Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Missouri Governor vetoes anti-sharia bill, says it will restrict foreign adoptions

Sponsors of the bill dismissed the governors claim, saying that it would be just as valid for the governor to say that an invasion of flying armadillos is the reason to veto the bill as it is to refer to adoptions.

What, flying pigs not good enough?

From the St Louis Post-Dispatch June 4 by Kevin McDermott

Nixon vetoes 'Sharia Law' bill, saying it would endanger foreign adoptions
ST. LOUIS • Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed on Monday an anti-“Sharia Law” bill, saying that in its zeal to address an imaginary problem, the legislation creates a real one for parents seeking foreign adoptions.

The bill would make it illegal for Missouri to enforce any foreign law or legal decision deemed “repugnant or inconsistent” with Missouri or U.S. law. It doesn’t specify Islamist Sharia religious law, but it’s part of a movement by conservative lawmakers in more than 20 states who have pushed similar measures to highlight alleged Sharia influences in the U.S.

“There are certainly problems facing our state and nation, but this isn’t one of them,” said Nixon, speaking to families at Lutheran Family and Children’s Services, a major adoption proponent. The bill, he said, could muck up the works for families attempting to adopt through foreign governments: “The laws passed in Jefferson City have real consequences. This bill could jeopardize a family’s ability to adopt children from other countries.”

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Brian Nieves, R-Washington, scoffed at that explanation for the veto, saying there was nothing in the bill that would have endangered foreign adoptions.

“If he would have said the bill might cause an invasion of flying armadillos, that would have been just as valid,” said Nieves. He alleged that Nixon had a different motive but said he didn’t know what it was. “I think the governor owes it to the people of Missouri to come clean” about his reasoning for the veto, said Nieves.

Nixon’s written veto message says the bill “seeks to introduce a solution to a problem that does not exist and, in so doing, puts in jeopardy some of the very liberties that the bill purports to protect..."

No comments: