Link: http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/bully08.shtml
This bill was recently killed in the house. Apparently, conservatives thought it violated “free speech” because gays were protected under the bill and christian students wouldn’t be allowed to “voice their displeasure” about the gay lifestyle. WTF!?!?!?! This might have been a radical so I don’t want to generalize but, is this what Bush meant by “compassionate conservatism?”
Is this a free speech issue?
And where exactly does the part about beating up gays for Jesus come in?
The Bill concerns schoolyard bullying, and quite frankly looks like one of those bullshit Bills that it makes it look like the Government is doing something about this problem, but really accomplishes nothing.
I don’t know where you pull Conservatives beating up Gays for Jesus out of this.
I think your OP is total bullshit.
Gots to agree with Scyla here. From the looks of it, this is one of those dumb ‘feel-good’ bills that accomplish nothing whatsoever.
Nothing about beating up gays for Jesus about it.
Now, there are probably some people who object to the bill because of various different reasons. It’s a common tactic of mental lightweights to assume that everyone who disagrees with an idealogy or premise disagrees with it for exactly the same reason, and then only because they are The Enemy.
Yes, I must agree with Scylla,
and add that this quote from the article:
seems to refute your OP entirely in one sentence in the third or four paragraph of the article.
interesting.
jarbaby
Perhaps you meant to link to another article?
Ok, I’m completely confused. I read the article in the link provided by the OP and I don’t see any mention of gays (or Jesus, for that matter). All the bill in question does is require schools to prohibit harassment.
I would suggest that the OP provide more information to support eir contention that the bill was “killed” by people who want to bash gays, which seems to be be the claim made by the OP.
The purpose of such a bill, by the way, is to open the door for lawsuits against the school for failure to prevent harassment when a student is harassed.
I don’t see how harassment is a “free speech issue”; while there are free speech issues with laws prohibiting harassing communication, such issues are not insurmountable. Besides, students have virtually no free speech rights anyway, because they’re students.
Here’s some relevant text from the bill, in its final State Senate draft:
(Italics added.)
You should probably be thankful the State HoR dumped this bill, which looks like it opened the door for alot of “buck passing” in the schools (“Well, I reported Damien to the proper authority; guess I’ve done my part. Sooner or later the ‘appropriate school official’ will do something…”)
In think the article he was meaning to quote is here:
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/21001_bully01.shtml
While I find what was said by the zealot legislators appalling, I still don’t think that it fits the OP. Nor do I think the OP fits the intention of the zealots. Though to try and kill anti-bullying legislation on the basis that it can be construed as a gay rights bill is absurd and creepy.
I read the article and I didn’t find any mention of homosexuals or conservatives. In fact the article mentions that the Republican vote was actually split which means about half the Republicans actually voted for the bill to pass. You don’t want to generalize do you? Then stop becasue the whole purpose of your post appears to be demonizing Republicans instead of a constructive debate.
There are all sorts of reasons why one might be against the bill. I’m against the bill. Do you think that I’m against it because Christian students won’t be able to “voice their displeasure” about the gay lifestyle? (Whatever the gay lifestyle is.) Or is it possible that some of us might have other reasons?
I suppose the goal of this bill is to prevent students from being harassed in school. Ok, how is the bill going to prevent harassment from happening?
Proponents of the bill believe that it will save student lives? How? And why do we always assume that the shooters were just little angels who were picked on to much? There were a few people from my high school days who were assholes to everyone and, SURPISE, people picked on them.
Will this criminalize the act of being a bully? So far as I know students can sometimes sue schools for harassment if the schools refuse to do anything about it.
What about unintended consequences? I know people love to pass laws because it makes them feel like they’re making a difference. But are there any possible side affects this legislation might have?
Bottom line, what good will this bill do and how will it be enforced?
Marc
Thank you Hastur. And you’re right. It STILL doesn’t support the OP.
This quote from the CHRISTIAN COALITION…in the linked article says:
It seems in reading both of these articles that the exchanges between both parties and their issues were very civil and not without SOME basis in merit. The OP went a little extremist on us, I think.
jarbaby
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MGibson *
**And why do we always assume that the shooters were just little angels who were picked on to much? There were a few people from my high school days who were assholes to everyone and, SURPISE, people picked on them.
**
But it’s not just the assholes that get picked on. People who are different, or are outsiders to the community, or who are easy targets, also get picked on, without being assholes. I remember in sixth grade we got a new student who was immediately labeled by everyone else as infectious or something equally disgusting and scorned by everyone in the class. There was no reason for this: she was marked the day she walked in the door; there was nothing she could possibly have done to have earned such scorn. This poor girl spent most of that year (she transferred out at the end of the year) being shunned for no reason whatsoever. Anyone who acted compassionately toward her got similar treatment. And her treatment is mild compared to other accounts I’ve seen.
It wouldn’t surprise me that people who get treated this way often end up becoming assholes. When you’re treated like crap, you learn to treat others like crap. Is this really the sort of behavior we want to be sponsoring in our schools? Is it so unreasonable to forbid schools from allowing it to persist?
Only if the harassment is sexual (Title VII) or involves physical violence amounting to a criminal offense. In some states (e.g. Texas) it is absolutely impossible to sue a school for anything under state law; any recourse has to come under federal law, and the standard here is quite high.
Now that I’ve cooled down let me give this another shot.
The issue of gays came about in a later TV interview that unfortunately I don’t have transcripts for or else I would link to those also. Maybe this guy was to the extreme but he was the head of some christian group and said that it would violate free speech.
KellyB: I don’t contend that conservatives wanting to “bash gays” was the reason. I’m saying that this is what was said in the interview and if it was the reason, it is disturbing.
MGibson: I realize that this bill could have been voted down for many different reasons. The link was more for background information rather than the subject, the interview (now looking back I realize that wasn’t clear at all.) Plus, the good that this bill would do is make this serious enough where something can be done about it. I think too many times schools are too timid to act, for fear of bad PR. This could do something about that, under the assumption that they don’t going the way of other no-tolerance policies of suspending kids for paper guns . . .
Jarbaby#2 Sorry about going solar. It just really chapped my ass at the time.
Confession: I apologize for flying off of the handle in the OP. If anyone thought I was trying to label all conservatives as gay hating animals that was not my intention. I understand that they have an objection to homosexuality and although I disagree, I respect their opinion. But to hear this guy on TV, who is looking more and more like the exception and not the rule as he was saying, claim that gays shouldn’t be afforded the right to go to school without being harassed, I find this appalling. Sorry for the bad information.
Cyberhwk:
I’m a Conservative, and there’s nothing here in my Conservative handbook that says we’re anti-gay, or even have any objection to homosexuality on any grounds.
You’re thinking of fundamentalists. They tend to be Conservative politically.
But then you liberals get all those weird tree huggers that think we oughtta all go live on a commune in Wyoming or something and return to hunting/gathering, so I guess it’s even.
And just what, exactly is wrong with hunting/gathering? You conservatives are always bashing the hunter/gatherers.
Tris
If only they got the same kick from repealing laws…
Only the gay ones. 
Yes, it’s much easier to pass feel-good legislation that will tie people up in bureaucratic knots, encourage lawsuits and accomplish less than simply using common sense and encouraging personal responsibility.
That said, the “encouragement of homosexuality”-based opposition appears incredibly moronic.
This is a front-burner issue in Washington State? Things must be awfully dull up there.
I’m with you, Jack- how the hell does an anti-bullying law encourage playground discussions of homosexuality, as the article stated? I would love to see the language of the bill in it’s entirety but I don’t have time to go hunt for it.
Methinks the fundies protest too much. I mean, if you see homosexuality everywhere, are you looking too hard for it?
Whatever. I thought SoCal was a little off.
Last I checked, most conservatives had nothing against hunters, and even tended to support them.
Now, as for those damn gatherers … no, don’t get me started.
As to the OP: you have to expect the CC (or others) to make silly statements like that - it’s how they get on the news. Luckily, less than 49% of the people in the country are that stupid.
Damn gatherers. (sorry!)
Ahem.