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

[T-Rexx]

As you know, House Republicans have been preventing renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, which the Senate approved last week.

Now, the GOP leadership in the House has amended its version of VAWA to exclude protection for LGBT persons.

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.

What is it with the GOP and its unrelenting hate? Normal people are not that vituperative. There is really something pathologically wrong with that party.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/vawa-2013_n_2742096.html

 

[Nemothepanda]

I wonder how the token conservative-republicans here will defend this. The GOP and Republican party are not our friends, not by any measure. Although I heavily dislike bipartisanship, only the Democrats can and want to give us what we need as citizens.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I wonder how the token conservative-republicans here will defend this. The GOP and Republican party are not our friends, not by any measure. Although I heavily dislike bipartisanship, only the Democrats can and want to give us what we need as citizens.

They're always suspiciously silent on this issue of how their party votes on gay issues. Or they make it about some trumped up pretext like "we opposed that bill because it had pork in it."

 

[White Eagle]

Because most districts today are heavily gerrymandered, Republicans have to worry about conservative pressure from primary challenges. Even though maybe three quarters of Americans support LGBT protections, gerrymandering makes it possible for that small number of contemptuous malcontents to successfully bring popular bills like this to a grinding halt.

That said, I believe Democrats have the upper hand on this bill, and it will be put back in by a conference committee. I dare the House to reject it.

Thanks, I figured there would be a way around it. Watch out GOP in 2014.

 

[Rolyo85]

I wonder how the token conservative-republicans here will defend this. The GOP and Republican party are not our friends, not by any measure. Although I heavily dislike bipartisanship, only the Democrats can and want to give us what we need as citizens.

They stay away from these topics. Too one-sided, impossible to derail into Obama bashing...

 

[chance1]

^ you know how they are

As for me, I'll actually read the article before commenting

Just to be different

 

[CowboyBob]

The GOP war on women and gays continue.

 

[CoolBlue71]

In other news Log Cabin Republican or GOProud -- whichever -- aren't going to CPAC.



Devastating.

 

[Stardreamer]

A House GOP leadership aide pushed back on the idea that the VAWA bill doesn't protect LGBT victims.

"The House bill protects all people from discrimination," the aide said. "The Senate bill continues to add people to an enumerated list, therefore excluding those categories not on the list and requiring constant updating. The House bill also allows states, through which VAWA grants flow, to determine the best recipients of those funds, based on the victim populations in their areas."

The defense conservatives put forward is there is no need for a special focus on these groups in this bill. The paragraph containing the language says that LGBT are an under-served group being denied access to services therefore needing special funding and assistance. I am guessing the GOP is challenging this saying that they have the same access as everyone else. I can sort of see their point, though I'm not sure I agree with it; how are LGBT individuals being denied access would be the question? If you show up at a battered woman shelter you would be turned away because you are a lesbian? Would a person who would otherwise be eligible for the grants mentioned be denied just because of their sexual orientation? If this is the case then I see the need for this language. The GOP is likely resisting this on the knee jerk opposition to what they see as trying to push LGBT 'special' rights where it is not needed, part of an overall struggle to prevent LGBT individuals being granted the same 'special protection' status that race and gender have in civil law.

 

[chrisrobin]

In other news Log Cabin Republican or GOProud -- whichever -- aren't going to CPAC.



Devastating.

I'm not making this up...honestly. Two of the speakers at CPAC are the former governor of Alaska and loser of the vice-presidency in 2008, "game-changer" Sarah Palin. Also, the former governor of Massachusetts, Willard Romney, loser of the 2012 presidential election will also be at CPAC. Looks like the GOP is serious about forging ahead - I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't hear the title "The New Republicons" much as we heard "The New Nixon". Today's Republicons are depending on "voters' amnesia" in 2014 and 2016.

 

[scream4ever]

If their version does pass, our side could probably force their inclusion in in conferance committee.

 

[nycguydowntown]

If you're gay and a republican in this day and age you are a moron---you can be an Independent, a Libertarian or a conservative democrat --fine--but to be associated with the party of stupid---is just plain dumb.

 

[Just_Believe18]

The defense conservatives put forward is there is no need for a special focus on these groups in this bill. The paragraph containing the language says that LGBT are an under-served group being denied access to services therefore needing special funding and assistance. I am guessing the GOP is challenging this saying that they have the same access as everyone else. I can sort of see their point, though I'm not sure I agree with it; how are LGBT individuals being denied access would be the question? If you show up at a battered woman shelter you would be turned away because you are a lesbian? Would a person who would otherwise be eligible for the grants mentioned be denied just because of their sexual orientation? If this is the case then I see the need for this language. The GOP is likely resisting this on the knee jerk opposition to what they see as trying to push LGBT 'special' rights where it is not needed, part of an overall struggle to prevent LGBT individuals being granted the same 'special protection' status that race and gender have in civil law.

Nope. I can't see the GOP's point. I am positively sure I vehemently disagree with it. LGBT individuals are persecuted throughout this country. You need only look at the 30 states that have enshrined marriage discrimination into this country to know there are communities that harass, discriminate, and abuse both mentally and physically LGBT people. I only wish as a fellow homosexual, you would agree as well, rather than giving a political party of hate the benefit of a doubt.

 

[bankside]

I disagree with the premise of the act and its title.

Violence against men should be equally abhorrent to us. Even if violence against men were ten times less frequent than violence against women, that one man still deserves our support and recognition. But it seems that in domestic violence situations, the numbers may actually be far more equitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence#Violence_against_men

 

[T-Rexx]

The defense conservatives put forward is there is no need for a special focus on these groups in this bill. The paragraph containing the language says that LGBT are an under-served group being denied access to services therefore needing special funding and assistance. I am guessing the GOP is challenging this saying that they have the same access as everyone else. I can sort of see their point, though I'm not sure I agree with it; how are LGBT individuals being denied access would be the question? If you show up at a battered woman shelter you would be turned away because you are a lesbian? Would a person who would otherwise be eligible for the grants mentioned be denied just because of their sexual orientation? If this is the case then I see the need for this language.

Of course LGBTs need additional protection from violence, but its removal by Republicans from the VAWA isn't really the point of my rant. The point is that the GOP uses every opportunity, every piece of legislation - however tangentially related - to bash us. They do this not because of some sort of provocation on our part, nor because it is helpful in some way to certain Americans. It is blind hatred which hurts everyone. We have never done anything to harm these people. But they live to do as much harm to us as they can manage. It is fanatical bigotry, and I don't really understand where it comes from.

The GOP is likely resisting this on the knee jerk opposition to what they see as trying to push LGBT 'special' rights where it is not needed, part of an overall struggle to prevent LGBT individuals being granted the same 'special protection' status that race and gender have in civil law.

No, they are knee jerk resisting LGBT protections because of their stupid, blind, raging, nonsensical hatred of gays. The GOP is not doing this out of some misguided attempt to legislate in a hyper-responsible fashion. They are doing it to proudly assert their hyper-bigotry.

In other news Log Cabin Republican or GOProud -- whichever -- aren't going to CPAC.

Did I say "however tangentially related" above? Let me correct that. The GOP uses every opportunity - however unrelated - to bash us. CPAC has become a showplace for Republicans to proudly and publicly enforce bigotry against gays. There really is something disturbingly pathological about that.

The legislation is the first federal LGBT inclusive anti-discrimination law of any kind passed by the Senate in American history, albeit limited in scope.

I suspect that's one reason Republicans want to kill that aspect of the bill so badly.

 

[Stardreamer]

Nope. I can't see the GOP's point. I am positively sure I vehemently disagree with it. LGBT individuals are persecuted throughout this country. You need only look at the 30 states that have enshrined marriage discrimination into this country to know there are communities that harass, discriminate, and abuse both mentally and physically LGBT people. I only wish as a fellow homosexual, you would agree as well, rather than giving a political party of hate the benefit of a doubt.

I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt, I don't really agree with their position but I understand how they 'publicly' defend their position and that was the question asked. I'm also sure many here will point out what they think is their actual motivations and in quite a few cases they would be right. I'd need to know more about what types of domestic violence this bill is actually supposed to protect to get into whether LGBT specific protections need to be in it or not. But there is more than enough evidence of violence against LGBT individuals to warrant addressing if they protected by the current laws or not.

 

[Stardreamer]

Always a possibility, especially in less cultured parts of the country.



There is an executive order prohibiting the federal government from discrimination based on sexual orientation, however this bill would affirm that by statute.


And by the way, the significance of this bill is being overlooked as we have this discussion.

The legislation is the first federal LGBT inclusive anti-discrimination law of any kind passed by the Senate in American history, albeit limited in scope.

And that is probably why its being opposed, the Republican position is that LGBT individuals are protected by current laws against violent and assault that protect everyone and don't need special protections. They think that the effort to provide them is really a effort to gain legal acceptance of homosexuality. They are wrong in that point, as there is plenty of history to show that current laws are not enough and opposing it in this type of legislation is a very wrong move politically IMHO but they don't ask me.

 

[Stardreamer]

Of course LGBTs need additional protection from violence, but its removal by Republicans from the VAWA isn't really the point of my rant. The point is that the GOP uses every opportunity, every piece of legislation - however tangentially related - to bash us. They do this not because of some sort of provocation on our part, nor because it is helpful in some way to certain Americans. It is blind hatred which hurts everyone. We have never done anything to harm these people. But they live to do as much harm to us as they can manage. It is fanatical bigotry, and I don't really understand where it comes from.




No, they are knee jerk resisting LGBT protections because of their stupid, blind, raging, nonsensical hatred of gays. The GOP is not doing this out of some misguided attempt to legislate in a hyper-responsible fashion. They are doing it to proudly assert their hyper-bigotry.

Oh I agree its bigotry and in a good number of cases driven by hate though the individuals may not always realize it themselves. They have a golden age view of American society and they tend to think that anything that moves us away from that mythical social structure will destroy the country. They thus construct the fallacy in their own minds that gays asking for equality is a challenge to that myth and therefore to them we ARE threatening them because we are trying to destroy our culture with our wanton ways. Its all nonsense of course but it makes for good political theater and plays to the fears of many people that the country and society is in decline and looking for some reason for it. The motivating force is hate and fear of those who are different of course, something that can demonstrated just by pointing to the similarities in the argument used by white supremacists and anti-Semitics to fight racial civil rights.

 

[chance1]

I support the concept of stopping/preventing/reducing violence against anyone - in this case women

why do gay/lesbian women need special notation here ?

what am i missing ?

women need protection - i get it

why do diff. types of women need diff. types of protection ?

please do not respond as if this is anything but a reasonable question or POV

 

[T-Rexx]

I support the concept of stopping/preventing/reducing violence against anyone - in this case women

why do gay/lesbian women need special notation here ?

what am i missing ?

women need protection - i get it

why do diff. types of women need diff. types of protection ?

please do not respond as if this is anything but a reasonable question or POV

See Post #19