House GOP Strips LGBT Protections from Its Version of Violence Against Women Act

[Rolyo85]

Nice well reasoned, completely misses the mark on what my world view is but that fine. It would be utterly silly to think that every possible side of an issue is equal but it is just as silly to not explore and test the various sides against your own viewpoint. Even worse to reduce all other views to straw men and pat yourself on the back. Even if the 'opposition' is really motivated by hate and bias, they put forward public positions to justify their actions to others. Those positions should not be rejected out of hand but explored and discredited and where there is some logic to them (regardless of the motivation behind them) adjusted for so there is no longer a foothold for the opposition to use.

What is there to explore about civil rights and whether we should have them?

 

[xbuzzerx]

You should explore and test it for no other reasoning than to disarm the other side by showing the flaw in their logic and in those cases where the have a point to stand on, adjust your own view accordingly to address that point and thus de-fang that argument.

The simple fact of how many people support gay rights today, the number of which enormously dwarfs the actual number of gay people, by itself completely invalidates a claim that the 'only' or 'primary' reason someone would support gay rights is because they themselves are gay and engaging in some kind of gay bandwagon.

I think you give some of these arguments more credence than they deserve and you are doing exactly what I said in my earlier post. You are artificially assigning to them a considerable or comparable weight when they're completely ridiculous.

 

[opinterph]

Being [closed-minded] to alternative viewpoints is incredibly dangerous, but to overcompensate by bending backwards to give every viewpoint equal consideration is pretty much intellectual suicide.

Your remarks correlate with Senator Chuck Grassley’s reasoning for removing new provisions to The Violence Against Women Act that prohibit discrimination by grantees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. He promotes equal distribution of services to everyone, but regards those provisions as “a political statement that shouldn't be made on a bill that is designed to address actual needs of victims.”

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Executive Business Meeting
Thursday, February 2, 2012​

 

[bankside]

I suspect it is the member’s personal dramatization, but it reminds me of some recent segments on The Rachel Maddow Show.

​

The definition was changed last January.

​

Seems strange to me that the only applicable orifice is anal or vaginal. If I'm forced to perform oral sex on someone, that's rape.

 

[chance1]

What is insulting is when a person who is gay and votes Republican comes across that he is being reasonable—perhaps due to self-interest of his personal economic situation—and then thinks he is in a position to tell those who are gay and vote Democratic that they are the ones who are misguided.

what's REALLY insulting is that the premise u just suggested actually doesn't take place here

the reverse does

bizarro world of CE+P

According to the below-linked New York Times post-Election 2012 article, there was 22-percent support from self-identified "gay, lesbian or bisexual" people who voted for the Republican presidential nominee. So, you shouldn't be finding Just Us Boys' political forum a "bizarro world" … especially given that you have chosen to post here for years.


Gay Vote Proved a Boon for Obama

By Micah Cohen
Nov. 15, 2012 | http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/us/politics/gay-vote-seen-as-crucial-in-obamas-victory.html?_r=0

my response to your bullshit was about goings on here on CE+P

you respond with a 22% poll

which has nothing to do with anything

the litmus test bullshit continues here - bandwagoning

i don't see after reading this and answers why lesbian women need extra protection - i think protecting women (inclusive of lesbians" is enough

course the answer to that by many here is "are you gay" - "you don't support us" etc.

same old finger pointing nonsense

life on JUB

with full support from the mgmt.

 

[opinterph]

Seems strange to me that the only applicable orifice is anal or vaginal. If I'm forced to perform oral sex on someone, that's rape.

I think forced oral is included in the definition.

… “or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

 

[Rolyo85]

Whether a gay man is for equal rights and special protections for gay people or not, is only a litmus test for sanity.

And to ask why lesbians might need special protections is sort of a litmus test of whether you know anything about the type of violence lesbians face...

 

[Ninja108]

HEre's the thing with groups like GOProud,Log Cabin Republicians etc. Virtually all of their members have a lot of $$$,enough to the point that health care,housing etc isn't an issue for them.
They are mostly immune from the injustices middle class and poor LGBT citizens face in all of those areas and more.
Thus it's easy for them to align themselves with a party that hates them for the most part and wants to make LGBT citizens second class ones for life. They're all about making $$$,even if they make everyone else second class citizens in the process.

 

[Rolyo85]

It's also interesting to note many members of GOProud and LCR aren't even gay... and yeah they only care about their checkbook... it's interesting though. The GOP has a shitty record on the economy whenever they've been in power. So it's a misdirected sense of cult worshipping.

That only applies to GOProud actually. The LCRs are legitimately gay, if nothing else. And though they've discredited themselves no end of course, they aren't as idiotically GOP-ball licking as GOProud is. They didn't endorse Bush, and almost didn't endorse Romney, until they got too scared of the Republican propaganda machine, thinking he'd win...

 

[Rolyo85]

You're right. But still, in my mind they're a lot more genuine than GOProud who I don't consider an LGBT organization at all. When half your board members are straight and your public gay face outhomophobes all of them combined, it just seems like a tasteless joke.

 

[bankside]

I think forced oral is included in the definition.

Ohhh..You mean the obvious thing that you cleverly hid by quoting it directly in the post I was referencing...

 

[opinterph]

The CRAs (all of them) have major issues. There are clear problems with defining which groups are protected while not offering similar protection to others. Paternalism is not good. It is not even respectful. It shows a clear disregard for groups labeled as "minorities." It fosters difference instead of breaking down social constructs.

I’m having trouble understanding the portion of this post I’ve quoted. I assume that CRA is intended to represent Civil Rights Act, but I would like to better understand how those acts relate to the concept of “paternalism.” Who or what is being paternal and how does that action negate or interfere with resolving the problems addressed by civil rights legislation?

 

[itsmejeff]

My entire point can be simplified in this wise: if the language that was removed referred to "race" (another non-existent social construct to which ignorant people cling), then no one on here would care. It is only a matter of concern because it deals with gay. It may not have any real world effect, but the language is gone, so gays are being hated on. It is not true. Requiring mention of gay is actually something that prevents "gay" from becoming normal.

I have to laugh at the "you cannot be a queer if you disagree" statements. I do not care about any of that. It does not matter for me. It does not change anything. The only issue here is granfalloonism. People are concerned with the group, not with the actual situation.

People can disagree. I do not care. I will not accuse them of being too gay or not gay enough.

Anyone with their some common sense can see what the GOP is up to and that they are trying to hurt women, gays and other minorities in this country. It's not bandwagoning. A real bandwagon is the Romney/Ryan campaign... for example, one man tattooed the Romney/Ryan logo to his face.

Yes. Everyone is out to get you. Everything is a war. Except real war. That is something else and everyone should support it now and forever.

You are not paranoid. You are objectively viewing the world around you. I mean it. Truly.

I’m having trouble understanding the portion of this post I’ve quoted. I assume that CRA is intended to represent Civil Rights Act, but I would like to better understand how those acts relate to the concept of “paternalism.” Who are what is being paternal and how does that action negate or interfere with resolving the problems addressed by civil rights legislation?

The issue with the civil rights acts deals mostly with protected classes. They are either obsolete ("race") or things that should not be protected ("religion"). The extension of the protections to the private sector (public accommodations) is also unnecessary. The claim that certain (made up) groups require more protection while others do not is simply illogical. It is contrary to all of modern social science.

Paternalism comes in with the desire to "protect" weak "minority" groups. The problems are basically non-existent now. What parts of society actually accept discrimination? The CRAs were also an attempt to repaid the damage caused by government mandated segregation.

 

[Rolyo85]

So, itsmejeff, are you gonna respond to my question? Or is it too much to ask on a gay forum if you actually are gay?


Nobody here likes war. Just saying. Everything else you wrote is mostly making heroic postures of not caring.

 

[xbuzzerx]

the litmus test bullshit continues here - bandwagoning

Gay people overwhelmingly supporting their own equal rights in society and not wanting to vote for people actively opposed to those rights is not "bandwagoning." You need to revisit what the term means.

 

[opinterph]

I have to laugh at the "you cannot be a queer if you disagree" statements. I do not care about any of that. It does not matter for me. It does not change anything. The only issue here is granfalloonism. People are concerned with the group, not with the actual situation.

People can disagree. I do not care. I will not accuse them of being too gay or not gay enough.

You are not required to be gay to participate here and you are not required to reveal personal information about yourself to other members. You are also not required to embrace whatever viewpoint you may wish to present in any particular thread. This forum is intended for discussion of issues – not to serve as a mechanism for personal approval or disapproval of each other.

 

[T-Rexx]

In other words, it's okay to beat up on women if they're lesbians, transgendered, or bisexual. Obviously, if you fall into one of those categories, you're not really a human being.

where is this stated exactly?

i suspect it is the member’s personal dramatization, but it reminds me of some recent segments on the rachel maddow show.

… there's room [for] a worthwhile debate, but it's important for the public to understand that a constructive discussion is impossible when there's no shared basis for reality.

when false claims drive the debate

The "dramatization" is courtesy of the House GOP, not me. And the claim is hardly false.

No, of course the Republican exclusion of LGBT protections from VAWA does not mean that a lesbian who is abused would have no recourse whatsoever under the law.

But, Republicans did not remove the LGBT protections from VAWA because they thought it made the bill "more efficient." They did it because they wanted to send a message of hate. They did it because they wanted to let the world know that any attempt to improve the lives of gay people, however limited, would be opposed by them vigorously. Not because such legislation is unnecessary or unhelpful, but precisely because Republicans fear it might work.

The removal of the LGBT protections from VAWA is a wink and a nod to anyone who might be inclined to abuse gay people. "We're on your side, buddy, and we'll do what we can to help you out."

 

[opinterph]

The issue with the civil rights acts deals mostly with protected classes. They are either obsolete ("race") or things that should not be protected ("religion"). The extension of the protections to the private sector (public accommodations) is also unnecessary. The claim that certain (made up) groups require more protection while others do not is simply illogical. It is contrary to all of modern social science.

Paternalism comes in with the desire to "protect" weak "minority" groups. The problems are basically non-existent now. What parts of society actually accept discrimination? The CRAs were also an attempt to repaid the damage caused by government mandated segregation.

It is my impression that federal measures to counteract discrimination address current situations, rather than redress for the past. I think many regulations are misunderstood and that may account for hostility toward the general notion. I am quite certain that parts of society continue to accept and even promote discrimination. And though I understand your complaint relating to the use social constructs to differentiate groups, I think those measures of identity are also frequently used by people to characterize subsets of the population that they disdain. Also relative to constructs, I think there is a need of some sort for many people to identify an “us” and a “them.” Besides differentiation, that process invites comparison and even competition, which ideally would result in mutual benefit. Perhaps too often, though, it intensifies the separation and maybe that is one reason I continue to perceive discrimination.

 

[opinterph]

Republicans did not remove the LGBT protections from VAWA because they thought it made the bill "more efficient." They did it because they wanted to send a message of hate. They did it because they wanted to let the world know that any attempt to improve the lives of gay people, however limited, would be opposed by them vigorously. Not because such legislation is unnecessary or unhelpful, but precisely because Republicans fear it might work.

The removal of the LGBT protections from VAWA is a wink and a nod to anyone who might be inclined to abuse gay people. "We're on your side, buddy, and we'll do what we can to help you out."

I have been trying to figure out the “why.” Though I don’t see it as an invitation for abuse, I wonder if what is stated publicly may not be indicative of the real motivation. House Republicans – most notably Leader Cantor, indicated that allowing Native American courts to have jurisdiction in the prosecution of [Not-So-Native] Americans was the main objection. [NYT]

Meanwhile, Senator Leahy made a strong case that removal of the provisions involves substantive reduction of genuine protections – not just deleting a tribute that was included to appease certain minority groups. [Press Release]

 

[T-Rexx]

I have been trying to figure out the “why.” Though I don’t see it as an invitation for abuse, I wonder if what is stated publicly may not be indicative of the real motivation.

I suppose I'm a cynic, but I don't accept the premise that VAWA is improved by removing provisions intended to make it more effective and fair. Yes, of course, the provisions in question may not, in fact, end up making the bill better. But, they might. And, leaving them in doesn't make the bill particularly cumbersome. So, the provisions in question are at best helpful and at worst neutral. Therefore, the only reason to oppose them is to send a message that Republicans don't like gay people and will do whatever it takes to oppose any legislation that might benefit us in any way.

My own cynicism aside, there is good reason to believe Republicans have nefarious motive here. This is a party that pushed through constitutional amendments opposing same-sex marriage in 31 states. In every case, the amendments were proposed and promoted by Republicans, not Democrats. If there were some evidence that gay marriage were a bad thing, there might be some logic to devoting so much energy to this cause. But, there is no such evidence. The amendments were advanced solely on the basis of prejudice and prejudice alone.

Similarly, this party opposed repeal of DADT with great energy. This opposition was not based on some evidence that acknowledging gays in the military would be harmful to the military. Indeed, the evidence was very much to the contrary - that repealing DADT would be good for everyone. Republican opposition was not based on evidence, reason, or logic. It was based on prejudice and prejudice alone.

This party has aggressively opposed defining violence against gays as a hate crime. This opposition is not based on some evidence that gays are not at special risk as objects of hated. The opposition is based on anti-gay prejudice and prejudice alone.

So, forgive my cynicism, but Republicans use every available opportunity to oppose gay rights. Not because there is evidence that acknowledging such rights would be harmful to America, but because prejudice has become a way of life for these people. Their knee-jerk reaction to everything gay is hatred.

I don't see how one can interpret the removal of LGBT protections from VAWA by Republicans in any other light. It follows their usual (indeed, only) pattern.

House Republicans – most notably Leader Cantor, indicated that allowing Native American courts to have jurisdiction in the prosecution of [Not-So-Native] Americans was the main objection. [NYT]

Republican opposition to native American tribal courts is another matter entirely. It deserves discussion, but I focused my OP on removal of LGBT protections because of the nature of the audience here.

Meanwhile, Senator Leahy made a strong case that removal of the provisions involves substantive reduction of genuine protections – not just deleting a tribute that was included to appease certain minority groups. [Press Release]

Yes, exactly. There is a strong argument that the LGBT protections in the Senate VAWA might be quite helpful to gays. That is, of course, why the Senate included them. I suspect that's why Republicans want to try to get rid of the protections. Anything beneficial to a group they hold in contempt is worthy of their vigorous opposition.