Breaking: Fed Hate Crimes bill in jeopardy; contact your Senator now

Isn't this part of the President's legislative agenda?

Shouldn't he be making the kind of effort for this that he made for the bailiout and for exec bonuses?

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 14:01:02 PM CDT

Yes he should

If he is a truly a fierce advocate, his people should be working the lines NOW and his people should be using the bully pulpit NOW!

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 14:12:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He doesn't have a legislative agenda...

Seems like he's the prez and passes law making off on Congress without and nudging or support.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 14:33:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Screw These People!

Again we give them our trust, and again they fuck us over. It's time to not just turn off the gAyTM, it's time to pull it out of the wall and publicly throw it in the river.

In my opinion, no one who really cares about LGBT equality should be giving one dime to the homo/transphobic DNC or to any elected official who's still content to place politics above people.

Enough pussyfooting. It gets us nowhere. Money is the only language these people understand, so let's deliver the message in terms so clear and concise even a federal politician can understand it:

Democrats, you want OUR support?

We say "You first!"

No justice, no cash!

Rebecca Juro  

---

by: Beckygrrl @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 14:01:32 PM CDT

You could do that...

if you are a single issue voter. However most people vote and support candidates based on a spectrum of issues.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 14:05:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So...

...how would you go about it? Why on earth should our community reward not only bad behavior but a consistent pattern of bad behavior stretching over decades?

Democrats have done nothing to earn our trust, and in fact, just about every time they take action on anything of significant import to our community they prove once again that even with a supportive President and strong majorities in both houses of Congress, the Dems are still just as spineless on LGBT rights as they've ever been.

To continue giving these people money is to continue to reward political cowardice, actively fund our own oppression, and help to ensure that LGBT Americans will continue to be seen legally as second-class citizens for a long time to come.

I refuse to continue funding my own oppression through donations to the Democratic Party and urge every one else to do the same.

Rebecca Juro  

---

by: Beckygrrl @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 14:15:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not being single issue voters

has gotten us nothing;

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 14:19:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So let's consider more issues --

...like union and workers' rights (Dems are lukewarm at best), real universal healthcare (Obama and most Dems are against it), refraining from illegal wars, occupations, torture and slaughter of civilians (Dems have another slight advantage over Republicans here), promotion of progressive taxation (another hair-splitting contest), keeping politics secular (again...), effective approaches to dealing with racism (um...not so much).

You're right, being a single-issue voter is a bad idea -- it makes it look like supporting the Dems might be worthwhile if they stopped backstabbing LGBT people.

---

by: M @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 15:05:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No one answered the phone at Mary Landreiu's office, but I emailed.

Vitter would be a waste of effort

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 14:01:35 PM CDT

already

I emailed both my senators about ten days ago concerning this.  That was at least twice I have contacted them on this most recent bill concerning hate crimes.  I will be very disappointed if this bill dies.  And I will be angry if my senators (Byrd & Rockefeller) enable its demise.  This legislation is long overdue.

---

by: Passionforprog @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 14:02:46 PM CDT

I'm actually surprised

by Dick Durbin's response to this. Illinois already has robust hate crimes statues that cover sexual orientation. Where exactly is this thinking coming from?

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 14:03:21 PM CDT

Yeah, I have to charge my phone

and give the Senator's office a call, although I want to know what he is specifically saying.

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 14:05:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was at the hearing and...

Dick Durbin was asking a question that was in response to all of the phone calls his office was receiving regarding  the question; 'how will it effect religious hate speech?" Will religious haters still be protected? And the answer is 'YES" hate all you want, just don't do physical harm and your ok. So how about WE be the zillion phone calls these offices are receiving for once??? Come on people, pick up the phone, you can do it!!!! No more complaining when we allow others to dictate our lives. We have no one else to blame but ourselves!!

Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving."
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton

---

by: T2inDC @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 15:50:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

With my senators being Snowe and Collins

I must say, it's a f*cking odd position to be in here...

---

by: Louise @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 14:06:42 PM CDT

WTF??!!

What happened to Dick Durbin? I hope all the Illinois Blenders ask him why he's so "confused" about basic legal protection.

Meanwhile, I'll have to send another message to my Senators asking them WTF is going on with the Matthew Shepard Act.

Want to save marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how! ;-)

---

by: atdnext @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 14:44:11 PM CDT

baffled

How can Harry Reid not have the votes for this bill?

I'm truly baffled.

Didn't this bill pass Congress last legislative session? Didn't we exponentially increase our leads in Congress this legislative session? And suddenly they can't pass it? WTF is going on here?

First off, Harry Reid needs to be fired. His home state may take care of that. Second off, why the hell have the Democrats not put more pressure to get Al Franken seated? There's another vote -- on this issue and many others. Finally, is Harry Reid operating under the failed impression that it takes 60 votes to pass bills in the Senate? Perhaps, if Reid dared Republicans to filibuster... they just may not last that long. Let them stand up to America and explain why it's okay to deny basic rights to glbt brothers and sisters. It's a political loser -- for the Republicans.  

---

by: RyansTake @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 14:51:00 PM CDT

Won't Happen.

I'm in Nevada, and I don't know if he's got pictures of half the state en flagrante with a goat or something, but he keeps getting re-elected.  I've always lent whatever support I can to his opponents in this state, and it never seems to work...

---

by: sfalken @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 15:51:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can't we at least

get rid of him as senate majority leader? I find it odd that that should hinge completely on his ability to be reelected.

Fetch my pearls, I need to clutch them!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 18:01:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Call Harry Reid and ask him....

yourself. Your allowed. This is your government. You voted people in office for a reason and if they are not living up to your expectations let them know. Ask them about their position and why they are doing what they are doing in regard to this legislation. They work for you. Keep the pressure up!  

Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving."
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton

---

by: T2inDC @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 15:54:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Heh

I call or write both my Senators on pretty much a weekly basis, depending on what's going on.  Just so happens that neither of them seem to be all that responsive to their constituents.  My Representative (Dean Heller) is far more responsive, and will actually engage in dialogue on the issues when he can, and even though I disagree with him alot of the time, I do wish Reid and Ensign were much more like him.

---

by: sfalken @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 16:38:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Excellent!

Thank you. It might not seem to make a difference but it does. We just need others to join us in this effort!

Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving."
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton

---

by: T2inDC @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 17:55:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dick Durbin knows better, so must be doing this for his pal Obama

Illinois has had hate crimes law protecting sexual orientation for awhile now and his constituents support this by and overwhelming majority. He knows exactly what these laws do, and that there is no inhibition of free speech

The only reason for him to do this is to help out Obama, Obama doesn't want it to pass, but he can't say anything negative himself or he would suffer politically, Obama must act like he's not against it, while simultaneously not promoting it either. While his proxies bring up stupid reasons not to pass it, so that when it's dropped, the mindless can think that it was a bad bill that had first amendment issues, and not that the Democratic Party doesn't want to pass gay rights legislation.  

---

by: pataphysician @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 14:55:03 PM CDT

With all respect to Bilerico, I want a second source on this

Personally, I don't have a problem passing legislation in the US Senate as an amendment to an appropriations bill (whether Defense, or any other).  It keeps the legislation away from a time-consuming filibuster busting votes (even though they have the votes to invoke cloture on this topic/bill).

The hate crimes bill did technically "die in conference" last time, but that was with a President Bush admin in on the negotiations.  And I'm sure it was a back-room agreement to pass the legislation (Senate and House) in return for it being left out of the conference report...last time.

Anybody else got a source on this and/or a good reason it shouldn't fly as an amendment to a larger bill?

---

by: HunterC @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 14:59:21 PM CDT

Verification, please ...

other than "a well-placed source on Capital[sic] Hill".

Can we quote a senator or mainstream media source? Why the secrecy?

I remember a lot of comments about verifying information before passing it on after the "Raychel" debacle. Didn't some people contact their representatives in Congress to stress the need for the Federal Hate Crimes Bill when we heard about Raychel?

Gimme proof, please -- I learned my lesson.

---

by: Cathy Cat @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 15:46:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I also know the source

and this person in a professional position to know why the bill is in jeopardy as a rider. Yes, the logic of the bill as a rider in the abstract makes more sense than a standalone (personally I'd like to see a standalone to see how many spines are in the Senate, but passing is of more importance). However if defense spending is in a tug of war between parties, the bill may go down because of that, taking hate crimes with it. That's the theory at work here.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 17:56:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm surprised at you guys; Durban was clearly

trying to get Holder to clearly state that the bill would not affect pastors and thereby defuse the one main concern that most opponents of this have. He wasn't actually concerned himself, he was acting like a lawyer, giving Holder a chance to categorically deny all possible ways a pastor could get in trouble.

---

by: brunonian @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 15:00:33 PM CDT

OK I agree now, just saw the video

here's the video
http://judiciary.senate.gov/he...

then click webcast

This AP story is bad reporting, Holder is unfortunately not very good at making his arguments when he was talking with Jeff Sessions. Durbin then asks his question to make Holder clarify that indeed the Law would not affect acts that are purely speech and involve no other criminal acts, which had gotten a little muddy, during Sessions BS questioning.

---

by: pataphysician @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 15:37:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not very good

or under orders from the White House?

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 15:39:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My Guess is Holder didn't prepare

Meaning this is not a priority piece of legislation to him.

Sessions successfully got the better of him(and Sessions is an idiot), and he never realized the point Sessions was trying to make, by trying to compare similar situations that were not actually exactly the same. Unfortunately Durbin came latter, and though he does clear up some issues. He does not address this other issue Sessions was making.

So Sessions outwitted Holder and got him, unbeknown to Holder to make a point that the new law would give gays special rights over other protected classes.

Sessions gave an example of a gay man speaking out for gay rights at a town meeting, being physically attacked by someone who also used anti-gay epithets while attacking. Holder answered correctly that this might be a Hate crime, but they would have to look at the details of intent.

Later Session gives a similar example, but the person is espousing their religious belief in the sin of homosexuality, when they are then physically attacked by a gay person. Holder answered correctly that this would not be a Hate crime, but missed why Sessions was making this argument. He actually knew, it was not one, as stated, and wanted Holder to answer this way. Holder doesn't really get what Sessions is trying to do here, so to many people this example would seem unfair and a special protection.

Holder should have made clear why the above scenario was not a Hate crime, that there was no evidence that the crime was committed because of animus towards a protected class. If the gay person had attacked the person while saying Christians or Muslims are scum, then that would have changed this to another maybe. Also, he should have been clued into this line of argument, and also said if a gay man was attacked at a town meeting after making pro-gay rights arguments, but the attacker was silent during the attack, then a Hate crime probably didn't happen either.

---

by: pataphysician @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 16:45:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Prop 8 all over again

Obama kept saying he was against Prop 8, then kept adding that "God is in the mix," quite effectively undercutting his opposition to the measure.  He stuck it to us bigtime, all the while smiling and saying he's on our side.  

This is more of the same.  He has the same Attorney General whose department has compared us to child rapists and incestuous lovers to go to the Hill to argue that we deserve to be a protected class.  Who could be surprised that the Senate doesn't buy it?  Our fierce advocate and his tools have given them all the pretext they need for doing nothing.

Not that President Bush Redux is solely to blame here.  Harry the Mormon Reid is pretty clearly taking his marching orders from his church, just as Rick Santorum took his from the US Council of Catholic Bishops.

The contention that this is a democracy and the the Constitution and Declaration of Independence actually mean something looks flimsier with each passing day.

The American people, taking one with another, are the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages.
-H.L. Mencken

---

by: QScribe @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 15:13:48 PM CDT

Ding-ding I think we have a winner

Harry the Mormon Reid is pretty clearly taking his marching orders from his church...

 

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 15:16:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mind you this could also

be coming from Josh DuBois and cohorts.

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 15:17:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Put 'em all in a hat, shake it and pull one out.

No matter which one you pick, the result will be the same.

The American people, taking one with another, are the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages.
-H.L. Mencken

---

by: QScribe @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 15:27:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

About your Steppenwolf bigotry, sir! :)

Just kidding.

Religious bigotry against our community really needs to be documented and put out into the public in a big way. Not all religions are like that, of course, but those religious people who are homobigots are now in power.  

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 15:37:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The difference between us and them....

is when they get the marching orders to call, write, fax, e-mail their lawmakers; they do it. Us? We debate each other about the pro's and con's of the effort. We are being out phone called. period. You want change? First believe you deserve it and second demand it. You may be nervous the first time you call, but then you will discover your mostly talking to the lawmakers aid (who is usually gay) and it feels good to voice your opinion. Then the flood gates open and you are comfortable calling, writing, or visiting your lawmakers office and discussing our cause. This is our country too. Who do you expect to call them on their bigotry? Let them know we are on to them. In a nice way. :)

Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving."
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton

---

by: T2inDC @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 16:07:20 PM CDT

Durbin the Diffident

After no one at Durbin's office picked up the phone today, I emailed the Senator (my Senator) to express my disappointment at Congress' failure to pass legislation addressing any injustices specifically faced by lgbt Americans, including a hate crimes bill. Since pastors who speak against other religions or races are not prosecuted under existing hate crime laws, I asked him why he thought there was any greater chance that antigay speech would be singled out for prosecution. I reminded him that homophobia does not become more justifiable just because someone claims a religious basis for his hatred, any more than religion justifies racial bigotry or sexism. I told him that his line of questioning suggested that he felt the need to cosset and pander to relgious-based homophobes, which deeply troubled me. I ended by noting that he obviously has a lot of power within the party and Congress and therefore should and will be held accountable for what happens with legislation that is designed to improve lgbt lives. I told him that I would not vote for the party again unless significant legislation on these issues passed during this Congress.

---

by: David Goroff @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 16:53:54 PM CDT

Hate to say it

Words Fail to hear this shyt from Durbin.
What I hate to say is that Michael Jackson's death is going to blur the hell out of everything. Few pople are paying attention.

---

by: Robert M @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 19:31:31 PM CDT

What Democrat hasn't figured out we're REALLY not in the mood to be F*CKED WITH?

They seem like they are in a bubble.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 23:49:02 PM CDT