@TolstoyPlease note that my original post said nothing about the value of
the law - merely the hypocrisy. Nice insertion of words into my mouth so that
you could feign indignation. However since you mention it: the current VAWA is
NOT the original bipartisan law co-sponsored by Orrin Hatch. The current
Democratic Senate made small but meaningful changes designed to politicize the
law. For example: the new VAWA take Native American cases out of federal court
and into tribal court - which do not have the same constitutional protections.
The net effect is actually to weaken domestic violence laws. However the
political benefit is that it causes Republicans to raise questions; allowing
racist passive/aggressive left wing femisogynists to screech that right-wing
Republican have declared war on women - despite the fact that the mere existence
of the law is about preferential treatment of women.
VAWA passed the Senate with no help from Utah. All 22 votes against the bill
were by Republican men, including Hatch and Lee. The GOP is doing a fine job of
rehabilitating its reputation with women, isn't it? Are they trying to be
irrelevant or is it just an unintended consequence? VAWA works to prevent
domestic violence, which means fewer ER admissions, fewer police house calls,
fewer perpetrators imprisoned, etc. All this lowers the costs of running the
government. You would think that the fiscal benefits would have drawn some GOP
support, but apparently some are so obsessed with anti-LGBT animus that they
will vote against anything favorable to them.Meanwhile, mountanman
is scratching his head pondering why God sent Moses the Ten Commandments on a
tablet when it was a foregone conclusion that people would break them. Why
should societies codify any rules of behavior? It's all empty symbolism.
@mountainmanThe act provides money and resources to help prevent violence
and hep those that are in abusive relationships not just prosecute offenders. I
to wonder if you have thought about the consequences of extending you reasoning
to its logical end which would be that we should have no laws because people
will just break them anyway? @CISo because this particular law
does not address violence against men then it is a bad law and should be thrown
out? There is an increasing need and awareness for the need to address domestic
violence against men no doubt but the reality is women are still far more likely
to be the victims then the perpetrators of such crimes. We should address
domestic violence against men but it does not make this a bad law.
@ Wonder. Not at all, I am just amused at the worthless symbolism from the
Democrats. Are there not already laws against violence against women? Its all
for show, nothing more!
@Mountanman -- So your theory of government is anarchy then I guess? Because
someone's gonna break every law, but that doesn't mean you don't
pass laws. Your argument cuts against every law.
Yes - because violence should only be tolerated when it its against men Fascinating how femysoginists want equality AND preference AND still claim to
be a class of victims
Yep, that will stop violence against women because as we all know, would be
criminals always obey laws! That's why we have no crime in America. Good
work Democrats, thanks for keeping women safe and now you can believe you
actually accomplished something!
Good for the Senate. it is now time for the extreme far right radical members
of the House to (just once) do something for the women of the United States and
approve this bill.
It's about time!