Monday, September 19, 2005

Pence Hopping Mad House Passed Hate Crimes Legislation

Indiana Rep. Mike Pence is hopping mad that the U.S. House of Representatives approved new hate crimes legislation. As Advance Indiana reported last week, a bi-partisan coalition of Democrats and 30 Republicans approved an amendment to the Children's Safety Act bill before the House of Representatives, which amended the federal hate crimes law to include bias crimes against gays and transgendered persons. All seven of Indiana's Republican members of Congress voted against the amendment, including Rep. Mike Pence.

Rep. Pence told the Washington Times that conservative House Republicans are "furious over passage last week of a bill that included an amendment expanding federal hate-crimes protections." "House conservatives barraged me with their frustration and concern over this bill," said Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, the Republican Study Commission chairman. "Our guys are starting to spoil for a fight after this bill." Pence continued, "First, we have $50 billion in new spending for Hurricane Katrina relief, with no offsets in other spending . . . Next thing, our side lets this hate-crimes amendment get into a children's protection bill because we let it come to the floor on an open rule -- a vehicle made for liberals to use."

Rep. Pence told the Washington Times that "House Republicans voted to pass the child-safety bill -- it sailed through on a 371-52 vote -- with the Conyers hate-crimes amendment attached because they wanted the children's protection portion and thought the Conyers amendment would not survive joint House-Senate conference reworking of the bill." "I voted for [the measure] thinking it would be fixed in conference," Mr. Pence said. "I hope it will, but there are rumblings that the Senate may take the bill as is and pass it and send it to the president, which would be very frustrating to a lot of us."

Advance Indiana thinks that Rep. Pence protests too much about homosexuals. Pence joined Rep. David Dreier and Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California in voting against the hate crimes amendment. Earlier this year, a D.C. area blogsite, blogactive.com, outed David Dreier and Duke Cunningham as gay men. The blogsite alleged that Dreier had carried on a long-term relationship with his male chief of staff, who is one of the highest paid staffers on Capitol Hill according to the bloggers, and that Cunningham had admitted to a gay rights lobbyist that he had been in love with another man.

Advance Indiana thinks Rep. Pence should chill out. Worse things could happen than making a statement against beating someone or killing them just because they are gay. As a fiscal conservative Advance Indiana's editor, Gary R. Welsh, would like Mr. Pence to focus on finding a solution to bringing the worst federal budget crisis in the history of our country under control. Pence's inadvertent vote in favor of the hate crimes legislation is the least of his and his House Republican colleagues' concerns.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Advance Indiana repeatedly argues that bi-partisan support is necessary in order to achieve queer equality. As proof, it once again offers up instances of individual aberration among democratic and republican electives.
In the interest of true balance, sir, you might want to remind Advance Indiana readers that it is ONLY the Republican Party that pointedly sanctions discrimination against queer citizens via its national party platform. As it is most assuredly Republican Party opportunists that viciously work to keep the queer community second class citizens.
Not until the GOP disembowels itself of this ANTI-LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL position—should anyone find the slightest bit of confidence to work from a bi-partisan mentality,IMMHO.

Your truly,
Kay

Advance Indiana said...

Kay,

You are so blinded by your own hateful and mean-spirited pursuit of liberal causes. You are so quick to condemn anyone from the Republican Party whether it is based on fact or not.Anyone who has read Advance Indiana knows that I have been extremely critical of anyone in the Republican Party who promotes gay bigotry, and for you to suggest otherwise is completely absurd. For you as a liberal Democrat to suggest that there are not people in your own party who have signed on to this agenda for political advantage is equally as absurd. Remember, only one President in the history of the United States has signed into law a measure that discriminates against gays, and that president was none other than Bill Clinton. He did it twice. First, with the effective ban on gays in the military under the Don't Ask Don't Tell law. And he did it a second time by signing the unnecessary federal Defense of Marriage Act. Also, need I remind you that the vast majority of Indiana Democratic state legislators voted for the gay marriage ban. And five of your own party's council members in Indianapolis voted against a ban on gay discrimination, including the Democratic leader of the council. But, I'm sure you don't want to be confused by the facts.

P.S. Kay--I'm surprised you and Marla weren't standing next to the Rev. Louis Farrakhan's side as he announced that the government blew up the levies in N.O. to flood all the black people--since the two of you have signed on whole-heartedly to the racial conspiracy behind Hurricane Katrina.

Kay said...

Advance Indiana said, “You are so blinded by your own hateful and mean-spirited pursuit of liberal causes.”

Kay relies: In the context of this discussion, my only pursuit is of my unalienable right to LIBERTY. If you see that as hateful and mean-spirited, I say…OH WELL

A.I. said, “You are so quick to condemn anyone from the Republican Party whether it is based on fact or not."

Kay asks: I welcome the opportunity to clarify; exactly which of my opinions (condemnations) did I not support with fact?

A.I. said, “Anyone who has read Advance Indiana knows that I have been extremely critical of anyone in the Republican Party who promotes gay bigotry, and for you to suggest otherwise is completely absurd.”

Kay points out incorrectness of A.I. statement by repeating herself, “As proof, it once again offers up instances of individual aberration among democratic and republican electives.”

A.I. said, “For you as a liberal Democrat to suggest that there are not people in your own party who have signed on to this agenda for political advantage is equally as absurd.”

Kay replies: I’m not sure what my status as a liberal democrat has to do with the point you’re trying to arrive at here. However, I will say again, that I did acknowledged the political reality of democrats voting against queer civil rights; which is why I included democrats in my original (above) statement.

A.I. said, “Remember, only one President in the history of the United States has signed into law a measure that discriminates against gays, and that president was none other than Bill Clinton. He did it twice. First, with the effective ban on gays in the military under the Don't Ask Don't Tell law...."

Kay replies: Correct. In 1993 Clinton did indeed sign the ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” compromise policy after he was refused the outright ban he preferred. That law, by the way, was crafted by Colin Powell and has since been maintained by George W. Bush despite mounting evidence of its cost effectiveness (to date, $200M) and the repeal of all sodomy laws. For those interested in further information including current proposed legislation for its repeal more can be learned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask%2C_don%27t_tell

Further, Clinton did NOT sign DOMA with an agenda of political expediency, as I believe you have suggested. Clinton repeated in a June 1996 interview with the magazine The Advocate, “I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOMA

A.I. said: “Also, need I remind you that the vast majority of Indiana Democratic state legislators voted for the gay marriage ban.

Kay agrees; what a total shame. However, as I am capable of taking into account all the facts, my point of view concerning this fact is with this in mind:

“Across all levels of the political spectrum – from congressional districts to statewide races to local precincts – openly gay and lesbian candidates and pro-gay political allies came under attack during this (2002) election cycle. Candidates became targets of gay-baiting campaign tactics and anti-gay rhetoric and those seeking support from their gay and lesbian constituents were lambasted by national right-wing ideologues.”

State by state facts concerning those attacks can be read here:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=7233

A.I. said, “And five of your own party's council members in Indianapolis voted against a ban on gay discrimination, including the Democratic leader of the council. But, I'm sure you don't want to be confused by the facts.”

Kay exclaims, excuse me!?? Advance Indiana blog titled: Star Reports Progress on Indy HRO dated Monday September 19, 2005 explained the democratic votes lost.

Further, it was the A. I. blog dated Wednesday, July 27, 2005 blog titled: Murphy’s Law: A Vote Against Gays Is Good For The GOP that reported the gay-baiting tactics of Marion County GOP chairman Mike Murphy that defeated HRO Proposal 68.

Personally, I’m much more inclined in the heat of battle to overlook efforts to dodge Gay-baiting tactics if it means surviving long enough to regroup and to fight another day…knowing full well, that the battle to correct whatever truly errant positions may have been taken will see its day during the primaries.

A.I. said, “P.S. Kay--I'm surprised you and Marla weren't standing next to the Rev. Louis Farrakhan's side as he announced that the government blew up the levies in N.O. to flood all the black people--since the two of you have signed on whole-heartedly to the racial conspiracy behind Hurricane Katrina.”

Kay wonders what this p.s. has to do with the discussion at hand (or for that matter, how you arrived at the fact that I subscribe to what you are labeling a racial conspiracy??? …) although, I’m definitely starting to suspect that perhaps it is just a failed attempt to gag her into silence with one final shake of trademark atomic pepper…lol!

However before you get too far gone with this theory please know that I have never had the pleasure of meeting, talking to, or even corresponding via private email with either Marla (Stevens?) or Louis Farrakhan. But rest assured, in the event that ever does occur I’ll be sure to pass on Advance Indiana’s comment.

That said would you now please stop deflecting the issue and comment on the point of my original post? You know, that major issue concerning how a bi-partisan mentality should be an unthinkable position given the Republican Party National Platform which absolutely endorses discrimination against all queer folk. IMMHO, an indefensible violation of an establishing principle of this country—LIBERTY! Read more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_%28United_States%29#Principles_of_the_United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
Kay

Advance Indiana said...

Kay,

Once again you are wrong. Nowhere in the Republican Party platform does is expressly call for the discrimination of gays and lesbians. In fact, the preamble restates the party's commitment to equal rights for all. Yes, it does support a constitutional ban on gay marriages--but it does not endorse discrimination in other matters such as employment and housing as you by your broad- brushed statement. The Democratic Platform does have a non-discrimination clause, but it does not affirmatively take a stand on gay marriage other than to oppose the federal amendment. It says, let the states decide the issue.

I would point out that President Bush has kept in full force and effect an executive order banning the discrimination of any federal civilian employees on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Kay said...

dis•crim•i•na•tion (dî-skrîm´e-nâ¹shen) noun
1.The act of discriminating.
2.The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3.Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice:

Sure it does, read page 83 of 92 under “Protecting Marriage.” Unless you are now argueing that denying marriage to same sex couples, via a constitutional admentment, isn’t really discriminatory??

http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf

Kay