U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 31, 2009 10:21 AM UTC
71 Comments
.
This diary includes facts that I didn’t hear during the trial. “Sought out” chief among them.
I routinely break some laws. Some others here do, too, and not just speeding. I’d not heard before that the killer had rationalized killing on the basis of stopping a law-breaker.
The most masculine man I know has a couple of pink shirts. Some people’s kids, eh ?
.
Glad to see this front paged.
Well done.
I wrote this because several of our elected leaders were quite vocal–before the trial of Inmate 104109–in op-eds about Angie to build momentum for the passage of the bill, which was awesome. And it worked. They even got Mike Coffman to vote for it the first time (though he flip-flopped on it the second time, channeling Pat Robertson in his remarks).
But after the signing of the bill, none of those who were lifted by her wings through the legislative process has mentioned Angie Zapata in any of the several press releases and campaign e-mails that have been sent out since then, though Matthew Shepard is mentioned plenty. Her tragedy got limited mention when the bill passed the Senate, but none since.
Matthew deserves to be mentioned, of course, but so does Angie. Yet she became invisible. That irritated me. It made me angry with our senators and representatives, and also at the media and the large LGBT organizations, all of whom have quickly erased Angie from our collective consciousness.
requires the most vigilant refusal to let it go unchallenged. Thanks.
But I believe both Michael Bennet and Betsy Markey discussed Angie Zapata on their respective floors when the bill was up for debate.
http://bennet.senate.gov/newsr…
They were more than willing to invoke her name to help move the bill forward (which is great). But have thusfar neglected to mention her and give her family the credit they are due for actually getting the job done.
Wow. I don’t even know what to say.
The odds of a Transgender person being murdered are possibly as high as 1 in 4, but that is from very unreliable FBI numbers. The link for that is somewhere on the FBI crime stat pages, which I always forget where the link is in my bookmarks.
Reporting on crimes against GLBT people is mostly not reporting. So we have a difficult time coming up with solid numbers. Except, the reported numbers are lower than the actual numbers.
Also, attacks on Transgender people and gays are up close and personal. No using a gun when a knife or fire extinguisher is available. Sometimes bare hands are used to ripe the body apart. Cutting or riping body parts off is typical.
But, that is often used as the defense to keep the killer out of jail. The attack is so vicious and ruthless it could only be because of “gay panic”. Nothing like getting a walk after bashing in the face and head or ripping the guts out of someone who was transgender or gay. (Gender orientation and sexual orientation are not the same thing.)
It’s actually a study by the Harvey Milk Institute. The FBI hate crime statistics are a joke because they depend on self-reporting by local agencies. You can learn more by reading newspaper articles than you can the FBI stats. Which is actually how places like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Transgender Day of Remembrance come up with their name, faces, and stories (in addition to self-reporting)
Besides, Buck will probably get castigated from the wing nuts in his party for promoting the radical transgendered agenda by locking up Angie Zapata’s assailant for life.
.
and this is pure speculation, mind you,
but the most likely way to soften resistance by right-wing zealots like me to expanding special rights for GLBT persons is to start at the other end of the spectrum. It seems to me.
I don’t believe there is any such thing as a “gay gene.” While I think “choice” is not the right word, I believe people learn to be homosexual from their environment. Good luck trying to change my mind on that.
But I cannot doubt that some children are born with mixed up genitals, with inconsistencies between chromosomes/ genes and how they are expressed bodily, or that there really are “bearded ladies.”
Those people absolutely have no choice in the matter. Plain as the nose on your face.
I think that if GLBT rights advocates were to start with the plight of those people, who do not have any option of hiding in a closet or lying about their orientation, and who are subject to far more hatred and violence and just plain rudeness than homosexuals,
that might be the most effective way of getting our society onto that slippery slope that causes us to break down barriers that, frankly, I’m pretty comfortable with, but you apparently think transgress civil and human rights.
I’ve never had a friendship with a transgendered person, but I’ve had close friends who I knew were homosexual. They are the lepers of the 21st Century.
I think when Jesus returns, he’s going to spend more time with them than with the 700 Club.
.
I definitely didn’t.
.
but yes, I think I did.
.
I applaud you for your honesty but your comment frankly makes me sick.
Just seeing that in print, knowing that people like you exist in the world makes me ill.
.
not so obvious, but I meant that the transgendered were today’s lepers.
You can take all the offense you want, but I believe that to be true.
Can you tell me one group of people who is treated worse, just for being who they are ?
Homosexuality is almost mainstream, compared to how they are treated by society.
I’ve conducted a couple audits at a federal workplace out of state where one transgendered woman was ostracized. Some folks right in the same office with her only communicated with her by email.
I was OK when I was talking directly with her, person to person, shutting out the background noise, but I cried afterwards every time I saw how her coworkers treated her.
And that was in the most gay-friendly agency in the entire federal government.
.
Transgendered are in a different realm when it comes to bias and prejudice.
On your comments regarding gays and their choosing their lifestyle, we do not. And I’m not offended so much as I am just sort of sickened to see that level of ignorance coming from a guy such as yourself, who is clearly an intelligent man with a ton of insight on many issues.
Maybe the Barron isn’t up to your speed in these social issues, but when you consider his general open mindedness, and kind heartedness, you should be encouraging dialogue, not shutting him off.
I think millions of Americans have changed their minds about the root causes of sexual differences. Some will continue to do so. Barron is probably one.
This isn’t the first time Barron has spouted his caveman views. He’s always been challenged, and he hasn’t shown the least willingness to change. He has shut off dialogue by being willfully ignorant and/or happily bigoted. Do not enable him.
made it clear you aren’t open to facts that might “change” your mind, I am going to ask you this:
How do you explain homosexuality in the animal kingdom? Did they learn it from their social environment, too?
doesn’t imply that there is a gay gene, and not all heritable traits are reducible merely to genes. Have you ever noticed that identical twins aren’t identical, despite having identical genes? In fact, some very pronounced, non-environmentally induced differences occur. This is because the genetic code is triggered by hormonal releases during development, and differences in the variables of the triggering create differences in the people, even with the same exact genes.
The research I’ve read on sexual orientation suggests that it is apparently in this triggering stage rather than in the genetic code itself that sexual orientation is determined, in conjunction with one’s genetic makeup.
There is considerable historical evidence that homosexuality-as-identity has existed, in about the same proportion, in all societies, in all times and places. Neither reason nor empirical evidence support any conclusion other than that sexual orientation is something that is, for all intents and purposes, determined by the combination of our genetic make-up and how that genetic make-up is hormonally triggered in early childhood physical development.
More importantly, defending any degree or form of bigotry toward anyone for any private non-predatory behavior or self-identity, regardless of the genesis of that identity, deserves only a sharp rebuke. That’s what our commitment to individual liberty is all about.
.
thanks for telling me about that.
.
Barron X wrote:
Just which rights do you consider “special?”
.
and then creating a new right to have a “marriage” that is not between a man and a woman.
wouldn’t that be special ?
.
reimagining the concept of “marriage” and then creating a new right to have a marriage that is not between a man and a woman of the same race.
Our traditional liberties grow to surpass the limits that had been placed upon them by our traditional bigotries. That’s not the granting of “special rights,” but rather the granting of rights previously denied to some that had not been denied to others. It is the fuller realization of established rights, not the new creation of special ones.
We’re talking about law here, not a random, non-existent* rule from one person’s religious beliefs.
*I’ll take that back if someone can show me where it says that homosexuals can’t enter into contracts. Seriously, I’ve never seen that and would be fascinated.
The religion on which my post was based is the religion that maintains that we should privilege a commitment to respecting individual rights, limited only by how the exercise of those rights affects others, and leave out all other arbitrary constraints on individual rights. Since I don’t object to characterizing that as “religion,” I didn’t take issue with Barron’s response.
.
I just now noticed that Nick Kristof wrote this exact sentence in the NYT op-ed pages for publication in the 31 October edition.
In other words, it was published at nyt.com about 17 1/2 hours before I posted it here.
He was referring to women with obstetric fistulas.
I did not copy this from him. It was a coincidence.
.
… would you agree that gays, lesbians, transgendered and transsexual individuals are often targeted for violence because they are gay, lesbian, transgendered or transsexual?
You seem to assume that anyone cares to change your mind on what makes some of us gay and others straight. As you have self-identified as a “right wing zealot”, I’d just as soon further marginalize you and work with more open minded individuals.
Further, I can’t imagine any self-respecting homosexual who would consider you a “friend”. Assuming you are telling the truth, these “friends” could use a consiousness raising. No one should subject themselves to a “friendship” with someone who does not see them as an equal.
OQD –
I know your comment was a quick one, but I feel strongly about responding to it
I consider myself a major Republican activist, and I can confirm that Ken Buck’s work in the tragic Zapata case is HEAVILY complimented and admired, not “castigated” by activist Republicans
Because if you, one of the most moderate Republicans, is against hate crime laws, then surely the more socially conservative parts of your party were dismayed by Buck’s choice to charge Zapata’s killer with a hate crime.
Why would people who were against creating and expanding the very law under which Ken Buck charged the defendant be complimenting him for it?
Party activists compliment Buck for being a good attorney on the matter, by swiftly prosecuting Zapata’s murderer and delivering a strong punishment
I refuted OQD’s post above because, to me, i indicated that Republicans would chastize Buck for prosecuting Zapata’s murderer, not his use of hate crime legislation – correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what I read from OQD’s post and that’s why I felt a strong response was needed
I can’t speak for the entire Party, but Buck is complimented for handling the case well – I don’t know of any Republicans that compliment his use of the hate-crime law – the activists I talk to give him credit for getting it done and getting it done fast
“i indicated that Republicans would chastize Buck for prosecuting Zapata’s murderer”
was supposed to say –
“IT indicated that Republicans would chastize Buck for prosecuting Zapata’s murderer”
Buck will not be castigated by ALL Republicans. Only by about 98% of them.
Who the fuck would choose to be so uncomfortable in their own skin that they’d need to get an operation to change it?
Bravo, Ken.
But…
Hate crimes legislation doesn’t belong in a defense bill. Put it out there on its own. I’ll still be behind it. So would a lot of other R’s.
and have no idea how it works apparently.
All it takes is one Sam Brownback to put an anonymous hold on any piece of legislation.
It was attached because it’s the only way it would pass the Senate, because the Republicans are pulling out all the stops on obstructionism.
Wasn’t talking about the Senate.
That happened in the Senate because it had to, not because Dems wanted to. It passed on its own in the House.
then why do so many of your Republican counterparts do everything in their power to defeat hate crimes legislation?
…and we saw last week how she was treated by the Party of Lincoln.
You could almost call what happened to her, “gay bashing by proxy”.
Dede is pro EFCA, and pro-life in an R district, and endorsed a Dem within hours of getting run out of town.
went for Obama last year and her positions are not too far off from the Republican she was seeking to replace.
Nope.
Virginia went for Obama, too, and that’s a bloodbath for the Dem’s tonight.
‘…went for Obama in 2008’ isn’t going to mean much in terms of predicting what’s coming in 2010 and 2012.
I never said that Virginia was a Democratic State; you said that the 23rd district was Republican district.
I am not a supporter of hate-crime legislation in any sort of way, even as a minority – that said, it’s important that this discussion happen because it will reduce intolerance
With that in mind, I would like to offer some constructive criticism to the author of the diary, for the sake of making the post stronger –
1. “the fact that transgender people face a 1-in-12 chance of being murdered.” – this is a statement that needs to be cited/footnoted with strong reference
2. “In a country where police mistreatment of LGBT people is so severe as to require action alerts from Amnesty International, crime against transgender people is often ignored. Some police and prosecutors view death as the price of being transgender.” – this paragraph is a VERY sweeping indictment of law enforcement and that is unfair – yes, action alerts were issued against law enforcement in one precinct, according to the linked article, not all of America – thus, the written point needs to be more specific – remember, local law enforcement here in Colorado did find the man who murdered Angie and he’s now serving his proper punishment – writing a sweeping indictment of law enforcement, based on a few isolated incidents, is unfair to the local law enforcement that did handle this tragic case
3. “This outcome is rare. In fact, it is unique. In other states, her murder might not have been ever investigated.” – again, we need a footnote on this statement – this is a huge claim to make, without reference
4. “hate-filled thug” – this is more artistic criticism than citation, but this entire post is based on love and compassion for our GLBT community, with the idea that love should pervade over hatred – I would refrain from referring to the criminal as a “thug” – just call him a person and let the compassion for Zapata overshine the hatred
I am not a supporter of hate-crime legislation because delivered punishments should focus on the act committed and/or intented, not the psychology, in my opinion
As far as hate-crime legislation that would prevent local law enforcement bias…. honestly, I’ve worked with local law enforcement, including my time as a public school tryo teacher and I’ve always found local law enforcement to be without bias – granted, there are many documented cases of bias (and I recognize that), in regard to local law enforcement, but there are also many cases of authorities, within States, punishing and prosecuting such cases – overall, States can handle these matters – I have ZERO desire to ask the Federal Government to step in on criminal matters involving local law enforcement
Most importantly, I always appreciate discussion on this matter – Matthew Shepherd and Angie Zapata did not pass away in vain – and those who are courageous enough to talk about their passings, for the sake of creating more compassion for our GLBT community and other minorities, are heroes
My heart breaks for Matthew Shepherd and Angie Zapata – may they rest in peace forever….
“granted, there are many documented cases of bias (and I recognize that), in regard to local law enforcement, but there are also many cases of authorities, within States, punishing and prosecuting such cases”
When I refer to “authorities” above, I’m meaning that if local law enforcement is found to be acting in bias and/or bigotry, then I prefer in-state local authorities (Attorney General, Governor’s office) to prosecute such matters, not the Federal Government
for in-state over federal law enforcement? You realize how that would have fared if applied to either the enforcement of the 13th Amendment or the enforcement of Civil Rights holdings and legislation, don’t you?
The great lesson of the Civil War was that tyranny can be close at hand, while those who would defend against might be more remotely situated. Rather than imposing a presumptive ideological preference, it is more useful, I think, to consider striking exactly the right balance to be an on-going design problem.
Certainly, I support Eisenhower sending troops to Arkansas – I would say my comments above are in context to the hate-crime proposal noted in the diary
might be relevant in this matter, just as they were relevant in the Abolitionist and Civil Rights Movements?
However, I would rather in-state authorities handle such matters rather than the Federal Government, as of today
Fully trusting the Federal Government? Have you read the Patriot Act lately….?
but I don’t trust state government any more than the federal government, and do recognize a higher average level of competence housed in the federal government than in state governments. This is due to the historical shift of power from state to federal, and the concommitent disproportional attraction of service in the federal government to the most talented and capable potential public servants in the country.
I don’t mean to paint with too broad a brush: There are incompetent people in our federal government, and there are brilliant people in our state and local governments. But the distribution isn’t equal. For the most part, Congress would be considered a step up from state legislatures (and thus some here argue that one of our best and brightest former state legislators should have been appointed to recent U.S. Senate vacancy), and the presidency a step up from a state governorship (the former drawing most often on the latter pool).
That still leaves the need to be vigilant concerning intentions: We want to make sure that our local interests are protected, and issues that are truly of only local concern are left to us to decide. These are all complex considerations in a complex world.
That’s why I argue against any particular presumption: Look at the challenges involved, and decide where the competence lies. When it comes to combating bigotries, I do believe that the federal government has shown a generally better, albeit far from perfect, record than state and local governments. But that goes further than the point I was making: I don’t think there’s any basis for concluding the exact opposite!
Steve – I deeply respect your opinion – that said, I’m of the exact opposite viewpoint
If put to the test, I will have more trust in local authorities than Federal ones, as of today – the more local, the better
And I agree, in principle, that the more local the better (with the most local vesting of power, in the individual, being ideal), except when there’s greater benefit to be produced, all things considered, by delegating authority upward. The ongoing debate, of course, is defining exactly when and how that last qualification prevails!
Here’s a case where the local authority needs a little federal oversight:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi…
Which is exactly what hate-crime laws do — the crimes are directed at a community and intended to intimidate the community. There’s no psychology about it, MAH.
Why is it so easy to see a lynching or desecrating a synagogue as an “act” intended to terrorize blacks or Jews, but so hard to see Angie Zapata’s murder as comparable?
Hate crimes are more than physical. Law enforcement as the perp involves more than physically attacking GLBT people. As hate crimes against religious people is more than burning down churches or synagoges, so it is with those in charge of public safety.
My first encounter with police as the hate crime perpetrator involved traffic tickets. I was driving an ugly vehicle (DUV) in a very nice neighborhood. My own neighborhood. I was stopped for a made up reason, an illegal left turn. I made a left turn on a green left turn light, but that was something the officer decided was not true.
The next 5 charges included the officer refusing to take my insurance, drivers license and registration. She also called for backup with weapons at ready, I guess in case I cried too hard. The entire time she was screaming at me – I guess that was her version of being polite to traffic stops.
Going to court, I at least had the insurance paperwork delivered, and the records showed my registration and drivers license were in force and in the correct name. Overall the judge tossed 3 of the charges and reduced the rest.
I did what any minority could do in a case of cop vs. minority in that city. Took the cheapest way out. I couldn’t afford a lawyer. I still don’t know if I could fight the tickets there either.
What I really was doing was driving while trans, which is well known in the transgender community. My case is not unusual or unique. I know I was lucky and I am told I am lucky that she did not arrest me and toss me in jail. Since she was writing tickets without any basis, arresting me without any reason would have been on option for her too.
I should add that this is similar to DWB or DWH, driving while black or driving while Hispanic.
I was asked off of a United Airlines jet back in 2002 and briefly held by the FBI, only because my name is ‘Muhammad Ali Hasan’
Around 2003, I was again detained by four LAPD officers in the American Airlines terminal of LAX and questioned by the FBI
I will give this credit though – I politely noted my complaints with the FBI, Homeland Security, and local authorities – since then, the rate of racial profiling (or whatever we may call it) against Muslims/Arabs at airports has dropped significantly, from my viewpoint
Overall, authorities are not perfect, but I have faith that the local systems we have in place to keep them accountable are working and working well
Pam – I’m sorry to hear about your story and I’m glad it worked out in the end
The problem I have with this logic — and all arguments that hate crime laws punish based on thoughts — is that we already dole out punishments based on thoughts for homicide.
The difference between manslaughter and murder is that the crime was thought about and motivated by thoughts and/or planning.
How is that different from determining the type of crime to be charged by whether it was killing someone who happened to be gay or killing someone because they were gay?
and it’s an important pillar of criminal law. Good observation. If we find it justifiable to distinguish crimes on the basis of degree of premeditation and intentionality, there is no logical inconsistency in distinguishing them on the basis of motivation. Varying motivations, very similarly to varying degrees of premeditation and intentionality, suggest varying degrees of criminality.
As a society, I think we are right to reserve stricter punishments for those who kill for money over those who kill in a fit of passion, for instance. And I think we are similarly right to reserve stricter punishments for those whose fit of passion or premeditation is motivated by bigotry.
…you know, by way of the Equal Protection Clause and Titles VI, VII and Title IX. These are not criminal punishments per se, but they are legal punishments and well accepted. Those who oppose hate crime legislatios must account for these facts unless they also EPC and Civil Rights Act protections generally.
But, hate crime laws, while they were invoked and produced a hate crimes conviction in this case, had no substantive impact on the sentencing outcome. The sentence wouldn’t have been any different without the law, and it was investigated and prosecuted through the same state level criminal justice system used in any other murder prosecution.
Colorado’s hate crime laws only impact sentences in minor offenses, and the newly passed federal law’s primary impact is to bring federal prosecution and law enforcement resources to hate crime cases, something that was not necessary in this particular vigorously prosecuted, well investigated, open and shut case.
While the symbolism of having a hate crimes law on the books could have impacted the decision to prosecute, it is unlikely that this was what happened here. The DA and police did good jobs investigating as a matter of professionalism, and the killer made some stupid mistakes (from a likelihood of conviction for a serious crime perspective) like stealing his victim’s car after the murder, confessing to police when apprehended, and making incriminating statements on the wiretapped telephone from jail to his girlfriend.
In truth, most murder victims are in some way potentially unsympathetic to a jury. But, murder remains the most consistently prosecuted and well investigated crime.
There is symbolism in a hate crimes conviction. But, good investigation of crimes by well organized law enforcement is much more important.
makes the resistance to the creation of such laws even more ridiculous.
I don’t know what this means. I don’t even know what to ask you.
Defense lawyers always, always, always impugn the memory of the victim because they want to inoculate the jury against appeals to sympathy.
Most non-domestic violence murder victims have prior criminal records (compared to about 6.5% of the general population).
Murder victims also tend to be poor. Minorities, vagrants, drug addicts, alcoholics, gang members and violent husbands are all overrepresented among murder victims.
There is obviously nothing blameworthy about being a murder victim. But, the argument that it was really somehow the victim’s fault is a common defense implication (even where it is not an expressly made legal argument).