Republican Congresswoman: Violence Against Women Act Shouldn't Cover Gay Women - Polidicks

[QUOTE=The Huffington Post]WASHINGTON -- Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the vice chairwoman of the House Republican Caucus, said Monday that the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) shouldn't include protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people because "those are side issues." During an appearance on MSNBC's "Hardball," McMorris Rodgers was asked why the House GOP bill to reauthorize VAWA doesn't include protections for the LGBT community. The Senate overwhelmingly passed its version of a VAWA bill last month that would update current law with LGBT protections, as well as provisions protecting Native American women and undocumented immigrant women against domestic violence. The current VAWA bill expires at the end of September. "Those are side issues that have been attached to this bill," McMorris Rodgers said of the LGBT protections. "There's nothing under federal law that currently recognizes same-sex couples. So if we're going to have that debate in Congress, it should be a separate debate from the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act." Pressed by show host Chris Matthews on why Republicans shouldn't then change the laws to help prevent physical violence among LGBT couples, McMorris Rodgers repeated that the issue shouldn't be tied to VAWA. "That's a separate issue," she said. "It should be debated separately for them to change federal laws relating to same-sex couples." Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), also on the show, said GOP opposition to protections for LGBT people, Native American women and undocumented immigrants runs counter to recommendations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, district attorneys, policy departments and the Department of Justice. "I think the Republican Party is really ignoring the recommendations of a broad swath of law enforcement," Moore said. "The bill is not worthy of being called the Violence Against Women Act if you don't protect all women." The House is scheduled to vote on the GOP bill on Wednesday[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/violence-against-women-act-same-sex-couples_n_1516281.html[/url] Ugh. And Republicans are still mad at Democrats for waging a culture war.

:suicide:

Technically, she's right. You can't name same sex domestic abuse in there until same sex couples are recognized. But it's a dumb technicality, nothing more.

Jesus Christ I hate my country.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35962428] But it's a dumb technicality, nothing more.[/QUOTE] Or a [i]slightly[/i] oversensationialst headline. [IMG]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-clint.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35962428]Technically, she's right. You can't name same sex domestic abuse in there until same sex couples are recognized. But it's a dumb technicality, nothing more.[/QUOTE] Simply because gay marriage is not recognized by the state does not mean that the issue of domestic abuse within same sex relationships ceases to exist. Whether or not her religion has a positive view of homosexuality is irrelevant because women should not be able to have the right to these protections stripped away based on their sexual orientation.

[QUOTE=FreakyMe;35962468]Simply because gay marriage is not recognized by the state does not mean that the issue of domestic abuse within same sex relationships ceases to exist. Whether or not her religion has a positive view of homosexuality is irrelevant because women should not be able to have the right to these protections stripped away based on their sexual orientation.[/QUOTE] Exactly, which is just another reason why there needs to be a federal law recognizing same-sex couples. Legally a lot of protections provided to same-sex couples can't be given just because of what the legal definition of marriage is. I just really hope Obama makes this a campaign issue this fall because it's long overdue, and I really think the country is ready for it.

Why not just a "Domestic Violence Prevention Act" that protects everyone?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35962428]Technically, she's right. You can't name same sex domestic abuse in there until same sex couples are recognized. But it's a dumb technicality, nothing more.[/QUOTE] she's not right though because it seems to me this bill has nothing to do with marriage, i'm sure it covers unmarried women too and its same sex marriage that isn't recognised by the government not same sex couples, because like, how can the government not recognise a couple?

It's not a culture war. It's a war against sex that they will inevitably lose.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;35962509]Why not just a "Domestic Violence Prevention Act" that protects everyone?[/QUOTE] because women are more at threat than men

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;35962530]because women are more at threat than men[/QUOTE] Does that mean men [I]can't[/I] be at threat, then?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35962428]Technically, she's right. You can't name same sex domestic abuse in there until same sex couples are recognized. But it's a dumb technicality, nothing more.[/QUOTE] that doesn't explain the opposition to native american women not being included. [editline]14th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;35962530]because women are more at threat than men[/QUOTE] maybe if we didn't live in a patriarchal society where violence seems to rule above all else that wouldn't be the case.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35962428]Technically, she's right. You can't name same sex domestic abuse in there until same sex couples are recognized. But it's a dumb technicality, nothing more.[/QUOTE] "Any abusive, violent, coercive, forceful, or threatening act or word inflicted by one member of a family or household on another can constitute domestic violence." Technically if a gay couple can share a household, whether they can get a recognized marriage, they can be victims of Domestic Abuse. Technically roommates fighting is considered Domestic Abuse.

I know that sounds really "hippy dippy liberal artsy" but whatever, it's aggravating that people like this still have influence and things like this still happen.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;35962569]Does that mean men [I]can't[/I] be at threat, then?[/QUOTE] no it doesn't but it means women and men require different provisions that an overarching act wouldn't be able to cover. better to have separate acts that cover everything

Some people should never be allowed to live beyond 21. That would be republicans...

[QUOTE=Lambeth;35962572]maybe if we didn't live in a patriarchal society where violence seems to rule above all else that wouldn't be the case.[/QUOTE] maybe some day :(

[QUOTE=Bomimo;35962659]Some people should never be allowed to live beyond 21. That would be republicans...[/QUOTE] Most Republicans under 25 support LBGT rights, it's just the older Republicans, and some older Democrats that are still the problem.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;35962572] maybe if we didn't live in a patriarchal society where violence seems to rule above all else that wouldn't be the case.[/QUOTE] You say it like violence is inherent to a patriarchal society. Do you think that a matriarchal society would be less inherently violent than a patriarchy?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;35962678]You say it like violence is inherent to a patriarchal society. Do you think that a matriarchal society would be less inherently violent than a patriarchy?[/QUOTE] It's not. It's' inherent to American culture. [editline]15th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DamagePoint;35962673]Most Republicans under 25 support LBGT rights, it's just the older Republicans, and some older Democrats that are still the problem.[/QUOTE] Everyone who holds the bible as fact then. That's like just the borderline insane 10% that ARE a serious danger to society.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;35962678]You say it like violence is inherent to a patriarchal society. Do you think that a matriarchal society would be less inherently violent than a patriarchy?[/QUOTE] a matriarchal society would mean less threat toward women from men

[QUOTE=Bomimo;35962702]It's not. It's' inherent to American culture.[/QUOTE] I would say it's largely inherent to humanity. There have been peaceful societies, of course, but the fact is that a "might makes right" attitude has developed independently in societies completely isolated from one another. Violence is a useful means of survival, and threat of violence can often work for group cohesion. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't call all violence to be something fundamental to our nature, but that nature plays a very large role in our willingness to adopt violent actions and mindsets. [editline]15th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;35962706]a matriarchal society would mean less threat toward women from men[/QUOTE] But maybe more threat toward men from women? I don't think women are inherently less violent than men, and if they are, then not by a whole lot.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;35962678]You say it like violence is inherent to a patriarchal society. Do you think that a matriarchal society would be less inherently violent than a patriarchy?[/QUOTE] Maybe

[QUOTE=Lambeth;35962849]Maybe[/QUOTE] I would say that mindset is a product of a patriarchal society itself. A perpetuation of gender roles, if you will. I have seen no evidence that women are less violent than men, and history shows that women have often been as ready to use violence to achieve their goals as men.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35962428]Technically, she's right. You can't name same sex domestic abuse in there until same sex couples are recognized. But it's a dumb technicality, nothing more.[/QUOTE] You don't have to be married to have domestic abuse. E.g. a boyfriend can be arrested for domestic abuse, not just a husband. Just because homosexuals can't be married doesn't mean they can't be in a boyfriend/boyfriend or girlfriend/girlfriend relationship. And it's odd that the bill has to explicitely include Native American women and illegal immigrants. With a name like "Violance against women act" you would assume it included all women.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;35962866]You don't have to be married to have domestic abuse. E.g. a boyfriend can be arrested for domestic abuse, not just a husband. Just because homosexuals can't be married doesn't mean they can't be in a boyfriend/boyfriend or girlfriend/girlfriend relationship. And it's odd that the bill has to explicitely include Native American women and illegal immigrants. With a name like "Violance against women act" you would assume it included all women.[/QUOTE] Tribal citizens are subject to different laws 90% of the time. I think saying that Native American women are covered is basically saying that this law supercedes Tribal Law. It might have nothing to do with race, and more to do with Tribal Politics.

the best example of a matriarchal society that I can think of would be the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois]Iroquois[/url]

What exactly does this law do anyway? I find it hard to believe that there needs to be a law like this to make a boyfriend who punches his girlfriend (or a girlfriend punching a girlfriend) illegal. Domestic abuse is basically just a subset of assault. Gay, Native American, or an illegal immigrate, assault will always be illegal. Whatever, just wiki'd it. [quote] Community violence prevention programs Protections for victims who are evicted from their homes because of events related to domestic violence or stalking Funding for victim assistance services, like rape crisis centers and hotlines Programs to meet the needs of immigrant women and women of different races or ethnicities Programs and services for victims with disabilities Legal aid for survivors of violence[/quote]

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;35962509]Why not just a "Domestic Violence Prevention Act" that protects everyone?[/QUOTE] Because homophobic people.