A Big Surprise Yesterday

As many of you know I am tracking a number of LGBTQ+ bills through the Connecticut legislature current session and I signed up get emails from the General Assembly for them. Well I haven’t heard any updates in a while.

I was out last night with a group of social workers so I was surprised when I got home that I had gotten emails from friends saying that one of the bills that I am tracking passed has passed the Senate (I got the notice from the tracker email at 3:00 AM).

I didn’t know this was happening tonight but SB 58 got called in the senate and they put it on the consent calendar. Sampson didn’t even speak in opposition! So as soon as they vote on the consent calendar it will be unanimous! I’ll keep you posted if anything changes.

And a second email said,

Passed unanimously on consent! YAY!! Now we go to the House.

These emails are from a friend who is a lobbyist and she didn't even know, that is how sudden this was, right out of the blue.

That was amazing, do you know how often the Democrats and Republicans pass anything with bipartisan support and to pass it unanimously… almost never happens.

Just when you think you have the Republicans figured out they do something like this!

So here is the vote tally and you can read about the bill here.

So two Senators didn't vote or were absent. Many times they don't vote because they are opposed to a bill and don't want to go on record opposing the the bill or they were not there to vote.

---

Update: 5/11/19 6:0 AM

So what is Trans/Gay Panic defense?

I have seen a lot of comments on Facebook about this bill and it highlighted a lack of understanding about the bill (Also there seems to be a lack of understanding about the legislative process, the passage in the Senate doesn’t mean that it is now law, the bill has to be passed in the House next then on to the governor to sign it into law.) so here is an article from the LGBT Bar Association explaining what trans/gay panic protects.

What is the gay and trans “panic” defense?
The gay and trans “panic” defense is a legal strategy which asks a jury to find that a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity is to blame for the defendant’s violent reaction, including murder. It is not a free standing defense to criminal liability, but rather a legal tactic which is used to bolster other defenses. When the defense is employed, the perpetrator claims that their victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity not only explains – but excuses – their loss of self-control and subsequent assault. By fully or partially acquitting the perpetrators of crimes against LGBTQ+ victims, these defenses imply that LGBTQ+ lives are worth less than others.

One of the most recognized cases that employed the gay “panic” defense was that of Matthew Shepard. In 1998, Matthew Shepard, a 21 year old college student, was beaten to death by two men. The men attempted to use the gay “panic” defense to excuse their actions. Despite widespread public protest, the defense is still being used today.

How is the defense used in court?
Traditionally, the gay/trans “panic” defense has been used in three ways to mitigate a case of murder to manslaughter or justified homicide.

• Defense of insanity or diminished capacity: The defendant alleges that a sexual proposition by the victim – due to their sexual orientation or gender identity – triggered a nervous breakdown in the defendant, causing a gay or transgender “panic.” This defense is based on an outdated psychological term, “gay panic” disorder, which was debunked by the American Psychiatric Association and removed from the DSM in 1952. Sadly, while the medical field has evolved with our increasingly just society, the legal field has yet to catch up.
• Defense of provocation: The defense of provocation allows a defendant to argue that the victim’s proposition, sometimes termed a “non-violent sexual advance,” was sufficiently “provocative” to induce the defendant to kill the victim. Defendants claiming a “provocative” advance stigmatize behavior which, on its own, is not illegal or harmful, but is only considered “provocative” when it comes from an LGBTQ+ individual.
• Defense of self-defense: Defendants claim they believed that the victim, because of their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression, was about to cause the defendant serious bodily harm. This defense is offensive and harmful because it argues that a person’s gender or sexual identity makes them more of a threat to safety. In addition, gay or trans “panic” is often employed to justify violence when the victim’s behavior falls short of the serious bodily harm standard, or the defendant used a greater amount of force than reasonably necessary to avoid danger, such as using weapons when their attacker was unarmed.