The additions are supported by Democrats and opposed by House Republicans, who are calling them politically driven.
So, the politicians in this political debate are opposed to the additions by their political counterparts based on the notion that they might be politically driven?
I honestly couldn't believe that to be the sole reason for opposing the bill as it just sounded so… hollow, unreasonable, and maybe even *gasp* politically driven. So I decided to do a little digging and found this:Link to Full Article
Republicans' biggest qualms are about provisions that make federal grants to domestic violence organizations contingent on nondiscrimination against gay, lesbian, and transgender victims; rules extending the authority of tribal courts over domestic violence matters; and a section that would provide more visas for abused undocumented women who agree to cooperate with law enforcement.
I actually wanted to believe the previously offered reason and pretend the others didn’t happen after seeing that...
Even if the suggestion to add non-discrimination is somehow redundant and politically motivated, I don't see the harm in including it. It would simply emphasize that the bill is all-inclusive, something which both parties apparently feel is important. The fact that the Republicans are intent on stonewalling a crucial bill over this non-issue just screams of “politicking” and yet they had the gall to point the finger at their opponents. At this point, the only difference between the two parties seems to be that the democrats are politicking for good reasons while the conservatives are politicking in the name of spite and elitism, especially when you consider that one of their reasons for opposing tribal law is this: “Republicans are opposing it because they don't like the idea of Native American law applying to non-tribe members.”
It has already been stated that native law can’t usurp the constitution and that due process is expected, so all concerns should be thoroughly quashed. It would help if the Republicans could give plausible issues but they’re certainly not doing anything for their case by offering naught but ominous warnings of “consequences” while brushing off all evidence as anecdotal...