In my previous blog, most of the stories were updates on the progression of marriage equality in several states. This week, I have another update for you.
New Hampshire looks like it will become the next progressive state to recognize same-sex couples. It passed the House, went to the Senate where it was amended slightly, and will go back to the House where it looks like it will pass again. New York looks like it may join Vermont & hopefully New Hampshire as states to legalize same-sex marriage via legislation.
In light of these progressions, there's still a long way to go. This week the
Methodist Church has said that pastors cannot perform gay marriages, even in the states in which they are legal. As someone who was once affiliated with the Methodist religion this surprised me. I was surprised in that the Methodist Church seemed split on gay marriage, but that they didn't fall one way or another. It surprises me that now pastors are mandated to follow these rules or risk losing their jobs. I expect to see more of this, especially as gay marriage becomes legal in more states- religions will say you can't perform these ceremonies. This will create a conflict in that some pastors disagree with their religion and will perform ceremonies anyway, and/or decide if they want to remain affiliated with that religion. These kind of religious rules will also pose legal problems for churches. Unless churches make pastors & other church officials sign legal waivers, churches like the Methodist church may see lawsuits brought against for firing people because they disagree with the church- though maybe not in "right to work" states. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think that these rules will be enforced when it comes to pastors who choose to perform marriages anyway? What do you think those pastors risk in doing so, what loss of privileges do you see?
In relation to gay marriage, I was watching Rachel Maddow's show on MSNBC and saw this interview with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. I thought that it was nice to see a supportive ally talk about it from his perspective. Tell me what you think.
Finally, the last story I will cover this week is on a more inclusive
Federal Hate Crimes Bill. This bill has been attempted quite a few times, and finally passed the House in 2007, but Pres. Bush said he would veto it if approved by the Senate. To try to get around the veto, it was included in a Department of Defense bill, but was left out of the final draft.
What this bill does is add sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability to the existing list of bias related crimes against people based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Many states already have statutes like this, but a federal statue also provides states with more resources to investigate & prosecute hate crimes. HRC put together a very informative read on the bill and it's implications. You can read it
here.
The #1 talking point for those opposed to this legislation is that it affords "special rights" to certain groups. To give you a taste of what this argument looks like, back in 2007 I wrote a House member about it. This was his letter back to me.
Dear Rick:
Thank you for contacting me regarding hate crimes legislation. I appreciate your concerns on this issue and it is a pleasure to respond.
In 1968, Congress passed hate crime prevention laws which called for stiffer penalties against crimes that were motivated by race, religion, or nationality. H.R. 254, "David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007," would amend the law by expanding the role of federal prosecution of such crimes, and would expand the definition of hate crimes to include those prompted by gender or sexual orientation and identity. Similarly, H.R. 1592, "The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007," would amend the federal criminal code to prohibit willfully causing bodily injury to any person because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of such person.
Please allow me to be clear, like you, I abhor bigotry in all its forms. Hate crimes legislation however, seems to me to extend special consideration to certain groups over others and criminalize motivations, which are always difficult, if not impossible, to determine in a court of law. I do not believe that Congress can or ought to try to enact laws based upon what is in someone's mind. As one academic noted, "Hate cannot be legislated away; the real struggle is to change attitudes." These crimes are crimes, regardless of whom the action was perpetrated against. There is no doubt that those who commit these crimes should be punished, but in doing so we should not extend special considerations to a select group over another. There are already laws in place to rightfully penalize those who commit such atrocious acts. For this reason, I voted against such legislation.
I appreciate your input on this complicated issue. Please feel free to contact me again should the need ever arise. For more information, please visit my website at www.chriscannon.house.gov
Warmest regards,
Chris Cannon
Member of Congress
Unless crimes against black people, people from other countries, and beating up the nearest Muslim, Jew, or Catholic makes those "special"- I don't see why a more inclusive law that provides more resources is a problem. Thankfully Mr. Cannon is no longer in the House, but unfortunately he was replaced with another mindless asshole named Jason Chaffetz:
who was fun to laugh at in a Colbert Report segment.
Speaking of mindless people, during House hearings Republican Virgina Foxx talked about the bill- one named after Matthew Shepard who was brutally beaten then crucified on a fence and left for dead because he was gay. She said during the hearing that Matthew wasn't murdered because he was gay, his death really was the result of a really nasty robbery. You see, IT WAS ALL A LIBERAL MEDIA "HOAX!" If you feel particularly pissed off while watching this video, feel free to
send her an email.
What are your thoughts on the video? How do you feel when you watch it? When I watch it, it makes me angry, and it underscores exactly why this sort of bill needs to be passed on a federal level. I highlighted the story of another young guy
(Ryan Skipper) in an earlier blog who stabbed to death as a result of anti-gay bias. An even more recent story is the murder of a transperson
Angela Zapata. Her killer was sentenced to life in prison without the possibly of parole, a case prosecuted under the hate crimes statute in Colorado.
For those of you who don't know Matthew's story, check out the docu-drama,
"The Laramie Project" based on the play. You can also read about
Matthew's life on the website devoted to a foundation in his name. His Mom Judy regularly speaks out on hate crimes, and is incredibly inspirational. While a lot of good has come out of something so ugly, I still feel sad when I think that Matthew would have turned 32 this year.
