South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed SB-149 on Friday, a law that protects private foster and adoption agencies from being sued for refusing to place children with an LGBT couple. While other states have similar laws, South Dakota is the first to enact one since the SCOTUS decision that legalized gay marriage in 2015.

According to Daugaard, the bill is intended to protect private organizations–largely faith-based–who act in the best interests of children, from being sued. But advocacy group argue that this bill is just discriminatory, harms children who could otherwise find loving homes, and would allow agencies to turn away couples of different faiths, people who have been divorced, and single parents.

According to Laura Dorso, vice president of the LGBT research and communications at the Center for American Progress, this measure will disproportionately affect LGBT couples and single mothers:

SB 149 allows religiously-affiliated foster care and adoption agencies to turn away qualified LGBT parents and single moms who simply want to start families and give young people a safe, loving home. Same-sex couples are six times as likely to foster than different-sex couples are, and this bill proves once again that opponents of equality are happy to put children at risk and deny them permanent homes to further their anti-LGBT agenda.

The ACLU of South Dakota pointed out in a statement that this law flies in the face of many organizations’ preferences:

South Dakota’s choice to do this now may contribute to some fears that in the Trump era, it will become open season on LGBT rights. Trump’s record on LGBT rights is wishy-washy at best, and there was talk of an executive order that would have overturned workplace protections for LGBT individuals that were instituted by the Obama Administration. While that executive order was reportedly squashed by Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, concerns remain high. Although South Dakota’s law only applies at the state level, the battle for protections remains nationwide.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Dakota Passes Law Legalizing Discrimination Against LGBT Couples appeared first on Law Street.

People tend to do some pretty clinically insane things to get back at their exes. Disgruntled men dumped by the girls of their dreams have posted naked pictures of them online, dated their best friends, and other concerning but far-from-deadly actions. However, the men starring in recent headlines have taken revenge to a whole new and disturbing level.

Recently, a dude was so peeved when his girlfriend left him that he concluded that feeding her dog to her was the best means of revenge. What ever happened to the saying “living well is the best revenge”? Not anymore, apparently.

That has to be one of the most messed up ways to get back at someone in recent history. It wasn’t just her beloved pet, but one of the most adorable dog breeds around — a Pomeranian — with one of the most adorable names possible, Bear. He fed her precious pooch to her during a “reconciliation meeting.” He then bombarded her with disturbing text messages asking her how her pet tasted and saying he thought BBQ sauce would have been a welcome addition benefiting the flavor. As if that weren’t a massive enough blow to the poor girl, he left the poor pup’s paws in a box at her doorsteps a few days later.

Apparently, you don’t need to be suspicious just of exes, but of your current significant other as well. In England, a teenage guy killed his girlfriend in an attempt to emulate Dexter, the character from the hit TV series. The young man says he was overcome by an alter-ego who made him stab and dismember his girlfriend. I guess the people concerned about the effect of such violent television series wasn’t all wrong, though the teenage boy suffered from various mental problems including schizophrenia.

Another cringe-worthy incident is the recent case in which 18-year-old Aston Robinson murdered his pregnant girlfriend and wrote a letter to her mother with the acronym “LOL.” After the couple sneaked into Robinson’s house, he strangled her and abandoned her corpse. While awaiting trial, Robinson wrote multiple letters to the mother of his deceased girlfriend to really twist the metaphorical knife in her gut.

The bone-chilling element of these stories is amplified by the pathetic sentences the criminals received. In the case of the teenager killing his pregnant girlfriend, his prison time could be as low as 14 years. The juvenile who killed his girlfriend Dexter-style is only looking at about 25 years. The dog-murder’s punishment is not yet known.

Seriously? It is cases like these where judges need to get their hands dirty and lay down the law. These terrifying tales certainly reveal how messed up people can be when they are dumped. So, who CAN you trust these days? Who knows…

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Be Careful Who You Love appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision Wednesday to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act is a monumental victory for advocates of same-sex marriage.

But what happens now that the 1996 federal law that confines marriage to a man and a woman has been declared unconstitutional?

Will federal benefits flow only to same-sex married couples living in states that recognize their unions?

What about same-sex spouses who are legally married but living in states that ban such unions?

And how will federal agencies, already with myriad rules and regulations regarding spousal eligibility for benefits, deal with the court’s edict?

“Striking down DOMA is a great step forward, obviously,” says Ari Ezra Waldman, legal editor at Towleroad, a widely read LGBT-oriented website, “but there will be difficult complications to work out.”

The court’s decision does not embrace a national constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but would make married gay couples living in states where their unions are legal eligible for federal benefits already enjoyed by married heterosexual Americans.

[Full Article]

—

Featured image courtesy of [masterdesigner via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After DOMA: What’s Next For Gay Married Couples appeared first on Law Street.