2-4-6-8, whom do legislators hate?
- Teachers.
- Women.
- Vocal citizens.
- And this just in: homosexuals.
Senator Deb Peters (R-9/Hartford) proposed SB 141 to clarify the definition of domestic abuse. Sen. Peters wants to include "pattern of abusive behaviors" in our legal definitions of domestic abuse. She also wants to extend the definition to cover such violence between "one or more partners in an intimate relationship." Reasonable enough.
But someone's gaydar went off. Rep. Mark Venner (R-24/Pierre) moved to amend SB 141 yesterday to define domestic abuse as something that can only happen between people of the opposite sex. In other words, if homosexuals find themselves trapped in relationships with abusive partners, they do not deserve the protection of South Dakota's domestic abuse statutes.
This gay-hating amendment barely passed on a 35-33 vote. The ayes came from the archest conservatives in the House: Haggar, Hickey, Hoffman, Hubbel, Kopp, Liss, Munsterman, Nelson, Olson, Russell, Verchio. Democrats stood against it, as, I am pleased to see, did my Rep. Stricherz, who let her aching heart overrule her conservative instincts. Romkema and White are listed as excused: if they hadn't been out taking a whizz, they could have stopped this cruel amendment.
SB 141 passed as amended; it now heads back to the Senate. Let's hope Senator Peters can knock out this insult to thousands of our friends and neighbors and make clear that we do justice and love mercy for all South Dakotans.
For the love of God, what's wrong with those Christians? It's one thing not to recognise a couple's love and marriage, but quite another to refuse to protect them from abuse.
The 14 characteristics of fascism:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
stupid state.
Ya Bill and as they voted I bet they were holding a bible. Hard to believe they can call themselves Christians.
Christians are not beating up gays. Gays are beating up gays.
No, Steve, Christians are beating up Christians which is acknowledged as being not good. Except if you're a gay Christian, then, apparantly, that's just too damn bad. Inexcusable. Deplorable. Unconscionable policy. Period. Even you know better than this, Sibby.
As demonstrated in this vote, there are multiple reasons why people leave SD. Even more why they never consider coming back. Keep adding and you have many more who would never consider SD a viable 3rd or 4th choice let alone being their 1st choice. Shameful vote yesterday-Our morals in the gutter routine continues on.
Bill you throw around the word "Christian" as if it has no meaning. No body can beat up anybody and stay within the law.
I did no such thing, Steve. I meant exactly what I wrote, and used precisely the words I intended to. And I assure you, I know full well what those words mean.
Bill, as a New Ager you have a very distorted view of what it means to be a Christian.
The sovereign citizen movement is being tracked by law enforcement, Steve. Hire a good security firm to sweep your property.
"Ya Bill and as they voted I bet they were holding a bible. "
And go to Romans Chapter 1:
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
This is about people. Same-sex couples are just as likely to experience abuse as a straight couple and they should be protected. Anybody who fails to recognize that does not have a heart. Next these buffoons will implement a gay tax! Some days I'm not sure why I still live here.
http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/USNM0230
"Same-sex couples are just as likely to experience abuse as a straight couple and they should be protected."
They are protected from abuse as everyone else, and this bill will not change that.
the amendment is intended solely to send a signal to non-breeders that they are not welcome in the chemical toilet.
Looks to me like when you take out household members and change it to people living together in an intimate relationship with members of the opposite sex that it's no longer domestic violence for an "uncle" or step dad to beat up the step-son. It is still illegal, but not domestic violence, so "uncle" or step dad won't lose his right to possess firearms under federal law. Who knew this Venner proposal was a gun rights amendment for child beaters?
Just out: Dangerous Pedagogy in the Age of Casino Capitalism and Religious Fundamentalism. Henry A. Giroux
http://www.truth-out.org/dangerous-pedagogy-age-casino-capitalism-and-religious-fundamentalism/1330459170
Amen, Rorschach!
"Let’s hope Senator Peters can knock out this insult to thousands of our friends and neighbors and make clear that we do justice and love mercy for all South Dakotans." - We can only hope the Senate will postpone their bathroom breaks to fix this.
Steve, as a bigot you have a very distorted view of what it means to be a Christian.
I'm tired of all these special laws that make special exceptions for people of a certain race or sex. Let's protect American's. I don't care if someone is gay or straight, black or white. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect.
No more special exceptions for anyone from here on out. We are all equal and no one is better than anyone else in the eyes of the law.
Nicely put, Mike.
My Jesus doesn't hate :-)
Mike, we have a law like that, actually. It's called the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
@rcjMontgomery: Sen. Peters moves to reject House amendments to SB 141, domestic violence.
The Senate agrees, Peters, Cutler & Buhl on committee. House struck same-sex couples from definition of domestic violence.
It's no surprise gay people get the heck out of South Dakota, but trying to stay 15 years behind the rest of the country is a big reason people won't move here. Give all the tax breaks they want, but this is a culturally undesirable place, and they seem not to get that, care, or accept how important that is.
When Rick Santorum is president he will quarantine all the gays, so it doesn't spread. Then we won't have to worry about it.
Cory, your list of the 4 most hated groups is right on the money.
I saw an editorial cartoon just a few days ago that put Islamists and Christianists together with the same quotes. Bill, the behavior of Christianists is as sickening as that of Islamists. The two have so much in common.
When I left SD I told Ellsworth where to put me if I came back feet first, intending, however, to come back head first. The longer I watch the things like HB1234, and other backward minded ideas, the more I believe I will come back feet first. And the longer it takes diminishes Ellswoth's possibility of getting my business as I am starting to strike a relationship with the local guy here!
The domestic abuse statutes were enacted in steps during legislative sessions in the early 1980s to early 1990s. I was in Pierre during those years and recall that the most vociferous opponents of these bills were the Christian conservative groups. At that time, the opposition was not to gays being included; it was to women and children being protected by the state. Groups like Concerned Women of America didn't want any of these bills enacted because they believed domestic violence legislation (including protections against child and spousal abuse) would interfere with the "traditional family." They had a concern that the bills would interfere with a man's authority in the household to mete out punishment to children and to his wife.
I think it during this time that I realized these Christian groups had a very perverted idea of family life.
I wonder if these "Christian" groups have changed their opinions about these statutes as they apply to women and children. Would they repeal them for everyone? My guess is they would, but going after gays is about all they can get away with.
Oh Don, I think you are right. Domestic abuse/violence is such a devastating violation of families of any kind. It seems a natural for "pro-family" types, yet many of them oppose it.
Christianists indeed.
That might not have been very clear. Sorry.
"It seems a natural for “pro-family†types, yet many of them oppose it."
"It" being laws against DV.
An article in current Foreign Affairs magazine suggests that the christianist affiliation with the Republican Party will do them both in. Religions and churches are losing younger members because of their support of only Republican Party positions. The Republican Party is losing moderates as it becomes a theocratic party. Those staying with the Republican Party are mostly aged and dying off.
I'm not sure the perspective is necessarily on the mark, but it certainly is interesting.
Below is a link to an article on US theocrats in Congress using their influence to push legislation in Uganda urging execution of Gays. Those with the patience to slog through all of it will find SD US Senator John Thune's name in the current officials membership list. Some of you may remember there defense and housing of a Senator or Congressmen who was cheating on his wife...of course in a very religious way of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_%28Christian_organization%29
In hopeful news, the Senate voted today not to concur to the homophobic House version. Call in the conference committee, which consists of Sens. Peters, Cutler, and Buhl and Reps. Rozum, Gibson, and Cronin. Five ladies, perhaps less afraid of homosexuals than their manly-man colleagues... and all three House members of that committee voted against Venner's vile amendment. Bring the butter: it's toast!
Thanks for the updates Cory. It's good to see that we're ready to protect all South Dakotans against intimate partner violence.
"Five ladies, perhaps less afraid of homosexuals than their manly-man colleagues"
Yes Cory, ignore Romans 1 and worship sex goddesses.
Sibby has, at long last, gone completely daft.
"Bring the butter: it’s toast!"
Cory, so you like the fascist tyranny when the issue is something you agree on.
And for those who do not read the Bible, the women riding the Beast (the anti-christ's one-world government) is referred to as the "Harlot".
Statehood for the tribes, Mexico, Quebec, and Cuba!
@rcjMontgomery:
Rep. Abdallah: "If you don’t believe there’s domestic abuse in dating, then you must believe in the tooth fairy."
@APBBlue The language barring same-sex couples from domestic violence laws is dead. Debate is gender-neutral language or nothing.
Tornow: "I’m not afraid to say it. They want to include gay and lesbian relationships. That’s why they went back to the original language."
Rep. Hoffman says there's enough doubt about SB 141 to kill it and come back next year.
@twinsbsballgirl Hunt did not address the category of non-married cohabitation, simply argued that dating shouldn't qualify.
@rcjMontgomery: The motion to kill SB 141 succeeds 39-25.
Hunt is such a jackass! So if your boyfriend beats the hell out of you, it's okay. However, if he's is your husband, it's a little bit more of a problem?
I guess if you don't get married to conform to Hunt's Christianist theology, you deserve to be beaten.
Like I said, what a jackass!!
(Yeah, that is much stronger language than I commonly use. But to give implicit approval of domestic violence in any relationship is so reprehensible.)
Maryland becomes the 8th state to legalize same sex unions. Compare that to SD. http://www.queerty.com/breaking-gov-omalley-signs-bill-making-maryland-the-eighth-marriage-equality-state-20120301/
John, I moved from South Dakota to Maryland a little over a year ago, and it does feel freer here. I miss South Dakotans and South Dakota's outdoor beauty, but I do not miss South Dakota politics.
Can we step back and not always link issues as part of big ideological issues and consider them on a micro level based on their particular merits? This seems to have become too common a problem on both sides of the fence. In fact, when I am usually called a rino or liberal it is because I won't make a particular issue part of a broad ideological issue.
While I don't remember the specifics Don mentions, they may be true (I am always a bit skeptical when one makes too broad a generalization about those on the other side) to some degree or not.
But I don't know for sure the relevance or significance so let's just look at the reality today. (Don, I welcome your rationale).
Domestic violence laws don't make more things illegal but recognize the unique circumstances of when certain things occur in a particular context, between two people legally bound together with legal obligations beyond financial interests.
Alot of people live together, whether it be buddies sharing a house, hetero or homosexual couples-habitation couples, or married couples. Those who are married have a unique challenge when faced with abuse (they can't as simply just move out as the others). This simple reality may justify a unique need for unique and separate treatment.
I think it wholly reasonable to consider special focus on this segment without calling such people homophovic or bigots.
I know some believe we should broaden the definition of marriage but that is not the law in South Dakota. And to not allow specific protections for people legally married in South Dakota and insisting it encompass all domestic situations brings a big issue (definition of marriage) into a narrower issue and jeopardizes a particular solution to a unique situation (people legally bound).
For those who want to expand the definition of marriage, you have every right to fight that fight. But not only do I think you harm your cause by making everything that touches marriage to be about that, you will cause collateral damage to good bills like this.
I get kudos from some liberals when I chastise my Republican/conservative friends for making every discussion a big ideological issue and not just looking at it on its particular merits. Well, I think you are doing this here.
Is this a good thing for married people who are in domestic violence situations? Is this different than others who live together who can just move out without needing a legal divorce?
Nice try Troy, but no sale. The proposed language of the amandment was specificically and obviously intended to deny protection to a certain class of citizens who are in a domestic relationship. As such it's blatantly discriminatory. And cruelly homophobic.
Troy, your response demonstrates exactly the problem. Making state sanction of one's narrow, religious definition of marriage one's cause célèbre spills over to do harm in other areas of the law.
The House Republicans are making a simple matter of physical protection into a big ideological issue. Whatever our philosophical or religious views of marriage, the practical fact is that there are cohabitating same-sex couples engaged in intimate relationships. Those relationships involve strong bonds independent of their legal status that make crimes within those relationships unique. Same-sex partners have emotional and financial bonds of which a partner who turns abusive can take advantage. People in intimate relationships deserve certain extra protections against domestic abuse, regardless of our ongoing debate about "marriage".
Fleming's summary is accurate: the Venner amendment if blatant, cruel, homophobic discrimination.
Mark Venner's catholicism is behind every one of these weird choices he made with a god who frowned on his youthful experimentation with sin.
Poor damn guy.
Our catechism included whole sections of do not's:
thou shalt not touch outselves or anyone else in an impure manner, eg. Thou shalt not think impure thoughts...he must have had whole parties in his pants that he regrets now that he is an earth hater.
"outselves:" yikes, Mark; must be that Freud guy.
Just one more way to say your relationship is less important. You are less important. Double slap. What can be more specific than that?
Larry, you certainly have a unique way of putting a point on an issue.
That point being that in a love relationship that's what sometimes happens. People get the sh*t beat out of them every day in their own home. For Troy to say "well they could always move out" misses the whole point. They are IN THEIR OWN HOME.
To say they should have had the good sense to leave is basically blaming the victim, as is the usual admonishment from some church based councellors that victims HAVE to put up with it to protect the sanctity of their marriage.
oh... okay, I see Larry's smart ass thing was removed. Good. It wasn't particularly helpful. Too much back story behind it.