Matthew Shepard Act Passes in House

The Matthew Shepard Act, which would extend federal protection to LGBT victims of violence under a hate-crimes passed in the House yesterday by a 249-175 vote. This is a landmark bill that hopefully will help make sure that perpetrators of hate crimes like the men who killed Matthew Shepard in 1998. It's times like these that I'm glad that there's a 78-seat Democratic party advantage in the House. Hopefully the more problematic (and undemocratic) will pull through and rally behind the Matthew Shepard act for what it is: the next major step in civil rights.

With a bill that does nothing but protect individuals from hate-crimes based on avictim’s race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, one might wonder what those 175 representatives objected to. The answer, according to a Fox News story is that social conservatives feel that the Matthew Shepard Act chills free speech. Really? Last time I checked, tying a 21 year old boy to fence, pistol whipping him, torturing him, crushing his brain stem and leaving him to die in rural Laramie isn't free speech. Hate-crimes bills aren't designed to quash dissenting ideas, they seek to protect individuals from violent offenses based on their identity. Shame on you House Republicans. This is beyond political, its inhuman.

The far-right position that protecting people like Matthew Shepard is a bad idead isn't even as crazy as the Republican response gets. We expect more out of the party of Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck, right? An article in the Huffington Post shares the delifghtful opinion of North Carolina congresswoman Virginia Foxx that Matthew Shepard's death was all a hoax. In her alternate reality, Matthew Shepard was merely the victim of a robbery, and his death as a victim of a hate-crime was invented to further the liberal agenda and impose "oppresive" bills that protect the innocent like the Matthw Shepard Act. Though Foxx later apologized for using the word "hoax", Shepard's mother Judy wasn't exactly mollified saying: "It's apologizing for semantics, not her ignorance". Tell it like it is Judy!

In response to the passage of the Matthew Shepard Bill in the House, the always awesome Rachel Maddow had Judy Shepard on to discuss the new bill. The interview is absolutely brilliant and very moving. Check it out:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Rachel Maddow's impassioned defense of hate-crimes legislation from the segment is also perhaps the best I've ever heard:

"MADDOW: The concept behind this kind of legislation is often misconstrued but here's the deal as I understand it. The idea is that the federal Justice Department can get involved in a case to help local authorities or even to take the lead on a case if need be, in prosecuting individual serious violet crimes and murders in which the victim was selected on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, disability - the idea that crimes like that are intended not only to hurt or murder an individual, but to terrorize an entire community, and so there is a national interest in ensuring that those crimes are solved and prosecuted, particularly if local law enforcement doesn't want to because they are blinkered by the same prejudice that led to the crime in the first place."

Hate-crimes bills aren't about political corectness: this is protecting real people's lives and real endangered commmunities.

How I'm voting and Why on the California Special Election's Propositions

My recommendation for how to vote in the California special election this May is simple: NO on everything!!!

Proposition 1A: State Budget – NO

Though 1A adds 5-year taxes, it will also make permanent the many crippling budget cuts CA is making in the recession and impose a tight spending cap. We can’t afford to have our budget hobbled again. NO


Proposition 1B: Public Education Funding - NO

Only works if 1A passes. Can’t we do this through the Democratic state legislature instead of taking 1A’s poison pill? NO


Proposition 1C: California State Lottery - NO

The lottery ceases to go towards education and we borrow 5 billion dollars against future revenues. Why would we do this again? NO


Proposition 1D: Transfer of Child Development Funds - NO

This one sneakily masquerades as benefits for CA’s children. Not so! It allows funds being put towards services for young children to be spent elsewhere. NO


Proposition 1E: Transfer of Mental Health Funds – NO

Uses funds dedicated to mental health towards the state deficit. NO NO NO NO!


Proposition 1F: Pay Raises for State Officials - NO

Though I sympathize, this breaks the underlying progressive principle of wage increases mirroring cost of living. Under this prop. State legislators and constitutional offices can’t get pay raises in a deficit. This Proposition attempts to blame the pay of our legislators rather than their actions, and is a distraction from the real problems facing CA. NO

CA May Special Election Voter Resources

After 20 minutes of research, it seems pretty simple. Vote NO on everything =)!

For some reasons why see:

League of Women Voters Non-partisan Voter Guide

Wellstone Club Progressive Voter Guide

Alameda County Green Party Voter Guide

Cute Leopards

We won a rare legislative victory in Vermont. Though the issue is on the agenda in many state legislatures, I expect most victories to follow the Iowa model of court action. To sum up the last couple days in civil rights history, some pictures:





"Zhang Jie and Zhongni, two of only 100 endangered North China leopards in capitvity" via the BBC =). More pictures of them at http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/E7fdpa-H1OL/Animals+Of+Hamburg+Zoo/MZ_5mXw4UXO .

Awwwwww!

Is gay marriage here to stay in Iowa?

Over at Fivethirtyeight.com, everyone's favorite nerd Nate Silver has a fantastic article up on the future of gay marriage. Using his fantastic regression model based off of electoral history of anti gay marriage citizen initiatives and the population of evangelical Christians in each state, Silver projects the year in which puplic opinion will shift enough that each state will vote down a ban on gay marriage. By his theory, such a ban would fail in 2010 in California and fail in 2013 in Iowa barring any major public opinion shifts. If the Iowa state legislature moves against the ruling right away, it could be on the ballot potentially by 2012, in which Silver predicts that it would pass. The sunny side of this though is that the Iowa state legislature isn't exactly raring to go on this one. One possible reason? Having gay marriage on the table in an election would dramatically shift Iowa's caucus landscape for the 2012 elections to the right, something the Democratic controlled legislature would love to avoid. With any luck, the legislature won't move against the court's ruling, and the marriage rights of Iowa's LGBT population will be there for good.

Iowa and Gay Marriage

As most of you probably know already, On April 3, 2009, in Varnum v. Brien, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, overturning a statewide "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1998. This ruling is a momentous occasion and a great victory for the LGBT rights movement. Additonally though, this terriffic ruling is a reminder of the clout of the courts. While LGBT rights have been undermined again and again in state legislatures and in citizen initiatives/propositions, the courts remain our staunchest ally within the government. Though it may take more than a decade, with a strong grassroots movement we can shift public opinion and bring about equality for all.

Floods and Homophobia

I'd like to start by bringing your attention to the terrible floods currently threatening Fargo, ND and parts of Minnesota. Picture the Iowa floods except the rivers have ice floes the size of cars on them.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Now how does this relate to the gays you might ask. It would take someone of extraordinarily poor ethics and particularly lax journalistic standards to be able to relate the two wouldn't it? Enter Rush Limbaugh. Only Limbaugh could use the tragic Red River flooding in North Dakota to make some "dike" jokes. I kid you not. What's really frustrating is that Rush is taking such obvious advantage of a national tragedy to be a partisan hack. This is the epitome of heartless unpatriotic behavior. Shame on you Mr. Limbaugh.