***UPDATE*** (Nov 20th, 2009)
Artur Davis, after first voting for the Stupak amendment to the House health care bill, which restricts women’s reproductive rights (read what to do about it here), voted against the health care bill altogether. That’s just blatant disregard for the people of Alabama who voted him into the House of Representatives as a Democrat. I’m all for having him as our Governor and I know he’s probably just doing all this to get elected in Alabama, but how much is he going to have to change, and is it even worth it?
Rep. Artur Davis, gubernatorial candidate for Alabama, recently voted “No” on the Matthew Shepard Act which would expand the hate-crimes law to include crimes committed because of someone’s perceived gender or sexual orientation. Here’s what he had to say about his vote…
Two years ago, I voted for federal hate crimes legislation. Since casting that vote, a number of my constituents have made it very clear to me that they disagreed with this vote, and I have tried to weigh their arguments carefully.
Some of the objections have been based on distortions of what this bill actually does. Other objections have reflected nothing more than animosity toward some of the groups who would be covered. Candidly, I have not given a lot of weight to arguments based on groundless claims or fears. But as I have thought more deeply about this issue, there is an argument from my constituents that I have not been able to answer.
Some of my constituents ask why our federal laws should pick out some Americans for more protections than others. Some wonder why, in a culture that rejects violence against any human being, we should say that an attack on a black, or a woman, or a gay individual should be punished more severely than an attack on someone who happens to be a senior citizen, or a soldier, or a teacher. Others ask why some motives based on certain ideas should be punished by our criminal laws more aggressively than others.
The people raising these issues are in my opinion not bigoted people. They are Americans who are advancing fundamental questions about just what equal protection under the law should mean. After a lot of reflection, I have decided that I do not have good answers as to why our laws should not protect all of our people with the same force, and for that reason, I have changed my vote to a “no” on the federal hate crimes bill.
I think it’s obvious why all his constituents don’t support this act. We’re from a state where people take the Old Testament Bible a little too seriously, and use it to mask and fuel their bigotry. It’s sad that Davis is having to appease these irrational people with this vote but that doesn’t, however, excuse it.
This bill isn’t to give special treatment to people who are LGBT, it’s to make it more obvious that it is completely not acceptable to victimize them just as the original hate-crimes law came at a time when people needed reinforcement about how they should treat black people. If there wasn’t violent crime happening against gay people, there would be no need for this bill. Artur Davis should be EXPLAINING that to his constituents rather than appeasing them. Sanity is not statistical, and he shouldn’t have to vote for something wrong just because a majority of constituents think it’s right. However, if he actually, as he claims, doesn’t believe that gay people should be included in this law, then he is wrong and I really don’t know if I could vote for him.
admin Politics Artur Davis, civil rights, legislation, LGBT, religion
Recent Comments