Well, The First Part Is Somewhat Surprising

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.

35 comments on this post.
  1. Incontinentia Buttocks:

    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!

  2. Mudge:

    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:

    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?

  4. Speak Truth:

    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. cpinva:

    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?

  6. c u n d gulag:

    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.

  7. cpinva:

    and a troll with his brain removed is the scarecrow:

    “A Man with his penis removed is not a woman.”

  8. cpinva:

    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.”

  9. Mudge:

    Yes.

  10. Karate Bearfighter:

    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.

  11. Karate Bearfighter:

    (This was in response to Mudge’s comment above.)

  12. DrDick:

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

  13. Hogan:

    Ah, but there’s an alternative!

  14. sharculese:

    With the exception of the title, VAWA is gender neutral.

  15. sharculese:

    It’s a bill about WOMEN.

    It actually isn’t just about women, but thanks for telegraphing the fact that this is another subject you’re only pretending to care about so you can piss and moan about how mean the liberals are.

  16. calling all toasters:

    “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.

  17. sharculese:

    Fun fact: in 1870s, courts suddenly became a lot more willing to allow prosecutions for spousal violence. I’m sure you can guess why.

  18. DrDick:

    A dickless, bedwetting troll is, however, still a dickless, bedwetting troll.

  19. sharculese:

    Is a man who pretends to be a women on the internet because he thinks it makes his regurgitated wingnut talking points more effective a woman, though?

  20. Benjamin:

    No, it’s transparent parody: Massachusetts doesn’t have any Republican congressmen.

  21. Erik Loomis:

    I don’t know much about this. Can you suggest any literature or websites or anything so I can look into this a bit?

  22. sharculese:

    Not without consulting books that are unfortunately in another state.

    I found this article, which discusses one of the most famous cases from the period State v. Oliver, although it doesn’t seem to argue the racial angle.

  23. MAJeff:

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

  24. Mudge:

    Thanks. There are nuances of which I was unaware.

  25. STH:

    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.

  26. cpinva:

    sorry, i clearly misinterpreted your post, and took it for something other than what it was intended to be. however, as noted, the law would apply, regardless of gender.

  27. cpinva:

    in fairness, they seem to hate everyone who isn’t them. in that respect, they are consistent.

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

  28. Rhino:

    I thought it pretended in order to get more cybersex with unsuspecting men?

  29. Eggomaniac:

    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.

  30. Pestilence:

    And actually hate quite a lot of everyone who is them, on top of it.

  31. Malaclypse:

    Jennie is ALL MAN. If his daddy beat anything into him, it was that.

  32. Malaclypse:

    We almost did last time around. Thankfully, there was a libertarian spoiler. And it would be very, very wrong of me to urge all MA residents to help raise awareness of this fine conservative alternative. He’s spoiled once, let’s help him spoil again.

  33. Joe:

    book looks interesting regardless

  34. Joe:

    Sadly to be expected.

  35. LosGatosCA:

    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 comment

You must be