Anti-bullying bill killed
Submitted by Pam Spaulding on Fri, 07/18/2008 - 11:17am
Unbelievable. Let's just look at this from the 30,000-foot view. How on earth is it controversial to protect children from harassment and violence? (N&O):
Sen. Doug Berger, a Franklin County Democrat, said the bullying bill will not be approved this session.
The bill was controversial because it listed "sexual orientation" and other characteristics as reasons schoolchildren might be the targets of bullying. Groups such as the Christian Action League and the N.C. Family Policy Council did not want the term in state law, saying that gay-rights groups would use it to leverage other rights.
Somehow, the bigots at the Christian Action League and the N.C. Family Policy Council scared enough of our Senate Democrats (including State Senator and U.S. Senate candidate Kay Hagan, who supported the bill, but decided not to show up and do her job to help NC students have a safe environment in which to learn). Of course we all know the cultural GOP fossils do the bidding of the far-right fringe organizations here in NC, but if all of these Dems had shown up, the bill would have passed. PFLAG:
In fact, "survey results released on Wednesday by Public Policy Polling (PPP) show that 72% of North Carolinians support this explicitly LGBT inclusive anti-bullying bill. Those in favor of the bill were in the majority in all demographic groups. Additionally, 58% of Republicans supported the measure."
Again, we have to rid our state of representation by Elizabeth Dole. It's clearly a matter of whether one believes that you can be elected in NC and publicly support any LGBT-perceived issues on the record with a vote. After all, this was a bill that would cover children who may not be gay at all, but simply not conform to gender presentation norms.
It's a strategic question facing our movement and our elected officials and advocates in NC; it's difficult to see how the hard work people put into moving our rights forward must remain relegated to support in whispered conversations. When will it be "politically safe" to be on-the-record when we cannot even pass a watered-down bill to protect children? That's a statement of exasperation.
This reminds me so much about national level pols who ran from any comment or position-taking on LGBT issues in the last presidential election. It was perceived to be a mine field, because of the fear of the wrath of the professional "Christian" organizations. In 2008, look at the difference, in all of the Dem candidates versus the GOP. Apparently spine-enhancement is a trickle-down sort of thing.
Of course this only further emboldens organizations like the Christian Action League and the N.C. Family Policy Council, even as public support clearly shows elected officials that this bill didn't deserve to be killed.
If you read the entire N&O piece, one of the means to attempt to get a vote on this bill was "pairing," which would facilitate a vote by taking pro votes and setting them opposite nay votes. Senators in opposition were told not to accept pair requests from senators who would have voted for the bill if present, aka Hagan. That in the end killed this. Had the MIAs been present and voted, it would have passed.
- Pam Spaulding's blog
- Login or register to post comments
comment from Equality NC
Ian Palmquist stopped by my blog to add this:
There are people who deserve your anger. Hagan is not one.
FYI: Walter Dalton and Janet Cowell, the other two Democratic state senators running statewide this fall were also great allies on this bill.
--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA
Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com
information for the fence sitters and MIAs
Perhaps this information might help those fence sitters and MIAs to think about what they could have done to stop the violence:
GLSEN:
* Bullying and Gay Youth: Students hear anti-gay slurs such as “homo”, “faggot” and “sissy” about 26 times a day or once every 14 minutes.
Anti-Gay Bullying: What’s the Big Deal?
* When asked about their own experiences, 36% say they have “ever” been called lesbian or gay. That’s the biggest jump among all the types of harassment students experienced, up from 17% in 1993.
* 19% of boys said they had been called gay “occasionally” or “often,” double the rate in 1993 (9%).
* 13% of girls said they had been called lesbian “occasionally” or “often,” almost triple the rate in 1993 (5%).
--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA
Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com
Ugh.
I thought the would scrap the list and save the bill. It's crap like this that makes you doubt whether anything positive comes out of Jones Street without big bucks behind it.
Recommended.
Who's responsible?
What Democrats opposed the bill in its strong form?
What Democrats deliberately took a walk?
I know that there was no floor vote, in order to avoid a public record, but what do we know about who individually is responsible?
Dan Besse
Kerr
Most of my ire/disbelief is reserved for Sen. John Kerr - who is not running for reelection this fall. He was one of the swing votes, but doesn't even have the normal political excuse of being afraid for his own reelection concerning this issue.
The supposed value of having 31 Dem votes in a 50 member Senate is be able to "protect" supposedly vulnerable seats from voting on (or in favor of) a controversial bill in their district. Kerr's failure to exercise this typical courtesy to his fellow members of the majority - and Rand's failure to force him to do so - is stunning and informative.
that's the big question, dan
and it's a tragedy that we don't know.
--
Pam Spaulding
Durham, NC USA
Pam's House Blend
www.pamshouseblend.com
My question to those who opposed this bill
What have you said to your child?
I'd have a lot more confidence in the intellectual point of those opposing the listing of categories that include sexual identity if I knew that as a matter of moral concern those opponents would be the first to tell a child that bullying someone for being gay is wrong.
That's what I'm not hearing from these people who insist that their motives are rooted in Christian values.
They ridicule the effort being made by Democrats, but evince no concern or support for the goal, nor do they explain what harm is done to society by explicit statements that persecution of a person for his or her sexuality is morally wrong and socially undesirable.
Carter Wrenn was just a little too cute in his sarcastic suggestion that perhaps the Democrats would next add that is is objectionable to taunt people for being blonde, acrophobic or hypochondriacs.
This quip probably got lots of chuckles from the rightwingers who predominate at that blog, but I sure don't recall any taunts on the playground associated with blondes or acrophobics or even hypochondriacs.
Nor, I suspect, do this bill's opponents.