republicans strip protection from violence against women act.

[Guest amanda_s]

Found this on another site thought this would be interesting to all of you in the States

http://www.examiner.com/article/republicans-strip-transgender-protections-from-violence-against-women-act

kind of remindes me of a line from doctor who "why do they hate so much?"

Amanda

[Guest Sarah Faith]

Insane.. The funny thing is, I used to actually be a Republican. I dropped my party affiliation because of exactly this sort of stuff, I used to think the party stood for fiscal responsibility unfortunately they are FAR more interested in pushing an insane social conservative agenda. I see no good reason for them to strip transgender protections from the bill beyond trying to cater to their evangelical social conservative wing. Maybe I'm just biased.

[Charlize]

I'm sorry that anyone would feel that way. It is so unfortunate that our right as humans are put into a political debate as if they are on a par with whether we should pay for garbage collection. It seems absurd but i'm afraid it is present in both parties or we would hear more noise from the left.

Hugs,

Charlie

[Guest Sarah Faith]

I'm sorry that anyone would feel that way. It is so unfortunate that our right as humans are put into a political debate as if they are on a par with whether we should pay for garbage collection. It seems absurd but i'm afraid it is present in both parties or we would hear more noise from the left.

Hugs,

Charlie

Sadly that is where I'm at my self Charlie. Im pretty much just an independant now stuff like that makes me feel pretty disenfranchised I have to admit.

[gennee]

Sarah, you make some good points. this will hurt ALL women. Wonder what they'll do when

one of their wives or daughter are victims of violence. Sarah, the reason you left the republican

party is similar to why I left the democratic party. they don't listen to the people, just their corporate

backers and lobbyists.

[Carolyn Marie]

I took the liberty of moving this thread to the Politics Forum, as the more appropriate place for it.

Carolyn Marie

[Carolyn Marie]

Playing to the base, pretty much sums up the strategy here. The conservative wing, and especially the Tea Party people, don't like singling out any group for special protections, because they argue that they aren't justified, I have seen some in the LGBT Community argue the same. I don't buy it, myself. How many non gays and non trans folk get tied behind trucks and dragged to death? How many get shot or stabbed "just because?" That's what special protections are meant to prevent. Passing the bill with the protections for the LGBT Community won't stop the attacks, but we have to try just the same.

HUGS

Carolyn Marie

[Guest TracieV3]

Playing to the base, pretty much sums up the strategy here. The conservative wing, and especially the Tea Party people, don't like singling out any group for special protections, because they argue that they aren't justified, I have seen some in the LGBT Community argue the same. I don't buy it, myself. How many non gays and non trans folk get tied behind trucks and dragged to death? How many get shot or stabbed "just because?" That's what special protections are meant to prevent. Passing the bill with the protections for the LGBT Community won't stop the attacks, but we have to try just the same.

HUGS

Carolyn Marie

Well to be far it is more of "don't want to single out any classes for preferential treatment" because said laws will be used as justification to politically target them for censorship and other forms of harm.

And they are pro-gun ownership and pro-self-defense.

Lets be honest, this county suffers from classism and racism. Where some groups are give preferential treatment by law based on their group or race, while others are denied opportunities by those same laws because of their group or race.

I have been personally hurt by those laws, so I understand where they are coming from.

[Guest Sarah Faith]

Sarah, you make some good points. this will hurt ALL women. Wonder what they'll do when

one of their wives or daughter are victims of violence. Sarah, the reason you left the republican

party is similar to why I left the democratic party. they don't listen to the people, just their corporate

backers and lobbyists.

Sadly yes, I don't have faith in either party at this point. They are in it for them selves at this point, and that really saddens me but I guess it doesn't really surprise me at all.

Playing to the base, pretty much sums up the strategy here. The conservative wing, and especially the Tea Party people, don't like singling out any group for special protections, because they argue that they aren't justified, I have seen some in the LGBT Community argue the same. I don't buy it, myself. How many non gays and non trans folk get tied behind trucks and dragged to death? How many get shot or stabbed "just because?" That's what special protections are meant to prevent. Passing the bill with the protections for the LGBT Community won't stop the attacks, but we have to try just the same.

HUGS

Carolyn Marie

Well to be far it is more of "don't want to single out any classes for preferential treatment" because said laws will be used as justification to politically target them for censorship and other forms of harm.

And they are pro-gun ownership and pro-self-defense.

Lets be honest, this county suffers from classism and racism. Where some groups are give preferential treatment by law based on their group or race, while others are denied opportunities by those same laws because of their group or race.

I have been personally hurt by those laws, so I understand where they are coming from.

In some ways I agree that preferential protections can and in some cases will be abused.

Unfortunately violence against transwomen hits a little close to home for me. I'm sure you've all heard of Angie Zapata my cousins both actually went to school with her, I had actually come out that summer and my cousins had told me a great deal about her. It was extremely shocking when I found out a few months later she had died, even more so when I found out she was murdered for being a transwoman. She was murdered just because some guy couldn't handle the idea that the woman he had sexual relations with was actually transgendered. The brutality of the murder still bothers me today even though I didn't even actually know her personally, the fact that it was a friend of my cousin made it feel disturbingly close to home.

Colorado is a pretty open minded state, and Transgendered people are a protected class under hate crime laws here.. Yet I have still heard people defend her killer by saying she brought it on her self for not being open about it to begin with, when there is absolutely no justification for murder. Thanks to hate crime protection her killer was the first person prosecuted for hate crimes against a transwoman and he is now in prison for life.

Frankly transsexuals are some of the most vulnerable people in our society, there are still many people out there who see a transperson and completely dehumanize them. I don't like preferential treatment for anyone, but at the same time as a society people need to understand that behavior is completely unacceptable.

[Sally]

I am not surprised at all, very little surprises me anymore other than a politician making good sense or an Oil Company Executive treating anyone as more important than his money.

There is one very simple way to avoid the need for special protections for an specific group but it will never happen.

If everyone had the same human rights as everyone else they would all have the same protection, without these sort of laws to deal with a good deal of the anger against one group or another would be alleviated.

Why won't this ever happen - no one wants to give up privilege and most want to have not legislated equality but legislated superiority.

Boils down to the simplest motivator in the world - greed, for money, power or position it is all the same - most people do not strive for equality but for superiority and the class struggles continue.

Love ya,

Sally

[Guest KimberlyF]

What happened in 2012 is the Dem Senate passed its version of a bill and the Rep House passed its version. Then rather than compromise, it died.

Politics in the 21st century.

"Fist enacted in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act failed to be reauthorized by Congress due to Republican opposition for the first time in its history."

If the Senate accepted the House's bill from last year, which was much like the act from 2011, it would have been reauthorized. Both sides opposed each other and nothing got done. Don't see that happening every day.

How is that budget coming?

As for VAWA, this is not about people being dragged behind a truck. It is about domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking. From day 1 it has covered everyone, including men.

So yes, if a gay man beat a gay man in 2010, it would have fallen under VAWA.

By singling groups out it does not make any individual any safer but it does surprisingly open the federal wallet up to certain community orgs who are more likely to throw their weight certain ways come Election Day.

Yes, I've read the Bills

[Guest LizMarie]

Here is why we need individual protections: Meet Kevin, the Gay Lama Farmer From Kentucky.

I want you to understand WHY we need to lobby for protections. Because when there are no specific protections, those people who say we don't need protections pull exactly that sort of crap. The argument that we should be all treated equally gets shoved under the bus when it allows a majority to discriminate against a minority. That man was fired because he is gay. The state supreme court recognizes that he was fired just because he was gay but their rationale is that the law extends no protection for that.

Anyone arguing the nice ivory tower "we don't need individual protections" are ignoring actual real world cases like the one I just linked. The lawyers clearly state if the law does not explicitly protect something then it is not protected.

The position that we do not need special protections is therefore flawed. We do need special protections, precisely from that sort of bigotry.

[Guest KimberlyF]

These are some examples of the orig bill that became law and how it's language covers everyone.

Page 8

STALKING.The term stalking means engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to

(A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others; or

(B ) suffer substantial emotional distress.

---No talk of sexual preference or gender ID but notice in this woman's bill the use of 'his or her'.

Page 11

(8) NONEXCLUSIVITY.Nothing in this title shall be con-

strued to prohibit male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking from receiving benefits and services under this title.

---It covers everyone. Even guys. Look up all the definitions and how they define relationships and dating.

And my favorite part:

(32) UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS.The term underserved

populations includes populations underserved because of geographic location, underserved racial and ethnic populations, populations underserved because of special needs (such as lan- guage barriers, disabilities, alienage status, or age), and any other population determined to be underserved by the Attorney General or by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as appropriate.

---What this means is the Dems could have passed the Repubs bill last year, and then Obama's Atty General or Sec of health and Human Services could determine that the LGBT community was an 'Underserved Population' and it would have the same effect as if the Senate's version of the law was passed.

But this isn't about what is doing what is right for you. This is about getting you to believe that each of these lawmakers voted for you and the other guys go back and say they voted against you.

When Pelosi and the Dems in the House voted against what was the same bill that had passed since Clinton was in office cause they liked the Senate version better, a law many of them had supported in the past, were they playing partisan politics, or were they really voting against women? Hmmm. I wonder.

At the end of the day, they all hang out at the Congressional gym together.

[Guest LizMarie]

You, as a layman, can make whatever claims you want, Kimberly. I just cited an actual court case, not about VAWA specifically but demonstrating how hollow the right wing's loud screams about "equal protection" truly are. They say one thing then a red state/red state supreme court turns that logic on its head to support discrimination.

You can argue about ivory tower ideals that you think should apply but pretty clearly, the lawyers and the judges in that case disagreed, which conclusively proves that any time something remains unstated, a bigot will try to run with it.

[Guest KimberlyF]

You, as a layman, can make whatever claims you want, Kimberly. I just cited an actual court case, not about VAWA specifically but demonstrating how hollow the right wing's loud screams about "equal protection" truly are. They say one thing then a red state/red state supreme court turns that logic on its head to support discrimination.

http://www.kentucky.com/2008/08/07/482302/registered-democrats-up-for-a.html

This chart is up till 2008. The number of registered Dems in the state of KY never dipped below 57%. How much room does that leave for registered Republicans?

You can see this played out in the elections as KY has had 1 Republican Gov in the past 40 years I believe.

They do vote in state elections for Dems and Federal elections for Reps.

Who is responsible for the Good State of Kentucky being one of 39 states? Did the Feds pass laws that only work in 11 states or did the 11 states pass laws?

Did these 36 of 40 years of Dem Govs appoint a Right Wing Supreme Court?

[Guest Mia J]

I saw this a couple of days ago and really was not surprised. They had refused to renew it last year so what should we expect.

Mia

[Guest LizMarie]

Address the court case, Kimberly. Address that court case where a discrimination is not explicitly stated therefore the state supreme court allowed it to stand. That case demonstrates the flaw in the argument of equal protection.

Second, I never said anything about the Democrats. I said Kentucky is a red state. That is all I said and it is. It went red last election and has several times. Five of six US house representatives are Republicans. Both senators are conservative Republicans. So while there are large numbers of "registered Democrats", voting trends in the state go Republican for national offices. Your argument about percentage of population being registered Democrats also ignores a statistically demonstrable tendency by the Republican party to abuse redistricting powers and gerrymander more and more state elections. That is precisely why the Republicans now want to change state electoral vote counts to be by number of districts won, not total vote. So the percentage of voters argument is far more complicated than you allude.

Finally, the Supreme Court in Kentucky is not appointed. It is elected. The governors had no role in which justices sit on that court, therefore the governor argument is a non sequitur.

So back to the court case that demonstrates the need for explicitly stated protections. Address that, please.

[Guest KimberlyF]

Does anyone have a link to the llama case? Not an interview w/the guy, but the case itself. Without reading an actual case it's hard to comment much.

The Equal Protection clause in the Constitution has been violated by the State of KY how exactly?

Someone in KY can now be fired for being gay, too fat, having bad breath, liking the wrong football team, not liking football, being ugly, being too pretty, being short, and on and on. In other words anyone can be fired for any reason. Nobody would argue that any of these are good things. But what it does do is meet the criteria of the Equal Protection Clause.

"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Anyone, even gay llama farmers can be fired for any reason.

[Drea]

I just cited an actual court case, not about VAWA specifically but demonstrating how hollow the right wing's loud screams about "equal protection" truly are.

Address the court case, Kimberly. Address that court case where a discrimination is not explicitly stated therefore the state supreme court allowed it to stand. That case demonstrates the flaw in the argument of equal protection.

What court case is this referring too? I only saw the facebook statement by Kevin. I would like to really know what the case was rather than just someone's rant about their case being thrown out.

How many non gays and non trans folk get tied behind trucks and dragged to death? How many get shot or stabbed "just because?"

Plenty non gay, non trans have been subject to such. I really find it offensive to claim that such things only happen to gay and trans people.

I my opinion extending protections to one group for things such as harassment by its very nature means it is okay to harrass anyone who is not in the protected group. ANY human being is subject experiencing harassment and in ALL cases there should be recourse.