“If he would have said the bill might cause an invasion of flying armadillos, that would have been just as valid.”
Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacists argue that anti-Sharia laws would infringe upon Muslims’ religious rights. They still make headway using that argument with judges and lawmakers who are ignorant of the nature of Sharia, such as Jay Nixon.
In reality, no one cares about individual Muslim religious practice or wants to restrict it. The purpose of anti-Sharia laws is not to stop Muslims from getting married in Islamic religious ceremonies or to restrict their religious practice in other ways, but to stop the political and supremacist aspects of Islam that infringe upon the rights and freedoms of non-Muslims, denying the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. This is the case that must be made.
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.” The statement further warns that the bill, if signed into law, could create “a chilling effect” on international adoptions by Missouri families and “could invite retaliatory action by a foreign country by denying all adoptions to Missourians.”
Nixon’s office cited data showing that, between 1999 and 2011, Missourians adopted more than 5,850 children born outside the U.S.
The original bill passed the Senate 24-9, which is one vote more than needed for a veto override. It passed the House 109-41, which is the exact number of “yes” votes needed….