RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Man misapplies personal trauma to sexual orientation science » WND's editor fundamentally misunderstands nondiscrimination law (part 3 of 3) » Video: Why is this shockingly anti-gay (among other things) speech happening in a Connecticut public school? » Fined NY event space to host same-sex wedding receptions (*but no ceremonies for anyone) » Another day, another far-right pastor pushing Christians to civil war » Joseph Farah still clueless about nondiscrimination law » Hobby Lobby president to join extremely anti-gay activists at 'Star Spangled' event » FRC's Sprigg admits his side put up 'weak defense' in 7th Circuit » Photo: The latest totally convincing, in no way silly attempt at a meme from anti-gay Ruth Institute » AFA's Fischer: Time for Christians to 'get up in somebody's grill' like Jesus would  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

07/01/2009

Perkins: Waah! We don't get to stall this bill like we have in the past. Waah!

by Jeremy Hooper

Of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy's (R-VT) plan to finally get inclusive hate crimes legislation passes after the July 4th break, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins (or his ghostwriter) today says the following:

In a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) made no bones about his plan to fast-track the bill after the July 4th recess, bypassing the normal process. His maneuvering would mean that Republicans have relatively no input on legislation that would have sweeping consequences for churches, charities, Christians, and criminal law.

Okay, uhm:

(a) The current version of this legislation has been puttering around the legislature since 2001. The majority of those years were under complete Republican control. Not only is it ridiculous to suggest that the extremely vocal (and willfully lie-filled, ::cough:: Gohmert ::cough:: Foxx ::cough:: King) congressional conservatives of 2009 haven't had a loud voice: It's absolutely insane to act as if this matter is some newfangled bill that is getting through without GOP pushback!

(b) It's beyond belief that folks like Tony can, without any irony, detail a consequences list that is explicitly positioned around Christian churches, yet give no mind to those who would truly be affected by this bill's passage: Actual LGBT people! At best, their fallacious myopia is an act of self-absorption. At worst, their slight speaks to a cruel, callous heart with no compassion for one certain minority group with demonstrable vulnerability.

(c) Why is simple procedure always "maneuvering" when it comes from a Democratic public servant? What Leahy is seeking is the quick passage of a long overdue measure that he supports. And that's somehow shady?!

(d) Leahy's course of action is only "bypassing the normal process," if you define the normal process as being only that which pleases the minority party. For everyone else, Sen. Leahy is doing his job like a normal person.

(e) What the hell is with the image that accompanies this quip:

 Img Item Wa09G02 Normal-1

We've seen much shameless fear-mongering around this bill. But good mother of clipart-based nastiness, this usage of a dank cell to illustrate the potential elimination of rank bias still managed to shock and appall us.

(F): A generous grade for any teacher assessing Tony's demonstrated aptitude on this bill and its implications

On Hate Crimes, It's the Thought That Counts [FRC]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

It would be a very appropriate graphic iff it included another "fine print" line that alters it to say:

"Consequences for Christians; and others who commit violent hate crimes"

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jul 1, 2009 9:05:50 PM

Tony, elections have consequences.

Posted by: Mike in the Tundra | Jul 2, 2009 12:33:52 AM

Patrick Leahy is not a Republican. He's most certainly a Democrat.

Posted by: Bret | Jul 2, 2009 3:32:27 AM

What a shame that pro-hate crimes, militant anti-gay activist Tony Perkins is all fired up. I'm sure it really ruins his day when he is unable to impose his religious beliefs on others. The sad thing is that he is incapable of telling the difference between love and hate crimes even though our Lord commands him to love others. Instead, he wants us to believe that making it easier for hate crimes to occur against law-abiding, taxpaying, gay Americans is "love."

Posted by: Michael | Jul 2, 2009 6:03:59 AM

Who said he was a Republican, Bret?

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 2, 2009 7:03:57 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails