Connect with us

The Religious Right Operative Who Helped Write Utah’s Nondiscrimination Law

Published

on

Was the nondiscrimination/religious freedom law in Utah really the “historic compromise” it’s being touted as, or a Trojan Horse for the Religious Right’s agenda? There now seems to be little doubt with the discovery that one of the law’s authors has spent years working with the country’s most prominent Religious Right leaders and groups to advance right-to-discriminate laws across the country.

After my article last week asserted that the much-hailed Utah LGBTQ rights law was really an attempt by the national Religious Right to gain legitimacy for their agenda to redefine religious liberty as a religious license to legally discriminate, many have begun looking into how the bill actually came into existence.

As Queer Nation recently pointed out, Robin Fretwell Wilson, a law professor at the University of Illinois, has a long history of seeking to develop loopholes in civil rights laws. In 2014, as the proposed RFRA in Arizona was causing national headlines for its provisions allowing both private and government individuals to opt-out of civil rights and public accommodation laws if done so for religious beliefs, Wilson and the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) teamed up to send a letter to Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer, claiming the law was being “egregiously misrepresented.” ADF (formerly known as the Alliance Defense Fund back when it was working as part of the legal team defending California’s Prop 8, which stripped marriage rights from same-sex couples), was one of the authors of the Arizona bill. Following massive protests and national outcry, that bill was eventually vetoed by Governor Brewer, but less than a month later a nearly identical bill became law in Mississippi and ADF has worked to pass similar legislation in over a dozen states since.

In 2008, Wilson teamed up with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty—the group behind the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby case—to co-edit their book Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, where she claimed states must proactively pass “conscience clauses” for religious freedom—the right for individuals, business owners, and government employees to use their religious opinions to legally discriminate against others.[1]

Wilson was more explicit in an op-ed to The New York Times, following the state legislature’s passage of same-sex marriage in 2011. “Without such [individual religious exemptions],” Wilson argues, “groups that hew to their religious beliefs about marriage would be at risk of losing government contracts and benefits and would be subject to lawsuits from private citizens.” She goes on to claim that organizations receiving government funding should never be in danger of losing those tax dollars just because they discriminate against LGBTQ people.

In 2010, Wilson authored a paper in the Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy titled Insubstantial Burdens: The Case for Government Employee Exemptions to Same-Sex Marriage Laws, in which she lamented that (at that point) “not a single state has shielded the government employee at the front line of same-sex marriage, such as the marriage registrar who, if she has a religious objection to same-sex marriage, will almost certainly face a test of conscience.” She concludes with what she believes to be a fair scenario: “Same-sex marriage applications comprise a miniscule part of the overall workload in the local marriage registrar’s office. If that office is staffed by three clerks, Faith, Hope, and Charity, and only Faith has a religious objection to assisting with same-sex marriage applications, allowing Faith to step aside when no hardship will result for same-sex couples is costless.” This, of course, ignores the vast implications of allowing a publicly-funded government employee to deny civil rights to citizens—not to mention the real threat of “Hope” and “Charity” following “Faith’s” lead. Wilson also took it a step further in her 2014 paper, Marriage of Necessity: Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty Protections, where she advocates for the Religious Right to focus on inserting its corrupted view of religious freedom into state laws.

Wilson is also famous for co-writing an op-ed in The Washington Post in 2014 with Bradford Wilcox, claiming that if women want to stop being sexually abused, they should just get married. Co-author Bradford Wilcox is currently the head of the Religious Right’s “National Marriage Project.” But until 2012 he was a director at the Witherspoon Institute, where he played an integral role in the creation of the thoroughly-debunked study by Mark Regnerus, which claimed that children of same-sex parents turn out much worse than children of opposite-sex parents. Wilcox not only acted as an advisor on the project, but was a paid consultant.

And speaking specifically about the Utah law she helped write, Wilson went so far as to lay out that “if the religious right does not believe that they are going to have those [religious exemption] protections, it cannot push forward the other rights.”

Wilson’s true motives in writing Utah’s “compromise” SB296 law are clear.

LGBTQ supporters of the law are arguing that the religious exemptions in SB296 do not undermine the workplace/housing protections for LGBTQ people. But that misses the entire point of the critique of the bill. It didn’t matter what legalese actually went into the law. In fact, it behooved Wilson, the Mormon Church, ADF, and the other Religious Right actors to make the bill appear favorable to LGBTQ people who desperately need workplace and housing protections.

No, the real agenda was to obtain the endorsement of LGBTQ groups. The Religious Freedom Restoration Acts currently being pushed through state legislatures, particularly in the South, are vulnerable to court challenges. But now that the Religious Right has high-profile endorsements of their false framework of religious freedom and LGBTQ rights being opposed to each other, unfortunately, the ability of LGBTQ activists and organizations to oppose RFRAs and other efforts to codify discrimination—all dressed up in the language of “religious freedom”—has been curtailed.

 

Eric Ethington is a journalist, activist, and researcher. Originally from Utah, he now works in Boston for a social justice think tank. His writing, advocacy work, and research have been featured on MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, CNBC, the New York Times, The Guardian, and The Public Eye magazine. Follow him on Twitter @EricEthington.

**Cross-posted with permission from Political Research Associates

[1] Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2008.

 

Image via YouTube

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Report: House GOP Eyes $2.5 Trillion in Spending Cuts — Social Security, Medicare at Risk

Published

2 days ago

on

December 20, 2024

By

House Republicans on Friday presented a proposal during a closed-door meeting to implement President-elect Donald Trump’s directive to raise the debt ceiling. The plan proposes increasing the limit on debt by $1.5 trillion, followed by cutting “net mandatory spending” by $2.5 trillion, according to a report from Punchbowl News co-founder Joe Sherman.

Mandatory spending consists largely of programs including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which the government by law is required to fund. These programs are often referred to as “entitlements.” It also includes spending on interest on the national debt, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and programs like SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that helps feed over 40 million participants — including families — each month.

Sherman reported Friday afternoon, amid the impending government shutdown crisis, that “IN THE GOP MEETING — GOP leadership has a slide up that has an ‘agreement’ on the debt limit.”

“The ‘agreement’ says that House Republicans will raise the debt limit by $1.5T in the ‘first reconciliation package’ alongside a promise to CUT $2.5T in ‘net mandatory spending in the reconciliation process.'”

READ MORE: ‘What Constitution Is He Reading?’: Republican’s Interpretation of Role of Congress Stuns

Axios’ Juliegrace Brufke shared what appears to be a photograph of that slide:

A recent, somewhat cryptic remark by President-elect Donald Trump seems to echo Sherman’s and Brufke’s reporting, and that of others: “The United States will cut Hundreds of Billions of Dollars in spending next year through Reconciliation!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social website, early Thursday evening.

Adding more details, and referencing “reconciliation,” The Hill’s Emily Brooks reports Friday afternoon: “The spending cuts-for-debt-limit-increase agreement being presented to GOP members includes a plan to cut mandatory spending. Mandatory spending includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, and more.”

“The agreement being eyed would raise the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion in exchange for $2.5 trillion in net cuts to mandatory spending, done through a reconciliation package, two sources confirmed to The Hill,” Brooks added. “It is not clear which programs would be cut. The reconciliation process is a special procedure that gets around the Senate filibuster, allowing Republicans who will have trifecta control of government to push through their priorities without needing Democratic support.”

Brooks also explained that “Republicans have long been planning to use this process to advance an ambitious legislative agenda that includes extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and addressing border security. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, however, notes that while reconciliation can be used to address most mandatory spending program, the Budget Act prohibits using it to change Social Security.”

The executive editor of The American Prospect, David Dayen, wrote: “They’re coming for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.”

“Mandatory spending cuts is Republican swamp speak for gutting your hard-earned Medicare,” commented U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR).

READ MORE: ‘Sick’: Dems Slam Johnson’s Refusal to Negotiate as Government Hurls Toward Shutdown

“Republicans are planning to rob you of your retirement & health care,” observed U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM).

What could this mean?

Bobby Kogan, Senior Director of Federal Budget Policy for The Center for American Progress writes that Republicans “have been open about wanting to gut Medicaid and SNAP. $2.5 trillion in cuts could mean: -cutting Medicaid 32% -cutting Medicaid & SNAP 28% -entirely eliminating SNAP, TANF, SSI, and the Child Care entitlement to states.”

TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, helps “families with children experiencing low-income achieve economic security and stability.”

SSI, also known as Supplemental Security Income, helps “people with disabilities and older adults who have little or no income or resources.”

“If the cut fell entirely on Medicaid,” Kogan added, “it would mean on average about 32 million people were kicked off of Medicaid (depending on how they structured the cuts).”

U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) remarked, “House Republicans just proposed slashing Medicare and Medicaid. I’ll stay in Washington until Hell freezes over to stop them.”

READ MORE: Why Aren’t More Democrats Speaking Out Against RFK Jr.’s HHS Nomination?

Trump during the campaign promised to cut “entitlements” and promised to never cut Social Security or Medicare.

Watch the videos below or at this link.

 

Continue Reading

News

‘What Constitution Is He Reading?’: Republican’s Interpretation of Role of Congress Stuns

Published

2 days ago

on

December 20, 2024

By

A House Republican’s interpretation of the constitutional role of Congress has left some stunned, after he suggested it is not a co-equal branch of government, but rather, intended to be supportive of “President Trump,” and “implement” his agenda.

The U.S. Constitution is clear: Congress’s role is to make laws, the executive branch’s role is to implement and enforce them.

U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser (R-PA) appeared to get the roles reversed.

“The president was elected by the people. What was on the ballot was the America First agenda,” Congressman Meuser told Fox Business Friday (video below). “The president’s plan is what we should be backing.”

“You know, our role is really to be more of a of a supportive board of directors, so we can implement what the American people voted for,” he claimed, conflating two co-equal branches of government. “Republicans need to get on board with President Trump. He is the commander in chief. He is the president. He is the decider in chief, and he’s the CEO.”

READ MORE: ‘Sick’: Dems Slam Johnson’s Refusal to Negotiate as Government Hurls Toward Shutdown

Meuser also claimed that the original bill Speaker of the House Mike Johnson put forth on Tuesday should have had the provision to extend or eliminate the debt ceiling that President-elect Donald Trump had wanted. Trump notified Congress via a post on his Truth Social platform Wednesday after 5 PM — well after the text of the first bill has been released on Tuesday —that he wanted the debt ceiling language in the bill.

“I mean, this, on the entire problem began because we received almost 1500 pages on Tuesday evening, and there was a lot that was in it that was unexpected, and there were things that were not in it that were expected, apparently, particularly uh, the president’s request for for a debt ceiling. Uh, uh, now we uh we we we’re here at the eleventh hour.”

Meuser also insisted Congress needs to pass a bill “with any revisions that the White House can live with — that President Trump can live with, because again, this is his plan that should be implemented.”

Critics expressed concern over Congressman Meuser’s claims.

“What Constitution is he reading? Because it’s definitely not the American one,” remarked former Obama White House advisor and Deputy Communications Director TJ Adams-Falconer.

READ MORE: Trump Threatens Shutdown, Says Biden Will Be Blamed

“Ah yes, who could forget Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution, establishing a ‘supportive board of directors,'” snarked Tim Mulvey, who has an extensive resume in government, including serving as communications director for the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, and communications director for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

“Someone should tell @RepMeuser he’s the member of a co-equal branch of government,” commented MSNBC columnist Michael A. Cohen.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Orders Senate GOP to Not ‘Fast-Track’ Confirmations — Will Some Nominees Change?

 

Image: Official White House photo by Shealah Craighead, public domain via Wikimedia

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Sick’: Dems Slam Johnson’s Refusal to Negotiate as Government Hurls Toward Shutdown

Published

2 days ago

on

December 20, 2024

By

Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson reportedly plans to bring a third spending bill to the House floor for a vote on Friday morning, just hours before an increasingly likely federal government shutdown at midnight. The bill must pass in the House, clear the Senate, and be signed into law by President Joe Biden to avert a shutdown, which would come just days before Christmas as Congress plans to leave D.C. for its holiday recess.

Given Johnson’s razor-thin majority, he will need votes from Democrats, who are furious over his refusal to negotiate with them. As CBS News’ Scott MacFarlane reports, “Democratic votes are needed – no matter what — to avoid a shutdown.”

On Thursday night, 38 Republicans refused to vote for the House GOP’s bill.

Axios’s Andrew Solender reports that Democrats are saying the problem “is not just that [Republicans] killed the original deal – though that’s a big one – but that they’re negotiating with themselves. ‘They keep trying to guess what Dems will vote for, they should just talk to the Democratic Leader,’ says a senior House Dem[ocrat].”

RELATED: ‘Hell No!’: Democrats ‘Unified’ Against Reworked Funding Bill More Favorable to Trump

Thursday evening, Speaker Johnson and House Republicans were warned they needed to include Democrats in their negotiations to keep the government open.

“You know, denial is not just a river in Egypt,” began U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), known for his often sarcastic remarks.

“Let’s talk about the last two years. It was the Democrats who raised the debt ceiling, not the Republicans last time. Many of you voted against it. It was the Democrats who kept open the government, not once, not twice, but every single time we needed to keep the government open, it was the Democrats who kept the government open. More of us voted for it than you.”

“And all I’ve heard for the last couple of weeks about is this giant mandate landslide trifecta,” Moskowitz continued. “Put on your big boy pants, pass your own bill.”

“We’re only here because you guys can’t agree amongst yourselves,” he added, to applause. “Democrats will keep government open for the American people. We will mediate the disagreements between that side of the room and that side of the room — we will do that for you, but you’ve got to at least invite us to that meeting. So if you want us to solve your problem because you can’t agree amongst yourselves, reach out.”

Far right Florida Republican Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, who tried on Thursday to blame Democrats for any possible shutdown, on Friday morning got in front of the cameras and vowed there will be no negotiations with Democrats.

After denouncing Senate Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer with some colorful language, Rep. Luna declared, “there’ll be no deals with the Democrats,” and “we’re not cutting deals with Democrats.”

READ MORE: Trump Orders Senate GOP to Not ‘Fast-Track’ Confirmations — Will Some Nominees Change?

U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), responding to Rep. Luna’s remarks, exclaimed: “So bipartisan means… 2 parties worked together. Unilaterally a bipartisan deal was scrapped, but Nevermind.” She added: “THEY said they weren’t working with us.”

U.S. Rep. Katherine Clark, the House Democratic Minority Whip, declared: “We’re 15 hours away from a government shutdown that would devastate everyday Americans. Troops will be forced to serve without pay. Families will be stripped of food assistance. Travelers will face disruptions — right before the holidays. This is not a game, @HouseGOP.” 

Aaron Fritschner, Deputy Chief of Staff for U.S. Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA), warned, “Republicans are mathematically and procedurally incapable of funding the government on their own without Democratic votes. This was true when they took the majority and will be true next year. When they refuse to deal with us, they are posturing and messaging, not legislating.”

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) excoriated House Republicans for refusing to negotiate with Democrats: “Democrats control the White House and Senate. You’re just for a shutdown if your position is that you won’t negotiate. They are getting ready to cut off pay for our troops at Christmas. Just sick.”

Watch Rep. Moskowitz’s remarks below or at this link.

RELATED: Trump Threatens Shutdown, Says Biden Will Be Blamed

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.