How about DADT, or employment non discrimination, or federal benefits for civil unions/marriages?
Roland00 Send a noteboard - 24/10/2009 01:23:06 AM
How about DADT, or employment non discrimination, or federal benefits for civil unions/marriages?
For pete sake, employment non discrimination failed by 1 vote (in the senate) in 1996, this vote occurred on the SAME FRICKIN DAY, that the senate passed the Defense of Marriage ACT 85-14. This occurred 13 years ago.
I repeat 13 years ago.
Yet Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA) has not even been touched this year, when the democrats rule both house, senate, and president.
On the SAME FRICKIN DAY, that the senate passed DOMA, ENDA lost by 1 vote. Only 59 minutes, after the senate passed DOMA, the didn't approve ENDA by 1 vote, less than 1 FRICKIN HOUR. No other issues were discussed, they discussed DOMA voted on it, and then less than an hour later of debate then hold the vote for ENDA.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00281
For pete sake, employment non discrimination failed by 1 vote (in the senate) in 1996, this vote occurred on the SAME FRICKIN DAY, that the senate passed the Defense of Marriage ACT 85-14. This occurred 13 years ago.
I repeat 13 years ago.
Yet Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA) has not even been touched this year, when the democrats rule both house, senate, and president.
On the SAME FRICKIN DAY, that the senate passed DOMA, ENDA lost by 1 vote. Only 59 minutes, after the senate passed DOMA, the didn't approve ENDA by 1 vote, less than 1 FRICKIN HOUR. No other issues were discussed, they discussed DOMA voted on it, and then less than an hour later of debate then hold the vote for ENDA.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00281
Matthew Shepard act passed
23/10/2009 07:54:07 PM
- 781 Views
Meh
23/10/2009 08:06:22 PM
- 372 Views
I'm sure Orwell would be intrigued by his own prognosticative abilities.
24/10/2009 12:52:24 AM
- 381 Views
Didn't we already slice crimes by degree of intention (e.g., murder vs. manslaughter) pre-Orwell?
24/10/2009 05:23:56 AM
- 358 Views
How about DADT, or employment non discrimination, or federal benefits for civil unions/marriages?
24/10/2009 01:23:06 AM
- 362 Views
See..this is much more important than Hate Crime Legislation, and it actually accomplishes something *NM*
24/10/2009 01:52:31 AM
- 129 Views
Agreed, but
24/10/2009 02:12:11 AM
- 331 Views
I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 02:22:46 AM
- 341 Views
I'm sure the law is not supposed to deter crime, but rather to ensure justice.
24/10/2009 03:49:58 AM
- 296 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 04:07:52 AM
- 393 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 04:51:43 AM
- 358 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 05:02:27 AM
- 338 Views
Re: I'd be more supportive of hate crime legislation as a whole if it made any real sense to me
24/10/2009 05:27:35 AM
- 328 Views
So it's inherently worse for a gay man to get beaten up than a straight guy?
24/10/2009 03:45:43 AM
- 314 Views
Doesn't there have to be an indication ...
24/10/2009 04:33:49 AM
- 336 Views
Doesn't matter, Same crime, same punishment, with no extra preference given to anyone.
24/10/2009 04:48:22 AM
- 324 Views
All orientations are protected.
24/10/2009 05:17:55 AM
- 333 Views
yes and how many black men are sentenced for attacking white men?
24/10/2009 02:00:26 PM
- 307 Views
Minor point.
24/10/2009 04:46:25 PM
- 355 Views
well since almost everything he said turned out to be BS why not that too?
25/10/2009 02:36:25 PM
- 341 Views