On the Matthew Shepard Bill
May. 4th, 2009 08:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
iamtheenemyAttempting to crosspost to LJ and DW? IDK if I'll continue with this.
The passing of the recently amended hate crimes bill through the House of Representatives has made me pretty happy. However, unfortunately, it seems like the only comments on it that anyone is talking about are from all the crazysauce Republicans who might as well have blinking on a giant, neon sign over their heads. I don't know, maybe I need to stop watching Keith Olbermann, because the stuff that he focuses on fills me with so much rage that I don't even know what to do with myself.
Olbermann talked about Rep. Virginia Foxx, the person most of us have heard about. She had the nerve to challenge the validity of the bill by claiming that Matthew Shephard, who the bill was named after, had only been victim of a robbery, not a gay bashing.
How do these people get elected to public office? THEY PRETENDED THEY WERE GAY TO LURE HIM AWAY, BEAT HIM, TORTURED HIM AND TIED HIM, BLOODY AND HALF-DEAD, TO A FENCE FOR EIGHTEEN HOURS UNTIL HE WAS FINALLY FOUND. THEY FOUND HIM IN A GAY BAR! DID THEY THINK HE WAS LOST OR SOMETHING? ONE OF THE KILLERS, AND BOTH OF THEIR GIRLFRIENDS, ADMIT THAT THEY KNEW HE WAS GAY.
Sweet lord! Okay, I just had to erase a blatantly ageist comment that I made in the heat of being so goddamn mad about this, even four days later.
I am especially sorry if his grieving family was offended by my statement.
Judy Shepard, Matthew Shepard's grieving mother, who was in the sitting in the audience when Foxx delivered her psychotic diatribe, surprisingly, didn't accept that Heidipology.
It's apologizing for semantics but not her sentiment, her insensitivity or her ignorance.
Then yesterday, Jon Stewart highlighted a particularly rage-inducing proposal from Steve King of Iowa:
Jon Stewart: "All I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that if the gays just didn't hold hands, then they wouldn't be so damn punchable."
As an example of this, King cites getting sexual gratification from suffocation, lamenting: "One dare not assault one of those folks, or, or, um, discriminate against them in any way, because then you can be subjected to federal hate crimes legislation."
This was a SPEECH. He wrote this DOWN. On NOTECARDS. As a CONVINCING WAY to argue his case. And I repeat: HE WAS ELECTED TO THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. How does this happen? THIS PERSON IS VOTING ON LAWS THAT GOVERN MY COUNTRY.
Jon Stewart: "Whether the law passes or not - either way - you still don't get to hit them. That's Steve King, apparently complaining that this law could have a powerful, chilling effect...on assault."
I guess I should be happy - no, I mean, I am happy - that there are 215 Representatives in the House who, on this particular issue, agree with me, but man. That baby passed 215 to 175. I want to believe that most of those people are arguing that people should be punished for their actions and not their motivations - I can at least understand that argument - but I really don't believe that's the case for most of these people.
But hey, last year this kind of bill would never have gotten through the House, and certainly wouldn't have been endorsed by the President, so at least we're making some progress. Right? Right?
The passing of the recently amended hate crimes bill through the House of Representatives has made me pretty happy. However, unfortunately, it seems like the only comments on it that anyone is talking about are from all the crazysauce Republicans who might as well have blinking on a giant, neon sign over their heads. I don't know, maybe I need to stop watching Keith Olbermann, because the stuff that he focuses on fills me with so much rage that I don't even know what to do with myself.
Olbermann talked about Rep. Virginia Foxx, the person most of us have heard about. She had the nerve to challenge the validity of the bill by claiming that Matthew Shephard, who the bill was named after, had only been victim of a robbery, not a gay bashing.
I also would like to point out that there was a bill — the hate crimes bill that’s called the Matthew Shepard bill — it’s named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn’t because he was gay. This — the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it’s really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.
How do these people get elected to public office? THEY PRETENDED THEY WERE GAY TO LURE HIM AWAY, BEAT HIM, TORTURED HIM AND TIED HIM, BLOODY AND HALF-DEAD, TO A FENCE FOR EIGHTEEN HOURS UNTIL HE WAS FINALLY FOUND. THEY FOUND HIM IN A GAY BAR! DID THEY THINK HE WAS LOST OR SOMETHING? ONE OF THE KILLERS, AND BOTH OF THEIR GIRLFRIENDS, ADMIT THAT THEY KNEW HE WAS GAY.
Sweet lord! Okay, I just had to erase a blatantly ageist comment that I made in the heat of being so goddamn mad about this, even four days later.
I am especially sorry if his grieving family was offended by my statement.
Judy Shepard, Matthew Shepard's grieving mother, who was in the sitting in the audience when Foxx delivered her psychotic diatribe, surprisingly, didn't accept that Heidipology.
It's apologizing for semantics but not her sentiment, her insensitivity or her ignorance.
Then yesterday, Jon Stewart highlighted a particularly rage-inducing proposal from Steve King of Iowa:
Now, if you don't know, how can you discriminate against me? Or if I don't know, how could I, or anyone, discriminate against you? If you keep those things private, there can be no discrimination. And that's what I submit the right thing to do is when it comes to sexuality, Mr. Speaker.
Jon Stewart: "All I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that if the gays just didn't hold hands, then they wouldn't be so damn punchable."
As an example of this, King cites getting sexual gratification from suffocation, lamenting: "One dare not assault one of those folks, or, or, um, discriminate against them in any way, because then you can be subjected to federal hate crimes legislation."
This was a SPEECH. He wrote this DOWN. On NOTECARDS. As a CONVINCING WAY to argue his case. And I repeat: HE WAS ELECTED TO THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. How does this happen? THIS PERSON IS VOTING ON LAWS THAT GOVERN MY COUNTRY.
Jon Stewart: "Whether the law passes or not - either way - you still don't get to hit them. That's Steve King, apparently complaining that this law could have a powerful, chilling effect...on assault."
I guess I should be happy - no, I mean, I am happy - that there are 215 Representatives in the House who, on this particular issue, agree with me, but man. That baby passed 215 to 175. I want to believe that most of those people are arguing that people should be punished for their actions and not their motivations - I can at least understand that argument - but I really don't believe that's the case for most of these people.
But hey, last year this kind of bill would never have gotten through the House, and certainly wouldn't have been endorsed by the President, so at least we're making some progress. Right? Right?