Rubber Stamp Roskam » Gay Rights

Peter Roskam Still Won’t Denounce Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill

RSR — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:51:24 +0000

Peter Roskam has still not signed on as a cosponsor of H. Res 1064 condemning the pending Ugandan anti-homosexuality bill that we first wrote about on February 15th. The bill, currently pending in the Ugandan legislature, is expected to come to a vote sometime early in March. The Ugandan measure criminalizes homosexual acts and applies lifetime imprisonment and even the death penalty in some cases.

H. Res 1064, introduced in the House on February 3rd by Democrat Howard Berman of California, resolves the following:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) strongly believes that–

(A) all people possess an intrinsic human dignity, regardless of sexual orientation, and share fundamental human rights;

(B) the ‘Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009’ introduced in the Ugandan Parliament, which includes the extreme penalties of death and life in prison, poses a serious threat to the life, liberty, and security of the person and, if enacted, would set a troubling precedent for other countries; and

(C) the requirement that individuals report suspected homosexual individuals to the Ugandan Government could undermine Uganda’s efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, and interfere with care and counseling by family members, doctors, pastors, teachers, and others; and

(2) calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to–

(A) impress upon the Ugandan Government the United States belief in the intrinsic human dignity of all Ugandans, regardless of sexual orientation;

(B) express unequivocal United States opposition to the ‘Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009’ introduced in the Ugandan Parliament; and

(C) ensure that resources committed to the global HIV/AIDS response are utilized in a manner that is efficient, effective, and appropriate to the local epidemiology of the disease, including in Uganda.

So why won’t Peter Roskam sign on to show his support. He’s had plenty of time to do so. Why he’s already signed on to a resolution introduced on February 24 recognizing the 189th anniversary of the independence of Greece (yes, the 189th anniversary, not the 15oth, not the 200th) so he could have easily gotten his name on 1064.

We think the reason is partly Roskam’s hyperpartisan nature (he almost never crosses the aisle to support Democratic initiatives, even no-brainers like this one). More importantly, we believe that Roskam has a fundamental hostility to gay rights (he voted against hate crimes legislation, he voted against employment non-discrimination) and a deafness to human rights concerns in general. We also believe that he is sympathetic to the Christian extremists like Rick Warren and Sen James Inhofe who have stirred up an anti-gay hornets nest in Uganda. Both Warren and Inhofe have, after pressure, renounced the Ugandan bill. We think Peter Roskam needs to do the same.

Please contact Peter Roskam and ask him to cosponsor H. Res. 1064. You can reach him at (630) 893-9670 in Bloomingdale or at (202) 225-4561 in Washington.

Peter Roskam Should Co-Sponsor Resolution Condemning Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill

RSR — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:25:47 +0000

Represenative Peter Roskam has recently co-sponsored important House resolutions honoring the New Orleans Saints on their Superbowl victory and congratulating Chicago White Sox pitcher Mark Buehrle on pitching a perfect game. We can’t imagine, therefore, why it would be any trouble for him to sign-on to a resolution condemning a Ugandan bill that would implement extreme punishments, including the death penalty and lifetime imprisonment, for persons convicted of homosexual activity.

The resolution in question is H. Res. 1064 – Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the “Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009″ under consideration by the Parliament of Uganda, that would impose long term imprisonment and the death penalty for certain acts, threatens the protection of fundamental human rights, and for other purposes. It was introduced on February 3rd by Representative Howard Berman, a Democrat from California’s 28th District. As of this writing, only a single member of Mr. Roskam’s Republican party has signed on as a cosponsor – Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida’s 18th District.

The meat of the resolution is as follows:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) strongly believes that–

(A) all people possess an intrinsic human dignity, regardless of sexual orientation, and share fundamental human rights;

(B) the ‘Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009’ introduced in the Ugandan Parliament, which includes the extreme penalties of death and life in prison, poses a serious threat to the life, liberty, and security of the person and, if enacted, would set a troubling precedent for other countries; and

(C) the requirement that individuals report suspected homosexual individuals to the Ugandan Government could undermine Uganda’s efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, and interfere with care and counseling by family members, doctors, pastors, teachers, and others; and

(2) calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to–

(A) impress upon the Ugandan Government the United States belief in the intrinsic human dignity of all Ugandans, regardless of sexual orientation;

(B) express unequivocal United States opposition to the ‘Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009’ introduced in the Ugandan Parliament; and

(C) ensure that resources committed to the global HIV/AIDS response are utilized in a manner that is efficient, effective, and appropriate to the local epidemiology of the disease, including in Uganda.

We think that there is little to complain of in that text – unless, of course, one believes that gay people should be put to death. Peter Roskam has never been friendly to legislation granting equal rights to gay people, but this is a wholly different matter. Mr. Roskam should run, not walk, to get his name added as a co-sponsor. A similar resolution is pending in the Senate.

American right-wing Christian extremists appear to have been at least influential in the origins of the Ugandan bill. These include Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Pastor Rick Warren of California’s Saddleback Church and author of The Purpose Driven Life. Both Inhofe and Warren have finally, after considerable adverse press coverage, publicly denounced the Ugandan bill and denied any role in it’s genesis. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC has done some excellent reporting documenting their connections to Uganda and to leaders involved in propagation of the bill. A couple of her videos can be found at the end of this post.

The Oklahoman reported that Republican Senator Inhofe has made at least 20 trips to Africa since 1999 at a cost to taxpayers of more than $187,000, another example of the GOP’s stwewardship of your tax dollars. Inhofe has publically referred to the trips as “a Jesus thing” . According to journalist Jeff Sharlet, both Inhofe and David Bahati, the Ugandan who authored the bill, are members of a secretive Christian group known as “The Family” and Inhofe and Bahati were close.

A number of other members of the House and Senate are involved in The Family, including Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, with whom Peter Roskam traveled to Honduras last fall. After that trip, Roskam remarked that “Senator DeMint is so grounded and wise and I came away just very, very impressed with him.” We are unaware of any direct ties between Peter Roskam and The Family.

Peter Roskam’s Appalling Record on Gay Rights

RSR — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:54:15 +0000

In light of this past week’s events – the march on Washington, the President’s speech to the Human Rights Campaign, the vote on federal hate crimes legislation – it seems appropriate to review our own Congressman Peter Roskam’s record on issues of importance to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community. It is not a pretty picture.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest civil rights organization, labors to achieve full equality for LGBT people. For each Congress, HRC produces a scorecard detailing each representative’s votes and co-sponsorships on issues of key importance to the community. Roskam was first scored for the 110th Congress which ended last year, Roskam’s first term in office.

Roskam scored a zero. That mean’s that Roskam opposed LGBT rights 100% of the time, a distinguished record of legislative homophobia:

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1592) would expand federal jurisdiction to reach serious, violent hate crimes perpetrated because of the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. The House passed the bill on May 3, 2007, by a vote of 237-180 (Roll Call Vote No. 299, 1st Session, 110th Congress). Democrats — 212 yes, 14 no,6 not voting; Republicans — 25 yes, 166 no, 10 not voting. HRC supported the bill. Peter Roskam voted NO.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) offered a motion to recommit promptly the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1592). The motion would amend the bill to add the categories of senior citizens and members of the armed forces to the legislation, but also wouldrefer the bill back to committee, effectively killing the bill. The motion was defeated on May 3, 2007, by a vote of 189-227 (Roll Call Vote No. 298, 1st Session, 110th Congress). Democrats — 9 yes, 216 no, 7 not voting; Republicans — 180 yes, 11 no, 10 not voting. HRC opposed the motion to recommit. Peter Roskam voted to kill the bill.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 3685) would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The House passed the bill on Nov. 7, 2007, by a vote of 235-184 (Roll Call Vote No. 1057, 1st Session, 110th Congress). Democrats — 200 yes, 25 no, 8 not voting; Republicans — 35 yes, 159 no, 6 not voting. HRC supported the bill. Peter Roskam voted against the ban on discrimination.
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) offered a motion to recommit promptly the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 3685). The motion stated that the bill would have no impact on state or federal definitions of marriage as being between one man and one woman, but also would refer the bill back to committee, effectively killing the bill. The motion was defeated on Nov. 7, 2007, by a vote of 198-222 (Roll Call Vote No. 1056, 1st Session, 110th Congress). Democrats — 14 yes, 214 no, 5 not voting; Republicans — 184 yes, 8 no, 8 not voting. HRC opposed the motion to recommit. Peter Roskam voted to kill the bill.
Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation, introduced on April 24, 2007, that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. As of Oct. 3, 2008, the measure had 185 co-sponsors: Democrats 179; Republicans 6. Peter Roskam refused to co-sponsor the legislation.
Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation, introduced on Feb. 28, 2007, that would repeal the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy that denies lesbian, gay and bisexual soldiers the right to serve their country openly. As of Oct. 3, 2008, the measure had 149 co-sponsors: Democrats 146; Republicans 3. Peter Roskam refused to help end discrimination against LGBT soldiers.
Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation, introduced on March 29, 2007, that would equalize tax treatment for employer-provided health coverage for domestic partners and other non-spouse, non-dependent beneficiaries. As of Oct. 3, 2008, the measurehad 120 co-sponsors: Democrats 116; Republicans 4. Peter Roskam refused to work for equality.
Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation, introduced on May 8, 2007, that would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents the same immigration benefits that legal spouses of U.S. permanent residents enjoy. As of Oct. 3, 2008, the measure had 119 co-sponsors: Democrats 118; Republicans 1. Peter Roskam refused to help LGBT immigrants.

These coupled with Roskam’s vote last week to defund the military rather than approve federal hate crimes legislation paint a picture of a legislator who is agressively anti-gay. LGBT residents of the 6th District need to pressure Roskam to stop voting against equality.

In case you haven’t seen it, here is President Obama’s speech to the HRC last week. Obama vows to sign the hate crimes legislation and to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. I don’t doubt his sincerity of intent. But I sincerely hope that he will take action sooner rather than later. It is growing harder to rationalize support for a party that has so often disappointed when it comes to LGBT rights.

Peter Roskam Votes to Defund Troops to Satisfy Homophobic Christian Base

RSR — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:41:13 +0000

On Thursday, October 8th, Peter Roskam voted against passage of a $680 billion defense authorization bill that provides funding to our military for fiscal year 2010. In doing so, Roskam voted against, among many other provisions:

A 3.4 percent pay raise for members of the armed services
A $6.7 billion allocation for mine-resistant armored vehicles (MRAPs) designed to protect soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Procurement of body armor for those same soldiers
Aid for soldiers with catastrophic combat-related conditions to obtain personal care assistance during the period before retirement or disability becomes effective
A skill incentive bonus for members of the reserves
Bonuses for military linguists serving long-term in Afghanistan
Ensuring that servicemen on duty overseas have the opportunity to have their absentee votes counted
Funding research on tissue repair and transplantation for combat injuries

Why would Peter Roskam vote to defund the military? Because the bill also helps gay people.

Specifically, the bill extends the federal hate crimes legislation, passed in 1968 in the wake of the assasination of Rev. Martin Luther King, making violent crimes committed against people on the basis of sexual orientation federal offenses.

The legislation is important because it allows the federal government to intervene and prosecute such crimes in jurisdictions where local and state authorities prove unwilling to do so. While there is much work left to do, the bill is a big step toward ensuring that LBGT people are ensured equal status under the constitution and can enjoy the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.

Roskam and other House Republicans voted against the bill because of opposition by Christian hate groups such as the Family Research Council that claim that their free speech rights will be violated by preventing them from demonizing gay people from pulpits lest one of their misguided followers commit a violent crime. The bill, however, contains no prohibitions on speech, though hopefully it will encourage more responsible speech on the part of some pastors. Their argument is a fallacy. Protection against crimes committed against persons on the basis of religion in the original 1968 legislation has in no way impaired the free speech rights of those who are critical of religion. But it has, appropriately, enabled federal involvement in investigation of crimes against Christians such as church burnings.

Peter Roskam and Misogynistic, Homophobic Republicans Vote to Defund State Department, Peace Corps

RSR — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 06:52:28 +0000

H.R. 2410 is another bill that came up while I was vacationing down south. Hence my tardiness.Here’s what happened.

On June 10th, the Foreign Relations Authorization for F.Y. 2010 and 2011 came to a vote on the House floor. This is the measure that funds the State Department, the Peace Corps, and U.S. contributions to the United Nations and other international organizations like the Organization of American States. The bill passed 235 to 187. So what caused Peter Roskam and the bulk of his Republican cohort to vote against funding the State Department in this time of multiple international crises? It was the bill’s support for some of the things Roskam and Republicans hate most:

Gay people
Women’s rights
The United Nations
Peace
A living wage

I highly recommend that you go read the Republican legislative digest for the bill. The bulk of the discussion of objections to the bill is devoted not to foreign policy questions but to culture wars stuff and trying to pacify the 13% of Americans who still think the Republicans are doing a good job. It’s pathetic. It even specifically notes that extremist culture wars groups like Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America are against the bill. Crazy, no? There’s no mention of any evaluation by groups with expertise in say…foreign policy.

So what are the wingnuts all worked up about?

The bill requires the State Department to work to repeal laws that criminalize consensual homosexual conduct or restrict freedoms enjoyed by gay people and gay organizations. (This runs contrary to the Republican aim to bring back Iran-style public executions of gay folks here at home.)
It requires the State Department to track violence against or restrictions on persons based on sexual orientation and gender identity (the Republican digest equates these with prostitution, pedophilia and exhibitionism)
The bill affirms as authoritative the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). This is a bill of rights for women adopted by the U.N. general assembly in 1979. The Convention defines discrimination against women as “…any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.” (The Republican digest calls it a “tool of radical social policy”.)
It authorizes payment of arrears in U.S. contributions to the United Nations and increases the cap on U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations. (Republicans want to do everything in their power to cripple the United Nations, preferring instead the Bush model of foreign relations).
It funds 2200 new foreign service positions and increases wages for foreign service officers as an aid to recruiting and retaining talented people. (Republicans, of course, during the Bush years attempted to emasculate the State Department and pursue military adventures instead of diplomacy, bringing our country to to the low state it is at today in terms of influence over world affairs).

After looking at this, its no wonder that Peter Roskam and his Republican brethren in Congress have a miniscule 13% favorable rating.

Proponents of Gay Rights Must Boycott Democratic Candidates

RSR — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:35:48 +0000

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Sometimes you have to give your friends a kick in the butt. Now is one such time. It is time for equal rights. No more excuses.

I solemnly vow that I will not cast another vote for or give another dollar to a Democratic candidate for office until the Democratic leadership brings to the floor for a vote, with the endorsement and full support of President Obama, legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and to repeal the “Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell” rule. I encourage all others who share the belief that LBGT persons deserve all of the benefits of citizenship to do the same. No equal rights, no votes.

I have great respect for our Democratic leadership and for President Obama. But I believe their timidity on this issue is inexcusable. The administration’s defense of DOMA in a court brief was the last straw. This action was in direct contradiction to President Obama’s stated intent to repeal DOMA. It seems clear to me that witholding votes and financial support is the only way to move leadership to action. It would be great to see Senator Durbin put his weight behind this.

Our anti-equality Congressman, Peter Roskam, should derive no comfort from this. He has consistently refused to support LBGT rights and is certainly undeserving of our votes as well.

Peter Roskam’s Ex-Campaign Manager Launches New Firm to Lie to Latino Voters

RSR — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:31:31 +0000

RSR notes with interest this item from Politico yesterday. Jason Cabel Roe, Peter Roskam’s former, campaign manager, has launched a new consulting firm, Revolvis Consulting. The firm “will focus on strategies to bring Latino voters into the Republican fold”. Revolvis’ initial focus is on a number of races in California.

Jason Roe’s bio on the Revolvis web site indicates that he was Chief of Staff for Republican Congressman Tom Feeney of Florida from 2003 to 2007. It fails to mention that Roe left Feeney in 2007 to work for Mitt Romney’s Presidential campaign, then abruptly resigned in April 2007, citing family obligations, after the FBI started questioning Feeney regarding his ties to lobbyist and felon Jack Abramoff. Feeney had accompanied Abramoff on that famous golf outing to Scotland. Roe memorably defended Feeney in an email message stating “Any assertion that this office knew Abramoff paid for the Scotland trip is a g–d—– lie.”

Roe previously founded Federal Strategy Group, a Washington lobbying firm that advertised its access to to politicians like Roskam.

Roe managed Peter Roskam’s famously dirty Congressional campaign against Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth 2006. That campaign attacked Duckworth as wanting to give “handouts to illegal aliens”:

You may recall that Jason Roe & Peter Roskam made Keith Olberman’s “Worst Person in the World” list for Roskam’s infamous remark that Duckworth wanted to “cut and run” from Iraq (Duckworth, of course, lost both of her legs while serving In Iraq) and Roe’s subsequent distortion of what was actually said.

So anyway, now Roe wants to help bring Latino’s into the fold. The Revolvis web site actualy has a “Latino Services” page. That’s impressive. The Latino Services page states that “an effective Latino program is a vital component to any public policy and/or candidate campaign”. (Isn’t that warm and fuzzy – a “Latino program”). But Roe is right, the current Republican “Latino program” – smearing the first Latina Supreme Court nominee as a racist and calling the National Council of La Raza a Latino “KKK” – is not proving to be working, if you believe the polls. (We wonder though whether this handiwork from the Revolvis portfolio will be typical of a Revolvis “latino program”.)

How does Revolvis plan to sway Latino voters, then? Wedge issues!:

Latinos, like other voters groups are not single issue voters. While immigration is an important issue, Latinos have consistently ranked national security, the environment, education, healthcare, and the economy as issues of greater importance to them. The Democrats do not hold sway over the Latino community on all of these issues. In California, we saw Latinos overwhelmingly supporting both Obama and the gay marriage initiative (Proposition 8). Avenues exist for Republicans to make inroads into these communities.

California’s Proposition 8 (Gay Marriage Ban), and additional survey data, illustrates that Republicans don’t have to change their principles, we just need to communicate with all voters, year-round.

Charming. Roe plans to win over Latinos by demonizing gay people.

These pricks, Roskam and Roe, and Limbaugh and all their kind , they just don’t get it. Until they do, the Republican Party will sink further and further into oblivion. Their program of lying to middle class people about caring for their needs while demonizing outsiders and sowing fear is bankrupt. It won’t work anymore.

Latinos aren’t stupid. If Republicans truly want to win Latino voters, and midldle class working people in general, then they need to start viewing them as people and not just votes - they have to learn to start doing the right thing by ordinary people and not just for big business and the very wealthy:

Ensuring that workers are paid just wages, have safe working conditions, and their right to organize is protected
Ensuring that everyone has access to affordable quality health care
Ceasing to demonize immigrant workers and gay people
Supporting policies that give consumers a fair shake against giant corporations
Providing services for our returning servicemen who are strugling with health problems and unemployment

Until Republicans catch on, the party is going to continue to dwindle into a southern regional coalition of religious extremists and hate groups.

A Reply to Tony Perkins and the Persecuting Church

RSR — Fri, 29 May 2009 03:43:32 +0000

I receive daily messages from Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council, a Christian group “dedicated to the promotion of marriage and family and the sanctity of human life in national policy”. Or in my interpretation a Republican front group designed to distract the gullible with fear of gay marriage and the like so that they will vote against their own economic interests and support the Republican pro-corporate agenda. Usually these days they are ranting about how gay marriage and the Obama Administration are destroying the world. I subscribe to the newsletter because it helps me keep track of the mischief of the wingnuts. Today’s issue was particularly mean-spirited:

Immigration Law: Leahy’s Passport to Same-Sex ‘Marriage’
Under its cheery name, The Uniting American Families Act, lies yet another attack on marriage at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. As part of the movement to give same-sex partners special privileges, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced a bill, S. 424, to allow any gay or lesbian foreigner who is currently dating an American to immigrate to the U.S. on the same basis as foreign spouses. Like a married couple, these homosexuals would be eligible for “permanent resident status” under the current immigration law.

Although Leahy frames the policy as an anti-discrimination measure, the truth is, this weakens our federal law and chips away at the unique status of marriage. For the federal government to recognize homosexual pairs in any way, shape, or form is a violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). If the liberal leadership wants to repeal DOMA, then they should do so with a recorded vote of Congress–not let it just die of a thousand cuts.

“Homosexual pairs”? These are human beings you ass.

This is just plain inhuman. Telling people that they can’t marry then telling them they can’t be together because they’re not married. Tony Perkins is just plain evil.

And of course we can’t expect any help from our own Congressman Roskam. Roskam has already shown himself to be an opponent of equality for LGBT people. Don’t expect his vote if S.424 makes it to the House.

So, Tony Perkins, this video is for you (Hat tip to Turning Left and to the video’s creators. It is really cute).

A Message For Homophobes
by nonightfan

Fuck you, Tony. And Fuck you, Peter for your votes on ENDA and hate crimes.

President Obama Needs to Grow a Pair

RSR — Sun, 17 May 2009 17:06:14 +0000

When it comes to gay rights, that is.

On April 23, 2009, the New York Army National Guard instituted involuntary discharge proceedings against First Lieutenant Daniel Choi, a West Point educated arabic linguist with 15 months service in Iraq. The reason for the discharge: Choi admitted publicy that he is a homosexual, which is equated with homosexual conduct under the military’s so-called “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Thus far, President Obama, despite having promised during his campaign an intention to bring an end to this policy, and despite it being a stated objective on the White House web site, has failed to intervene.

I believe the President when he says he wants to bring an end to this discriminatory policy. I believe that he fully intends to do it. I just don’t agree with the delay.

The President should follow the model of his Democratic predecessor, Harry Truman, who in 1948, by executive order, desegregated the armed forces: It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.

If an executive order is not a legally viable option, and I don’t think it is because the policy is statuatory, then he should publically demand that Congress immediately send him a bill for his signature to accomplish the same. Perhaps he could use his appearance at Notre Dame this afternoon to do so .

The point is that he should be doing everything in his power to stop the tide of involuntary discharges and it does not appear that he is doing so. The time for change is now, Mr. President. You need to stand up and loudly tell the country that discrimination against LGBT people is wrong and that, as a country, we are not going to do it anymore.

RSR Declares Jeremiah Wright Affair Officially Closed

RSR — Tue, 13 May 2008 23:38:35 +0000

John Hagee, the creepy evangelical pastor who’s support presidential candidate and Peter Roskam ally John McCain so ardently courted, today apologized to Catholics for his anti-catholic remarks which included calling the church “The Great Whore” and accusing it of supporting Adolph Hitler. Hagee’s apology was immediately accepted on behalf of Catholics everywhere by Bill Donahue, head of the Catholic league, who declared the matter closed. This presumably clears the way for Pastor Hagee to refocus on his core ministry of hating gays, Jews, Muslims, and women.

Following Mr. Donahue’s lead, and on behalf of all patriotic white Americans, I am officially accepting Barack Obama’s explanations of his affiliation with Jeremiah Wright, and declaring the matter closed.

We can now take up the real work at hand: electing leaders who will will begin to undo the disastrous legacy of 8 years under George Bush, and not men like John McCain and Peter Roskam who wish to sustain it.

Peter Roskam’s Refusal to Stand Up Against Hate Crimes

RSR — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:31:48 +0000

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — On the first day of July (2007), Satender Singh was gay-bashed to death. The 26-year-old Fijian of Indian descent was enjoying a holiday weekend outing at Lake Natoma with three married Indian couples around his age. Singh was delicate and dateless — two facts that did not go unnoticed by a party of Russian-speaking immigrants two picnic tables away.According to multiple witnesses, the men began loudly harassing Singh and his friends, calling them “7-Eleven workers” and “Sodomites.” The Slavic men bragged about belonging to a Russian evangelical church and told Singh that he should go to a “good church” like theirs. According to Singh’s friends, the harassers sent their wives and children home, then used their cell phones to summon several more Slavic men. The members of Singh’s party, which included a woman six months pregnant, became afraid and tried to leave. But the Russian-speaking men blocked them with their bodies.

The pregnant woman said she didn’t want to fight them.

“We don’t want to fight you either,” one of them replied in English. “We just want your faggot friend.”

One of the Slavic men then sucker-punched Singh in the head. He fell to the ground, unconscious and bleeding. The assailants drove off in a green sedan and red sports car, hurling bottles at Singh’s friends to prevent them from jotting down the license plate. Singh suffered a brain hemorrhage. By the next day, hospital tests confirmed that he was clinically brain dead. His family agreed to remove him from artificial life support July 5.

Outside Singh’s hospital room, more than 100 people held a vigil. Many were Sacramento gay activists who didn’t know Singh personally, but who saw his death as the tragic but inevitable result of what they describe as the growing threat of large numbers of Slavic anti-gay extremists, most of them first- or second-generation immigrants from Russia, the Ukraine and other countries of the former Soviet Union, in their city and others in the western United States.

In recent months, as energetic Russian-speaking “Russian Baptists” and Pentecostals in these states have organized to bring thousands to anti-gay protests, gay rights activists in Sacramento have picketed Slavic anti-gay churches, requested more police patrols in gay neighborhoods and distributed information cards warning gays and lesbians about the hostile Slavic evangelicals who they say have roughed up participants at gay pride events. Singh’s death was the realization of their worst fears.”

After a couple years of fundamentalist and Slavic Christian virulent anti-gay protests at almost every Sacramento gay event in the region,” said local gay rights activist Michael Gorman, “what the gay community has feared for some time has finally happened.”

The story above is excerpted from a longer article at the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report. I quote it at length because I want readers to understand what hate crimes look like and then look at Peter Roskam’s stance on anti-hate crime legislation.

Satender Singh’s death appears to be a direct result of the hatred against gays that is being whipped up by Christian extremist groups. SPLC notes one in particular called Watchmen on the Walls, whose co-founder, Scott Lively, authored a book which claimed that gays were responsible for the Holocaust. SPLC has posted a video of Lively giving an alternate history of Singh’s death to an audience of followers in Russia in August. It is pretty chilling.

On November 19, the FBI released its annual Hate Crime Statistics report for 2006. According to a story on the release by the Washington Post, hate crimes reports were up by 8%. But as the Post has also reported, the reports are pretty spotty because the reporting by local law enforcement agencies is not mandatory. Mississsippi, for example reported no hate crimes at all.

Democrats in Congress have recently taken action to address the problem of hate crimes. H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 was introduced in the House in March, 2007. The bill seeks to offer Federal assistance to local law state and local law enforcement agencies in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. Its provisions include:

Defining a hate crime as “a violent act causing death or bodily injury because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability of the victim”.
Amending the federal criminal code to make violent hate involving firearms, explosives or incendiary devices punishable by a fine or a prison term of up to 10 years.
Providing funding to state and local programs combating hate crimes committed by juvenilles.
Allowing the Attorney General to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of hate crimes by state and local jursidictions.

Some Christian groups are portraying this legislation as an attempt to stifle free speech and free exercise of religion by Christians and other religious groups. Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council has produced a video denouncing the bill as an attempt to silence the church by legislating against “thought crimes”. Ironically, even many black pastors are opposing the law on the grounds that it will prevent them from preaching against immorality.

H.R. 1592, however, specifically provides that “that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit expressive conduct or activities protected by the First Amendment.” The bill does nothing to prevent Christian extremists from preaching hatred. It only provides for prosecution of those who act out that hatred in a violent manner.

President Bush has expressed his opposition to H.R. 1592 and threatened to veto, citing the lack of any persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement”. Apparently gay men getting their heads bashed in is not persuasive. Anyone can look at the history of the struggle for black civil rights in the South and understand that local jurisdictions are often unwilling or unable to take steps to protect their citizens. Bush also cited the potential unconsitutionality of the legislation but given our long history of federal civil rights legislation, this excuse doesn’t seem to hold water. This appears to be an attempt to placate Christian extremists by refusing to extend the protections enjoyed by other citizens to gay people.

Predictably, Peter Roskam opted to support Bush’s stand, voting against passage when the bill came before the House on May 3rd. His web site appears to be silent on the issue. Apparently, it was not considered an issue of importance. The bill went to the Senate where it was attached to the 2008 defense authorization bill which is now in conference.

Peter Roskam owes an apology to his constituents for refusing to extend the protection of the Constitution to all of the citizens of his district. I hope that our Democratic candidates will take a strong stand against hate crimes.

Peter Roskam Says Gay is Not OK

RSR — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:47:46 +0000

On Wednesday, November 7th, Peter Roskam once again gave his rubber stamp of approval to anti-gay bigotry by voting against the passage of H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The bill, if signed into law, would provide federal protection of workers against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

In doing so, Roskam remained in lock-step with President Bush, who is also opposed to equal rights for gay people and has previously threatened to veto the measure.

The measure passed 235 to 184. The bill’s future in the Senate is uncertain and, even if passed, would likely be vetoed by Bush. Still, it’s passage on Wednesday was something of a triumph for civil rights. Democratic legislators had been trying to pass similar legislation for over 30 years but have been blocked by Republicans like Roskam who who are opposed to allowing gay people the same rights that other citizens enjoy under our Constitution.

Roskam’s corporate clientele are largely ok with protecting gay people in the workplace, many large corporations having established policies that ban discrimination and, in some cases, even confer benefits on same-sex domestic partners. Roskam’s vote, therefore is best viewed as an attempt to obtain the votes of Christian extremists, many of whom believe that interference with their persecution of gay people is a violation of their religious freedom.

Sadly, the final version of ENDA which passed in the House lacked protections for transgendered persons.