GOP's version of the violence against women act

Then why bring up how many people that voted against it were male or white? It is absolutely irrelevant. Look at how many members in the body are women or non-white to begin with. I would venture to guess that, with the exception of a couple of topics which a lot of people just simply oppose in general, over 90% of the negative votes on all legislation are due not so much in opposing the legislation, but opposition to certain provisions in the proposed legislation or to riders and pork attached.

At least they are voting on the basis of what is (or isn't) in the proposed legislation. In the case of Obamacare, the moron Democrats passed Obamacare WITHOUT EVEN READING THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION. If you want irresponsible - that is irresponsible...as well as incompetent, and an injustice to the American people that they are supposed to represent. What kind of representation do we have when something of the magnitude of Obamacare, involving trillions of dollars, and constituting a substantial portionn of our entire economy, is passed when the people passing it don't even know what it is?

Not that Obamacare has a darn thing to do with the VAWA, but if you are going to attack party voting records, you should do so with an open mind. I would far rather have representatives in Congress that vote on the basis of what is included in proposed legislation than a bunch of bobble heads that you just shake up and down for a yea and back and forth for a nay...

How come libs support muslims, who are the only "people" on the planet with a REAL war on women? Did y'all see that in TX, kids are being forced to wear the cloth coffins and taught that islam doesn't promote murder, rape and terror. Hello!!

Islam does not promote murder rape or violence of any sort. What nonsense are you referring to here in Texas run walk?
Islam in the days it was beginning gave women more power and rights than either Judaism or Christianity. Women had more rights to inheritance and divorcing their husband in Islam than they did before. Shalom

How does any law protect anyone from getting raped or anything else bad happening to them?
People who commit the crimes know they are crimes-they simply don't care. All the programs in place haven't stopped crimes.

Sounds like the GOP is going to accept the Dems version of the bill (as of this morning).

This whole "we don't need separate laws to protect women" (or other groups) is a BS line of thinking. "People" had the right to vote, but not blacks or women. In some states you can't fire someone for being heterosexual, but you can sure as h*ll fire them for being gay. I could go on and on.

We need these laws because, apparently, the ones currently in place are not working. I'll agree it's stupid that we need separate laws to protect various groups of people...we're all human after all. But clearly we need them... history tells us that.

These types of laws are not "special treatment"; they are guaranteeing these groups get "equal treatment." There is a difference between the law and the application of the law. And when the application of the law has a "group" bias, then that needs to be addressed.

If a law doesn't equally protect everyone, amend the law so it does. It's not playing identity politics to word a law to cover: religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. It is when you single groups out by saying: muslims, women, gays, etc.

Also, when groups are singled out for protection it does not prevent reverse discrimination. Using your example above, stating gays are protected from being fired for being gay would allow recourse if it can be proven that the guy was fired for working gay. Now put the shoe on the other foot. Straight guy goes to work for a gay guy, gay boss finds out and fires him for being straight. Where's the straight guys protection? Now word the law to read you can't be fired for sexual orientation and all sides are protected wether they are straight, gay, freaky or whatever other label you want to attach.

You know why I say this? Because I've been on the receiving end of reverse discrimination many many times. Matter of fact you'll be hard pressed to find a middle aged, straight, white male who hasn't been discriminated against and doesn't appreciate it. We are not a protected class because identity politics label us as having all the power and at one point that would of been true but isn't today. So we are discriminated against by laws that put everyone else above us. IE legal discrimination.

Darrin I am a middle aged white guy that IMO has not encountered any discrimination because of the way I look.
I have heard some things because of my religion but not my race.
Laws protecting someone from being fired becuase they are gay or lesbian also protects those that are not. The term sexual orientation encompasses all forms of sexuality straight, Gay, Bisexual, pansexuals, and asexuals. Each are protected equally under the law.
What special rights are being bestowed on any group because a law mentions them?
I can't think of any. Naming a group in a law that gives law enforcement an edge when prosecuting or arresting someone gives no one a new right. It empowers that group and encourages inclusion in our society . Shalom

Then I consider you lucky DB because I've run into it a lot. Most the middle age white guys I know have also said they've experienced reverse discrimination practices.

Huh? Are you serous? Like was mentioned above, this is nonsense.

That's OK...in my opinion, YOUR line of thinking is BS.

As I said earlier, you want equality, yet want to be treated special. If you had any snap at all, which I would hope you would seeing as you are a teacher, you would recognize that the two are mutually exclusive.

And, once again, you need to educate yourself. EEOC laws are federal laws - not state laws. You cannot fire someone for being homosexual - or refuse to hire them because they are homosexual...regardless of what state you are in. States may have equal opportunity laws of their own, but Title VII supersedes state laws.

Once again, the entire concept of "speeshul" laws for "speeshul" people is stupid. Where do you want to draw the line? How about a separate set of laws for clowns because some people are afraid of them and discriminate against them?...beat up a clown and you get 10 years in prison instead of 5. How about short people like db? They are more susceptible to physical harm and less able to defend themselves, so let's have a special set of laws so if you beat up a short person it is a violation of the Short Person Protection Act and subject to larger fines and sentences than the general assault law. Oh, and we of course need a Redhead Protection Act, a Crooked Nose Protection Act, a Beady Eyed Protection Act, and for sure a Suspicious Cranial Bump Protection Act, because a lot of people think certain cranial bumps demonstrate a criminal mind, and they might not be treated right.

It's the same old story - people ask for equality, get it, and then can't handle being treated as an equal. What happened 100 years ago is irrelevant. Cripes - next you will be demanding reparation...