The Matthew Shepard Act, LGBT-inclusive hate crimes legislation, today passed the U.S. Senate. Judy and Dennis Shepard, parents of the slain college student for whom the bill is named, said “Today’s Senate vote sends a bold and unmistakable message that violent crimes committed in the name of hate must end.”
The House version of the Act passed in May. Now, the two versions must be reconciled, and President Bush must sign it. The Act is, however, an amendment to the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008,” or, as Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin succinctly put it, “the bill that funds the war in Iraq.” He comments:
President Bush will be in the unenviable position of either signing the bill and infuriating his social conservative supporters (about the only supporters he has left) or vetoing the bill and trying to explain to America that preventing hate crimes legislation is more important than paying our soldiers overseas.
Heh.
50 Democrats, 9 Republicans, and an Independent voted in favor of the amendment, or, more specifically, in favor of the cloture motion to end debate. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) then asked for a voice vote, and the measure passed unopposed. Among those voting against cloture, however, was Senator Larry Craig (R-ID). No surprise there.
HRC notes this “marks the first time a trans-inclusive piece of federal legislation has ever passed both chambers of Congress.” True, and notable, but one suspects HRC is emphasizing this because of rumors that gender identity will be dropped from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in order to get the bill passed. Let’s hope it’s not true. All for one, and all that.
Oh, that’s great news!
(and very clever to tack it onto defense)
Sadly, it is true. They’re going to strip the bill of GI.
I’ve supported HRC despite trans-criticism based on their past actions. If they betray us on this one, they will never ever regain the trust of the trans world.
And if we don’t get included under a general GLBT bill, I will never have my job protected as long as I live. This is not something that’s going to come back next year. Our numbers are far too small. This is our one and only chance.
I suspect Barney Frank is at the bottom of this. He blathered some horrible hateful transphobic crap to Bay Windows when this first came up. If he’s counting the votes, someone else needs to take a recount.
I thought I’d contribute a bit of Biblical support for lesbian families from my blog Schmitz Blitz (schmitzblitz.wordpress.com)
It’s a bit long, but I find the Book of Ruth to be an inspiring story of lesbians and their families
Cory Tucholski from Josiah Concept Ministries has challenged my interpretation of the book of Ruth. My response is as follows:
I will grant you that my initial post on the Book of Ruth lacked depth. Though I also feel that you present a somewhat naïve interpretation yourself, as you fail to address the language and the context of the Biblical story.
First order in supporting my claim that Naomi and Ruth had a potentially romantic relationship, I would like to look at a specific bit of language found in the Book of Ruth. Ruth (1:14) states that “Ruth clung to [Naomi]”. The usage of the verb to cling is significant in that it is found in Genesis to describe the relationship between Adam and Eve. Genesis (2:24) reads: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Thus it would seem in using this common language, that the relationship between Naomi and Ruth was similar to that of Adam and Eve.
Now to look at the context of the verse. You claim, “Ruth is Naomi’s daughter-in-law. I really don’t see a romantic relationship developing between these two women.” You are correct that that the women were mother and daughter in law, but I don’t understand how you can make the stretch from there that this means they could not be lovers. The Bible is full of passages about romantic relationships that we would not consider kosher in our modern world.
For example, the story of Judah and Tamar from Genesis 38, in which Tamar becomes pregnant by her father-in-law Judah. Like Ruth, Tamar was drawn to her dead husband’s parent after a string of failed levirate marriages.
You also question how Naomi and Ruth could possibly be lovers if Naomi helped Ruth marry Boaz. Again, you overlook other Bible passages in which people have intimate relationships with more than one person for the sake of carrying on a lineage. This is true of Abraham and Hagar, Jacob and his wives, David and Bathsheeba, etc.
Lineage was extremely important in Bible, as I’m sure you are aware. The Elimelech lineage, to which Naomi belonged, would have come to an end with the death Naomi’s sons (Ruth’s husbands). In order to continue that lineage, which would eventually produce both King David and Jesus, either Naomi or Ruth would have to have a child, and at that time, a man was the only way to do that.
And of course, marrying a person of the opposite sex does not preclude one from being gay, as the stories of Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, et. al painfully reveal.
I believe the passages referring to the birth of Obed are also significant in that they show how Naomi and Ruth share parenthood with Obed. Ruth (4:16-17) reads, “Then Naomi took the child and laid him in her bosom, and became his nurse. The women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.”
Obed’s father Boaz is a minimal figure—pretty much that of a sperm donor. The passage clearly reveals that Naomi is a more important parental figure to Obed than Boaz. It seems that Naomi is playing the role of the non-biological mother that you see in modern lesbian families. Of course that is a difficult connection to make, given the different era and lack of further Biblical text, but it does not seem as far fetched as you would have it.
Pingback: Mombian » Blog Archive » The ENDA the Movement as We Know It?