World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats get Trump tax returns as Republican House takeover looms

      by

      Democrats get Trump tax returns as Republican House takeover loomsDemocratic-led House ways and means committee does not have long to decide what to do, with majority to change in January A US House of Representatives committee has a little more than a month to decide what to do with six years of Donald Trump’s tax returns, after a years-long court fight ended late on Wednesday with the records handed to Congress.Milo Yiannopoulos claims he set up Fuentes dinner ‘to make Trump’s life miserable’Read moreThe supreme court ordered the release of Trump’s returns to the House ways and means committee last week, rejecting the former president’s plea. Trump has consistently accused the Democratic-led committee of being politically motivated.The committee had been seeking returns spanning 2015 through 2020, which it says it needs in order to establish whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is properly auditing presidential returns, and whether new legislation is needed.A treasury spokesperson said the department “has complied with last week’s court decision”, though it declined to say if the committee had accessed the documents.According to CNN, Democrats on the panel were due to be briefed on Thursday on the “legal ramifications on section of the tax law that … Neal used to request Trump’s tax returns” but would not immediately see the returns.Neal “declined to say if he has seen” the returns himself, CNN said. Asked if Democrats would release the returns to the public, Neal said: “The next step is to have a meeting of the Democratic caucus.”The House will soon slip from Democratic hands, although the party has retained control of the Senate. On Wednesday an aide told Reuters that Democrats on the Senate finance committee, the counterpart to the House ways and means, were considering their options on any action relating to Trump’s tax returns.One House Republican indicated he expected the returns to become public one way or another. Tory Nehls of Texas, a member of the hard-right, Trump-supporting Freedom Caucus, tweeted: “The IRS just gave six years of Donald Trump’s tax returns to the House ways and means committee. How long until someone ‘leaks’ them?”The House committee first requested Trump’s returns in 2019. Trump, who on 15 November began his third consecutive run for the presidency, dragged the issue through the court system.It was long customary, though not required, for major party presidential candidates to release their tax records. Trump was the first such candidate in four decades not to do so.Financial and taxation practices at the Trump Organization are now under scrutiny in criminal and civil cases in New York. On Thursday, attorneys began closing arguments in the criminal tax fraud case.Earlier this month, the editorial board of the Washington Post said Trump’s records should be released because “voters should expect to know what financial conflicts of interest [candidates for president] might bring to the job.“And in Mr Trump’s case … in addition to his tax records, he should have provided a detailed accounting of his holdings and interests. His refusal to do so became glaring as [he] pressed to reform the tax code in 2017. Americans could only guess how its provisions might personally enrich the president and his family.” More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden just knifed labor unions in the back. They shouldn’t forget it | Hamilton Nolan

      by

      Biden just knifed labor unions in the back. They shouldn’t forget it Hamilton NolanUS railway workers threatened to strike until they got paid sick leave. The president’s administration chose political cowardice It’s sad, really. The beleaguered labor unions of America thought that they had finally found a true friend. In Joe Biden, they had a man who was the most pro-union president in my lifetime – a low bar to clear, but something. Yet this week we found out that when the fight got hard, Biden had the same thing to say to working people that his Democratic predecessors have for decades: “You’ll never get anything you want if I don’t win; but once I win, I can’t do the things you need, because then I wouldn’t be able to win again.”At the same time that thousands of union members are fanned out across the state of Georgia knocking on doors to get Raphael Warnock elected and solidify Democratic control of the Senate – to save the working class, of course! – Biden decided to sell out workers in the single biggest labor battle of his administration. Rather than allowing the nation’s railroad workers to exercise their right to strike, he used his power to intervene and force them to accept a deal that a majority of those workers found to be unacceptable.‘Joe Biden blew it’: rail unions decry plan to impose deal through CongressRead moreHis ability to do this rests on the vagaries of the Railway Labor Act, but all you really need to understand is this: nobody forced him to side with the railroad companies over the workers. That was a choice. The White House just weighed the political damage it anticipated from Republicans screaming about a Christmas-season rail strike against the fact that railroad workers have inhuman working conditions and would need to go on strike to change that, and chose the easier political route. This was a “Which side are you on?” moment, and Biden made his position clear.What were these railroad workers fighting for? Paid sick leave. The basic ability to call in sick or go see a doctor without being penalized, something that many of us – including members of Congress and railroad company executives – take for granted. It is also, by the way, a right that Joe Biden believes should be codified into federal law. But he must not believe in it all that much, since he just cut the legs out from under unions who were trying to secure it for their members.And why is it so difficult for railroad workers to win this basic right? Their industry, after all, is fantastically profitable. It has cut its workforce to the bone purely to enrich investors, and doesn’t want to spend the money it would take to staff properly so that its remaining workers could take sick days. Greed, and nothing more. The combined power of the railway unions could overcome this obstacle, but only if they have the ability to go on strike. Railroad companies are not stupid. They knew the White House would intervene to prevent a strike, so they felt no urgency to give in to their workers’ demands. Joe Biden, Mr I-Love-Unions, unilaterally disarmed the unions before their fight could begin. Without a credible strike threat, they never had a chance.People will point out that strikes are disruptive. Yes. That’s the point. A rail strike would be so disruptive that the rail companies probably would have given up the sick days to prevent it – and if they didn’t, the White House could have weighed in on the side of the workers to make them. Instead, it did the opposite, and rescuing hope for those workers fell to Bernie Sanders and to progressives in the House, who forced congressional leaders to move a separate bill to guarantee the sick leave they were asking for. As usual, it was the left that went to the trouble of fighting for labor after the party’s mainstream sold it out for the sake of convenience.Organized labor is in an abusive relationship with the Democratic party. For decades, Democratic administrations have failed to prioritize labor issues and stabbed unions in the back, and the union establishment has always showed up with a big check for them in the next election. I guarantee you that this will happen again after this betrayal by Joe Biden. (You may have already noticed that few union leaders have been brave enough to criticize the White House directly on this issue.)Breaking free from this dynamic does not mean getting friendly with the Republicans, who would happily bring back indentured servants and child labor if they could. It means going left, to the only part of the political spectrum that genuinely gives a damn about the interests of working people. Rather than pouring its considerable resources into the mainstream Democrats, the labor movement should be bankrolling the expansion of the progressive wing of the party, to permanently shift the internal balance of power. This is not some rarefied ideological prescription from a textbook; it is common sense. If you are a railroad worker – or anyone who understands the basic need for solidarity among all workers in the face of corporate power – where are your friends? They are all sitting on the left. If we keep running back to support those who just kicked sand in our faces, nothing will ever change.And instead of kissing and making up with Biden after this outrageous insult, labor should be putting the fear of God in him with the possibility that they will back a primary presidential challenge from the left in 2024. Biden is very old and not very popular. He has been a friend to unions, yes, but if he goes against them on the biggest fight of all, how much of a friend is he, really?Nothing has as much latent power as organized working people. We need to stop begging politicians for their support, and make them come beg for ours. Just because a strike is illegal, after all, doesn’t mean that it can’t happen.
      Hamilton Nolan is a writer at In These Times
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS unionsJoe BidenBiden administrationcommentReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      India’s Atrocities in the Himalayas: Kashmir Under Attack

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in World Politics

      Why Does the Islamic Republic of Iran Fear its Kurdish Population?

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Ron DeSantis book announcement a clear sign of presidential ambition

      by

      Ron DeSantis book announcement a clear sign of presidential ambitionFlorida governor expected to challenge Trump for Republican nod in 2024 will publish The Courage to Be Free in February In the clearest signal yet that Ron DeSantis is preparing a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, it was announced on Wednesday that the rightwing governor of Florida will publish a campaign-style book, mixing memoir with policy proposals.Republican Nikki Haley to decide on presidential bid over Christmas holidaysRead moreThe Courage to Be Free: Florida’s Blueprint for America’s Renewal, will be published by Broadside Books, a conservative imprint of HarperCollins, on 28 February.The governor, his publisher said, will offer readers “a first-hand account from the blue-collar boy who grew up to take on Disney and Dr Fauci”.DeSantis has not announced a 2024 run, but he is widely reported to be considering one. His victory speech after a landslide re-election this month met with chants of “Two more years!”The cover of the governor’s book shows him smiling broadly in front of a US flag.With Donald Trump under fire over disappointing midterms results, looming indictments and a controversial dinner with a white supremacist, possible Republican opponents are rapidly coming into focus.Mike Pence, Trump’s vice-president, has released a campaign-focused memoir, seeking to balance appeals to Trump’s supporters with distancing himself from the violent end to Trump’s time in office.Mike Pompeo, the former secretary of state, will release a book in the new year. Nikki Haley, the former UN ambassador who released a memoir in 2019, is also edging up to the starting line.Announcing DeSantis’s book, HarperCollins signaled a focus on the culture-war issues and theatrically cruel policy stunts that have propelled the governor to the front rank of potential candidates, alongside Trump in polls and sometimes ahead, prompting the former president to lash out.DeSantis clashed with Disney, a large employer in Florida, over legislation regarding the teaching of LGBTQ+ issues in schools, which was branded “don’t say gay” by critics.DeSantis’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, through which Anthony Fauci has advised two presidents, remains highly controversial. Florida has recorded nearly 83,000 deaths, third among US states in a national death toll approaching 1.1m.HarperCollins said DeSantis would “reveal” how he “accomplished more for his state” than any other “American leader”. Citing DeSantis’s graduation from Yale and Harvard, service in Iraq – as a navy lawyer – and election to Congress in 2012, the publisher said “in all these places, Ron DeSantis learned the same lesson: he didn’t want to be part of the leftist elite.”01:41“Since becoming governor of the sunshine state, he has fought – and won – battle after battle, defeating not just opposition from the political left, but a barrage of hostile media coverage,” it added.The announcement – which echoed numerous rightwing talking points on hot button social issues like Covid-19 and education – echoed DeSantis’s strident speech in Tallahassee earlier this month, after his easy win over the Democrat Charlie Crist, in which he proclaimed Florida the state “where woke goes to die”.HarperCollins also promised to “deliver something no other politician’s memoir has before: stories of victory”.That might seem to some a curious claim, given, for just one recent example, the publication just two years ago of A Promised Land, Barack Obama’s memoir of his rise to the presidency, significan legislative victories and preparations for his second presidential election win.TopicsBooksRon DeSantisUS elections 2024US politicsRepublicansFloridanewsReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Don’t let him use the press’: Guardian readers on how the media should cover Trump’s 2024 run

      by

      ‘Don’t let him use the press’: Guardian readers on how the media should cover Trump’s 2024 runMore than 3,000 readers responded to our callout, and urged a ‘less is more’ approach when reporting on the former president Donald Trump’s announcement of a third run for the presidency has renewed a discussion in newsrooms on how best to cover the former president. That conversation is happening inside the Guardian, too.Beginning with his 2016 campaign, much of the US media took to Trump like a moth to a flame, covering him like a celebrity – one whose propensity to espouse lies and conspiracy theories riveted audiences. But Trump proved an expert at manipulating that coverage, which often unwittingly amplified those same lies.Trump’s 2024 campaign is undoubtedly news – he is, after all, a former president with a large following, who has left an indelible mark on American politics and is arguably the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2024. But that doesn’t mean we need to cover every utterance.We asked Guardian readers for their views on how the press can strike a better balance between delivering newsworthy information while refraining from platforming Trump’s more damaging rhetoric.We received more than 3,000 responses. Many readers argue, essentially, for a “less is more” approach to reporting on the former president. Not every tweet (should he resume tweeting), no matter how outlandish, is news, they say. Others called for caution when reporting his lies about election fraud in 2020. Many asked us to go easy on printing his photograph and to give equal time to other candidates.Nine responses from readers are below.‘Fewer stories with more substance, please’“The media should cover Trump’s candidacy without photographs and tweets and the like – and without catchphrases. All of those things cause kneejerk reactions. I know we have shorter attention spans, but honestly, I am hungry for quietness, nuance, content, a little thoughtfulness in my day. If you feel like imagery is required, then be creative and let the graphic artists illustrate an idea.“I think that should be the case for all candidates at this stage: fewer, more substantive stories about them all.” Nancy Aten, 63, progressive and Democratic, from Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin‘Focus on fresh candidates that deserve more oxygen’“Trump should be treated as a person running in an election, not a foregone conclusion nor a fascinating spectacle and certainly not a celebrity. The American media has so breathlessly covered each of Trump’s successive small and large leaps further into the absurd that it culminated in thousands of people genuinely believing they had a right to violently overthrow our most important seat of government with him as their king.“I’m concerned about the air of this election being completely sucked up by Biden and Trump again when voters across the spectrum are ready for a new generation. Ron DeSantis is an interesting candidate, and I’m also interested in hearing about who the potential successors to Biden could be on the left. Who are the new compelling candidates that deserve platforming?” Shawn Martin, 31, architect, independent/Democratic, will always consider a split ticket, from San Diego, California‘Don’t platform election 2020 fraud claims’“The press should cover Trump minimally. Only if he is in a debate. No rallies, no social media posts or rambling/ranting spiels. Do not report anything he says about 2020 or fraudulent elections. No matter how ‘out there’ he goes, rein in the impulse to bleat about his latest nonsense.“Cover actual policy statements, debates and so on. Stick with strictly bare minimum reporting. There is no need to feed him.” Pam M, in her late 50s, nurse, moderate Republican, from Las Vegas, Nevada‘Complete coverage of the Trump campaign’“I’d like to see accurate, complete coverage of the Trump campaign with the same volume as competitors receive. More investigative journalism using every tool in the toolbox. When Trump or his campaign make assertions which are false this should be covered, but the truth must also be reported.“The coverage should highlight the ongoing criminal and civil investigations and legal cases against Trump and his business. Simply put, maximize resources uncovering Trump’s past and present misbehaviors while eliminating uncritical reporting of Trump’s false assertions or hateful rhetoric. Democracy works best as a true competition of ideas and policies.” Joel Block, 74, retired, Democratic, from Orange county, California‘A politicized press has polarized the public even more’“The right balance would be equal balance on all relevant candidates. Don’t get into the perpetual habit of always displaying Mr Trump’s negatives. Those are already glaringly obvious. And it allows Trump to counter-attack the media as being biased and prejudiced against him. To his diehard minority base it merely enforces their belief that the media is the enemy of the people.“In today’s world of course all media either leans towards one political spectrum or another, which has polarized the public even more. Try to return to a more balanced and fair reporting, less politicized viewpoints. Try to negate the sensational. Try to regain the public’s trust.” Ronald Wallis, retired postal carrier, leans Democratic, from Oregon City, Oregon‘Less speculation, less sensationalism, better dialogue’“Everyone I know is sick of the media giving voice to bullshit – on both sides. Think about it. Has sensationalizing and [constantly] putting Trump on the front page for the past six years, helped or harmed civil society and its issues? I believe press coverage during these years has helped normalize hate, lying, divisiveness and authoritarianism, delayed accountability and eroded morality. Doing more of this type of Trump coverage will be devastating. Don’t speculate ad nauseam. Unless you provide hard facts, and put pressure on both sides to find truth, you are playing into Trump’s hand. He loves all the attention, it enables him to manipulate the conversation.“Personally, if I had to hear more about him, I’d like to know: what destruction has Trump caused in all his failed business dealings around the world? What destruction and sabotage have Trump policies caused, for instance, in South American partnerships, in immigration policies, human rights, our military, the national parks, postal service, infrastructure, and so on?“The people that support Trump in our community – the majority – need to understand what they are supposedly fighting for. These are fundamentally good people who need to know that ‘liberals’ are not their enemy.” April, retired retail sector worker and environmental educator, Democratic, from Prescott, Arizona‘The right balance on Trump is no balance at all’“What is the right balance in covering Trump? Trump and Trumpism are a grave threat to democracy. The right balance is no balance whatsoever. His candidacy, let alone a re-election, will do further damage to our society, it can accomplish no good.“The media have been bullied and manipulated by the political class into maintaining some sense of ‘balance’ in exchange for access, but the very notion of ‘balance’ is a loophole for power-obsessed demagogues to turn the media into their stenographers and personal publishers.” Aaron Barclay, 42, accountant, democratic socialist, from Chicago, Illinois‘No soundbites, no pithy opinions, less drama’“The media should cover Trump matter-of-factly. Pertinent information only that’s actually substantive. No soundbites. No pithy opinions. Just bare-bones. No dramatic reactions. Just keep it parked in neutral.“If it isn’t newsworthy, leave it. If it is, just keep it simple. We don’t need commentary from a panel of journalists on their interpretation of every detail. Think Cronkite. My concern is that the media likes the titular drama of Trump.” Susan Goldsmith, 54, legal specialist, Republican, from Charleston, South Carolina‘Don’t let Trump use the press’“The press is in a hard spot with people like Trump who only seem concerned with manipulation the media to their advantage. Not every tweet or complaint is a headline. The war in Ukraine is a headline.“Don’t let Trump or his allies use the press to hurt our country. Don’t give him free press for sensationalism. Cover where he’s campaigning and his policy platform – if he had one. Don’t give oxygen to lies or incitement that could trigger any dangerous responses. Cover him like you cover Marco Rubio, not like you cover [fill in Hollywood A-lister]. If he gets in trouble write it like he’s a no-name hack. If he has something positive to say, give him credit.” Brent Heckerman, 54, business innovator, Democratic, from Cincinnati, Ohio‘Draw a clearer line between fact and opinion, return to civil debate’“I like to think I am moderate in my views. The former president has not earned the right to broadcast his opinions in the media unless the information has been fact checked first. Lies and misinformation are terribly misleading and destructive. The enormous attention Trump has received, whether negative or positive, has helped him build momentum.“Report factually, avoid sensational news when it has no merit. Stick to the job of reporting and clearly call out when what is stated is mere opinion and nothing more. Too many news stations are biased and very demeaning of the political party they dislike. Sarcasm, using slurs, lack of civility and disrespect have run rampant. Time to change course and set an example of what civil disagreement looks like.” Linda Pittman, 72, retired, Democratic, previously independent, from Incline Village, NevadaTopicsUS newsDonald TrumpUS politicsThe GuardianfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in World Politics

      Can India’s Ailing Agricultural Procurement Find a New Model?

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      US Senate passes bill protecting same-sex marriage

      by

      US Senate passes bill protecting same-sex marriageHouse must now pass legislation as Democrats hurry to get it Biden to sign into law before Republicans take over the chamber The US Senate has passed the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation to protect same-sex unions that Democrats are hurrying to get to Joe Biden to be signed into law before Republicans take over the House next year.‘No rings, no guests’: supreme court fears spur LGBTQ ‘shotgun’ weddingsRead moreThe House must now pass the bill, a step the majority leader, Steny Hoyer, said could come as soon as Tuesday 6 December. Nearly 50 House Republicans supported the measure earlier this year. In the Senate, support from 12 Republicans was enough to override the filibuster and advance the bill to Tuesday’s majority vote, which ended 61-36.Although the Respect for Marriage Act would not codify Obergefell v Hodges, the 2015 supreme court decision which made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, it would require states to recognise all marriages that were legal when performed, including in other states. Interracial marriages would also be protected, with states required to recognise legal marriage regardless of “sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin”.Same-sex marriage has been thought under threat since June, when the conservative-dominated supreme court struck down the right to abortion. Then, the hardline justice Clarence Thomas wrote that other privacy-based rights, including same-sex marriage, could be reconsidered next.Public support for same-sex marriage is at an all-time high of around 70% but according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, if the supreme court did overturn the right, at least 29 states would be able to enforce bans.Before the vote on Tuesday, the US transportation secretary, Pete Buttigieg, wrote on Twitter: “Strange feeling, to see something as basic and as personal as the durability of your marriage come up for debate on the Senate floor.“But I am hopeful that they will act to protect millions of families, including ours, and appreciate all that has gone into preparing this important legislation to move forward.”After the vote, Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic senator from Rhode Island, said the Respect for Marriage Act would “place the right to marry out of this activist supreme court’s reach. We affirm what the American people already understand: every person deserves the freedom to marry the one they love.”James Esseks, director of the LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, pointed to the need for more work.In a statement, he said: “For the last seven years, LGBTQ+ families across the country have been able to build their lives around their right to marriage equality. The Respect for Marriage Act will go a long way to ensure an increasingly radical supreme court does not threaten this right, but LGBTQ+ rights are already under attack nationwide.“Transgender people especially have had their safety, dignity, and healthcare threatened by lawmakers across the country, including by members of this Congress. While we welcome the historic vote on this measure, members of Congress must also fight like trans lives depend on their efforts because trans lives do.”In his opinion in the abortion case, Thomas did not mention interracial marriage. The justice, who is Black, is married to the conservative activist Ginni Thomas, who is white.The Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, is white. His wife, the former transportation secretary Elaine Chao, is Asian American. McConnell has voted against the Respect for Marriage act.On Tuesday, Biden, who as vice-president famously came out in support of same-sex marriage before his boss, Barack Obama, said: “For millions of Americans, this legislation will safeguard the rights and protections to which LGBTQ+ and interracial couples and their children are entitled.“It will also ensure that, for generations to follow, LGBTQ+ youth will grow up knowing that they too can lead full, happy lives and build families of their own.”Biden thanked senators for their “bipartisan achievement” and said he “look[ed] forward to welcoming them at the White House after the House passes this legislation and sends it to my desk, where I will promptly and proudly sign it into law”.On Monday, before a test vote, the Democratic Senate leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, also praised Republicans who backed the measure, saying: “A decade ago, it would have strained all of our imaginations to envision both sides talking about protecting the rights of same-sex married couples.”Republicans argued for amendments they say won the support of religious groups that nonetheless oppose same-sex marriage, among them the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.“They see this as a step forward for religious freedom,” Thom Tillis of South Carolina told the Associated Press.Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, a Democrat and the first openly gay senator, told the AP the way some Republicans came round on the issue reminded her “of the arc of the LBGTQ+ movement to begin with, in the early days when people weren’t out and people knew gay people by myths and stereotypes”.With growing acceptance of LGBTQ+ rights, Baldwin said, “slowly laws have followed. It is history.”Associated Press contributed reportingTopicsSame-sex marriage (US)LGBTQ+ rightsUS politicsUS CongressUS SenateDemocratsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More