MO Satanist Challenges Abortion Law

The unforeseen ramifications of the far-right Christian conservative crusade for religious freedom continue to mount.

A Missouri Satanist, who wishes to be known only as Mary, is challenging the state’s seventy-two hour mandatory waiting period for abortion. Mary is utilizing remarkably similar tactics as Hobby Lobby did when the corporate organization contended that birth control insurance coverage for their employees violated the religious beliefs of the organization. Mary asserts that the waiting period, including mandates to attend counseling, violates her religious beliefs. Mary indicates that according to the Supreme Court, her religious beliefs trump Missouri law.

Mary issued a statement contending,

“I regard a waiting period as a state sanctioned attempt to discourage abortion by instilling an unnecessary burden as part of the process to obtain this legal medical procedure…The waiting period interferes with the inviolability of my body and thereby imposes an unwanted and substantial burden on my sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Mary intends to present a religious exemption waiver when she arrives at the St. Louis Planned Parenthood clinic for her abortion. However, Mary does have a problem. She will have to travel hundreds of miles from her home to receive services for her abortion. The Satanic Temple has set up a GoFundMe page to help Mary meet these expenses. Lucien Greaves, Satanic Temple leader stated,

“The waiting period is another facile and insulting attempt at making abortion services less available…With a dearth of abortion clinics, some women are made to travel a great distance for services they then have to wait three days to receive, adding the expense of accommodations and time away from work.”

Greaves promises legal action should Mary’s religious exemption waiver be denied.

The state of Missouri would be wise to recognize Mary’s religious beliefs waiver. This writer admits, a tiny little slice of me is capering with mad glee at the prospect of a legislative challenge to laws that restrict women’s access to abortion. An even bigger chunk is wildly applauding the fact that the Satanic Temple is the entity threatening this. Freedom of religion should also encompass freedom from religion and the puritanical self-righteous imposition of religious beliefs through legislation placed upon all. The Satanic Temple is gaining proficiency in the navigation of the twisted labyrinth of legal rhetoric, and what sweet irony it would be if this case reaches the halls of government. Regardless of personal religious beliefs, the separation of church and state should remain sacrosanct. If it takes a shock campaign from the Satanic Temple to convince the far right Christian conservative movement to wake up to the fact that they need to stay out of the halls of government regulation, so be it. Unfortunately for these Christian extremists, religion is religion, whether you worship a God, Satan, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

This is one to watch

Missouri Republicans will try to appeal same-sex marriage ruling

Republican lawmakers in Missouri plan to appeal a judge's ruling requiring the US state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

According to The Kansas Star, Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey and House Speaker Tim Jones filed a motion on 3 December. The hope is to eventually take the case to the state Supreme Court.

This past October, Circuit Judge J. Dale Youngs ruled the marriages of 10 same-sex couples, married in other states, be validated by Missouri.

The case is called Barrier v. Vasterling and was filed in February by the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri.

State Attorney General Chris Koster, a Democrat, decided not to appeal Youngs' decision. However, Koster is fighting to keep the state's ban intact.

Early last month, District Court Judge Ortrie D. Smith's ruled against the prohibition.

Democrat state Representative Mike Colona criticized the Republican maneuver. 

'Our statewide elected chief lawyer for the State of Missouri, Attorney General Chris Koster, made a legal determination that the State of Missouri should not appeal the court’s decision in Barrier,' Colona said in a release on the ACLU Missouri website

'That decision rests solely with the office of Attorney General,' Colona continued. 'We should respect the decision of a co-equal branch of government and we as a General Assembly should not intervene in the legal process without first having debated the issue and authorizing such intervention.'

Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the ACLU of Missouri, agreed.

'Both the legal court and the court of public opinion are in agreement that all legal marriages must be recognized by the state of Missouri,' Mittman said in a statement. 'What’s more, actively working to take rights away from loving families is not in keeping with the values of Missourians.'

Judge Orders Missouri to Recognize Marriages of 10 Gay Couples Wed Outside the State

Ten gay couples who filed suit demanding Missouri recognize their out-of-state marriages have won, the ACLU reports:

Missouri Circuit Judge J. Dale Youngs ordered that the marriages of 10 couples must be recognized by the state of Missouri. His decision came eight days after hearing the oral arguments in Barrier v. Vasterling, Missouri’s landmark case filed in February by the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri on behalf of 10 same-sex Missouri couples.

Said Jeffrey A. Mittman, executive director of the ACLU of Missouri: "This is a personal win for our 10 courageous couples who stepped up to represent the LGBT community."

The ruling is available here.

Former St. Louis cop gets one year probation for harassing LGBT couple

A one-time St. Louis police officer will spend a year on supervised probation after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge for harassing and intimidating an LGBT couple.

Jeffrey Leveque

Jeffrey Michael Leveque, 45, was charged with felony harassment in January after police said he and another man parked outside the home of Meg Hensley, 27, and her transgender partner Kendan Elliot, 34, and yelled threateningly at them as they tried to leave for work.

Leveque was reportedly offended by the couple’s display of a gay pride rainbow flag on their front porch that mimics the U.S. stars and stripes.

Later that day, Hensley learned that someone had posted a photo of their flag in “Rant and Rave” comment section of the St. Louis Craigslist, with the message:

So the carpet muncher called the police. So offended you were. Who is the criminal? You deface the “American Flag” and upset that stated to you how un American you are. Well you make me sick everyday when you kiss your girlfriend good bye. Being a carpet muching cunt is one thing but our flag is another. Have some respect for our country if you have no respect for our Lord.

Judge Steven Ohmer also barred Leveque from contacting the victims and ordered him to attend anger management services.

Leveque is a former St. Louis police officer who served from November 2001 to April 2004, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and resigned while under investigation by Internal Affairs for an unspecified allegation.

Missouri College Refuses to Re-enroll Student Who Came Out as Gay Since He 'Misused God's Gift'

Chase Martinson was halfway through his studies at Hannibal-LaGrange University when health issues forced him to take a break. When he reapplied the school said it wouldn't accept him.

Why? Because during the time he was on a break, he came out as a gay man.

The Riverfront Times reports:

Martinson reapplied to Hannibal-LaGrange, a small school about 120 miles north of St. Louis, a few months ago, quickly getting an acceptance letter and even a note saying he was eligible for the honors program. Everything was on track -- until the next letter came, putting his application on hold:

"Admittance is open to academically and morally qualified students," the school wrote Martinson on March 4. "Admission is open to students who are in agreement with the HLGU Student Life Guidelines."

The school directed Martinson to pages 20and 27 of the student-life guidelines, where the school's sexual impropriety rules are spelled out. Both pages explicitly forbid "homosexual activities." Page 27 even prohibits appearing to be gay.

"I just wanted to be me, and I never had any idea this would happen," Martinson tells Daily RFT. "I thought I was already in, but then they send me this letter saying, 'Just kidding.'"

The school's policy suggests that Martinson 'misused God's gift:

"It is God's intent that heterosexual union is the only acceptable expression of sexuality and must be reserved for marriage," says the school's standard of sexual conduct. "This expression of a self-giving love is viewed as a gift from God. All members of the University community should abstain from behavior which may lead to a violation of God's standards on sexual activities.

The school lists homosexuality -- along with sexual abuse, sexual harassment, incest and sexual assault -- as "misuses of God's gift."

Martinson is enrolling at University of Missouri - St. Louis.

Missouri Republican senator introduces bill allowing the refusal of service for religious reasons

Although it doesn’t mention sexual orientation, the bill could provide legal cover for denial of services to same-sex couples.

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Wayne Wallingford of Cape Girardeau, states that a governmental authority shall not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion unless the government demonstrates that it has a compelling interest.

To supporters of the idea — similar to legislation filed in several other states — the goal is to make it clear that private individuals can use religious beliefs as a defense in litigation.

“We’re trying to protect Missourians from attacks on their religious freedom,” Wallingford said.

Opponents contend bills like Wallingford’s would allow businesses to discriminate against anyone they do not like, most notably gays and lesbians.

“It’s a legislative attempt to legalize discrimination toward (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) individuals,” said A.J. Bockelman, executive director of the LGBT rights organization PROMO.

Wallingford said he based the bill loosely on legislation that has been debated in other states, such as Kansas and Arizona. He pointed to instances that have cropped up in debate in those other states.

In Washington state, for example, a florist would not provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. And in Colorado, a baker refused to make a cake for a party celebrating the wedding of two men.

In both cases, the business owners cited religious beliefs in declining to provide services and were eventually sued.

“This is trying to provide a defense in those types of instances,” Wallingford said.

He said the bill is also designed to protect businesses such as Hobby Lobby, which is engaged in a protracted legal fight to over the company’s religious objection to providing insurance coverage for certain types of contraception as mandated by the federal Affordable Care Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the Hobby Lobby lawsuit this year.

In the states where similar bills have been debated, controversy erupted.

In Kansas, the state House approved a bill to prohibit government fines and anti-discrimination lawsuits when people, groups or businesses cite their religious beliefs in refusing to provide goods, services, accommodations or employment benefits to gay and lesbian couples.

But that legislation has stalled in the Kansas Senate.

Gay-rights supporters planned to rally at the Kansas Statehouse in opposition to the bill Tuesday.

Wallingford was one of nine senate Republicans who joined with Democrats last year to pass a bill adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the state’s Human Rights Act. State law currently prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender and age, among other categories, but not sexual orientation.

That bill died in the closing moments of the 2013 session when the House didn’t bring it up for a vote.

Bockelman said Wallingford’s bill sets up a situation where one Missouri law says certain people are protected from discrimination while another would essentially allow that discrimination if it were based on religious convictions.

“The Human Rights Act says there are protected classes, such as race and gender, with a history of facing discrimination,” Bockelman said. “But this bill says a person’s religious beliefs are more protected.”

Wallingford said he still supports outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. He said his bill specifically states it would not apply to discrimination as it is defined in the Missouri Human Rights Act.

The Misssouri Human Rights Act only pertains to discrimination as it relates to “employment, disability, or familial status as it relates to housing.”

“There should not be discrimination in the workplace,” Wallingford said. “But businesses should be free to practice their religious beliefs.”

Earlier this month, the House approved legislation sponsored by Speaker Tim Jones that would allow health care workers could refuse to take part in certain medical procedures that violate their ethical or religious beliefs.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/25/4848361/missouri-senator-introduces-religious.html#storylink=cpy

Missouri students 'Stand With Sam' to block Westboro Baptist Church protest

Michael Sam came out publicly as a gay man last week. The responses-- as well as the stories of the initial reaction at Missouri-- have been heartrendingly supportive. But there will be obstacles, both from the old-school itchiness that still inhabits some of the NFL, and from plainly hateful people. The latter is the issue this weekend, as the unabashed hate-spewing misanthropes of the Westboro Baptist Church announced plans to demonstrate on the Missouri campus Saturday afternoon.

Mizzou students wouldn't have it. Taking their cue from Texas A&M's response to a similar encroachment by the WBC years back, students Alix Carruth and Kelaney Lakers organized a human wall to "Stand With Sam" and prevent the WBC from entering. It's impressive:

8 Missouri GOP Lawmakers File to Impeach Governor for Accepting Tax Returns from Gay Couples

Back in November, Missouri Rep. Nick Marshall (R-Parkville) threatened to impeach Governor Jay Nixon for signing an executive order accepting joint tax returns from gay couples married in other states. 

 

Now, Marshall, along with seven other Republican lawmakers, has filed to impeach Nixon.

Wrote Marshall on Facebook:

I assure you that the Articles of Impeachment filed yesterday are very serious charges that should not be taken lightly by the Governor's Office. If I just wanted publicity, I would have called a press conference. If I just wanted to send a message, I would have picked up the phone.

The Riverfront Times reports:

Marshall's legislative assistant, Beth Peters, told Daily RFT that his objection is about violating the Missouri constitution, which forbids gay marriage, not about targeting LGBT couples.

"If Missouri were a state that allowed gay marriage, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But it's not," says Beth Peters, Marshall's legislative assistant. "It has nothing to do with what people want to do in their personal lives."

Rick Brattin, Jeff Pogue, Ronald Schieber, Mike Moon, T.J. Berry, Kurt Bahr and Ken Wilson are the other Republicans involved.

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon Says He Supports Gay Marriage; State Will Take Tax Returns from Gay Couples

Some rather big news out of Missouri on Thursday. 

Governor Jay Nixon announced that he supports gay marriage in a press conference announcing that the state will accept joint tax returns from gay couples married in other states, the Columbia Tribune reports:

In an executive order, Nixon directed the Department of Revenue to accept the combined returns as a reaction to the June ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That law barred same sex couples who were legally married from receiving any marriage-based federal benefits, such as tax exemptions and Social Security payments. Under state law, couples who file a joint federal return are required to file a combined state tax return. The executive order clarifies that the law applies to all couples, Nixon said.

Nixon also made clear his personal views:

“Many Missourians, including myself, are thinking about these issues of equality in new ways and reflecting on what constitutes discrimination. For me, that process has led to the belief that we shouldn’t treat folks differently because of who they are.”

Missouri Supreme Court To Review Same-Sex Partner Benefits Case After DOMA Ruling

This past February, the Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments challenging a state law banning same-sex marriage. The case was brought before the court after Kelly Glossip, partner to deceased Missouri State Highway Patrol Cpl. Dennis Engelhard, was denied the survivor benefits granted to opposite-sex couples under Missouri Law.

While is is still not clear if the court will make a ruling on the case, it has asked for attorneys on both sides to file written arguments in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down Section 3 of DOMA, which dealt with benefits to married couples (including death and inheritance benefits) among other issues. Attorneys for Glossip have already submitted their arguments. They contend that the state's denial of benefits violates the state's equal protection clause, much in the same way that DOMA did so with the U.S. Constitution. State attorneys have until July 29th to submit theirs.

According to Beaumont Enterprise, Glossip's case was initially dismissed from Cole County Circuit Court before being appealed to the state's supreme court. While the U.S. Supreme Court's decision dealt entirely with separate, federal laws...

"Glossip's attorneys contend in their recent court filing that there is a similar discriminatory principle in Missouri's law that denies benefits to same-sex couples who are legally unable to marry in Missouri."

Missouri's constitution does have a same-sex marriage ban on the books, in addition to an equal protection clause. This case is also not the first to use the SCOTUS' recent ruling to challenge anti-gay legislation at the state level. Previously, a federal district court in Michigan cited Windsor v. United States when blocking a state law that would bar employment benefits to same-sex couples. The U.S. Supreme Court also recently declined to hear a similar case over the denial of same-sex partner benefits in Arizona.

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/#ixzz2ZvHnUcJl