Gay Rights Bill Passes Judiciary Committee
From the AP:
A day after an emotional hearing on Gov. John Baldacci´s gay rights bill, a committee´s majority voted Thursday to support the bill when it comes up for House and Senate debate.
Nine members of the Judiciary Committee voted to add protections for gays and lesbians to the Maine Human Rights Act, while only one member voted against it. Three other members are supporting an option to send the bill to voters.
Here are the hearing highlights from yesterday:
Most unlikely speaker: The American Cancer Society representative who spoke about, among other things, how gay people have a higher rate of serious cancers.
Most emotional moment: When my representative, Emily Cain, broke down in tears describing how her teacher was murdered for being gay.
Weakest argument: Rep. Duprey claiming that the bill would give more rights to "white, heterosexual males" who don't need any more.
Name used most often as a synonym for bigotry: Michael Heath.
Visit the new Maine Politics.
posted by @ 6:27 PM 
10 comments
10 Comments:
"Most emotional moment: When my representative, Emily Cain, broke down in tears describing how her teacher was murdered for being gay."
Isn't murder already illegal?
Posted by George
I'm pretty sure it is, George. Why, do you have someone in mind?
Posted by Mike
How about the death penalty to those that bring up murder in discussions of a bill that has nothing to do with murder? I voted for the gay rights bill when it was on the ballot in 2000 and it won't bother me when this bill passes but it does make me wonder if it is really needed when the proponents of the bill make irrelevant arguments in support of the bill.
Posted by George
It wasn't an argument for the bill. Cain was describing, if I recall correctly, why she first became concerned about gay rights. Her later arguments were about the bill itself.
Posted by Mike
Give me a break. She was testifying in favor of the bill when she told the story. The proponents of the bill pull the same crap all the time.
Posted by George
Wow George, you're getting pretty upset about this. I don't see a problem with mentioning larger problems with discrimination when discussing a more specific issue, especially in the careful way Rep. Cain did.
By the same token, I don't see the problem with discussing larger tax problems when testifying about a specific tax or larger healthcare problems when discussing a specific bill pertaining to medical treatment.
Oh, and as long as you're pretending to be the hyperbole police, how about going after the opponents of this bill and their predictons about the end of civilization?
Posted by Mike
Ignoring (or pretending to ignore) the societal impact of discrimination and prejudice is a questionable practice, particularly in light of the wealth of psychological findings on this issue. The recent resolutions of the American Psychological Association will attest to these findings. Dave, you might find some further education will be beneficial for you.
Posted by Len
I did not comment on the opponents because you were not quoting them approvingly.
The proponents always bring up hate crimes because they want to make people feel guilty if they do not support the bill.
Jim Brunnelle -- who rarely says anything that I agree with or even interesting -- had a good column this week about how both sides overplay the importance of this issue.
Posted by George
The previous comment is intended for George as well.
Posted by Len
Who's Dave?
A law will not eliminate prejudice.
A law will not make people not think someone who has a sex change is strange.
As for the great need for this bill -- Portland has had a gay rights ordinance for a decade and there has never been a complaint under the ordinance taken to court. I voted for the bill when it was on the ballot in 2000 and would probably do so again, but the proponents greatly overplay the impact this bill will have.
Posted by George