Cross-posted at http://www.tips-q.com/838745-tony-perkins-continues-lie-about-hate-crimes-legislation
H.R. 1913 – "To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes". – is limited to violent crime. Furthermore, it contains the following:
"Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."
In spite of that, Tony Perkins, head of Family Research Council refuses to allow the facts to get in the way of his bigotry towards gay people and his agenda of hate. He sent out the following email:
Hate Crimes Legislation to Silence You!
The enactment of so-called "hate crimes" legislation is a long stated objective of the homosexual agenda.
What "hate crimes" legislation does is lay the legal foundation and framework for investigating, prosecuting and persecuting pastors, business owners, and anyone else whose actions reflect their faith.
The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark-up the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 this Wednesday, April 22. They need to hear from you.
Tony has a new website with the remarkable domain name http://www.fighthatecrimes.com/ According to the site:
... we urge you to actively oppose all "hate crimes" bills which allow federal prosecution for crimes based on "actual or perceived" sexual orientation.
Hate Crimes legislation is ultimately a Thought Crime law, allowing citizens to be prosecuted for their religious beliefs.
FALSE — That's a Lie
Hate Crimes legislation is a violation of our First Amendment rights of Free Speech and Free Exercise of Religion.
FALSE — That's a Lie
Hate Crimes legislation creates a special class of people based on their "sexual orientation" or "gender identity."
FALSE — That's a Lie
The Constitutional rights of pastors and religious individuals to peacefully disagree on issues of sexual orientation should be protected.
FALSE — That's a Lie
The future of America is in your hands. Please stop this discriminating legislation from passing.
FALSE — That's a Lie
The Boston Globe has it as "A strange dual citizenship for gay couples".
But imo neither of these titles really lets loose on the reality involved- that while there are now a handful of places where LGBTQ folks have more rights that others, including Massachusetts where equal marriage has been in existance since 2004, there is still not a single place in America where their rights are equal to mine, as a straight married woman. And that is WRONG.
Whatever its title, the column can be found below the fold...
They are not the only married couple in America who talk about taxes and ulcers in the same sentence. Nor are they the only couple who believe they are paying more than they should. On that ground they are part of a noisy majority.
But they are a couple for whom tax season also entails an identity crisis. You see, Melba Abreu and Beatrice Hernandez file state taxes as what they are - a legally married Massachusetts couple. But under federal law, they have to file federal taxes as what they aren't - two single women.
This identity crisis is not just some psychological blip on the cheerful landscape of their family life. In the last four years, the government's refusal to consider them a married couple has cost the writer and the CFO of a nonprofit about $5,000 a year. As Beatrice puts it, "We don't know anyone for whom $20,000 and counting isn't significant."
This is one reason they joined seven other married couples and three surviving spouses last month in bringing a legal complaint against DOMA, the law that deliberately denies federal benefits to same-sex marriages. The other plaintiffs include a postal worker who can't get health coverage for her spouse, a widower ineligible for higher Social Security benefits, and a couple who can't get a passport under their married name.
The suit is not just timely because we all share a certain post-tax traumatic stress syndrome. But we have just doubled the number of states in which same-sex couples can be legally married. First, Iowa jo ined Massachusetts and Connecticut. Then Vermont followed with the first legislative approval. And a bill was just introduced in New York, where people cringe to find themselves lagging behind Iowa.
This is all part of a careful state-by-state strategy. But as a side effect, it's producing more Americans with a strange dual citizenship: married in the eyes of Iowa, single in the eyes of Washington. Eligible for a pension, healthcare, family leave in the eyes of the state; ineligible in the eyes of the feds.
DOMA is doing it. The so-called Defense of Marriage Act passed in the panic of 1996 when it looked as if Hawaii would become the first state with gay marriage. The purpose was as obvious and discriminatory as Representative Henry Hyde's declaration that DOMA was to express "disapprobation" for homosexuality.
The day that it passed, Dean Hara remembers deliberately going to have dinner in the members' lounge with his longtime partner, Representative Gerry Studds ofds of Massachusetts, to face down his colleagues. Now, 13 years later, after their marriage and Studds's death, Hara is denied congressional survivor's annuities of $60,000 a year.
Much has changed since 1996. Even former representative Bob Barr, who wrote DOMA, now disavows it.
GLAD, the gay rights group that brought the marriage case to the Massachusetts court, is arguing on pretty narrow grounds. "In our system," says Mary Bonauto of GLAD, "the states decide who gets married. It's a violation of equal protection to deny recognition of marriages of same-sex couples validly licensed by their state."
"Our case does not seek to marry any more people," she adds carefully. "It's about how the federal government is dealing with people already married by their states."
But this is also a next step, the first direct confrontation with a federal law against gay marriage.
There is still enormous controversy around this issue, as well as setbacks - such as Proposition 8 in California. But in the glacial scheme of social change, attitudes are evolving at whitewater speed. Civil unions were once radical, now they are the conservative default position. The scare tactics of 1996 are the satires of 2009.
Did you see the current ad against same-sex marriage that puts zombies on parade uttering dire warnings? - "There is a storm gathering. The clouds are dark and the winds are strong. And I am afraid." It got laughed out of the news when the audition tape for the actors became a YouTube sensation.
So what do you say about an out-of-date law that enforces an identity crisis? What do you say about a law that "defends" marriage by denying it? The winds are blowing, but in a very different direction.
The stage was set up way to the front of the west capitol steps rather than near the steps, which crowded the audience into a much smaller space. Figures; it made 5,000 people (guestimate based on number of rows times number of people in the third from the back row, which I cut through to get out of the crowd) feel more like 10,000 because the crowd area was small and packed.But the fun part is that Kel received a classic voicemail from an irate female teabagger.Second, this was all about the over-40 white people (only person of color I saw in the whole place who wasn't wearing a police uniform was a brave Black man on a bicycle who rode by with a "Fox Sucks" sign shouting "Fox can teabag me!"). Men outnumbered women about three to one.
Third, there was plenty of wingnuttery: the usual "Abolish the IRS" and "Return to the gold standard," as well as one guy who kept saying, "They're committing treason. Hang 'em all!"
Fourth, nobody seems to grasp that the Obama administration was not the author of TARP. They seem to have forgotten that a Bush administration ever existed, and the anger at President Obama ranged from the usual accusations of socialism (except for the guy with a sign equating him to Hitler-I think that's an accusation of n of fascism) to several signs with variations of "OBAMA: One Big Awful Mistake, America."
Uh, yeah, Kel, my name is Liz and I was at the same Sacramento tea party you were. And I don't know what the hell you're talking about about the black stuff, you're probably black yourself, I guess. I don't know whether you're some kind of hate monger ... maybe goes with your last name, Munger.Click over for his reply. Below the fold, KO and Janeane Garofalo gab about teabagger bigots.Anyway, as far as the black people showing up, there were quite a few black people and they were probably intelligent ones that weren't home on welfare where the rest of 'em probably were, and a lot of hispanics that we're paying for that are illegally here. So next time you write an article you better write it right because there was a black man that sung the tea party song in case you missed that one, and there was also a black guy from Hollywood, a comedian, who was up there speaking to the crowd.
The next time you decide to write your slanted view get your fucking facts straight you fucking asshole.
Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo discussed this phenomenon of teabaggers who are so upset by Barack Obama "presidenting while black" that these events are serving as their outlet to vent their overflowing sense that white privilege is under assault. Nah, those teabaggers weren't racist....
GAROFALO: They don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of tea bagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And, you know, you can tell these type of right-wingers anything and they'll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become-it's like showing Frankenstein's monster fire. They become confused, angry, highly volatile.
That guy caused in them feelings they don't know because of their limbic brain-we've discussed before, the limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist - - the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person. And it is pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring.
Is Bernie Goldberg listening? Bernie might not have heard this when I said this the first time. So, Bernie, this is for you. It is a neurological problem that we're dealing with.
OLBERMANN: Well, what do you do about it, though? I mean, our friend in Pensacola there, who played them like a three dollar fiddle.
GAROFALO: Yes.
OLBERMANN: And led them right down the garden path with nothing but facts, and then they went, wait a minute, that doesn't sound like Rike Rush Limbaugh. If you can't-
GAROFALO: Right.
OLBERMANN: If you can't get them to make that last leap to what are we all doing here, Howard Johnson is wrong.
GAROFALO: Yes.
OLBERMANN: How do you break through that?
GAROFALO: I don't think you do, for most of them. This is a pathological-it's almost pathological or elevated to a philosophy or lifestyle. Again, this is about racism. It could be any issue, any port in a storm. These guys hate that a black guy is in the White House, but they-they immigrant bash. They pretend taxes and tea bags-like I said, most of them probably couldn't tell you thing one about taxation without representation, the Boston Tea Party, British imperialism, whatever the history lesson has to be.
But these people always-unless there's some people with Stockholm Syndrome.
OLBERMANN: I didn't see them. They were in the back. They weren't near the cameras, which is bad strategy on the part of the people staging this at Fox.
GAROFALO: True. And Fox News loves to foment this anti-intellectualism. That is their bread and butter. If you have a cerebral electorate, Fox News goes down the toilet very, very fast. It is sick and sad to see Neil Cavuto doing this. They're been doing this for years. That's why Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch started this venture, is to disinform and to coarsen and dumb-down a certain segment of the electorate.
But what is really-I didn't know there were so many racists left. I didn't know that. As I said, the Republican hype in the conservative movement has now crystallized into the white power movement.
OLBERMANN: Is that not a bad long-term strategy. Even though-your point is terrifying there are that many racists left.
GAROFALO: Right.
OLBERMANN: The flip side of it is there aren't that many racists left.
GAROFALO: You're the minority, literally tens of people showed up to this thing across the country.
OLBERMANN: But if you spear your television network or your political party towards a bunch of guys who are just looking for a reason to yell at the black president, eventually you will marginalize yourself out of market, won't you?
GAROFALO: No. Here's what the right-wing has-there are no shortages of the natural resources of ignorance, apathy, hate sphere. As long as those those things are in the collective conscious and unconscious, the Republicans will have some votes, and Fox News will have viewers. What else have they got. If they didn't do that, who's going to watch?
I mean, they have tackled that elusive clam-I said clam-you know, the clam demo, the 18 to 35 clam demo. Klan, with a K, demo. Who else is Fox talking? What is it, urban older white guys, and the girlfriend-you know, the women who suffer from Stockholm Syndrome again. There's a lot of Stockholm Syndrome, is what I'm saying, ultimately.
What else you got? What do you want to know?
OLBERMANN: What if somebody was at one of these things hurts somebody.
GAROFALO: That is an unfortunate byproduct, since the dawn of time, of a volatile group like this of the limbic brain. Violence, unfortunately, may or may not ensue. It depends on immigrant bashing and hating the black guy in the White House. Will people act on that? It's not new. But, you know, Fox doesn't mind fomenting it. Michelle Bachmann doesn't mind fomenting it. Glenn Beck doesn't mine fomenting it.
OLBERMANN: Lou Dobbs.
GAROFALO: Lou Dobbs. Oh, man. But what have they got if they don't have this? You know what I mean? It's like identity politics of the worst kind.
The lawsuit was brought forward by the Transgender Law Center on behalf of Gigi Marie Somers, a 67-year-old Kansas resident seeking to change her documentation. Read the full story at the Advocate’s web site, or read the court’s decision.
Birth certificates are often relied upon as a primary documentation resource, used by employers, creditors and the government to verify individuals’ identities. Without the ability to change their birth certificate, many transpeople are left in legal limbo, and are frequently outed by their documentation, which may not maion, which may not match their gender presentation.
Birth certificate change procedures vary from state to state, and some states don't allow any alteration to the sex listed on this critical document. This increased ease in changing birth certificate will benefit California-born transpeople across the country. Congratulations to the Transgender Law Center on this fantastic victory!
No comments:
Post a Comment