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.
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.
Incontinentia Buttocks:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:01 pm
These guys have their priorities very clear. Among them are, in rough order:
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!
Mudge:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:09 pm
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.
cpinva:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:18 pm
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?
Speak Truth:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:18 pm
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.
cpinva:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:20 pm
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?
c u n d gulag:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:21 pm
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.
cpinva:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:23 pm
and a troll with his brain removed is the scarecrow:
“A Man with his penis removed is not a woman.”
cpinva:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:25 pm
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.”
Mudge:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:26 pm
Yes.
Karate Bearfighter:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:27 pm
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.
Karate Bearfighter:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:28 pm
(This was in response to Mudge’s comment above.)
DrDick:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:29 pm
Frankly, I am shocked that they allowed the tribal courts jurisdiction over non-Indian men.
Hogan:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:34 pm
Ah, but there’s an alternative!
sharculese:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:45 pm
With the exception of the title, VAWA is gender neutral.
sharculese:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:47 pm
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.
calling all toasters:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:50 pm
“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.
sharculese:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:50 pm
Fun fact: in 1870s, courts suddenly became a lot more willing to allow prosecutions for spousal violence. I’m sure you can guess why.
DrDick:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:53 pm
A dickless, bedwetting troll is, however, still a dickless, bedwetting troll.
sharculese:
February 22nd, 2013 at 4:59 pm
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?
Benjamin:
February 22nd, 2013 at 5:02 pm
No, it’s transparent parody: Massachusetts doesn’t have any Republican congressmen.
Erik Loomis:
February 22nd, 2013 at 5:05 pm
I don’t know much about this. Can you suggest any literature or websites or anything so I can look into this a bit?
sharculese:
February 22nd, 2013 at 5:37 pm
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.
MAJeff:
February 22nd, 2013 at 5:42 pm
The depth of GOP hatred for LGBT people never ceases to astound.
Mudge:
February 22nd, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Thanks. There are nuances of which I was unaware.
STH:
February 22nd, 2013 at 7:00 pm
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.
cpinva:
February 22nd, 2013 at 7:09 pm
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.
cpinva:
February 22nd, 2013 at 7:12 pm
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.”
Rhino:
February 22nd, 2013 at 8:01 pm
I thought it pretended in order to get more cybersex with unsuspecting men?
Eggomaniac:
February 22nd, 2013 at 9:10 pm
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.
Pestilence:
February 22nd, 2013 at 9:21 pm
And actually hate quite a lot of everyone who is them, on top of it.
Malaclypse:
February 22nd, 2013 at 9:58 pm
Jennie is ALL MAN. If his daddy beat anything into him, it was that.
Malaclypse:
February 22nd, 2013 at 10:05 pm
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.
Joe:
February 23rd, 2013 at 10:50 am
book looks interesting regardless
Joe:
February 23rd, 2013 at 10:53 am
Sadly to be expected.
LosGatosCA:
February 23rd, 2013 at 11:33 am
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.