GOP lawmakers want to exclude gay students from anti-bullying bill

[Posteritatis]

A pair of Republican state legislators has introduced a bill that would remove protections for gay, lesbian and transgender students from an anti-bullying law passed in 2007.

State Reps. Jason Schultz, R-Schleswig, and Matt Windschitl, R-Missouri Valley, sponsored the legislation to remove sexual orientation and gender identity as definitions used for purposes of protecting students in public and nonpublic schools from harassment and bullying.

Schultz told NBC affiliate WHO-TV that the rationale behind the move is to force a vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, since the Iowa Supreme Court pointed to laws like Iowa’s Safe Schools Law in making its April decision to legalize same-sex marriage. Ryan Roemerman, executive director of Iowa Pride Network, said the bill would open up LGBT students to bullying and harassment.

“When our state is facing record budget deficits and unemployment, House Republicans feel their time is best spent picking on Iowa’s LGBT youth,” Roemerman said in a statement. “There is no better example as to why we have this law, so youth in Iowa don’t grow up to be like these bigots.”

http://iowaindependent.com/27342/gop-lawmakers-want-to-exclude-gay-students-from-anti-bullying-bill

The excerpt's actually the whole article (aside from its comments), but it came up in one of the subthreads in this DU thread on the bullying of gay students (and also worth reading). A few of the posters thought it warranted its own thread, and I agree, so here you go.

[slackmaster]

1. While the intent to marginalize LGBT students is obvious, the proposed change would not...

...actually remove the "protection" that those students now have as the law is written. The operative phrase is "Trait or characteristic of the student" includes but is not limited to..." blah blah blah. The current language specifically includes sexual orientation and gender identity. The change would remove those words, but the statute would still cover bullying someone because of sexual orientation.

Personally, I don't believe the "reasons" for bullying matter. Bullying a person is always bad regardless of the bully's rationalization.

People who bully LGBT students could clearly still be prosecuted even with the proposed change in the language. This link may not work, but see the article cited in the OP to get there.

http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&frame=1&GA=83&hbill=HF2291

This is just ugly "identity" politics, about as ugly as it gets.

K&R

:kick:

[Skinner]

6. Well then, why not get rid of *all* the language naming specific characteristics?

  1  3    c.  "Trait or characteristic of the student" includes but
  1  4 is not limited to age, color, creed, national origin, race,
  1  5 religion, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender
  1  6 identity, physical attributes, physical or mental ability or
  1  7 disability, ancestry, political party preference, political
  1  8 belief, socioeconomic status, or familial status. 

Clearly, there is a reason why specific traits are listed. And there is a reason why sexual orientation and gender identity are being singled out for removal. It's not just an effort to "single out" LGBT students. It would write into law the idea that their "trait or characteristic" is not guaranteed protection. Instead, they would have to hope that they can be "shoe-horned" in using the "includes but not limited to" clause.

I'm all for appreciating nuance. But this is could have real consequences.

[slackmaster]

12. As I said, the motivation is obviously to marginalize LGBT people

While not doing the same thing to people based on other traits.

I'd be OK with removing all specific mention of traits. I was bullied because I started wearing eyeglasses at age 10.

[msanthrope]

27. But the you open up the law to a strike for "vagueness." n/t

[dsc]

8. It would give an excuse for gay hating admins to not follow the law

and they would surely do so.

[Deep13]

2. Unethical, barbaric, cruel, inhuman and morally outrageous.

I cannot begin to describe how offensive I find this kind of scape-goating.

[EFerrari]

3. K&R

[pgodbold]

4. May Schultz, Schleswig, and Windschitl die screaming in pain. nt

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

7. North Carolina's got zero GOP votes in either chamber due to that issue

Their bullshit line was "gays are already in there" and "we don't know what sexual orientation means".

[Dappleganger]

9. Hatred rooted in fear

There's a special place in hell for these assholes. :mad:

[eppur_se_muova]

10. Just reading the title, this old Ray Bradbury story popped into my head ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martian_Chronicles#Way_in_the_Middle_of_the_Air_.28June_2003.2F2034.29

Truly, what are they going to do nights?

[Initech]

11. Today's bullies = tomorrow's republicans

[struggle4progress]

17. Today's bullies = today's republicans

might be more accurate

[Initech]

20. True - the GOP does have a school bully/mob mentality about them.

[Initech]

13. Today's bullies = tomorrow's republicans

[Iris]

14. Why even have a bill then?

Have these people even met any middle-school or high-school aged kids? I'll bet the majority of bullying has to do with sexual orientation and gender identity, up to and including bullying of kids who don't conform enough to socially prescribed gender rules and expectations.

[ej510]

18. CAN WE STOP HATING GAY PEOPLE ALREADY!!!!!!

IT IS A WASTE OF TIME! THEY PAY TAXES! PLEASE EXPLAIN TO HOW GAY PEOPLE AFFECT ME PERSONALLY? THE LGBT COMMUNITY HAS NOT RUINED ANY RELATIONSHIP I HAVE HAD WITH WOMEN EVER! OR COST ME FINANCIALLY! LEAVE THEM ALONE!

[struggle4progress]

15. Sure, and while we're at it, why should be it illegal to beat the crap out of Republicans?

Somebody ought to compile a list of laws we need to change to keep government out of the Neanderthals' sorry live

[Posteritatis]

19. Ahhh, but is it *specifically and explicitly* illegal to?

I mean, assault laws don't say that it's unlawful to assault a Republican by name, right?

(Not, of course, that I advocate such things, but it's fun to point out the implications of their own arguments at times...)

[Chulanowa]

35. Two things; First, leave the Neandertals the fuck out of this, they're innocent

Second, attempting to beat all the shit out of a Republican would be an exercise in futility

[justiceischeap]

16. I'm surprised no one seems to have mentioned

That it seems these two Repugs want to be bullies towards LGBT kids to further their own agenda.... Ironic.

[Posteritatis]

21. I figured that was simply taken for granted as obvious. (nt)

[onenote]

22. so under this amendment, repugs could bully gays, but gays couldn't bully repugs

Asshats.

[Rex]

23. Isn't it odd that Repuke never spend time fixing problems and most

of their time creating them? We have a real cancer in America and it is called the GOP.

[Karenina]

24. Sick shit.

Kill the victims! Dare they stand up to fight, bring in our SUPERIOR WEAPONS to trample them. Can rational thought prevail? :freak: 2 sane against 1 FotF nutcase. Who "resonates?" Who "wins?" WHO DECIDES?

This is still up today at: http://edition.cnn.com/video/

It's Anderson Cooper and titled "Do anti-bullying laws push gay agenda" 9:48 27Sept under U.S.

The EDUCATORS say "You MUST NAME THE BEHAVIOUR!"

FoF freakazoid says HOMOPHOBIA must NOT be named. Because if you name HOMOPHOBIA then the children will find out that HOMOSEXUALS exist now, have existed prominently in history, and shall continue to exist and are just as much a part of US as anyfuckingbody else. You might even be related to one! :rofl:

I'm getting old, evil O8) and SO MOTHER FUCKING TIRED OF THE BURNING STOOOOPID!!

"WHAT??? Our EXPERT Arabic translators are WHAT??? OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!" Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
:eyes:

[Solly Mack]

25. k/r

[walldude]

26. Christ.. you know this could be interpreted...

and I'm sure this was on purpose, but this could be interpreted to be a law encouraging the bullying of gays.

Is the defeat of DADT being seen as an excuse to put gays "back in their place"? Because this is some really sick shit...

[political_Dem]

28. This is a shame. People from all walks of life should be safe and protected.

Sadly and ironically, the GOP will wrap themselves around the flag and the cross. Disgustingly, they have no conscience. Their endeavors do not reflect true compassion or generosity. Their lack of caring shows the persons they truly are.

[slackmaster]

30. People should teach their children to be respectful and tolerant of others

If everyone did that there would be a lot less bullying. But a lot of people have children before they are emotionally mature enough to set a good example, too many of us walk away from the responsibilities of parenthood, and some of us never grow up at all.

[benEzra]

29. That is just wrong.

Those kids are the ones that are often bullied the worst.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4558154

[TexasObserver]

31. Just when you think the GOP can't get any worse ....

[femrap]

32. What a couple of hateful

fatherf*ckers.

[MH1]

33. But by all means, we should sit on our hands and let more republicans be elected.

Because Obama hasn't done near enough.

(is the sarcasm tag really necessary?)

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mitchtv]

37. noone mentioned Obama

except you and some jerk

[niceypoo]

38. Drama

Queen

[cynatnite]

39. They might as well say they want to legalize assault against gays. n/t