Kansas and Oklahoma vote to allow adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples – ThinkProgress

[ad_1]<br/><br><div><br/> <p>Lawmakers in Kansas and Oklahoma passed bills this week chipping away at marriage equality, approving legislation that would allow child-placement agencies to refuse placements based on their religious beliefs — such as discriminating against same-sex couples — without endangering state funding.</p><br/><p>In Oklahoma, <a href="http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb1140&Session=1800">Senate Bill 1140</a> passed both the Senate (33-7) and the House (56-21) on Thursday. Notably, the House <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oklahoma-adoption/oklahoma-passes-adoption-bill-critics-say-is-biased-against-gay-couples-idUSKBN1I5018">held no discussion or debate</a> of the legislation despite Democratic lawmakers “<a href="http://www.newson6.com/story/38110444/controversial-adoption-bill-passes-through-oklahoma-house-senate">literally standing and shouting</a> and refusing to sit down” as the bill was brought up. One Democratic lawmaker was almost removed from the floor for refusing to take his seat.</p><br/><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true"><br/><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The abomination of process & justice in the OK House of Reps makes me weep for democracy. The priorities of bigotry and hate, under the guise of religious freedom, are truly heartbreaking. I hope this is not the Oklahoma Standard they keep referring to. <a href="https://twitter.com/KOCOBret?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@KOCOBret</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nytimes</a></p><br/><p>— Cory Williams (@repcorywilliams) <a href="https://twitter.com/repcorywilliams/status/992161947733897216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 3, 2018</a></p></blockquote><br/><br/><p>Kansas lawmakers also jumped through a few hoops to keep their bill alive at the last minute. Indeed, though the measure had previous been proposed as <a href="http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2017_18/measures/hb2481/">House Bill 2481</a>, its language was substituted into <a href="http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2017_18/measures/sb284/">Senate Bill 284</a>, which the House approved Thursday night 63-58. It then had to go back to the Senate for reconciliation, and <a href="http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article210442154.html">the Senate approved it</a> 24-15 at 1:51 Friday morning.</p><br/><p>Proponents of bills in both states argue that they have nothing to do with discriminating, but are just about protecting religiously affiliated adoption agencies.</p><br/><p>Kansas Gov. Jeff Coyler (R), who has already promised to sign the measure into law, said in a statement early Friday that the bill “increases the opportunities for needy children to find loving homes.” Oklahoma Senate Majority Floor Leader Greg Treat likewise insisted the legislation in his state is necessary “to keep churches and faith-based organizations from being discriminated against.”</p><br/><p>Some proponents were a bit more honest about the bills’ intentions. Kansas State Sen. Steve Fitzgerald (R), for instance, said the state’s legislation was important for protecting civilization from declining because of the gay agenda. “‘There is no homosexual agenda.’ I was told that…and now we find out there is an agenda,” he said. “And what was once tolerated is now becoming dominant and is intolerant. Totally intolerant.”</p><br/><p>The Catholic Conferences in both states warned that without the bills’ passage, they would be forced to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/oklahoma-advances-adoption-bill-could-discriminate-against-gay-couples-n870186">stop offering adoption services altogether</a>. Conservative advocates in both states also indicated that other agencies considering offering child placement services have been holding out over fears they wouldn’t be able to discriminate against same-sex couples.</p><br/><p>The reality is that in both cases, these religious organizations are holding children hostage and asking for the right to discriminate as their ransom.</p><br/><p>Children who need homes are better off if there are more families available to place them with, whether that’s with same-sex couples, non-Christian families, single parents, or any other family singled out for discrimination. It does nothing to benefit those children for the state to fund agencies that are ruling out placement opportunities for such arbitrary reasons.</p><br/><p>Moreover, <a href="https://www.hrc.org/blog/kansas-legislature-sends-anti-lgbtq-child-welfare-bill-SB284-to-governor">as the Human Rights Campaign points out</a>, LGBTQ youth <a href="https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/HRC_Youth_Foster_Care-issue_brief_FINAL.pdf#__utma=149406063.1126167187.1421418775.1431975332.1432042325.411&__utmb=149406063.76.9.1432051638172&__utmc=149406063&__utmx=-&__utmz=149406063.1431971529.409.97.utmcsr=google%7Cutmccn=(organic)%7Cutmcmd=organic%7Cutmctr=(not%20provided)&__utmv=-&__utmk=262971020">are over-represented</a> in the foster care system, thanks in large part to family rejection. By entrusting openly anti-LGBTQ organizations with finding families for them, it makes it all the more likely that they’ll only face more rejection.</p><br/><p>Catholic Charities has shut down adoption services elsewhere — such as Massachusetts, Illinois, and the District of Columbia — to avoid serving same-sex couples. There’s been no evidence that the closures had any impact on those locations’ abilities to continue placing children with families. The only change was that taxpayers were no longer subsidizing discrimination in the process. </p><br/><div class="promo amp-wp-article-promo"><br/><figure class="post__figure post__figure--format-full"><div class="post__thumbnail"><br/> <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/membership/?c=cr042018-4-00-wp"><br/> <picture id="picture-1049373" class="size-full " data-id="1049373""><source srcset="https://i2.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cr042018_4-00.png?w=1051&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C1454px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 1280px)"/><source srcset="https://i2.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cr042018_4-00.png?w=1051&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C1454px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 1024px) and (max-width: 1280px)"/><source srcset="https://i2.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cr042018_4-00.png?w=1024&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C1417px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 768px) and (max-width: 1024px)"/><source srcset="https://i2.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cr042018_4-00.png?w=1024&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C1417px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 512px) and (max-width: 1024px)"/><source srcset="https://i2.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cr042018_4-00.png?w=768&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C1062px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 512px) and (max-width: 768px)"/><source srcset="https://i2.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cr042018_4-00.png?w=512&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C708px&ssl=1" media="(max-width: 512px)"/><source srcset="https://i2.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cr042018_4-00.png?w=768&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C1062px&ssl=1" media="(max-width: 768px)"/><source srcset="https://i2.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cr042018_4-00.png?w=1051&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C1454px&ssl=1" media="all"/><img alt="" srcset="https://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cr042018_4-00.png?w=1051&h=1454&crop=1"/></picture></a><br/> </div><br/></figure></div><br/><br/><br/> </div><script async src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><br/><br>[ad_2]<br/><br><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/kansas-oklahoma-adoption-discrimination-8825c7805b77/">Source link </a>

Kansas and Oklahoma vote to allow adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples – ThinkProgress

[ad_1] Lawmakers in Kansas and Oklahoma passed bills this week chipping away at marriage equality, approving legislation that would all...

+ Read more »

Senate candidate promised to vote against GOP more than 20% of the time. She rarely ever did. – ThinkProgress

[ad_1]<br/><br><div><br/> <p>As a Congressional candidate back in 2014, Martha McSally (R-AZ) explicitly promised that she would vote against her party more than 20 percent of the time in Congress. She has not even come close.</p><br/><p>McSally made the promise in an October 7, 2014 debate against then-Rep. Ron Barber (D). First, she attacked Barber’s claims of bipartisanship, suggesting that his record as one of the <a href="http://www.thelugarcenter.org/ourwork-Bipartisan-Index.html">most bipartisan</a> members of Congress was insufficient. “I don’t think it’s bipartisan when you say you voted against your party only 20 percent of the time,” she said. “If that’s what’s going on in our country, that’s what’s wrong with Washington, DC.”</p><br/><p>The moderator then asked whether McSally, if elected, would vote against the GOP positions more than 20 percent of the time. “Absolutely,” she replied.</p><br/><p><span class="embed-youtube" style="text-align:center; display: block;"><iframe class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pagnRUu9Ndc?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent" allowfullscreen="true" style="border:0;"></iframe></span></p><br/><p>It is now clear that this was an empty promise. According to FiveThirtyEight, McSally has voted with Donald Trump fully <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/martha-mcsally/">97.2 percent</a> of the time. In October, the Arizona Republic <a href="https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2017/10/01/nine-months-in-rep-martha-mcsally-arizonas-most-reliable-vote-trump-agenda/708943001/">called her</a> “Arizona’s most reliable vote for [the] Trump agenda.” Now seeking the GOP nomination for retiring Sen. Jeff Flake’s (R) open seat, McSally even highlighted that quote in her <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=57&v=tswvKUBng8g">campaign kickoff ad</a>.</p><br/> <figure class="post__figure post__figure--format-article-width"><div class="post__thumbnail"><br/> <picture id="picture-1050150" class="size-full " data-id="1050150""><source srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/mcsallytrump.jpg?w=849&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C437px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 1280px)"/><source srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/mcsallytrump.jpg?w=849&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C437px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 1024px) and (max-width: 1280px)"/><source srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/mcsallytrump.jpg?w=849&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C437px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 768px) and (max-width: 1024px)"/><source srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/mcsallytrump.jpg?w=849&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C437px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 512px) and (max-width: 1024px)"/><source srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/mcsallytrump.jpg?w=768&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C395px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 512px) and (max-width: 768px)"/><source srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/mcsallytrump.jpg?w=512&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C264px&ssl=1" media="(max-width: 512px)"/><source srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/mcsallytrump.jpg?w=768&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C395px&ssl=1" media="(max-width: 768px)"/><source srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/mcsallytrump.jpg?w=849&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C437px&ssl=1" media="all"/><img alt="Martha McSally campaign video screenshot" srcset="https://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/mcsallytrump.jpg?w=849&h=437&crop=1"/></picture></div><br/> <figcaption>CREDIT: Martha McSally campaign video screenshot</figcaption></figure><p>After making the now-broken bipartisanship pledge, McSally cited “equal pay for equal work” for women as an issue on which she disagreed with the GOP and one on which she would focus. More than three years into her House tenure, she has sponsored no bills dealing with that topic and has not signed on as a co-sponsor of the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2095/cosponsors">Fair Pay Act</a>, the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1869/cosponsors?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22equal+pay%22%5D%7D&r=8">Paycheck Fairness Act</a>, or even <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/117/cosponsors?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22equal+pay%22%5D%7D&r=3&overview=closed#tabs">even</a> <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/44/cosponsors?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22equal+pay%22%5D%7D&r=1&overview=closed#tabs">two</a> non-binding resolutions commemorating Equal Pay Day. </p><br/><div class="promo amp-wp-article-promo"><br/><figure class="post__figure post__figure--format-full"><div class="post__thumbnail"><br/> <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/membership/?c=cr042018-4-00-wp"><br/> <picture id="picture-1049373" class="size-full " data-id="1049373""><source srcset="https://i2.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cr042018_4-00.png?w=1051&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C1454px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 1280px)"/><source srcset="https://i2.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cr042018_4-00.png?w=1051&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C1454px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 1024px) and (max-width: 1280px)"/><source srcset="https://i2.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cr042018_4-00.png?w=1024&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C1417px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 768px) and (max-width: 1024px)"/><source srcset="https://i2.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cr042018_4-00.png?w=1024&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C1417px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 512px) and (max-width: 1024px)"/><source srcset="https://i2.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cr042018_4-00.png?w=768&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C1062px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 512px) and (max-width: 768px)"/><source srcset="https://i2.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cr042018_4-00.png?w=512&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C708px&ssl=1" media="(max-width: 512px)"/><source srcset="https://i2.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cr042018_4-00.png?w=768&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C1062px&ssl=1" media="(max-width: 768px)"/><source srcset="https://i2.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cr042018_4-00.png?w=1051&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C1454px&ssl=1" media="all"/><img alt="" srcset="https://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cr042018_4-00.png?w=1051&h=1454&crop=1"/></picture></a><br/> </div><br/></figure></div><br/><br/><br/> </div><br/><br>[ad_2]<br/><br><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/senate-candidate-promised-to-vote-against-gop-more-than-20-percent-of-the-time-she-rarely-ever-did-69b826562c41/">Source link </a>

Senate candidate promised to vote against GOP more than 20% of the time. She rarely ever did. – ThinkProgress

[ad_1] As a Congressional candidate back in 2014, Martha McSally (R-AZ) explicitly promised that she would vote against her party more ...

+ Read more »

Oath A Must For Trust Vote, Matter Reached Supreme Court - पंचायत चुनाव में शपथ न लेने का मुद्दा पहुंचा सुप्रीम कोर्ट

[ad_1]<br/><br><div><br/><p><br/><span>न्यूज डेस्क, अमर उजाला, नई दिल्ली </span><br/>Updated Tue, 01 May 2018 12:13 PM IST<br/></p><br/></div><div id="auw_speak_article"><br/><p><span class="play"/>ख़बर सुनें</p><br/></div><div id="auw_cancel_article" style="display:none"><br/><p><span class="pause"/>ख़बर सुनें</p><br/></div><div style="display:none;"><br/><div style="text-align: justify;">सुप्रीम कोर्ट की एक खंडपीठ में निर्वाचित प्रतिनिधियों द्वारा ली जाने वाली शपथ का मुद्दा पहुंचा है लेकिन इस मुद्दे पर जजों के बीच मतभेद है कि एक चुना हुआ सदस्य बिना शपथ लिए अविश्वास प्रस्ताव पर हस्ताक्षर कर सकता है या नहीं। <p>दरअसल मामला उत्तर प्रदेश की ग्राम पंचायत से जुड़ा हुआ है। यहां सरपंच के चुनाव के एक साल बाद बाकी सदस्यों द्वारा अविश्वास प्रस्ताव लाया गया था। इस मामले में आरोप लगाया गया था कि जो सदस्य अविश्वास प्रस्ताव लाये थे उनमें से 13 लोगों ने पंचायत सदस्य के रूप में शपथ नहीं ली थी लेकिन उन्होंने अविश्वास प्रस्ताव पर हस्ताक्षर कर दिये। इसके बाद अदालत में याचिका दायर कर पूछा गया कि जिन लोगों ने पंचायत सदस्य के रूप में शपथ नहीं ली क्या वो अविश्वास प्रस्ताव पर हस्ताक्षर कर सकते हैं और क्या वो वैद्य सदस्य हैं। </p><p>जस्टिस मदन बी लोकुर और दीपक गुप्ता के बीच इस मामले में अलग राय है। जस्टिस लोकुर ने इस मामले में 34 साल पुराने 1984 के मामले का हवाला दिया जिसमें एक MLA जिसने शपथ नहीं ली थी और उसने एक शख्स का नाम राज्यसभा के लिए प्रस्तावित किया था। इस मामले में एससी ने कहा था कि अगर चुनाव आयोग एक बार किसी शख्स के निर्वाचित होने का नोटीफिकेशन जारी कर देती है तो वह राज्यसभा में जाने के लिए किसी शख्स का प्रस्तावक बन सकता है। इसी तरह गांव के सरपंच के खिलाफ लाये गए अविश्वास प्रस्ताव में जिन लोगों ने बिना शपथ लिए हस्ताक्षर किये हैं, उनको यह करने का पूरा अधिकार है। </p><p> वहीं जस्टिस गुप्ता का कहना है कि जस्टिस लोकुर द्वारा दिया गया तर्क सही नहीं है। उन्होंने कहा कि अगर कोई सदस्य शपथ नहीं लेता तो फिर क्या महत्व है इसका? शपथ न लेने से वह सदस्य बनना बंद नहीं हो जाते लेकिन वह सदन की कार्यवाही में हिस्सा नहीं ले सकते। इसलिए पंचायत चुनाव मामले में जिन लोगों ने शपथ नहीं ली है वह अविश्वास प्रस्ताव पर हस्ताक्षर करने का अधिकार नहीं रखते। </p><p>हालांकि जस्टिस लोकुर और गुप्ता ने कहा कि विधानमंडल को यह अनिवार्य कर देना चाहिए कि पंचायत सदस्य निश्चित समय में शपथ जरूर लें। </p></div><br/></div><div><br/><div style="text-align: justify;">सुप्रीम कोर्ट की एक खंडपीठ में निर्वाचित प्रतिनिधियों द्वारा ली जाने वाली शपथ का मुद्दा पहुंचा है लेकिन इस मुद्दे पर जजों के बीच मतभेद है कि एक चुना हुआ सदस्य बिना शपथ लिए अविश्वास प्रस्ताव पर हस्ताक्षर कर सकता है या नहीं। <br/><br/><br/>दरअसल मामला उत्तर प्रदेश की ग्राम पंचायत से जुड़ा हुआ है। यहां सरपंच के चुनाव के एक साल बाद बाकी सदस्यों द्वारा अविश्वास प्रस्ताव लाया गया था। इस मामले में आरोप लगाया गया था कि जो सदस्य अविश्वास प्रस्ताव लाये थे उनमें से 13 लोगों ने पंचायत सदस्य के रूप में शपथ नहीं ली थी लेकिन उन्होंने अविश्वास प्रस्ताव पर हस्ताक्षर कर दिये। इसके बाद अदालत में याचिका दायर कर पूछा गया कि जिन लोगों ने पंचायत सदस्य के रूप में शपथ नहीं ली क्या वो अविश्वास प्रस्ताव पर हस्ताक्षर कर सकते हैं और क्या वो वैद्य सदस्य हैं। <p>जस्टिस मदन बी लोकुर और दीपक गुप्ता के बीच इस मामले में अलग राय है। जस्टिस लोकुर ने इस मामले में 34 साल पुराने 1984 के मामले का हवाला दिया जिसमें एक MLA जिसने शपथ नहीं ली थी और उसने एक शख्स का नाम राज्यसभा के लिए प्रस्तावित किया था। इस मामले में एससी ने कहा था कि अगर चुनाव आयोग एक बार किसी शख्स के निर्वाचित होने का नोटीफिकेशन जारी कर देती है तो वह राज्यसभा में जाने के लिए किसी शख्स का प्रस्तावक बन सकता है। इसी तरह गांव के सरपंच के खिलाफ लाये गए अविश्वास प्रस्ताव में जिन लोगों ने बिना शपथ लिए हस्ताक्षर किये हैं, उनको यह करने का पूरा अधिकार है। </p><p> वहीं जस्टिस गुप्ता का कहना है कि जस्टिस लोकुर द्वारा दिया गया तर्क सही नहीं है। उन्होंने कहा कि अगर कोई सदस्य शपथ नहीं लेता तो फिर क्या महत्व है इसका? शपथ न लेने से वह सदस्य बनना बंद नहीं हो जाते लेकिन वह सदन की कार्यवाही में हिस्सा नहीं ले सकते। इसलिए पंचायत चुनाव मामले में जिन लोगों ने शपथ नहीं ली है वह अविश्वास प्रस्ताव पर हस्ताक्षर करने का अधिकार नहीं रखते। </p><p>हालांकि जस्टिस लोकुर और गुप्ता ने कहा कि विधानमंडल को यह अनिवार्य कर देना चाहिए कि पंचायत सदस्य निश्चित समय में शपथ जरूर लें। </p></div><br/><br/></div><script><br/> (function(d, s, id) {<br/> var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];<br/> if (d.getElementById(id)) return;<br/> js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;<br/> js.src = "http://connect.facebook.net/en_GB/sdk.js#xfbml=0&version=v2.10";<br/> fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);<br/> }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));<br/></script><br/><br>[ad_2]<br/><br><a href="https://www.amarujala.com/india-news/oath-a-must-for-trust-vote-matter-reached-supreme-court?utm_source=rssfeed&utm_medium=Referral&utm_campaign=rssfeed">Source link </a>

Oath A Must For Trust Vote, Matter Reached Supreme Court - पंचायत चुनाव में शपथ न लेने का मुद्दा पहुंचा सुप्रीम कोर्ट

[ad_1] न्यूज डेस्क, अमर उजाला, नई दिल्ली Updated Tue, 01 May 2018 12:13 PM IST ख़बर सुनें ख़बर सुनें सुप्रीम कोर्ट की एक खंडपीठ में निर्वाचित ...

+ Read more »