Subscribe via RSS Feed

Well, The First Part Is Somewhat Surprising

[ 35 ] February 22, 2013 |

Shorter House Republicans: we will reluctantly agree to a bill to combat violence against women so long as it does nothing to help gays and lesbians.

Comments (35)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Incontinentia Buttocks says:

    These guys have their priorities very clear. Among them are, in rough order:

    Lining the pockets of the rich.

    Cutting government programs that don’t help the rich (to free up more money to go the rich).

    Invading other countries.

    Attacking (rhetorically and through legislation) immigrants.

    Attacking (rhetorically and through legislation) gays and lesbians.

    Attacking (rhetorically and through legislation) women.

    But times are changing. Once gays and lesbians were a more prominent target than immigrants. Perhaps we can look forward to a day when they’ll slip below women. After all, at least half of them don’t have ladyparts for the GOP to get all hot-under-the-collar about!

    • STH says:

      I would put attacking women higher on that list, though. That seems to be their first priority these days. I think it was a Wisconsin state legislator who said the other day that passing one of those lovely transvaginal-ultrasound-before-abortion bills was their first priority this session. I have a hard time seeing how that could be anybody’s first priority unless they just want to be an asshole.

      Come to think of it, you could simplify that list a lot by stating their goals as:

      1. Doing everything they can to help the rich.
      2. Being an asshole to everybody else.

      Or, as I usually phrase it, all they care about is money and power.

  2. Mudge says:

    I am pondering how gays (male-male relationships) would have ever been included. It would seem that only Lesbians qualify. There may be nuances of which I am unaware.

  3. cpinva says:

    do you believe gay males are incapable of physically abusing their partners? why would you think that?

    “I am pondering how gays (male-male relationships) would have ever been included. It would seem that only Lesbians qualify. There may be nuances of which I am unaware.”

    i’m really curious what your thought process on this is. to me, it would appear (and i may be wrong here) that you believe all gay males are limpwristed fashionistas, incapable of physically violent acts. surely, that can’t be the case?

    • cpinva says:

      ok, as i read your post again, i’m thinking maybe i misinterpreted it. did you mean because it’s the violence against women act, and therefore it wouldn’t apply to men, period?

    • Karate Bearfighter says:

      The VAWA has grant funding mechanisms tied to non-discrimination requirements. Many of the grant recipients provide services to domestic violence victims regardless of sex. The shelter in my small rural community (for example) receives federal grant money to pay a lawyer to help both women and men apply for domestic abuse restraining orders. Under the House version of the bill, they could turn away gay men without impacting funding.

  4. Speak Truth says:

    What a WHINER.

    Good LAWD, you get them to cave and you’re now pissed that it doesn’t bleed into every other favored group you wish to support?

    It’s a bill about WOMEN.

    A Man with a dress is not a woman. A Man with his penis removed is not a woman.

  5. c u n d gulag says:

    If VAWA was propose before 1967 (Loving v. VA), the Republicans would have wanted to exclude marriages between blacks and white.

    Well, maybe not.
    A lot of Republicans were critical in passing the CRA’s a few years before that.

    The rest wouldn’t have wanted any protection for white women, because it would put black men in a bad light.

  6. cpinva says:

    this doesn’t seem to be an issue for them now.

    “The rest wouldn’t have wanted any protection for white women, because it would put black men in a bad light.”

  7. DrDick says:

    Frankly, I am shocked that they allowed the tribal courts jurisdiction over non-Indian men.

    • Eggomaniac says:

      I don’t think they ever cared all that much. They were just using this particularly provision as an excuse for stalling.

      With wingnuts, the real reasons for opposing (or favoring) something are never the states reasons. They’re congenitally incapable of being straightfoward, except when it blurts out by accident.

      First off, there are a whole lot of religous crazies who truly believe that not only should men be permitted to “discipline” their wives and children, but that they’re failing in their Biblical obligations if they don’t beat the crap out of their spouse and children on a regular basis. These assholes really hate this bill, and Tony Perkins et alia have their cult-followers ringing the Congresscritters’ phones off the hook opposing it.

      And then you just have the Plain Old Misogynist element, who resent the idea that Teh Wimmen are getting taxpayers dollars.

      The whole tribal thing with the sober chin-scratching about legal and constitutional issues was a ginned-up cover for their real reasons for opposing the bill.

    • calling all toasters says:

      “What if pretty lady al Qaeda? What if she death panel? What if she Benghazi? Yes. In some cases, punch lady.”

      I could swear that was taken from Michele Bachmann’s stump speech.

  8. MAJeff says:

    The depth of GOP hatred for LGBT people never ceases to astound.

  9. Joe says:

    Sadly to be expected.

  10. LosGatosCA says:

    When you’re brain is wired for hate and grifting rationalized as some ‘religious’ compulsion it should be classified as a psychiatric disorder, or a disability, not as a qualifier for a leadership position in a political party.

Leave a Reply

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site