Hate Crimes, Bill 274 and the House

What appeared to be a copy-cat killer is now looking more like an organized hate group. Last week a bomb went off in a homosexual community in Portland, Oregon. Three men were killed in the blast and 22 people were injured.

A few days prior, in New York’s East Side, two gay men were killed execution-style in a remote alleyway near a gay neighborhood. The two men were evidently returning to an apartment after a movie. Police say the perpetrators tied their hands behind each victim, made them kneel down and shot each of them in the back of the head with a .38 caliber pistol.

In both cases, a note was left near the crime scene with words written from scripture: “The wages of sin are death.” The FBI and CIA were testing the notes to look for any connection.

These actions seem to stem from the Senate’s approval of Bill 274 (Sexual Orientation and Discrimination). It was also recently passed in the House Rules Committee and is expected to be open for a vote of the full House as early as this next week. The Bill protects homosexuals as a class, similar to the way race and gender are handled in civil rights legislation. If passed in the House, the Bill will take effect one year after passage.

As expected, there are very strong opinions on both sides of this issue. A website called StopSexualPerversion.org informs visitors that homosexuality is unnatural and should be removed from American society. The home page of this site contends that “homosexuality is a cancer that must be treated through moral reform or other drastic measures.” The site quotes scripture, reports confessions of reformed homosexuals and provides a chat room for those who want to end homosexuality in America. The website is the work of Wendel Lemly, a retired dentist, and his wife. The Lemlys are “dedicating the rest of our lives to the task of saving those homosexuals who can be saved, and exposing the evil in those who defy the laws of nature.”

And in an odd turn of events, leaders of a group called Fight Back have expressed frustration with a Cleveland, Ohio U.S. District Court decision by appealing the decision regarding “freedom of speech” for anti-homosexual websites. Traditionally, homosexual groups have used freedom of speech for their rallies and promotional literature. Now Fight Back, an organization designed to protect the rights of homosexuals, intends to turn the tables and contest the constitutionality of the site, citing their frustration and anticipating a long appeal. The leader of Fight Back, Brian Jefferies, stated the Lemlys’ anti-homosexual site “provides a gathering place for hate groups, and subtly encourages violence against homosexuals.”

The sides are not drawn as simply as pro-homosexuality and anti-homosexuality. According to recent polls, many Americans are in favor of civil unions for homosexuals. The idea of the class as a whole being protected as a civil rights group may bring more controversy. In some cases, hiring individuals based not based on sexual orientation might prove morally challenging to religious work environments. However, the same ideal holds true for persons of color or minorities. The religious right and far right conservatives are not moving their position. The far-lefters feel they have been silent for too long and will push the issue until the Bill is adopted. We are set for a volatile situation unless Congress comes up with a plan quickly. Even then (and either way), I would expect riots and some Congresspersons to lose their seat come next election.

To add a punch for the pro-Bill 274 side, just this weekend a press release from the Human Rights Campaign (an interest group supporting gay rights), publicly stated their appreciation to Senator Meyers (D) for his years of hard work on behalf of the gay and lesbian community for passing 274. The group also implored to the House to pass Bill 274, noting the public is generally in favor of protecting homosexuals from discrimination (and similar issues), and that Republicans should be reaching out to new demographics and younger voters.

I was granted a short interview with Senator Meyers last week (prior to the Human Rights Campaign announcement). He was very pleased that 274 passed the Rules Committee, stating that is was even more significant for him as he is an openly gay Senator from Michigan. He stated, “It is a great time to be an American. Ending bigotry based on sexual orientation – This is the last frontier of civil rights.” He noted Senate success would not have been possible without the bipartisan effort. He added that he has spoken with the House Speaker (Villary) and they expect to receive similar support within the House.

In the works for next week’s show – I hope to have an interview lined up with an expert on Bill 274 to discuss the current hate crime situations and discuss the possibility of the Bill’s passage. Please leave comments and questions and we may be able to have them on the air. Until then –

E.E.

President Announces Plans for New Legislation

At 9:35 AM CST Thursday, President Millworth conducted a press conference, introducing five new bills. During this announcement, the President spoke with renewed confidence and commanded the attention of the room. Several journalists wondered if he would address his divorce situation - he did not. He did, however, take questions, much to the surprise of those in attendance.

Among the bills introduced, Bill 159 (Plant-Closing and Community Impact) caused the greatest stir among reporters. The Bill would require certain employers planning to close their businesses (mainly manufacturing and distribution) to provide a 2-year notice to all employees of the business closing date. The President felt the Bill would, "allow for workers to hunt for new jobs without getting their feet pulled out from under them." Further, an operational fund would be created to provide financial assistance to workers - up to 6-months after the business closes. When asked who will regulate the requirements of the bill, the President responded the responsibilities (as well as the funding) would lie completely with the state governments. When a bevy of further questions were asked, he stated, "I didn't take into account all the aspects and will revise it as necessary." I'm certain the President's staff will be working overtime fielding a great number of phone calls from state officials over this bill.

Another controversial item was Bill 104 regarding Comprehensive Profiles for Foreign Visitors. The President stated border control is a national problem that currently runs up a $10 trillion debt. He felt this bill was, in part, "an effort to cut this debt." While the Bill was written to allow for better border security without raising taxes, this Bill may not accurately count or include illegal immigrants. The President reiterated that this Bill aided in national security, as well as streamlining costs; adding, “Illegal immigration will pose a threat and may not be included.” He continued that border security was important to his administration, and he was also willing to hear from others and “review everything,” implying more revisions would be necessary.

To opponents of this Bill, the language went too far in the personal freedom area and not far enough in keeping out illegals. The Bill calls for profiles to be “furnished at American embassies or consulates in the visitors’ home country, and must be updated every 5 years.” This alone could provide statistical complications, particularly in cases of political or social asylum. But the Bill goes further: “Each profile will include a complete personal history, fingerprints, and genetic samples.” Some persons question the security of their personal identities if this Bill were to pass. If the President has his way, the information would be entered into a database, causing more alarm for persons concerned about identity theft and possibly their personal safety. For many, this database is a tool that, in the wrong hands, could be used maliciously.

Another item, Bill 122 (North American Natural Resources Preservation Act) dealt with preserving North America's natural resources by renewing America's relationship with Canada and Mexico. This no-brainer move was seen as a positive step in controlling gas prices while looking to "new ideas." The President was excited about this legislation and stated, "It's encouraging for everyone."

The National School Standards Bill (#129) was another area for President Millworth to exercise his campaign slogan, stating this Bill included “new ideas.” The Bill allows for a one-day exit exam to measure high school graduate’s achievements. While not a mandate, those schools participating would receive a compensation of $25 per student and $25 additional for meeting the testing standards (passing the exam). It is anticipated that benefits would be provided to schools that meet expectations. The Department of Education would publish the results annually and should track changes and trends. However, the expense of this program is expected to be around $5.5 billion annually. Some have stated this money could be used for school improvements and teacher testing rather than rehash another standardized test. When pushed on further details, the President responded, “It’s not the government’s job to pay for every little expense incurred,” meaning additional funds might need to be sought elsewhere. There should be more information on this bill within the coming weeks.

Finally, Bill 142 (Independent Voters and Primary Elections) was drafted with independent voters in mind, allowing them more freedom at the polls by eliminating party identification. The Bill calls for the states to revise their election laws and polls, but did not discuss the amount of money states would have to spend on such measures. The President said he “strongly encouraged” this bill and felt the White House “can’t hear the independent voters” without this Bill.

As the press conference wore on, the President seemed less confident and more taken aback by the degree of questioning by the reporters. While he was seen as confident and exultant at the beginning, the press took their toil on him as he ended the conference on a somewhat forlorn note. It will be interesting to see what he has to say about the budget at next week’s press conference.

E.E.

P.S. My bet is Bills 142 and 122 pass with relative ease as these are lower cost – pro-democracy items on his agenda.

Bill #274, Senate Passed 8:1

Today the Senate passed Bill #274, which outlined the elimination of employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. If passed by the House, this bill will go into effect one year after passage, and no discrimination lawsuits can be filed during the intervening period of time.
So what is the bill all about? In a word – controversy.

The bill was designed to protect the employment rights of people identified by their sexual orientation in much the same way as Civil Rights legislation did for color and gender in the 1960s. Individuals who feel they have been discriminated based on their sexual orientation may bring suit against other individuals and/or organizations.

While the bill passed by an overwhelming majority and even experienced bipartisanship support in the Senate, religious conservative organizations such as Family Focus are outraged. These organizations feel the bill would make it easier for the Supreme Court to require all states to institute civil unions – or - put simply, a Trojan horse for gay marriage.

Undeterred and desiring additional bipartisanship aid on this issue, Senate Majority Leader Meyers (D) sent a statement to Speaker of the House, Villary (R). After reading the press copy, I can say that Meyers’ attempt to sway members toward the full passage of the bill is admirable. Meyers writes: “An anti-discrimination policy with regards to sexual orientation will benefit all Americans. It will cut down on the hate crime rates and increase the quality of life for LGBTQ Americans who can now have job security and harassment protection which will promote a better working environment for all Americans.”
Meyers also listed the most recent findings from the National Election Study (dated 2004) in which a large majority of polled individuals responded favorably to the suggestion that an individual’s employment be protected based on sexual orientation.

This poll likely did not include many (if any) Family Focus organization’s members. They presented a strong reaction by stating: “Today, the Senate voted to weaken religious and personal liberties by passing Senate Bill 274, effectively granting special rights to homosexual groups. Homosexual activists have convinced a heavily Democratic Senate to grant protected class statute to homosexuals, a protection that should be reserved for immutable characteristics such as race or gender, rather than behavioral choices.” In this, they argued that religious liberties would be weakened if full passage occurred. To further their plea, one spokesperson stated the following example: “A Christian family will now be forced to rent their upstairs apartment to a practicing homosexual couple, even if they disapprove of their behavior. Christian businesses can no longer turn down job applicants who are openly engaged in homosexual activities, even if such behavior contradicts their morals and religious values. We urge Speaker Villary and House Republicans to ensure this bill never sees President Millworth's desk, and we will giving our fullest support to any candidate who runs against those Senators who voted for this bill."

A long time House Representative, Speaker Villary is sure to have her staff on call for what seems to be a deluge of correspondence from both sides of this issue. Having blocked the first set of session proposals from the President, Villary may be positioning herself for political suicide if she also blocks additional proposed legislation. And the albatross around her neck might be Republican Senator Litz of Alaska who voted across party lines in favor of the bill. To again quote from Family Focus’s spokesperson: “We expected nothing less from the Senate Democrats. But from Litz, this vote comes as a betrayal. We know she has an independent, libertarian streak, but this vote goes against the conservative values of her supporters and constituents.” When asked if Family Focus and other conservative groups would help mount a primary challenge to Litz in 2012, the spokesperson replied, "You better believe it."

I will continue to monitor this situation; however, until Villary decides how to proceed, it appears this bill might stand in the wings for awhile. With strong feelings on both sides heating up, I anticipate more bipartisan reaching out from the Senate and an increasing public outcry from both religious right groups and liberal organizations.

- E.E.