Before I go beyond my intro, I should say that I'm still learning about how the U.S. Senate passes legislation. I'm not an expert by any means, but I'd like to know more, and maybe you all can fill in the gaps. What I'd like to know is - On average, how long does it take for the U.S. Senate to vote on a bill after it's been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives? Is there any kind of norm here?
I'm asking because on April 28th 2009, the House passed the Local Law Enforcement and Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (HR 1913) by a vote of 249 to 175. This bill is commonly called the Matthew Shepard Act because it would provide support to law agencies for the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes against gays and people with disabilities. As of now, the current hate crimes legislation does not protect people living with disabilities, or people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. So then, the companion bill in the Senate (S 909) was referred to the Judiciary Committee on April 28th 2009 after being read.
After looking at my calendar, I thought, - Hey! That was 3 weeks ago.
So the question is, What's the hold up, Senators? It's been 3 weeks now. What happened to those Democrats' promises of supporting gay and lesbian people? Is this the "usual" delay that happens between the passage of bills? Does the Senate just have "better things to do" besides schedule a vote? (Because there is no scheduled vote as of yet.) Or is it perhaps, that the Ultra-Conservative-Wingnut-Base has been rallying full-force against this bill? Well, let's consider the Wingnut news.
As of now, many Conservatives have begun to label the bill as the "Pedophile Protection Act." Yep, that's right, the Wingnuts have stopped referring to this bill as protecting people who are gay or lesbian or have disabilities, and the Wingnuts have simplified that to "Pedophile." In the conservative mind, the "shorthand" for gay/lesbian/disabled is "Pedophile" or "Deviant," among others.
Wow. You have to wonder how that equation happens in the Wingnut mind.
Yes, I think the Wingnuts are causing problems here. And the Senate democrats don't appear to have any drive to vote on S.909 right now. They're busy doing other "important" ... "Senatorial" ... "security-related" ... "things." Please pardon my sarcasm here. In the meantime, while Senate democrats are supposedly "diligently doing their research," let's look at what the Wingnut Media is saying...
Bob Unruh on WorldNetDaily.com writes ~
The leader of a pro-family organization says families across the nation need to contact their U.S. senators now to try to derail a legislative plan that already has passed the U.S. House and is being awaited by President Obama – after a Democrat confirmed it would protect - all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or paraphilias listed by the American Psychiatric Association.
WND columnist Janet Porter, who also heads the Faith2Action Christian ministry, today cited S. 909, dubbed the "Pedophile Protection Act," as an extreme danger to America.
My Read: Wait a second. Which Democrat said what? Who? Where's the facts?
Katherine Phann at Church Executive Magazine writes...
The nation's largest group of Christian media professionals warns that the expanded Hate Crimes bill currently before the Senate presents a serious risk of violating free speech rights of religious communicators.
My Read: Wait a minute... Who's at risk here of a violent crime?
Also at WorldNetDaily.com, conservative columnist Janet Porter writes ~
WASHINGTON – Opponents of a "hate crimes" bill in the U.S. Senate that would provide special protections for pedophiles are organizing an unprecedented effort to kill the legislation with an avalanche of letters to individual senators in the next week.
Janet Porter, WND columnist and president of Faith2Action, today announces her campaign to send thousands of letters to every senator by overnight delivery. For only $10.95, any member of the public can send letters to all 100 senators, individually addressed and "signed" by the sender. The letters will ask for a written response and call for opposition to the bill (S.909), including by filibuster if necessary.
My Read: Huh??? Where did the pedophiles come from? Are they wrongfully assuming gays and people with disabilities are pedophiles?
My Read: What?!? People are profitting from a fear-mongering campaign?
Additionally, in a Letter to the Editor of TimesDaily.com, we read:
Senate Bill 909, which is called "The Local law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act," is in reality the Pedophile Protection Act. This bill would not only criminalize free speech but provide elevated protection to pedophiles.
*When an amendment was offered by Rep. Steven King, of Iowa, to exclude pedophiles from special protections, it was rejected by the Democratic House Judiciary Committee.
My Read: Really?!? The Republicans are trying to sully this bill?
And over at Fredericksburg.com, their Editorial stokes the fear ~
In late April, the House of Representatives passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which adds "gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability" to the already protected classes of race, color, and religion in federal hate-crimes laws. Assault, kill, or harm someone who happens to belong to one of these groups, and you're subject to extra jail time.
Social conservatives have been up in arms about the bill, whose twin is now making its way through the Senate, seeing in it the danger of its squelching the free speech of those with a religious objection to homosexuality. Could a pastor who preaches on Romans 1 end up in the jug?
My Read: Seriously?!? This bill would harm your religion? WTF?
Siiiigh... (Big eye roll...)
Of course, despite the fear-mongering of the Ultra-conservatives, there are 43 co-sponsors of the bill. They're listed below, if you're interested in checking for your Senator. But for me, the larger issue is - How can these extreme-Republicans be conflating people with disabilities and gays with Pedophiles? What is the deal? Why can't these Wingnuts see that hate is a real problem in the USA? Do they all believe that hate crimes are "hoaxes" like Representative Virginia Foxx says?
All I can see is fear-mongering, which the Wingnuts are disguising as a so-called "need to protect one's faith and free speech." But this is not about free-speech, nor is it about faith. This bill (S.909) is about protecting people from crimes motivated by hate. This latest Wingnut-spin is just an attempt to stop the country from actually recognizing the discrimination faced by people with disabilities and gays & lesbians. Because if the USA actually recognized that people with disabilities and gays & lesbians are actually subjected to harsh treatment, then they might actually be recognized for their humanity.
Ding-Ding-Ding-Ding! Yes, I think that's it!!! The Republican Wingnuts don't want Americans to think of people with disabilities and gays and lesbians as actually being humans or citizens. Because if the disabled, gays and lesbians were actually humans and citizens, then they would have to have rights. So the Republicans appear to think - "If we don't recognize these people's vulnerabilities, then we can just continue to ignore the injustices that they're suffering."
The Current Senate Co-Sponsors of S.909 Are Below Do you see your Senator? If not, and you're feeling inspired, you can contact your Senator by going to the Senate Site Here.
Co-Sponsors of S.909 (from the Senate Thomas Site)
Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [HI] - 4/28/2009
Sen Bayh, Evan [IN] - 4/28/2009
Sen Begich, Mark [AK] - 5/18/2009
Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] - 4/28/2009
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 4/29/2009
Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] - 4/28/2009
Sen Burris, Roland [IL] - 5/5/2009
Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 4/28/2009
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 4/28/2009
Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] - 4/28/2009
Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] - 4/28/2009
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] - 4/28/2009
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 4/28/2009
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 4/28/2009
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] - 4/28/2009
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 4/28/2009
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] - 5/11/2009
Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] - 4/28/2009
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 4/28/2009
Sen Klobuchar, Amy [MN] - 4/28/2009
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] - 4/28/2009
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 4/28/2009
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] - 4/28/2009
Sen Levin, Carl [MI] - 4/28/2009
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 4/28/2009
Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] - 5/11/2009
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 5/4/2009
Sen Merkley, Jeff [OR] - 4/28/2009
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 4/28/2009
Sen Murray, Patty [WA] - 4/28/2009
Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] - 4/28/2009
Sen Nelson, E. Benjamin [NE] - 4/28/2009
Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 4/28/2009
Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV [WV] - 5/4/2009
Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] - 5/5/2009
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 4/28/2009
Sen Shaheen, Jeanne [NH] - 4/28/2009
Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME] - 4/28/2009
Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] - 4/28/2009
Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - 5/18/2009
Sen Udall, Mark [CO] - 4/28/2009
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 4/28/2009
Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] - 5/1/2009
Thoughts?