in the second round of balloting. His victory was far from unanimous, but rank-and-file Republicans who had initially voted against Johnson, apparently weary after weeks of infighting, decided to support him.

    Johnson’s ascent is a product of both the GOP’s ideological conformity and its ongoing loyalty to Trump. His record in the House is no more moderate than Jordan’s, whose preference for antagonism over compromise turned off an ultimately decisive faction of the party. Both Johnson and Jordan served as chairs of the Republican Study Committee—the largest conservative bloc in the House—and played key roles in Trump’s effort to overturn his defeat in 2020. Johnson enlisted Republican lawmakers to sign a legal brief urging the Supreme Court to allow state legislatures to effectively nullify the votes of their citizens. Despite Johnson’s involvement, he won the support of at least one Republican, Representative Ken Buck of Colorado, who had refused to vote for Jordan, because the Ohioan didn’t acknowledge the legitimacy of Biden’s win.

    For electorally vulnerable House Republicans, Johnson’s relative anonymity was an asset. They rejected Jordan in large part because they feared that his notoriety and uncompromising style would play poorly in their districts. By contrast, Johnson, who heeded Scalise’s advice to avoid being “marginalized or labeled,” comes across as mild-mannered and polite. He could be harder for Democrats to demonize. Johnson is so little known that operatives at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which sent out a flurry of statements criticizing each successive speaker nominee, were still combing through his record and listening to old recordings of his radio show this morning. “Mike Johnson is Jim Jordan in a sports coat,” a spokesperson, Viet Shelton, told me. “Electing him as speaker would represent how the Republican conference has completely given in to the most extreme fringes of their party.”

    The next few weeks will test whether the inexperienced Johnson is in over his head, and just how far to the right Johnson is willing to push his party. “You’re going to see this group work like a well-oiled machine,” Johnson, flanked by dozens of his GOP colleagues, assured reporters after securing the nomination last night. He’ll have plenty of doubters. The new speaker will be leading the same five-vote majority that routinely rebuffed McCarthy, forcing him to rely on Democrats to pass high-stakes legislation.

    Congress faces a November 17 deadline to avoid a government shutdown—the result of a five-week extension in funding that ultimately cost McCarthy his job. Johnson has circulated a plan to Republicans that suggested he would support another stopgap measure, for either two or five months, to buy time for the House and Senate to negotiate full-year spending bills.

    He’ll also confront immediate pressure to act on the Biden administration’s request for more than $100 billion in aid to Israel and Ukraine. Like Jordan, Johnson has supported aid for Israel but has opposed additional Ukraine funding. “We stand with our ally Israel,” Johnson said last night; he made no mention of Ukraine.

    If the GOP holds on to its majority next year, Johnson would have a say in whether the House certifies the presidential winner in 2024. When a reporter asked him last night about his role in helping Trump try to overturn the 2020 election, the Republicans around him, unified and jubilant for the first time in weeks, started to jeer. A few members booed the buzzkill in the press corps. “Shut up!” yelled one lawmaker, Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina. Johnson, the conservative without enemies, merely shook his head and smiled. “Next question,” he replied. “Next question.”

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • Catholic Church’s future on the table as Pope Francis kicks off 2023 Synod with an LGBTQ bombshell

    Catholic Church’s future on the table as Pope Francis kicks off 2023 Synod with an LGBTQ bombshell

    [ad_1]

    Rome — Pope Francis opened a big meeting Wednesday on the future of the Catholic Church, where contentious topics will be discussed. The three-week General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops at the Vatican, sometimes called the Super Bowl of the Catholic Church, has drawn bishops from around the world to discuss hot button issues including whether priests should be allowed to get married, if divorced and remarried Catholics should receive communion, whether women should be allowed to become deacons and how the church will handle matters around the LGBTQ community.

    Even before it kicked off this year’s synod was already historic: It’s the first time that women and laypeople are being allowed to vote — though 80% of participants are still bishops, and thus men. But the biggest bombshell dropped earlier this week, when Francis opened the door for the possibility of Catholic priests blessing same-sex unions.

    His remarks, published Monday, came with caveats: Francis stressed that blessings shouldn’t be seen as elevating same-sex unions to the sacred place of heterosexual marriage, but until now, the church’s position had been that same-sex unions could not be blessed, because “God cannot bless sin.”

    The XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops Is Held At Vatican
    Pope Francis presides at Holy Mass with the new Cardinals and the College of Cardinals for the opening of the General Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops at St. Peter’s Square, Oct. 4, 2023, in Vatican City.

    Antonio Masiello/Getty


    In his statements — issued in reply to cardinals who had requested clarity on the church’s position on the matter — Francis said, “we cannot be judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.”

    In his opening homily Wednesday for the synod, the pope said that “everyone, everyone, everyone,” must be allowed in.

    LGBTQ organizations welcomed the change in tone, while church conservatives blasted Francis for appearing to dilute Catholic doctrine and sow confusion. 

    Jaime Manson, a women’s rights activist and devout Catholic, said the change opens the church tent for LGBTQ couples like her and her partner of four years.

    “Affirming and embracing everyone only makes the church stronger,” Manson told CBS News. “It is a very slim minority of Catholics who are opposed to same-sex unions.”

    Father Gerald Murray, a conservative priest from Manhattan, disagreed.

    “For the pope to say that priests and bishops can find a way to do this, it’s wrong,” Murray said. “He shouldn’t do it.”

    “The harm is that it contradicts Catholic teaching,” Murray said when asked about the harm in making the tent “bigger for more people.”

    All this, and the synod has only just begun.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pope Francis opens meeting on future of Catholic church by saying

    Pope Francis opens meeting on future of Catholic church by saying

    [ad_1]

    Pope Francis opens meeting on future of Catholic church by saying “everyone” must be allowed in – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    After the Vatican published a bombshell letter from Pope Francis earlier this week in which he opened the door for priests to bless same-sex unions, the pope on Wednesday kicked off an important three-week-long meeting of Catholic bishops by saying “everyone, everyone, everyone, everyone” must be allowed in. Chris Livesay reports.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Michael Imperioli says he forbids

    Michael Imperioli says he forbids

    [ad_1]

    The conservative Supreme Court’s unprecedented week


    The conservative Supreme Court’s unprecedented week

    04:48

    “Sopranos” and “White Lotus” actor Michael Imperioli says he’s not allowing “bigots and homophobes” from watching any of the work he’s been in after the Supreme Court sided with a Colorado designer opposed to making same-sex wedding websites.

    Imperioli, 57, wrote an Instagram post condemning the high court’s decision over the weekend. 

    “i’ve decided to forbid bigots and homophobes from watching The Sopranos, The White Lotus, Goodfellas or any movie or tv show I’ve been in,” he said. “Thank you Supreme Court for allowing me to discriminate and exclude those who I don’t agree with and am opposed to. USA ! USA!” 

    In comments underneath his post, he wrote “hate and ignorance is not a legitimate point of view” and added, “America is becoming dumber by the minute.”

    29th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards - Arrivals
    Michael Imperioli attends the 29th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards at Fairmont Century Plaza on February 26, 2023 in Los Angeles, California.

    Axelle/Bauer-Griffin


    On Friday, the court ruled 6-3 in favor of Lorie Smith, a Christian graphic artist from Colorado who does not want to design wedding websites for same-sex couples. The court ruled the First Amendment prohibits the state from forcing the designer to express messages that are contrary to her closely held religious beliefs. 

    All six conservative justices sided with the designer, while the court’s three liberals dissented, saying the majority’s decision gives businesses a “license to discriminate.”

    “[T]he decision itself inflicts a kind of stigmatic harm, on top of any harm caused by denials of service,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion. “The opinion of the Court is, quite literally, a notice that reads: ‘Some services may be denied to same-sex couples.’”

    President Biden also criticized the ruling and said he is concerned it could lead to discrimination against LGBTQ Americans.

    Melissa Quinn contributed to this report. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Kyrsten Sinema Theory of American Politics

    The Kyrsten Sinema Theory of American Politics

    [ad_1]

    Kyrsten Sinema knows what everybody says about her. She pretends not to read the press coverage—“I don’t really care”—but she knows. She knows what her colleagues call her behind her back (“egomaniac,” “traitor”). She knows how many articles The New York Times has published about her wardrobe (five). She feels misunderstood, and she would like to explain herself.

    We’re sitting across from each other in her “hideaway,” a small, windowless room in the basement of the U.S. Capitol Building. Every senator gets one of these subterranean, chamber-adjacent bunkers, and most are outfitted with dark, utilitarian furniture. But Sinema’s walls are pale pink, the couches burnt orange, and desert-themed tchotchkes evoking her native Arizona are interspersed among bottles of wine and liquor.

    Sinema tells me that there are several popular narratives about her in the media, all of them “inaccurate.” One is that she’s “mysterious,” “mercurial,” “an enigma”—that she makes her decisions on unknowable whims. She regards this portrayal as “fairly absurd”: “I think I’m a highly predictable person.”

    “Then,” she goes on, “there’s the She’s just doing what’s best for her and not for her state or for her country” narrative. “And I think that’s a strange narrative, particularly when you contrast it with”—here she pauses, and then smirks—“ya know, the facts.”

    You can see, in moments like these, why she bothers people. She speaks in a matter-of-fact staccato, her tone set frequently to smug. She says things like “I am a long-term thinker in a short-term town” and “I prefer to be successful.” The overall effect, if you’re not charmed by it (and a lot of her Republican colleagues are), is condescension bordering on arrogance. Sinema, who graduated from high school at 16 and college at 18, carries herself like she is unquestionably the smartest person in the room.

    No one would mistake her for being dumb, though. In the past two years, Sinema has been at the center of virtually every major piece of bipartisan legislation passed by the Senate, negotiating deals on infrastructure, guns, and a bill that codifies the right to same-sex marriage. She has also become a villain to the left, proudly standing in the way of Democrats’ more ambitious agenda by refusing to eliminate the filibuster. The tension culminated with her announcement in December that she was leaving the Democratic Party and registering as an independent.

    Sinema hasn’t given many in-depth interviews since then, but she says she agreed to meet with me because she wants to show that what she’s doing “works.” She thinks that, unfashionable though it may be, her approach to legislating—compromise, centrism, bipartisan consensus-building—is the only way to get anything done in Washington. I was interested in a separate, but related, question: What exactly is she trying to get done? Much of the discussion around Sinema has focused on the puzzle of what she really believes. What does Kyrsten Sinema want? What Does Kyrsten Sinema stand for? The subtext in these headlines is that if you dig deep enough, a secret belief system will be revealed. Is she a progressive opportunistically cosplaying as a centrist? A conservative finally showing her true colors? The truth, according to Sinema herself, is that there is no ideological core to discover.

    I learn this when I describe for Sinema the story I hear most often about her: that she started out as an idealistic progressive activist—organizing protests against the Iraq War, marching for undocumented immigrants in 100-degree heat, leading the effort to defeat a gay-marriage ban in Arizona—but that gradually she sold out her youthful idealism and morphed into a Washington moderate who pals around with Republicans and protects tax breaks for hedge-fund managers.

    To my surprise, Sinema doesn’t really push back on this one. For one thing, she tells me, she’s proud that she outgrew the activism of her youth. It was, in her own assessment, “a spectacular failure.”

    I ask her to elaborate.

    Well,” she says, with a derisive shrug. “You can make a poster and stand out on the street, but at the end of the day, all you have is a sunburn. You didn’t move the needle. You didn’t make a difference … I set about real quick saying, ‘This doesn’t work.’”

    Listening to her talk this way about activism, it’s hard not to think about the protesters who have hounded her in recent years. They chase her through airports, yell at her at weddings. In one controversial episode, a group of student protesters at Arizona State University followed her into the bathroom, continuing to film as they hectored her. (The ASU police recommended misdemeanor charges against four students involved.)

    I ask Sinema if, as a former activist herself, she could understand where those students were coming from. Would she have done the same thing when she was young?

    “Break the law?” she scoffs. “No.”

    She doesn’t like civil disobedience, thinks it drives more people away than it attracts. More to the point, Sinema contends, the activists who spend their time noisily berating her in person and online aren’t doing much for the causes they purport to care about. “I am much happier showing a two-year record of incredible achievements that are literally making a difference in people’s lives than sharing my thoughts on Twitter.” She punctuates these last words with the sort of contempt that only someone who’s tweeted more than 17,000 times can feel.

    It’s not just the activism she’s discarded; it’s also the left-wing politics. Sinema, who described herself in 2006 as “the most liberal legislator in the state of Arizona,” freely admits that she’s much less progressive than she used to be. While her critics contend that she adjusted her politics to win statewide office in Arizona, she chalks up the evolution to “age and maturity.” She bristles at the idea that politicians shouldn’t be allowed to change their mind. “Imagine a world in which everybody who represented you refused to grow or change or learn if presented with new information,” she tells me. “That’s very dangerous for our democracy. So perhaps what I’m most proud of is that I’m a lifelong learner.”

    Still, Sinema insists that people overstate how much she’s changed. Leaving the Democratic Party was, in her telling, a kind of homecoming. “I’m not a joiner,” she says. “It’s not my thing.” She points out that she wasn’t a Democrat when she started in politics. I point out that at the time she was aligned with the Green Party. She demurs.

    Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona attended hearings on Capitol Hill on Wednesday afternoon. (Photograph by Natalie Keyssar for The Atlantic)

    “I never think about where [my position] is on the political spectrum, because I don’t care,” she tells me. “People will say, ‘Oh, we don’t know what her position is.’ Well, I may not have one yet. And I know that’s weird in this town, but I actually want to do all of the research, get as much knowledge as possible, spend all of the time doing the work, before I make a decision.”

    I ask her if there’s any ideological through line at all that explains the various votes she’s taken in the Senate. She thinks about it before answering, “No.”

    She says she’s guided by an unchanging set of “values”—she mentions freedom, opportunity, and security—that virtually all Americans share. When it comes to legislating, Sinema sees herself as “practical”—a dealmaker, a problem solver. And if taking every policy question on a case-by-case basis bewilders some in Washington, Sinema says it’s just her nature. Even in her private life, she tells me, she’s prone to slow, painstaking deliberation. I ask for an example.

    “It took me eight years to decide what to get for my first tattoo,” she offers.

    So what did you decide on? I ask.

    “I don’t actually want to share that.”

    To illustrate the effectiveness of her legislative approach, she likes to point to the gun-control bill she helped pass last year. It began the day after a man opened fire at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, killing 19 kids. Sinema made a rare comment to the press, telling reporters that she was going to approach her colleagues about potential legislative solutions. From there, she recalls, she went straight to the Senate floor and asked Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, “Who should I work with?” He pointed her to Republican Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, both of whom she immediately texted. A few minutes after that, Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat, texted her asking if she meant what she’d said to the press. “I was like, ‘I’m Kyrsten. I always mean what I say.’”

    “The next morning, four of us senators sat right here and had our first meeting,” she tells me. “Twenty-eight days later, we had a bill.”

    It was the first gun-control bill to pass Congress in nearly 30 years, and getting the deal done wasn’t easy. But Sinema says she followed a few lessons she’d learned from past negotiations. The first was to ignore the reporters who were camped out in the hallways. “We would come out of the meeting, and they would be like little vultures outside the door asking what just happened,” she recalls. “Why on earth would I tell anyone what just happened in the meeting when I’m trying to nail down some of the most difficult elements of an agreement?”

    Her allergy to the Capitol Hill press corps—which she tells me is generally obsessed with covering “the petty and the hysterical”—was not shared by all of her colleagues. “There are some folks who really enjoy talking to the press so they can tell them what they think or whatever. I’m not that interested in telling people what I think.”

    Another principle she followed was to prioritize dealing directly with her colleagues in person. She’d found that many bipartisan negotiations get bogged down early on with a process termed “trading paper,” wherein senators’ staffs exchange proposals and counterproposals until they agree on legislative language—or, more often, reach an impasse. “When I first got here, I was like, What are you doing?” She says disagreements can be resolved much more quickly by getting her colleagues in a room and refusing to leave until they’ve figured it out.

    This is why when progressives criticize her as flaky, dilettantish, or out of her depth, it strikes her as fundamentally gendered. More than any other line of attack, this seems to really bother her. She points to Democratic Representative Ro Khanna, who said in 2021 that Sinema lacked “the basic competence” to be in Congress.

    “I mean, when there are … elected officials who say ‘She’s in over her head,’ or ‘She’s not substantive,’ or ‘She doesn’t know what she’s talking about’—that is, um, absurd,” she tells me, her tone sharpening. “Because I know every detail of every piece of legislation. And it’s okay if others don’t. They weren’t in the room when we were writing it.” She added that Khanna “doesn’t know me, and I don’t know him. The term colleague is to be loosely applied there.” (Asked for comment, Khanna told me that he’d criticized Sinema during the debate over the Build Back Better bill “because she was unwilling to explain her position and engage with the press, her colleagues, and the public.”)

    The result of all the laborious gun-control negotiations was the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which was signed into law last June. The law expanded background checks for gun buyers under 21, enhanced mental-health services in schools, and provided funding for states to implement “red-flag laws,” which allow authorities to temporarily confiscate guns from individuals deemed dangerous. Critics on the left dismissed the law as a half measure. But to Sinema, the fact that she and her colleagues made any progress on such an intractable issue was validation for her method of operating.

    Patient, painful bipartisan dealmaking, she tells me, is “the only approach that works. Because the other approaches make a lot of noise but don’t get anything done.”

    I ask her what other approaches she’s thinking of.

    “I don’t know,” Sinema says with a shrug. “Yelling?”

    Members of her former party would argue that there was another option for enacting their policy vision—eliminating the filibuster, which requires 60 votes for most legislation in the Senate, to start passing bills with simple majorities—but Sinema ensured that was impossible. She makes no apologies for voting to preserve the filibuster last year. In fact, she tells me, she would reinstate it for judicial nominees. She believes that the Democrats who want to be able to pass sweeping legislation with narrow majorities have forgotten that one day Republicans will be in control again. “When people are in power, they think they’ll never lose power.”

    Before departing her hideaway, I return to Sinema’s central argument—that her approach “works.” It’s hard to evaluate objectively. What to make of a senator who leaves her party, professes to have no ideological agenda, and yet manages to wield outsize influence in writing the laws of the nation? Some might look at her record and see a hollow careerism that prizes bipartisanship for its own sake. Others might argue that in highly polarized times, politicians like her are necessary to grease the gears of a dysfunctional government.

    One thing is clear, though: If Sinema wants to persuade other political leaders to take the same path she has taken, she’ll need to demonstrate that it’s electorally viable. So far, the polls in Arizona suggest she would struggle to get reelected as an independent in 2024; she already has challengers on the right and the left. A survey earlier this year found that she was among the most unpopular senators in the country.

    Sinema tells me she hasn’t decided yet whether she’ll seek reelection, but she talks like someone who’s not planning on it. She’s only 46 years old; she has other interests. “I’m not only a senator,” she tells me. “I’m also lots of other things.” I ask if she worries about what lessons will be drawn in Washington if her independent turn leads to the end of her political career.

    She pauses and answers with a smirk: “I don’t worry about hypotheticals.”

    [ad_2]

    McKay Coppins

    Source link

  • The Tennessee Expulsions Are Just the Beginning

    The Tennessee Expulsions Are Just the Beginning

    [ad_1]

    The red-state drive to reverse the rights revolution of the past six decades continues to intensify, triggering confrontations involving every level of government.

    In rapid succession, Republican-controlled states are applying unprecedented tactics to shift social policy sharply to the right, not only within their borders but across the nation. Just last Thursday, the GOP-controlled Tennessee House of Representatives voted to expel two young Black Democratic representatives, and Texas’s Republican governor, Greg Abbott, on Saturday moved to nullify the verdict of a jury in liberal Travis County. In between, last Friday, a single Republican-appointed federal judge, acting on a case brought by a conservative legal group and 23 Republican state attorneys general, issued a decision that would impose a nationwide ban on mifepristone, the principal drug used in medication abortions.

    All of these actions are coming as red states, continuing an upsurge that began in 2021, push forward a torrent of bills restricting abortion, LGBTQ, and voting rights; loosening controls on gun ownership; censoring classroom discussion of race, gender, and sexual orientation; and preempting the authority of their Democratic-leaning metropolitan cities and counties.

    This flood of legislation has started to erase the long-term trend of Congress and federal courts steadily nationalizing more rights and reducing the freedom of states to constrict them—what legal scholars have called the “rights revolution.” Now, across all these different arenas and more, the United States is hurtling back toward a pre-1960s world in which citizens’ basic rights and liberties vary much more depending on where they live.

    “We are in the middle of an existential crisis for the future of our burgeoning multicultural, multiethnic democracy,” and the extreme events unfolding in Tennessee and other states “are the early manifestations of an abandonment of democratic norms,” Janai Nelson, the president and director-counsel of the Legal Defense Fund, wrote to me in an email.

    The past week’s events in Tennessee and Texas, and the federal court case on mifepristone, extend strategies that red states have employed since 2020 to influence national policy. But these latest moves show Republicans taking those strategies to new extremes. Together these developments underscore how aggressively red states are maneuvering to block the federal government and their own largest metropolitan areas from resisting their systematic attempt to carve out what I’ve called a “nation within a nation,” operating with its own constraints on civil rights and liberties.

    “It shows there really is no limit, no institution that is quote-unquote ‘sacred’ enough not to try to use to their advantage,” Marissa Roy, the legal team lead for the Local Solutions Support Center, a group opposing the broad range of state preemption efforts, told me.

    This multipronged offensive from red states seeks to reverse one of the most powerful currents in modern American life. Since the 1960s, on issues including the legalization of abortion and same-sex marriage and the banning of discrimination on grounds of race or gender, the Supreme Court, Congress, and federal agencies have broadened the circle of rights guaranteed nationwide and reduced the ability of states to limit those rights.

    Over the past decade, Republican-controlled states have stepped up their efforts to reverse that arrow and restore their freedom to impose their own restrictions on rights and liberties. Nelson sees this red-state drive as continuing the “cycle of progress and retrenchment” on racial equity through American history that stretches back to Reconstruction and the southern resistance that eventually produced Jim Crow segregation. “The current pendulum swing is occurring both in reaction to changing politics and changing demographics, making the arc of that swing that much higher toward extremism,” she told me.

    The vote in the Tennessee House of Representatives, for instance, marked a new level in the long-term struggle between red states and blue cities. In most red states, Republicans control the governorship and/or state legislature primarily through their dominance of predominantly white non-urban areas. Over the past decade, those red-state Republicans have grown more aggressive about using that statewide power to preempt the authority of, and override decisions by, their largest cities and counties, which are typically more racially diverse and Democratic-leaning.

    These preemption bills have removed authority from local governments over policy areas including minimum wage, COVID masking requirements, environmental rules, and even plastic-bag-recycling mandates. Legislatures have accompanied many of these bills with other measures, such as extreme gerrymanders, meant to dilute the political clout of their state’s population centers and shift influence toward exurban and rural areas where Republicans are strongest. In Tennessee, for example, the legislature voted to arbitrarily cut the size of the Nashville Metropolitan Council in half, a decision that a state court blocked this week. Many of the bills that red states have passed since 2020 making it harder to vote have specifically barred techniques used by large counties to encourage participation, such as drop boxes or mobile voting vans.

    Republicans who control the Tennessee House took this attack on urban political power to a new peak with their vote to expel the two Black Democratic representatives, Justin Pearson and Justin Jones, who represent Memphis and Nashville, respectively. Though local officials in each city quickly moved this week to reappoint the two men, the GOP majority sent an ominous signal in its initial vote to remove them. The expulsions went beyond making structural changes to diminish the power of big-city residents, to entirely erasing those voters’ decision on whom they wanted to represent them in the legislature. Conservative legislatures and governors “have become so emboldened [in believing] that they can tread on local democracy,” Roy said, “that they are going all out and perhaps destroying the institution altogether.”

    One of the most aggressive areas of red-state preemption this year has been in moves to seize control of policing and prosecutorial powers in Democratic-leaning cities and counties, which typically have large minority populations. In Georgia, for instance, both chambers of the GOP-controlled state legislature have passed bills creating a new oversight board that would be directed by state officials and have the power to recommend removal of county prosecutors. In Mississippi, both GOP-controlled chambers have approved legislation to expand state authority over policing and the courts in Jackson, the state capital, a city more than 80 percent Black. The Republican governor in each state is expected to sign the bills.

    Tennessee legislators passed a bill in their last session increasing state authority to override local prosecutors. This week they went further. Although it didn’t attract nearly the attention of the expulsion vote, the Tennessee House Criminal Justice Committee on Tuesday approved a bill to eradicate an independent board to investigate police misconduct that Nashville residents had voted to create in a 2018 referendum.

    In 2019, the GOP legislature had already stripped the Nashville Community Oversight Board of the subpoena power that was included in the local referendum establishing it. The new legislation approved this week, which is also advancing in the State Senate, would replace the board and instead require that citizen complaints about police behavior in Nashville and other cities be directed to the internal-affairs offices of their police departments. The legislation is moving forward just weeks after five former police officers were indicted in Memphis for beating a Black man named Tyre Nichols to death. “You would think that while the Tyre Nichols case is going on … that we would be really wanting more oversight, not less,” Jill Fitcheard, the executive director of the Nashville oversight board, told me. Coming so soon after the vote to expel the two Black members, the attempt to eradicate the oversight board, she said, represents “another attack on democracy in Nashville.”

    Texas has joined this procession with bills backed by Governor Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick advancing in both legislative chambers to make it easier for state officials to remove local prosecutors who resist bringing cases on priorities for the GOP majority, such as the measures banning abortion or gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

    But Abbott last Saturday introduced an explosive new element into the red-state push to preempt local law-enforcement authority. In a statement, Abbott directed the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole to fast-track consideration of a pardon for a U.S. Army sergeant convicted just one day earlier of killing a Black Lives Matter protester in 2020. Abbott, who had faced criticism from conservative media for not intervening in the case, promised to approve the pardon, and criticized the Democratic district attorney who brought the case and the jury that decided it in Travis County, an overwhelmingly blue county centered on Austin.

    Although many Republicans are seeking ways to constrain law-enforcement officials in blue counties, Abbott’s move would invalidate a decision by a jury in such a Democratic-leaning area. And whereas the preemption legislation in Texas and elsewhere targets prosecutors because of the cases they won’t prosecute, Abbott is looking to override a local prosecutor because of a case he did prosecute.

    Gerry Morris, a former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers now practicing in Austin, told me that Abbott’s move was especially chilling because it came before any of the normal legal appeals to a conviction had begun. Morris said he can think of no precedent for a Texas governor intervening so peremptorily to effectively overturn a jury verdict. “I guess it means if you are going to kill somebody in Texas,” Morris said, “you need to make sure it’s somebody Governor Abbott thinks ought to be killed; because if that’s the case, then he’ll pardon you.”

    The past week’s third dramatic escalation came from District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump with ties to the social-conservative movement. Kacsmaryk’s ruling overturning the FDA’s approval in 2000 of mifepristone was in one sense unprecedented. “Never has a court actually overturned an FDA scientific decision in approving a drug on the grounds that [the] FDA got it wrong,” William Schultz, a former deputy commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, said on a press call Monday.

    But in another sense, the case merely extended what’s become a routine strategy in the red states’ drive to set their own rules. Nearly two dozen Republican state attorneys general joined the lawsuit in support of the effort to ban mifepristone. That continued a steady procession of cases brought by Republican-controlled states to hobble the exercise of federal authority, or to erase rights that had previously been guaranteed nationwide.

    The most consequential example of this trend is the case involving a Mississippi abortion law that the Republican-appointed Supreme Court majority used to overturn Roe v. Wade last summer. But shifting coalitions of GOP state attorneys general have also sued to block environmental regulations proposed by President Joe Biden, and to prevent him from changing Trump-administration immigration-enforcement policies or acting to protect LGBTQ people under federal antidiscrimination laws. Red states “have been very interested in opposing virtually every rule or guidance that would provide nondiscrimination protection to LGBTQ people,” says Sarah Warbelow, the legal director for the Human Rights Campaign.

    All of these legal and political struggles raise the same underlying question: Can Democrats and their allies defend the national baseline of civil rights and liberties America has built since the 1960s?

    Democrats have found themselves stymied in efforts to restore those rights through legislation: While Democrats held unified control of Congress during Biden’s first years, the House passed bills that would largely override the red-state moves and restore a set of national rules on abortion, voting, and LGBTQ rights. But in each case, they could not overcome a Republican-led Senate filibuster.

    The Biden administration and civil-rights groups are pursuing lawsuits against many of the red-state rights rollbacks. But numerous legal experts remain skeptical that the conservative U.S. Supreme Court majority will reverse many of the red-state actions. The third tool available to Democrats is federal executive-branch action, such as the Title IX regulations the Education Department proposed last week that would invalidate the blanket bans against transgender girls participating in school sports that virtually all the red states have now approved. Yet federal regulations that attempt to counter the red-state actions may prompt resistance from that conservative Supreme Court majority.

    And even as Democrats search for strategies to preserve a common baseline of rights, they face the prospect that Republicans may seek to nationalize the restrictive red-state social regime. Congressional Republicans have introduced bills to write into federal law almost all of the red-state moves, such as abortion bans and prohibitions on classroom discussion of sexual orientation or participation in school sports by transgender girls. Several 2024 GOP presidential candidates are starting to offer similar proposals.

    The past week has seen Republicans reach a new extreme in their effort to build a nation within a nation across the red states. But the next time the GOP achieves unified control of Congress and the White House, even this may seem like the beginning of an attempt to impose on blue states the rollback of rights and liberties that continues to burn unabated through red America.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • Donald Trump Is on the Wrong Side of the Religious Right

    Donald Trump Is on the Wrong Side of the Religious Right

    [ad_1]

    The sanctuary buzzed as Mike Pence climbed into the elevated pulpit, standing 15 feet above the pews, a Celtic cross over his left shoulder. The former vice president had spoken here, at Hillsdale College, the private Christian school tucked into the knolls of southern Michigan, on several previous occasions. But this was his first time inside Christ Chapel, the magnificent, recently erected campus cathedral inspired by the St. Martin-in-the-Fields parish of England. The space offers a spiritual refuge for young people trying to find their way in the world. On this day in early March, however, it was a political proving ground, a place of testing for an older man who knows what he believes but, like the students, is unsure of exactly where he’s headed.

    “I came today to Christ Chapel simply to tell all of you that, even when it doesn’t look like it, be confident that God is still working,” Pence told the Hillsdale audience. “In your life, and in mine, and in the life of this nation.”

    It only stands to reason that a man who felt God’s hand on his selection to serve alongside Donald Trump—the Lord working in mysterious ways and all—now feels called to help America heal from Trump’s presidency. It’s why Pence titled his memoir, which describes his split with Trump over the January 6 insurrection, So Help Me God. It’s why, as he travels the country preparing a presidential bid, he speaks to themes of redemption and reconciliation. It’s why he has spent the early days of the invisible primary courting evangelical Christian activists. And it’s why, for one of the first major speeches of his unofficial 2024 campaign, he came to Hillsdale, offering repeated references to scripture while speaking about the role of religion in public life.

    Piety aside, raw political calculation was at work. Trump’s relationship with the evangelical movement—once seemingly shatterproof, then shaky after his violent departure from the White House—is now in pieces, thanks to his social-media tirade last fall blaming pro-lifers for the Republicans’ lackluster midterm performance. Because of his intimate, longtime ties to the religious right, Pence understands the extent of the damage. He is close personal friends with the organizational leaders who have fumed about it; he knows that the former president has refused to make any sort of peace offering to the anti-abortion community and is now effectively estranged from its most influential leaders.

    According to people who have spoken with Pence, he believes that this erosion of support among evangelicals represents Trump’s greatest vulnerability in the upcoming primary—and his own greatest opportunity to make a play for the GOP nomination.

    But he isn’t the only one.

    Although Pence possesses singular insights into the insular world of social-conservative politics, numerous other Republicans are aware of Trump’s emerging weakness and are preparing to make a play for conservative Christian voters. Some of these efforts will be more sincere—more rooted in a shared belief system—than others. What unites them is a common recognition that, for the first time since he secured the GOP nomination in 2016, Trump has a serious problem with a crucial bloc of his coalition.

    The scale of his trouble is difficult to overstate. In my recent conversations with some two dozen evangelical leaders—many of whom asked not to be named, all of whom backed Trump in 2016, throughout his presidency, and again in 2020—not a single one would commit to supporting him in the 2024 Republican primary. And this was all before the speculation of his potential arrest on charges related to paying hush-money to his porn-star paramour back in 2016.

    “I think people want to move on. They want to look to the future; they want someone to cast a vision,” said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, who spoke at Trump’s nominating convention in 2016 and offered counsel throughout his presidency.

    At this time eight years ago, Perkins was heading up a secretive operation that sought to rally evangelical support around a single candidate. One by one, all the GOP presidential aspirants met privately with Perkins and his group of Christian influencers for an audition, a process by which Trump made initial contact with some prominent leaders of the religious right. Perkins probably won’t lead a similar effort this time around—“It was a lot of work,” he told me—but he and his allies have begun meeting with Republican contenders to gauge the direction of their campaigns. His message has been simple: Some of Trump’s most reliable supporters are now up for grabs, but they won’t be won over with the half measures of the pre-Trump era.

    “Oddly enough, it was Donald Trump of all people who raised the expectations of evangelical voters. They know they can win now,” Perkins said. “They want that same level of fight.”

    It’s one of the defining political statistics of the current political era: Trump carried 81 percent of the white evangelical vote in 2016, according to exit polling, and performed similarly in 2020. But the real measure of his grip on this demographic was seen during his four years in office: Even amid dramatic dips in his popularity and approval rating, white evangelicals were consistently Trump’s most loyal supporters, sticking by him at rates that far exceeded those of other parts of his political coalition. Because Trump secured signature victories for conservative Christians—most notably, appointing the three Supreme Court justices who, last year, helped overturn Roe v. Wade—there was reason to expect that loyalty to carry over into his run for the presidency in 2024.

    And then Trump sabotaged himself. Desperate to dodge culpability for the Republican Party’s poor performance in the November midterm elections, Trump blamed the “abortion issue.” He suggested that moderate voters had been spooked by some of the party’s restrictive proposals, while pro-lifers, after half a century of intense political engagement, had grown complacent following the Dobbs ruling. This scapegoating didn’t go over well with social-conservative leaders. For many of them, the transaction they had entered into with Trump in 2016—their support in exchange for his policies—was validated by the fall of Roe. Yet now the former president was distancing himself from the anti-abortion movement while refusing to accept responsibility for promoting bad candidates who lost winnable races. (Trump’s campaign declined to comment for this story.)

    It felt like betrayal. Trump’s evangelical allies had stood dutifully behind him for four years, excusing all manner of transgressions and refusing countless opportunities to cast him off. Some had even convinced themselves that he had become a believer—if not an actual believer in Christ, despite those prayer-circle photo ops in the Oval Office, then a believer in the anti-abortion cause after previously having described himself as “very pro-choice.” Now the illusion was gone. In text messages, emails, and conference calls, some of the country’s most active social conservatives began expressing a willingness to support an alternative to Trump in 2024.

    “A lot of people were very put off by those comments … It made people wonder if in some way he’d gone back to some of the sentiments he had long before becoming a Republican candidate,” said Scott Walker, the former Wisconsin governor, who runs the Young America’s Foundation and sits on the board of an anti-abortion group. Walker, himself an evangelical and the son of a pastor, added, “I think it opened the door for a lot of them to consider other candidates.”

    The most offensive part of Trump’s commentary was his ignorance of the new, post-Roe reality of Republican politics. Publicly and privately, he spoke of abortion like an item struck from his to-do list, believing the issue was effectively resolved by the Supreme Court’s ruling. Meanwhile, conservatives were preparing for a new and complicated phase of the fight, and Trump was nowhere to be found. He didn’t even bother with damage control following his November outburst, anti-abortion leaders said, because he didn’t understand how fundamentally out of step he was with his erstwhile allies.

    “He thinks it will go away, but it won’t,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group, told me. “That’s not me lacking in gratitude for how we got here, because I know how we got here. But that part is done. Thank you. Now what?”

    Before long, evangelical leaders were publicly airing their long-held private complaints about Trump. Mike Evans, an original member of Trump’s evangelical advisory board, told The Washington Post that Trump “used us to win the White House” and then turned Christians into cult members “glorifying Donald Trump like he was an idol.” David Lane, a veteran evangelical organizer whose email blasts reach many thousands of pastors and church leaders, wrote that Trump’s “vision of making America as a nation great again has been put on the sidelines, while the mission and the message are now subordinate to personal grievances and self-importance.” Addressing a group of Christian lawmakers after the election, James Robison, a well-known televangelist who also advised Trump, compared him to a “little elementary schoolchild.” Everett Piper, the former president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, reacted to the midterms by writing in The Washington Times, “The take-home of this past week is simple: Donald Trump has to go. If he’s our nominee in 2024, we will get destroyed.”

    Perkins said that he’s still in touch with Trump and wouldn’t rule out backing his primary campaign in 2024. (Like everyone else I spoke with, Perkins said he won’t hesitate to support Trump if he wins the nomination.) He’s also a longtime friend to Pence, and told me he has been in recent communication with the former vice president. In speaking of the two men, Perkins described the same dilemma I heard from other social-conservative leaders.

    “Donald Trump came onto the playground, found the bully that had been pushing evangelicals around, and he punched them. That’s what endeared us to him,” Perkins explained. “But the challenge is, he went a little too far. He had too much of an edge … What we’re looking for, quite frankly, is a cross between Mike Pence and Donald Trump.”

    Who fits that description? Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been blasting out scripture-laden fundraising emails while aggressively courting evangelical leaders, making the case that his competence—and proud, publicly declared Christian beliefs—would make him the ultimate advocate for the religious right. Tim Scott, who has daydreamed about quitting the U.S. Senate to attend seminary, built the soft launch of his campaign around a “Faith in America” tour and is speaking to hundreds of pastors this week on a private “National Faith Briefing” call. Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who is known less for her devoutness than her opportunism, invited the televangelist John Hagee to deliver the invocation at her campaign announcement last month.

    Trump’s campaign is banking on these candidates, plus Pence, fragmenting the hard-core evangelical vote in the Iowa caucuses, while he cleans up with the rest of the conservative base.

    There is another Republican who could crash that scenario. And yet, that candidate—the one who might best embody the mix that Perkins spoke of—is the one making the least effort to court evangelicals.

    In January, at the National Pro-Life Summit in Washington, D.C., Florida Governor Ron DeSantis won a 2024 presidential straw poll in dominant fashion: 54 percent to Trump’s 19 percent, with every other Republican stuck in single digits. This seemed to portend a new day in the conservative movement: Having had several months to process the midterm results, the thousands of activists who came to D.C. for the annual March for Life were clearly signaling not just their desire to move on from Trump, but also their preference for the young governor who had just won reelection by 1.5 million votes in the country’s biggest battleground state.

    There was some surprise in early March when the group Students for Life of America—which had organized the D.C. conference in January—met in Naples, Florida, for its Post-Roe Generation Gala. The event drew activists from around the country. Pence, a longtime friend of the group, had secured the keynote speaking slot. But DeSantis was nowhere to be found. Some attendees wondered why there was no video sent by his staff, no footprint from his political operation, not even a tweet from the governor acknowledging the event in his own backyard.

    Kristan Hawkins, the Students for Life president, cautioned against reading anything into this, explaining that her group had not formally invited DeSantis, instead reserving the spotlight for Pence. At the same time, she complained that DeSantis has had zero engagement with her or her organization, “not even a back-channel relationship.” For all of DeSantis’s culture warring with the left—over education and wokeism and drag shows—Hawkins argued that he has largely ignored the abortion issue.

    “So many people are astounded when I tell them that Florida has one of the highest abortion rates in the country. It’s the only Republican-controlled state in the top 10,” Hawkins told me. “Folks on social media are like, ‘You’re wrong! Florida has DeSantis!’”

    She sighed. “Checking the box, yes. When asked, he’ll affirm ‘pro-life.’ But leading the charge in Tallahassee? We haven’t seen it.”

    This squared with what I’ve heard from many other evangelical leaders—in terms of both the policy approach and the personal dealings. “He doesn’t have any relationships with me or the people in my world,” Perkins told me. “I’ve been cheering for him … but he hasn’t made any real outreach to us. That’s a weakness. I guess he sort of keeps his own counsel.” Dannenfelser was the lone organizational head who told me she’d gotten some recent face time with DeSantis, while noting that she, not the governor or his team, had requested the meeting.

    DeSantis has been made aware of these complaints, according to people who have spoken with the governor. (His political team declined to comment for this story.) John Stemberger, the president of Florida Family Policy Council, told me that DeSantis had recently attended a prayer breakfast held by the state’s leading anti-abortion activists, and that his team has “slowly but methodically” begun its outreach to leaders in early-nominating states. However sluggish his efforts to date, DeSantis now stands to benefit from the good fortune of great timing: Having signed a 15-week abortion ban into law just last year, he is now supporting a so-called heartbeat bill that Republicans are advancing through the state legislature. The timing of Florida’s implementation of this new law, which would ban abortions after six weeks, will roughly coincide with the governor’s expected presidential launch later this spring.

    “He’s got a robust agenda, and he’ll be doing robust outreach soon enough,” Stemberger said.

    Even without the outreach, DeSantis is well positioned to capture a significant share of the Christian conservative vote. Among pastors and congregants I’ve met around the country, his name-identification has soared over the past year and a half, the result of high-profile policy fights and his landslide reelection win. Last month, a Monmouth University national survey of Republican voters found DeSantis beating Trump, 51 percent to 44 percent, among self-identified evangelical voters. (Trump reclaimed the lead in a new poll released this week.) This, perhaps more than any other factor, explains the intense interest in the Florida governor among conservative leaders: Unlike Pence, Haley, Pompeo, and others, DeSantis has an obvious path to defeating Trump in the GOP primary.

    Stemberger, an outspoken Trump critic during the 2016 primary who then became an apologist during his presidency—telling fellow Christians that Trump had accomplished “unprecedentedly good things” in office—would not yet publicly commit to backing DeSantis. But he suggested that the abortion issue crystallizes an essential difference between the two men: Whereas Trump “self-destructs” by “shooting from the hip all the time,” DeSantis is disciplined, deliberate, and “highly strategic.” Part of that strategy is a speech DeSantis is scheduled to deliver next month at Liberty University.

    Tellingly, Stemberger didn’t note any difference in the personal beliefs of the two Republican front-runners. I asked him: Does faith inform DeSantis’s politics?

    “It’s interesting. I know he’s Catholic, but I’m not even sure he attends Mass regularly,” Stemberger told me. He mentioned praying over DeSantis with a group of pastors before the governor’s inauguration. “But his core is really the Constitution—the Federalist Papers, the Founding Fathers. That’s how he processes everything. He’s never going to be painted as a fundamentalist Christian … He does make references to spiritual warfare, but that’s an analogy for what he’s trying to do politically.”

    Indeed, over the past year, while traveling the country to raise money and rally the conservative base, the governor frequently invoked the Book of Ephesians. “Put on the full armor of God,” DeSantis would say, “and take a stand against the left’s schemes.”

    In bowdlerizing the words of the apostle Paul—substituting the left for the devil—DeSantis wasn’t merely counting on the biblical illiteracy of his listeners. He was playing to a partisan fervor that renders scriptural restraint irrelevant. Eventually, he did away with any nuance. Last fall, DeSantis released a now-famous advertisement, cinematic frames shot in black and white, that borrowed from the radio host Paul Harvey’s famous speech, “So God Made a Farmer.” Once again, an important change was made. “On the eighth day,” rumbled a deep voice, with DeSantis pictured standing tall before an American flag, “God looked down on his planned paradise and said: ‘I need a protector.’ So God made a fighter.”

    The video, which ran nearly two minutes, was so comically overdone—widely panned for its rampant self-glorification—that its appeal went unappreciated. Trump proved that for millions of white evangelicals who fear the loss of power, influence, and status in a rapidly secularizing nation, nothing sells like garish displays of God-ordained machismo. The humble, country-preacher appeal of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has lost its political allure. Hence the irony: DeSantis might have done the least to cultivate relationships in the evangelical movement, and the most to project himself as its next champion.

    Speaking to the students at Hillsdale, Pence took a decidedly different approach to quoting the apostle Paul.

    Having spoken broadly of the need for all Americans to return to treating one another with “civility and respect,” the former vice president made a specific appeal to his fellow Christians. No matter how pitched the battles over politics and policy, he said, followers of Jesus had a responsibility to attract outsiders with their conduct and their language. “Let your conversation be seasoned with salt,” Pence said, borrowing from Paul’s letter to the Colossians.

    If he does run for president, this will be what Pence is selling to evangelicals: humility instead of hubris, decency instead of denigration. The former vice president pledged to defend traditional Judeo-Christian values—even suggesting that he would re-litigate the fight over same-sex marriage, a matter settled by courts of law and public opinion. But, Pence said, unlike certain other Republicans, he would do so with a graciousness that kept the country intact. This, he reminded the audience, had always been his calling card. As far back as his days in conservative talk radio, Pence said, he was known as “Rush Limbaugh on decaf.”

    That line got some laughs. But it also underscored his limitation as a prospective candidate. After the event, while speaking with numerous guests, I heard the same thing over and over: Pence was not tough enough. They all admired him. They all thought he was an honorable man and a model Christian. But a Sunday School teacher couldn’t lead them into the battles over gender identity, school curriculum, abortion, and the like. They needed a warrior.

    “The Bushes were nice. Mitt Romney was nice. Where did that get us?” said Jerry Byrd, a churchgoing attorney who’d driven from the Detroit suburbs to hear Pence speak. “Trump is the only one who stood up for us. The Democrats are ruining this country, and being a good Christian isn’t going to stop them. Honestly, I don’t want someone ‘on decaf.’ We need the real thing.”

    After Pence sacrificed so much of himself to stand loyally behind Trump, this is how the former president has repaid him—by conditioning Christians to expect an expression of their faith so pugilistic that Pence could not hope to pass muster.

    Byrd told me he was “done with Trump” after the ex-president’s sore-loser antics and is actively shopping for another Republican to support in 2024. He likes the former vice president. He respects the principled stand he took on January 6. But Byrd said he couldn’t imagine voting for him for president. Pence was just another one of those “nice guys” whom the Democrats would walk all over.

    Unprompted, Byrd told me that DeSantis was his top choice. I asked him why.

    “He fights,” Byrd replied.

    [ad_2]

    Tim Alberta

    Source link

  • Church of England rejects same-sex marriage, says union is between

    Church of England rejects same-sex marriage, says union is between

    [ad_1]

    The Church of England on Wednesday outlined proposals that would refuse same-sex marriages in its churches, continuing to teach that marriage is between “one man and one woman for life,” it said in a statement. The decision came after five years of debate.

    While the Bishops of the Church of England are set to issue a formal apology later this week to “LGBTQI+ people for the ‘rejection, exclusion and hostility’ they have faced in churches and the impact this has had on their lives,” read the statement, the centuries-old institution will still not allow same-sex couples to be married in a country where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2013.

    A demonstrator holds a placard as they protest outside Church House
    A demonstrator holds a placard as they protest outside Church House, the venue of the Church of England’s General Synod, in London on February 15, 2017.

    DANIEL LEAL/AFP via Getty Images


    Instead, the Church will offer a service that would include “prayers of dedication, thanksgiving or for God’s blessing on the couple in church following a civil marriage or partnership.” The use of the prayers would be voluntary for clergy, which the church says will reflect its “theological diversity.”

    This is the first time blessings would be allowed in the Church for same-sex, civil marriages.

    “Both personally and on behalf of my fellow bishops I would like to express our deep sorrow and grief at the way LGBTQI+ people and those they love have been treated by the Church which, most of all, ought to recognise everyone as precious and created in the image of God,” said Stephen Cottrell, the Archbishop of York.

    “We are deeply sorry and ashamed and want to take this opportunity to begin again in the spirit of repentance which our faith teaches us.”

    Jayne Ozanne, a British LGBTQ+ activist, said the Church’s decision was “utterly despicable,” and called Cottrell’s apology “hollow.”

    “I cannot believe that five years of pain and trauma has got us to here,” said Ozanne on Twitter.

    “We have had countless apologies over the years but no action to stop the harmful discrimination. It’s insulting to all who trusted the process.” 

    The General Synod will discuss the proposals during the Feb. 6–9 meeting, with the main debate on the proposals to take place on Feb. 8.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bill Protecting Same-Sex Marriage Signed Into Law

    Bill Protecting Same-Sex Marriage Signed Into Law

    [ad_1]

    President Biden has signed into law the Respect for Marriage Act, mandating federal protections to same-sex and interracial couples, amid fears that the conservative Supreme Court might revisit the right to same-sex marriage after it rescinded the right to an abortion. What do you think?

    “Yet another law that reminds me of how alone I am.”

    Connor Drysdale, Can Tab Collector

    “How do I explain to my kids that this threatens the sanctity of marriage when it’s my turn with them next weekend?”

    Juliana Paben, Transit Specialist

    “This will only make the Supreme Court angrier.”

    Milo Porter, Needlepoint Instructor

    [ad_2]

    Source link