Time for the incremental approach in Georgia!

So, a hate-crimes bill in the state of Georgia is in trouble because it includes protections for gay and lesbian people:

A bipartisan effort to restore Georgia’s hate crimes law could become bogged down in a behind-the-scenes debate over whether to include gays and lesbians in its reach, according to those familiar with the issue.

A state Senate study committee must decide by mid-January whether to proceed with the legislation, which is supported by a broad array of prosecutors, religious and civil rights groups — and GBI Director Vernon Keenan.

…

“We understand that there are legislators who are going to be more skeptical about the bill if it includes sexual orientation,” said Bill Nigut, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League. Nigut said his group nonetheless supports the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the legislation.

Sadie Fields, leader of the Georgia Christian Alliance, said she doesn’t necessarily agree with the concept behind a hate crimes measure. “We definitely would oppose any legislation that included sexual orientation,” said Fields, who spearheaded the effort to incorporate a ban on gay marriage into the state constitution in 2004.

Cathy Woolard, former president of the Atlanta City Council, is a lobbyist for Georgia Equality, an advocacy group for gays and lesbians. Woolard said she considers extending hate crime coverage to homosexuals as the primary sticking point in the Legislature. Without it, she said, “I think it would go through in a minute.”

I am very concerned about the 2.9 million African-Americans Georgians who have been homojacked and are being held hostage by far-left gay-rights activists. Not to mention 281,000 or so Asian Americans, some half-million people who speak Spanish at home, and a strong Jewish community.

The solution, as I see it, is for the gay-rights extremists to simply back down and allow the bill to go through to protect people whose national origins, ethnicities, or races place them in danger as potential victims of hate crimes.

Once the hate crimes bill is passed, it will be easy to just go back and add in gays and lesbians at a later date. When exactly did sexual orientation get added to “race, religion, …, ancestry or nation of origin?” Did any people of color actually get to have their say as to whether gays could crash the party?

Don’t get me wrong, I am all in favor of gay and lesbian rights. I just don’t know what black people or Asians or Jews or Latinos have in common with a man who wants to act like a woman and take some other man’s penis into his anus or his mouth.

It’s clear to me that the incremental approach gets results — and that’s why I can’t understand why Bill Nigut of the ADL is willing to turn his back on his Jewish brothers and sisters by supporting this homojacking.

Can’t the gays just get their own civil rights movement instead of trying to piggyback on someone else’s? Can’t they just be happy for the Asians and Latinos that they’re getting protected from hate crimes?

Why is it all-or-nothing? Isn’t it better to protect those who you can protect, rather than asking for everyone to be protected and losing it for everyone? Some have asked if perhaps gays and lesbians want Blacks and Jews to be attacked — I can’t say I am convinced of that, but what do you think?

As for me, I say “no” to the homojacking of the Georgia hate crimes bill!

…did I do that right, John?

Going to Des Moines…and NOT to Encounter Any of the Presidential Candidates

A gratuitously un-ENDA-related post.

 

I just felt compelled to mention that my partner and I ventured to Des Moines yesterday to see the touring company of Avenue Q, a wonderfully bizarre - and Tony award winning - play that we were turned on to by my dear friend Gwen Smith.

It was worth the drive - and not because we managed to avoid any sightings of Mitt’s hair and Tancredo’s xenophobia.

Remember…George Bush is only for now (I know - that’s too long, but still…).

A Letter From ‘The Coalition’

A leter from ‘The Coalition’…as channeled by Nadine Smith at Bilerico. 

To: The Gay Community
From: The Coalition
Re: Your Status

I don’t want to spoil it by copying any more of it than that.

More Conservaqueer Denial on the Half-Shill

Andrew Sullivan points to the ever-objective voices (cough, cough) of reason (hack, hack): Dale Carpenter and Chris Crain.

The former claims:

Whether Bush will actually veto the bill if it ever reaches his desk is unknown. The reasons given for a veto by OMB seem transparently thin, which suggests either that they’re a sop to religious conservatives and that Bush may sign ENDA anyway or that they’re a pretext for deep political concerns Congress simply won’t be able to allay while Bush is president. 

Only a gay male Republican would actually believe that Bush would sign ENDA.

To be fair to Carp, he also adds: “a dose of cold realism about the law’s prospects until at least 2009 has now been added to the mix.”

The latter spews:

I continue to believe there is a strong likelihood the president will not veto either the (trans-inclusive) hate crimes bill or ENDA (so long as it’s not trans-inclusive), should either reach his desk — whether solo or attached to some larger piece of legislation.  The veto threat was an easy political move to satisfy conservative rabble rousers, and in ENDA’s case seemed a direct response to the LaBarbera rally cry.

Of course, the United ENDA trans-first’ers still have a chance to beat President Bush’s advisers to the punch, and derail historic gay rights legislation because it doesn’t also expressly protect transsexuals, cross-dressers and transvestites as well.  If they succeed, whether in the House or by scaring the Senate away from the legislation, the president will owe them a debt of gratitude.

I’m filing this under satire - even though Lame Crain is, based on past experience, dead serious.

The Eye of The Peter is Upon Us

From Americans for (ha! ha! no, I can’t even type it):

Americans For Truth’s revelation that a White House official had boasted to pro-family leaders that the White House had helped craft ENDA’s religious exemption language raised concerns among pro-family groups counting on an Administration veto of ENDA. It also touched off a flurry of blog posts on the GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) side, where there is a ferocious battle taking place over ENDA. Barney Frank’s decision to back a version of ENDA that does not include “transgenders” has infuriated the pro-transsexual groups. Meanwhile, Human Rights Campaign, the country’s leading homosexual lobby group, is playing both sides of the fence — backing Frank’s compromise while publicly supporting Rep. Tammy Baldwin’s pro-transsexual amendment to H.R. 3685 to shore up its pro-”T” (transgender) credentials.

In or Out: We ARE the Weapon

Well, the Sheldon Shack sez so anyway:

Individuals with gender identity disorders still would receive protection under ENDA even though language explicitly including gender identity as a protected class has been removed from the proposed legislation.

We are the weapon - we will be the weapon - of choice by these fascism-addled christianist nutcases irrespective of the actual definitional language of whatever version of ENDA makes it through the Frankengrinder.

Why, then, is the Aravosisistic wing of the GLB world so insistent that we have a reason to actually work against ENDA rather than to work against the fascism-addled christianist nutcases who can’t stand the fact that there are any civil rights laws of any variety?

Just curious.

ENDA in the BLENDA

Lot of activity this week concerning ENDA. Of course the big story is Barney Frank’s continuing insistence on two separate bills. In a statement on the House floor yesterday, the Representative stated that he had “nothing against” transgender inclusion; he merely felt that the original bill’s stance was too wide.

Barney Frank went on to say that, while a gender-identity inclusive bill would be preferable, the American people have not been properly educated on the subject. “Oh sure,” he said, “I tape every episode of Jerry Springer I can, but not everyone has that luxury.”

He added that it might take ‘years’ for the American populace to gain a sufficient understanding of transgenderism to allow trans-inclusive laws to be feasible. This he feels is unacceptable, as he really wants to have something for President Bush to veto by the end of the year.

To that end, H.B. 3685 has been introduced to the house. It’s fairly similar to the original, the main difference being the text: “No fems, no fatties, straight-acting only, please.”

Now, Barney Frank represents Massachusetts, where gays and lesbians have enjoyed the benefits of anti-discrimination law for many years. Unfortunately, the law in question does not cover trans folk, meaning that they can still be fired, denied employment and housing, and generally tossed out on the street to freeze and starve, assuming they don’t get beaten to death first. Still, they can get married, so that’s all right.

Actually, I have to apologize—that last statement isn’t exactly true. While the law doesn’t mention gender identity, favorable court cases in the state have ruled that transgender people can pursue anti-discrimination actions against employers, provided they present being transgendered as a handicap. Rather like using the insanity plea to get off on a parking ticket.

Still, there’s reason to be hopeful. In reaction to the segregated bill, literally hundreds of local, state and national groups have risen up in protest. Even as we speak, letters are being written, phone calls are being made. Protests are planned all across the country. Activists at all levels are standing up, and making it clear that they are ready to fight, and that they will not give up until they achieve what they know in their hearts to be true. And that, no matter how powerful the adversary, they will prevail.

 

And as soon as they get done with the HRC, they’re going after congress.