In a statement yesterday the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) revealed that U.S. Senate leadership will attempt to pass hate crimes legislation—which would add sexual orientation, gender identity and disability protections to federal law—as an amendment and not as stand-alone legislation. HRC spokesperson Trevor Thomas speaking to the Washington Blade:

“We understand that Senate leadership does not believe a hearing or mark up on the bill is necessary and plans to bring it directly to the floor as an amendment to another moving vehicle,” he said.

Thomas said the Senate determined it would pass the legislation as an amendment because the chamber’s leaders believes that’s “the most efficient way” to send the measure to the president’s desk.

Another reason may be that the Senate doesn’t have enough votes to get the measure passed as a stand-alone bill, as reported in an update on Pam’s House Blend late yesterday.

HRC is urging Congress to get hate crimes legislation to President Obama’s desk before the end of the summer.

Update: GOProud executive director Jimmy LaSilva wants to join hate crimes legislation with a provision allowing gun owners to carry their concealed weapons across state lines. Ouch!

This is hardly a surprise, considering the current makeup of the Supreme Court… From AP News:

Without comment, the nation’s highest court denied a review of an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was in the Vermont National Guard when he was discharged in 2004.

“I think this decision is an absolute travesty of justice and I think every judge on this court should be ashamed of themselves,” said Pietrangelo, who served six years in the Army, seven years in the Vermont National Guard and fought in Iraq in 1991. “It’s nothing short of rubber stamping legalized discrimination.”

“The Supreme Court is not infallible, they get things wrong, and they got it wrong this time,” added Pietrangelo, who now lives in Ohio.

In court papers, the government said a Boston-based appeals court ruled correctly when it threw out Pietrangelo’s case because the policy is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.”

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council approved of the court’s actions, “Military service is a privilege, not a right, and anything that detracts from the ability of our service personnel to fulfill their mission should be prohibited.”

This is the first time a case asking to overturn Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has ever reached the Supreme Court. The Obama administration has refused to take steps to repeal the ban despite promises made during the campaign, preferring to leave it in the hands of Congress to overturn.

A new Gallup poll shows conservatives and weekly churchgoers now in favor of allowing open gays and lesbians to serve in the military, up 12 and 11 points respectively  since 2004. From Gallup:

The finding that majorities of weekly churchgoers (60%), conservatives (58%), and Republicans (58%) now favor what essentially equates to repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy implemented under President Clinton in 1993 is noteworthy for several reasons. First, the data show that these traditionally conservative groups are shifting on this issue, supporting it to a far greater extent than they support legalized gay marriage. Second, it suggests the political playing field may be softer on this issue, and President Barack Obama will be well-positioned to forge ahead with his campaign promise to end the military ban on openly gay service members with some support from more conservative segments of the population. To date, it is estimated that more than 12,500 servicemen and servicewomen have been discharged under the policy, including more than 200 since Obama took office.

The question Gallup asked was:

“Do you favor or oppose allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military?”

I wonder if moving the word “open” to later in the question would have affected the outcome of the poll…

“Do you favor or oppose allowing gay men and lesbian women to serve “openly” in the military?”

Just curious… In the mind of a wingnut…would it make a difference? I suspect it might.

Important Note: If you are visiting from www.usimmigrationwoes.com, they are mistaken. This is not a religious blog, and we are in full support of UAFA. Click on the UAFA link at the top of the page and will find numerous posts supportive of UAFA.

The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which provides a path to citizenship for same-sex couples where one of the partners is not a legal resident, is coming under fire from religious groups saying the act threatens overall immigration reform and undermines traditional marriage

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is urging constituents to call their senators and vote against the bill:

Yesterday, while I was on the Hill meeting with a handful of senators, I learned that FRC’s noise on the immigration bill, S. 424 [UAFA], is having a considerable impact. After your calls and emails started pouring in, one leader told me the legislation, which would give a special resident status to same-sex partners, had become an embarrassing “spectacle.” Although the bill is still active, finding support for it will be even tougher now that FRC has shined the light on its real objective: undermining marriage. If you haven’t contacted your senators, please chime in this week and urge them to vote “no” on the “Uniting American Families Act.”

Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, head of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference is also opposed to the measure. From Politco.com:

..he [Rev. Rodriguez] called the efforts to slip gay rights into the immigration debate a “slap in the face to those of us who have fought for years for immigration reform.”

Rodriguez, who has worked with evangelical churches to build support for a broader immigration bill that would expand visa laws, said that if the same-sex language stays in, it will “divide the very broad and strong coalition that we have built on behalf of comprehensive immigration reform.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has also indicated they will not support immigration reform if it contains language granting rights to same-sex couples, saying it “would erode the institution of marriage and family… a position that  is contrary to the very nature of marriage which pre-dates the church and the state.”

As noted by Senator Jeff Sessions during the UAFA hearings earlier this week, Focus on the Family, the Eagle Forum and Concerned Women for America are also opposed to the legislation. Well post their official statements as they become available.

Lou Dobbs on CNN report on those opposed to UAFA last week. Watch:

Currently the House version of UAFA has 105 co-sponsors, while the Senate version of the bill only has 19 co-sponsors.

Please contact your local Represenative and have them co-sponsor UAFA.

Important Note: If you are visiting from www.usimmigrationwoes.com, they are mistaken. This is not a religious blog, and we are in full support of UAFA. Click on the UAFA link at the top of the page and will find numerous posts supportive of UAFA.