In this week’s podcast: • More LGBTQ candidates won elections this year than ever before • A US Supreme Court decision upholds high school transgender students’ rights • Switzerland is poised to (finally) legalize same-sex marriage • Adoptions by same-sex couples in the UK has increased for the 3rd year in a row • Isolated Asian country of Bhutan legalizes same-sex relations • Emmy/Grammy winner Billy Porter has been announced to help usher in the New Year • A coming out Christmas song by country artist and LGBTQ ally Aaron LaCombe goes viral ‘Uncle Carl (Came Out On Christmas)’ Click here to watch the video and head over to Aaron’s official website for more info about his music All that and more in this episode of The Randy Report
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined a bid from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to nullify the ballots of millions of voters in four battleground states that went in favor of President-Elect Joe Biden. From the Washington Post:
The court’s unsigned order was short: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”
Trump, who has appointed three of the court’s nine members, has long viewed the Supreme Court as something of an ace-in-the-hole, and called for the justices to display “courage” and rescue him in post-election litigation.
Just about every legal expert with two brain cells to spark together predicted this would be the outcome for Paxtons’ woeful attempt to curry favor with Trump. Many of the 100+ Republican members of Congress who publicly supported the woeful attempt have said off the record that they knew the lawsuit wouldn’t go anywhere but they felt it was a “loyalty test” to the Trumpster and wanted to avoid any future fire from the Donald. Paxton is currently under federal investigation himself, and many say he was trying to finagle a presidential pardon with his leg humping.
If the Supreme Court shows great Wisdom and Courage, the American People will win perhaps the most important case in history, and our Electoral Process will be respected again!
Defeat. Dismissed. Denied. That’s the resounding and unequivocal answer Donald Trump and his craven cronies get from the Supreme Court. But the effort was, and remains, dangerous, dire, and fundamentally undemocratic.
It’s done. Even the three justices Trump put on the Supreme Court believed the case he called “perhaps the most important case in history” was worthless, not even worthy of a hearing
(image via iStock Photo) Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill (R) has filed a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court asking that a federal appeals court ruling which held both members of a same-sex couple can be listed as parents on their children’s birth certificates be overturned. The case was brought by parents Ruby and Ashlee Henderson in 2015 as a challenge to Indiana’s birth records law. The couple sued when county officials refused to list both on the birth certificate of their son, who was conceived via artificial insemination. A federal judge found in favor of the Hendersons in 2016, but Indiana appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the lower court’s ruling. By that point, seven couples had joined the Hendersons in the lawsuit.
Indiana’s attorney general sent a brief to the Supreme Court arguing that it should reverse a lower court’s ruling that allowed both members of same-sex couples in Indiana to be listed as parents on their children's birth certificates.https://t.co/DpcpQiU8eF
NBC News reports that in its January 2020 decision, the appellate court noted, under Indiana law, “a husband is presumed to be a child’s biological father, so that both spouses are listed as parents on the birth certificate and the child is deemed to be born in wedlock.” “There’s no similar presumption with respect to an all-female married couple — or for that matter an all-male married couple,” the judges wrote, adding that requiring both women in a same-sex marriage to be listed as parents would prevent any discrimination. Karen Celestino-Horseman, the attorney representing the Hendersons, told NBC News the Supreme Court should follow the legal precedent set in its own 2017 ruling for Pavan v. Smith. That case involved married couples in Arkansas who conceive via artificial insemination. The high court’s decision held that the “constellation of benefits that the states have linked to marriage” included having the names of same-sex parents on a birth certificate. (stock photo via Depositphotos) The Hendersons argued in their original suit that a number of legal issues could arise regarding who could enroll their son in school, ensure he was covered by health insurance, or even speak on the child’s behalf during a medical appointment. Without the legal status conferred by a birth certificate, one of the women would need to formally adopt their son which could cost up to $5,000 in legal fees. But Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill argued in his SCOTUS brief that upholding the ruling in the Hendersons’ case would “violate common sense.” Hill also maintained that allowing both parents in a same-sex couple to be on a child’s birth certificate could jeopardize parental rights based on biology.
“A birth mother’s wife will never be the biological father of the child, meaning that, whenever a birth-mother’s wife gains presumptive ‘parentage’ status, a biological father’s rights and obligations to the child have necessarily been undermined without proper adjudication,” Hill wrote in his brief.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hold a conference regarding the case on December 11. It will be the first dealing with same-sex marriage rights since Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the high court. Hill last made national headlines in May when he had his law license suspended for a month after being accused of groping a state lawmaker and three other women in a bar in 2018. Gov. Eric Holcomb (R) and other state GOP leaders called for Hill’s resignation at the time.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito (screen capture) While delivering the keynote speech at the Federalist Society’s convention last night, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito surprised some by going full-on anti-same-sex marriage by openly criticizing the high court’s 2015 Obergefell ruling. The Federal Society is the ulra-conservative organization that, among other things, has advised and recommended all three of Donald Trump’s Supreme Court picks. From HuffPost:
Alito condemned the landmark same-sex marriage decision Obergefell v. Hodges, saying it has led to censorship of people who believe is “a union of one man and one woman.” He suggested it meant that freedom of speech is “falling out of favor in some circles.”
“You can’t say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Until very recently, that’s what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now it’s considered bigotry,” Alito said.
“That this would happen after our decision in Obergefell should not have come as a surprise,” he added. “Yes, the opinion of the court included words meant to calm the fears of those who cling to traditional views of marriage. But I could see, and so did the other justices in dissent, where the decision would lead.”
First of all, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word bigotry as “obstinate or intolerant devotion to one’s own opinions and prejudices.” So, “clinging” to one’s own views without considering those of others pretty much falls under that definition. And, as HuffPost points out, “people can still freely express opposition to same-sex marriage, just as their critics can freely call them ‘bigots.'” Alito also criticized governors for issuing “sweeping restrictions” in response to the coronavirus pandemic, which is currently surging in nearly every state in the union.
Here is Justice Alito complaining that the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision has crushed the free speech of anti-LGBTQ advocates. pic.twitter.com/0eH9QsxMTU
Alito's position is literally "You can't be mad at people for saying you are less-than and shouldn't have rights. Please respect their right to try and deny you yours." pic.twitter.com/kDDobb9ond
Alito's position is literally "You can't be mad at people for saying you are less-than and shouldn't have rights. Please respect their right to try and deny you yours." pic.twitter.com/kDDobb9ond
L-R Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Sen. Mazie Hirono (screen captures) During Day Two of the confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) took time to point out Barrett’s use of the term “sexual preference” when mentioning the 2015 SCOTUS decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which brought marriage equality to the entire nation. Earlier in the day, Barrett had said she had “no agenda” and that “I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.” Hirono accurately called out the use of the term used by many anti-LGBTQ activists. “Not once but twice you used the term ‘sexual preferences’ to describe those in the LGBTQ community,” said Hirono. “Let me make clear, ‘sexual preference’ is an offensive and outdated term. It is used by anti-LGTBQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice.” “That sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable was a key part of the majority’s opinion in Obergefell,” added the senator. “Which, by the way, [Justice Antonin] Scalia did not agree with.” LGBTQ folks haven’t gotten much focus in this election cycle, but this lands bigtime. Bravo, Sen. Hirono. Barrett later apologized saying she “would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community.”
Let me make clear – sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term. To suggest sexual orientation is a choice? It’s not. It’s a key part of a person’s identity. The LGBTQ+ community should be concerned with #WhatsAtStake with Judge Barrett on the Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/4TWyATMX0Y
Donald Trump during a White House press briefing (public domain) Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to block lower court rulings that would allow the Manhattan District Attorney’s office to review several years of the Donald’s income tax returns. This comes after a federal district judge ruled against Trump’s legal team which had argued the District Attorney’s subpoena is “overbroad.” A federal appeals court agreed with the lower court’s assessment. More from CNBC:
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear his appeal, it will be the second time the court has taken the case, which is related to an ongoing criminal probe of the Trump Organization, the president’s company, by Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr.’s office.
Trump’s lawyers in their filing Tuesday said “there is a reasonable probability that” the Supreme Court will take the appeal.
In the meantime, Vance has agreed to hold off on enforcing the subpoena pending the outcome of Trump’s efforts at the Supreme Court.
Vance is seeking the tax returns and other records as part of a probe that is known to be eyeing how hush-money payments to women who say they had sex with Trump were accounted for by the Trump Organization. The president has denied having sex with either woman, porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) brought up LGBTQ rights and specifically marriage equality during today’s confirmation hearing with Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Feinstein asked Barrett whether she believes marriage equality is settled law, but Barrett dodged on giving a clear answer. In public comments, Barrett has previously made it known she did not support the 2015 Obergefell ruling which made marriage equality legal across the U.S. She also believes Title IX doesn’t protect transgender people on the basis of sex discrimination. In responding today, Barrett used the anti-LGBTQ phrase “sexual preference” in referencing sexual orientation indicating that she believes it is a choice. The catchphrase is popular among those who oppose LGBTQ rights and maintain queer people could just choose to be straight if they wanted to.
The correct term is sexual orientation. “Sexual preference” is a term often used by anti-LGBTQ activists to imply that sexual orientation is a choice. https://t.co/rT6g95gsG1
Barrett used “sexual preference” (not “sexual orientation”) when discussing her views on marriage equality. This is a dogwhistle. The term “sexual preference” is used by opponents of equality to suggest that being #LGBTQ is a choice.#BlockBarrett#SCOTUSHearingpic.twitter.com/kkftq9l2l5 — Lambda Legal (@LambdaLegal) October 13, 2020
Right: “Sexual preference” the kind of language used by Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that opposes equal rights for LGBTQ people (including basic non-discrimination protections) and supports the criminalization of homosexuality.
Barrett used the term “sexual preference,” the big tell that she believes homosexuality is a “choice.”
Which means she believes it can be changed/decided otherwise. Which means she believes in conversion therapy. Which certainly means she doesn’t recognize marriage equality. — Michelangelo Signorile, subscribe to my newsletter (@MSignorile) October 13, 2020
Here is a clip of Sen. Feinstein asking the judge about her thoughts on both the Defense of Marriage ruling which SCOTUS struck down as well as the Obergefell decision.
Feinstein: “Both decisions were decided by a 5-4 margin. Justice Ginsburg was in the majority. Justice Scalia dissented in both cases. You said in your acceptance speech for this nomination that Justice Scalia’s philosophy is your philosophy. Do you agree with this particular point of Justice Scalia’s view that the U.S. Constitution does not afford gay people the fundamental right to marry?”
Judge Barrett: “If I were confirmed, you would be getting Justice Barrett, not Justice Scalia so I don’t think that anybody should assume that just because Justice Scalia decided a decision a certain way that I would too. But I’m not going to express a view on whether I agree or disagree with Justice Scalia for the same reasons that I’ve been giving.
“Now, Justice Ginsburg, with her characteristic pithiness, used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing. ‘No hints, no previews, no forecasts.’ That had been the practice of nominees before her but everybody calls it the Ginsburg rule because she stated it so concisely and it’s been the practice of every nominee since. So I can’t, and I’m sorry to not be able to embrace or disavow Justice Scalia’s position but I really can’t do that on any point of law.”
Feinstein: “Well that’s really too bad because it’s really a fundamental point for large numbers of people in this country. I understand you don’t want to answer these questions directly but you identify yourself with a Justice that you, like him, would be a consistent vote to roll back hard-fought freedoms and protections for the LGBT community. And what I was hoping that you would say is that this would be a point of difference where those freedoms would be respected and you haven’t said that.”
Barrett: “Senator, I have no agenda and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.
“Like racism, I think discrimination is important. On the questions of law, however, I just, because I’m a sitting judge and because you can’t answer questions without going through the judicial process, can’t give answers to those very specific questions.”
Some news items you might have missed: • The Advocate: Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have opened the court’s term by calling for the overturning of its 2015 marriage equality decision. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision threatens religious liberty, Alito wrote in a statement in which Thomas concurred. • The Gaily Grind: Nearly a week after President Trump instructed the far-right extremist Proud Boys group to “stand back and stand by” during 2020’s first presidential debate after being asked to condemn them, internet users have reclaimed the #ProudBoys hashtag by flooding Twitter and Reddit with photos of gay men in love and expressing physical affection.
• Pink News: Nursing student Michelle Ramos Vargas has become the 30th known trans person to be killed in the United States so far this year, and the sixth killed in Puerto Rico in the same period. Vargas’ body was found with multiple gunshot wounds in San Germán, Puerto Rico in the early hours of September 30. • NowThis News: A super-cut of the times Donald Trump, who now has COVID-19, has mocked face masks. ‘A lot of people don’t want to wear masks.’
• Wall Street Journal: The IRS is investigating longtime National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre for possible criminal tax fraud related to his personal taxes. According to public filings, his total reported pay from 2014 to 2018 was $11.2 million. In August, he was charged in a civil suit by New York Attorney GeneralLetitia James with taking millions of dollars of allegedly undisclosed compensation in the form of free yacht trips, private jet flights for his family, exotic safaris and other benefits. • BBC: Facing a rising rate of coronavirus infections in France which began to grow exponentially in late August, officials in Paris will shut all bars completely from Tuesday after the French government raised the city’s coronavirus alert to maximum following a period of high infection rates. On Saturday, the country reported nearly 17,000 infections marking the highest rate since the country started widespread testing. • Star-Telegram: Trump supporter Jason Lata was arrested on suspicion of assault causing bodily injury after he punched a man in a video clip that went viral. Video of the incident shows Lata in a hat yelling profanities at the victim and screaming “Turn it off!” as an anti-Donald Trump rap song by YG appeared to be playing in the background. Lata, who was standing with other men who were wearing Trump T-shirts, then punched the victim in the face.
Violent Trump supporter at a rally in Texas assaults a peaceful counter-protester pic.twitter.com/s950Q3kgTj
Judge Amy Coney Barrett (photo: Rachel Malehorn/Wikimedia Commons) Today, Donald Trump announced the nomination of ultra-conservative Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ginsburg, just days after Justice Ginsburg’s death and before her burial at Arlington National Cemetery next week. From the New York Times:
While other justices have been approved in presidential election years, none has been voted on after July. Four years ago, Senate Republicans refused to even consider President Barack Obama’s nomination to replace Justice Scalia with Judge Merrick B. Garland, announced 237 days before Election Day, on the grounds that it should be left to whoever was chosen as the next president.
In picking Judge Barrett, a conservative and a hero to the anti-abortion movement, Mr. Trump could hardly have found a more polar opposite to Justice Ginsburg, a pioneering champion of women’s rights and leader of the liberal wing of the court.
And the Human Rights Campaign notes just some of Coney Barrett’s low-lights regarding LGBTQ rights:
Coney Barrett defended the Supreme Court’s dissenters on the landmark marriage equality case of Obergefell v. Hodges, questioning the role of the court in deciding the case:
[Chief Justice Roberts, in his dissent,] said, those who want same-sex marriage, you have every right to lobby in state legislatures to make that happen, but the dissent’s view was that it wasn’t for the court to decide…So I think Obergefell, and what we’re talking about for the future of the court, it’s really a who decides question.” – Coney Barrett
Coney Barrett says Title IX protections do not extend to transgender Americans, claiming it’s a “strain on the text” to reach that interpretation:
“When Title IX was enacted, it’s pretty clear that no one, including the Congress that enacted that statute, would have dreamed of that result, at that time. Maybe things have changed so that we should change Title IX, maybe those arguing in favor of this kind of transgender bathroom access are right. That’s a public policy debate to have. But it does seem to strain the text of the statute to say that Title IX demands it.” – Coney Barrett
Coney Barrett misgendered transgender people, referring to a transgender women as “physiological males,” while casting doubt on transgender rights:
“People will feel passionately on either side about whether physiological males who identify as females should be permitted in bathrooms, especially where there are young girls present.” – Coney Barrett
A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows 57 percent of Americans say the next justice of the U.S. Supreme Court should be left to the winner of the presidential election and a Senate vote next year. Only 38 percent feel the confirmation should happen in the next weeks. The same poll shows: • 54 percent of respondents oppose increasing the number of Supreme Court justices versus 32 percent who support the idea • 50 percent said they trust Joe Biden more to handle the next SCOTUS nomination versus 42 percent who trust Donald Trump more to make the choice (graphic via ABC News/Washington Post poll)
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) Republican Senator Mitt Romney of Utah has announced he will not block a floor vote for Donald Trump’s nominee to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court before the upcoming presidential election. From NPR:
Romney issued a statement Tuesday that he intends “to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee, and if the nominee reaches the Senate floor he intends “to vote based upon their qualifications.”
Romney’s support for moving ahead means that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is all but certain to have the 51 votes he needs to take up the nomination. Just two GOP senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have said they oppose taking up the president’s nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a presidential election year.
Romney, the party’s 2012 nominee for president, has been one of the few Republicans in the Senate to oppose Trump. In his statement, he asserted that the “historical precedent” of election-year nominations is that the Senate “generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own.”
“If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications,” concludes Romney’s statement. In 2016, nearly nine months before the presidential election, Senate Republicans refused to vote on President Obama’s nominee for the high court, Merrick Garland, claiming it was “too close to the election.” At the time, nothing was mentioned about ‘opposing party’ nominees. Trump has tweeted that he will announce his nominee to replace Ginsburg on Saturday. We are now just 42 days before the 2020 election day.
I hope whatever you received for your soul was worth it.
In this week’s podcast: • More LGBTQ candidates won elections this year than ever before • A US Supreme Court decision upholds high school transgender students’ rights • Switzerland is poised to (finally) legalize same-sex marriage • Adoptions by same-sex couples in the UK has increased for the 3rd year in a row • Isolated Asian country of Bhutan legalizes same-sex relations • Emmy/Grammy winner Billy Porter has been announced to help usher in the New Year • A coming out Christmas song by country artist and LGBTQ ally Aaron LaCombe goes viral ‘Uncle Carl (Came Out On Christmas)’ Click here to watch the video and head over to Aaron’s official website for more info about his music All that and more in this episode of The Randy Report 
