Ohio Republicans introduce ‘Natural Family Month' bill, excluding LGBTQ families
More than two dozen Ohio lawmakers are supporting a bill that would designate the weeks between Mother's Day and Father's Day 'Natural Family Month.'
Though the bill, introduced by Republican state Reps. Josh Williams and Beth Lear, doesn't define 'natural family' in its text, critics say it is intended to exclude LGBTQ families and promote marriage and childrearing between heterosexual, monogamous couples only.
When asked whether 'Natural Family Month' will also recognize gay couples and parents with adopted children, Williams said in an emailed statement to NBC News that 'the purpose of the month is to promote natural families—meaning a man, a woman, and their children—as a way to encourage higher birth rates.'
He added, 'This is not about discriminating against other family structures, but about supporting the one most directly tied to the creation and raising of children.'
Lear did not return a request for comment.
After introducing the bill earlier this week, Williams and Lear said in joint statements that the initiative is intended to promote child rearing.
'At a time when marriage is trending downward and young couples are often choosing to remain childless, it's important for the State of Ohio to make a statement that marriage and families are the cornerstone of civil society, and absolutely imperative if we want to maintain a healthy and stable Republic,' Lear said.
As of Friday, the bill had 26 additional Republican co-sponsors.
Dwayne Steward, the director of statewide LGBTQ advocacy group Equality Ohio, told a local queer news site that the bill is both bad policy and a 'calculated act of strategic erasure.'
'It not only invalidates the existence of single parents and countless other caregivers, but it takes direct aim at LGBTQ+ families across our state,' Steward told the Buckeye Flame. 'The so-called 'Natural Family Foundation,' the group pushing this legislation, has made their ideology clear: if you're not a heterosexual, monogamous couple with children, you don't count as a family at all.'
Steward, who did not immediately return NBC News' request for comment, added, 'As an adoptive parent, myself, I feel this erasure personally. This bill is not just offensive; it's dangerous.'
Several local news websites, including the Buckeye Flame, reported that the Natural Family Foundation, a conservative advocacy group that is against same-sex marriage and promotes families with a 'clear male leader,' was involved in lobbying for the bill. The foundation did not immediately return a request for comment.
Last year, Ohio considered eight bills targeting LGBTQ people, according to a tally by the American Civil Liberties Union. Two of those — a provision that requires school personnel to notify parents of 'any request by a student to identify as a gender that does not align with the student's' birth sex, and a measure that prohibits certain transition-related medical care for minors — became law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
New GOP bill would protect AI companies from lawsuits if they offer transparency
Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., is introducing legislation Thursday that would shield artificial intelligence developers from an array of civil liability lawsuits provided they meet certain disclosure requirements. Lummis' bill, the Responsible Innovation and Safe Expertise Act, seeks to clarify that doctors, lawyers, financial advisers, engineers and other professionals who use AI programs in their decision-making retain legal liability for any errors they make — so long as AI developers publicly disclose how their systems work. 'This legislation doesn't create blanket immunity for AI — in fact, it requires AI developers to publicly disclose model specifications so professionals can make informed decisions about the AI tools they choose to utilize,' Lummis, a member of the Commerce Committee, said in a statement first shared with NBC News. 'It also means that licensed professionals are ultimately responsible for the advice and decisions they make. This is smart policy for the digital age that protects innovation, demands transparency, and puts professionals and their clients first.' Lummis' office touted the bill as the first piece of federal legislation that offers clear guidelines for AI liability in a professional context. The measure would not govern liability for other AI elements, such as self-driving vehicles, and it would not provide immunity when AI developers act recklessly or willfully engage in misconduct. 'AI is transforming industries — medicine, law, engineering, finance — and becoming embedded in professional tools that shape critical decisions,' her office said in a release. 'But outdated liability rules discourage innovation, exposing developers to unbounded legal risk even when trained professionals are using these tools.' Exactly who is liable when AI is used in sensitive medical, legal or financial situations is a bit of a gray area, with some states seeking to enact their own standards. The House-passed 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' which is advancing through Congress and supported by President Donald Trump, includes a provision that would ban states from enacting any AI regulations for 10 years. Senate Republicans last week proposed changing the provision to instead block federal funding for broadband projects to states that regulate AI. Both Democratic and Republican state officials have criticized the effort to prohibit state-level regulations over the next decade, while AI executives have argued that varying state laws would stifle industry growth when the United States is in stiff competition with countries like China.
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
Families file suit challenging Arkansas law that requires Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Seven Arkansas families filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging an upcoming state requirement that public school classrooms have posted copies of the Ten Commandments, saying the new law will violate their constitutional rights. The federal lawsuit challenges a measure Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed into law earlier this year, similar to a requirement enacted by Louisiana and one that Texas' governor has said he'll sign. The Arkansas law takes effect in August and requires the Ten Commandments to be prominently displayed in public school classrooms and libraries. "Permanently posting the Ten Commandments in every classroom and library — rendering them unavoidable — unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state's favored religious scripture," the lawsuit said. The suit was filed on behalf of the families by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The lawsuit names four school districts in northwest Arkansas — Fayetteville, Bentonville, Siloam Springs and Springdale — as defendants. A spokesperson for Fayetteville schools said the district would not comment on pending litigation, while the other three districts did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Attorney General Tim Griffin said his office was reviewing the lawsuit and considering options. Attorneys for the families, who are Jewish, Unitarian Universalist or nonreligious, said they planned to ask the federal judge in Fayetteville for a preliminary injunction blocking the law's enforcement. The attorneys say the law violates longstanding Supreme Court precedent and the families' First Amendment rights. "By imposing a Christian-centric translation of the Ten Commandments on our children for nearly every hour of every day of their public-school education, this law will infringe on our rights as parents and create an unwelcoming and religiously coercive school environment for our children," Samantha Stinson, one of the plaintiffs, said in a news release. Louisiana was the first state to enact such a requirement, and a federal judge blocked the measure before it was to take effect Jan 1. Proponents of Louisiana's law say that ruling only applies to the five school boards listed in the suit, but The Associated Press is unaware of any posters being displayed in schools as the litigation continues.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Dear Vix: I feel ashamed to admit it – but I really don't like my parents
I feel deeply ashamed to admit this, but I don't think I like my parents as people, very much. Obviously they're my parents – they did the best they could for me and gave me a home and food and worked hard to provide what little we had – and I'll always be grateful for that. I had a tough upbringing – we didn't have much to spare and it has taught me a lot about grafting and working hard and really setting your mind to 'better yourself'. But now that we are all adults, I find excuses not to see them very often, because honestly? I don't really like spending time with them. They have lived in the same house for 40 years, in a tiny place. As a result, they have 'small town' views – they blame immigrants for everything and if someone of a different race or sexuality appears on the TV, they'll always make racist or homophobic comments about them. I'm a gay man living in the capital – we couldn't be more different. They idolise Nigel Farage and think Reform UK are the great hope for Britain – which I can't bring myself to tell any of my liberal London friends. I find their views disgusting and depressing. I always bite back when I hear them say something awful, but I hate conflict and it makes me shaky and upset. I find their constant suspicion of 'others' so tiring and it makes me not want to see them. How do I reconcile these differences and maintain some sort of relationship, even if the scales have fallen from my eyes and I think less of them? Or do I cut my losses and cut them off? Sad Son Dear Sad Son, I can feel the grief in your dilemma. On the one hand, you sound like you have a deep appreciation for the way your parents raised you, under very trying circumstances. And I'd invite you to remember that however you feel about their views now, you are who you are because (or in spite) of them. That can be worth reflecting on, whenever we're in situations (or conversations) that make us uncomfortable. Would you be as passionate about equality and diversity today if you hadn't felt the intrinsic wrongness of what you describe as 'small town views'? Perhaps it was those exact views that cemented your own beliefs and made you so passionately opposed to intolerance. I am not, under any circumstances, seeking to justify homophobic, transphobic or racist comments – they're unacceptable wherever we find them. I also personally believe that these kinds of comments should always be challenged. If we allow them to pass without objection, then we risk being complicit. Not speaking out when someone says something objectively wrong – even dangerous – also runs the danger of imbuing those comments with a veneer of acceptability. And that in turn can allow this kind of prejudiced and bigoted thinking to fester. So, bravo for not staying silent. I know how difficult that is, especially if you are conflict-averse. The major issue here is, of course, the fact that your parents are making homophobic comments about people on the telly – when they have a gay son. I can completely understand why you feel so devastated, disgusted and disappointed. It may be that your parents are doing that lazy, 'but I didn't mean you!' thing where people think they have immunity, because they ' know someone who's LGBT+ '; or assume they can't be called racist 'because they have a Black friend'. Either way, they're being (at best) thoughtless and (at worst) downright offensive. How confident are you in talking to them about it? I think you should, for your own peace of mind. You absolutely have the right to point out that making negative comments about gay people on the TV affects you personally and deeply. And it simply isn't acceptable. I would advise focusing on your feelings, rather than going on the attack: 'It really hurts me when you say XYZ, because it makes me feel judged and invalidated' – rather than, 'you can't say that'. They're more likely to listen and less likely to dismiss you. As some kind of tonic, I'd also invite you to try, as difficult as it may feel, to put yourself in your parents' shoes for a moment. They have lived in a 'small town' for their whole lives, likely only ever encountering the same sorts of people. What does hatred and suspicion stem from? Fear. And fear stems from a lack of understanding. It is this fear that (in my opinion) people like Nigel Farage and Reform UK capitalise on. Stoking fear of 'the other' gives them power – and power allows you to control. Can you find it in you to hold some empathy for your parents? Consider that they, too, are the product of the views they grew up hearing. Of course, ideally we would all look to grow and learn and educate ourselves and ultimately shed these horrible views, but they might not know how. That's why I think, not withstanding how hard this is, your voice is important. Take a break from seeing them (or limit the number of times you 'go home') to protect yourself – put in boundaries so that you're not feeling drained or upset by each encounter. But when you do, keep doing what you're doing and speaking up for what you know is right. You're helping them – and they love you. So we just have to hope that even the things that have been said in the heat of the moment might just be sinking in.
