Hate Crimes bill, the latest.

[Zerbie]

I just got an email from HRC saying that LLEHCPA passed the House today! :)

Now, time to lobby the senators. Call 'em. Write 'em. Email 'em.

[BrentRichards]

ROCK ON! What fantastic news!

[u-dog]

WaHoooo!!!!

:aparty: :aparty: :aparty: :weee: :weee: :weee:

[Rick336]

Here's how they voted. From 356gay.com:

How They Voted
by The Associated Press

Posted: May 3, 2007 - 2:30 pm ET

(Washington) The 237-180 roll call Thursday by which the House passed the To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes.

A "yes" vote is a vote to pass the bill.

Voting yes were 212 Democrats and 25 Republicans.

Voting no were 14 Democrats and 166 Republicans.

X denotes those not voting.

There are 2 vacancies in the 435-member House.



ALABAMA

Democrats - Cramer, N; Davis, Y.

Republicans - Aderholt, N; Bachus, N; Bonner, N; Everett, N; Rogers, N.



ALASKA

Republicans - Young, N.



ARIZONA

Democrats - Giffords, Y; Grijalva, Y; Mitchell, Y; Pastor, Y.

Republicans - Flake, N; Franks, N; Renzi, N; Shadegg, N.



ARKANSAS

Democrats - Berry, N; Ross, N; Snyder, Y.

Republicans - Boozman, N.



CALIFORNIA

Democrats - Baca, Y; Becerra, Y; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, Y; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, Y; Filner, Y; Harman, Y; Honda, Y; Lantos, Y; Lee, Y; Lofgren, Zoe, Y; Matsui, Y; McNerney, Y; Miller, George, Y; Napolitano, Y; Pelosi, Y; Roybal-Allard, Y; Sanchez, Linda T., Y; Sanchez, Loretta, Y; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Solis, Y; Stark, Y; Tauscher, Y; Thompson, Y; Waters, Y; Watson, Y; Waxman, Y; Woolsey, Y.

Republicans - Bilbray, N; Bono, Y; Calvert, N; Campbell, N; Doolittle, N; Dreier, N; Gallegly, N; Herger, N; Hunter, X; Issa, N; Lewis, N; Lungren, Daniel E., N; McCarthy, N; McKeon, N; Miller, Gary, N; Nunes, N; Radanovich, X; Rohrabacher, N; Royce, N.



COLORADO

Democrats - DeGette, Y; Perlmutter, Y; Salazar, Y; Udall, Y.

Republicans - Lamborn, N; Musgrave, N; Tancredo, X.



CONNECTICUT

Democrats - Courtney, Y; DeLauro, Y; Larson, Y; Murphy, Y.

Republicans - Shays, Y.



DELAWARE

Republicans - Castle, Y.



FLORIDA

Democrats - Boyd, Y; Brown, Corrine, Y; Castor, Y; Hastings, Y; Klein, Y; Mahoney, Y; Meek, Y; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wexler, Y.

Republicans - Bilirakis, N; Brown-Waite, Ginny, N; Buchanan, N; Crenshaw, N; Diaz-Balart, L., Y; Diaz-Balart, M., Y; Feeney, N; Keller, N; Mack, N; Mica, N; Miller, N; Putnam, N; Ros-Lehtinen, Y; Stearns, N; Weldon, N; Young, N.



GEORGIA

Democrats - Barrow, Y; Bishop, Y; Johnson, Y; Lewis, Y; Marshall, Y; Scott, Y.

Republicans - Deal, N; Gingrey, X; Kingston, N; Linder, N; Price, N; Westmoreland, N.



HAWAII

Democrats - Abercrombie, Y; Hirono, Y.



IDAHO

Republicans - Sali, N; Simpson, N.



ILLINOIS

Democrats - Bean, Y; Costello, Y; Davis, Y; Emanuel, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Hare, Y; Jackson, Y; Lipinski, Y; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, Y.

Republicans - Biggert, Y; Hastert, X; Johnson, N; Kirk, Y; LaHood, Y; Manzullo, N; Roskam, N; Shimkus, N; Weller, N.



INDIANA

Democrats - Carson, Y; Donnelly, N; Ellsworth, N; Hill, Y; Visclosky, Y.

Republicans - Burton, N; Buyer, N; Pence, N; Souder, N.



IOWA

Democrats - Boswell, Y; Braley, Y; Loebsack, Y.

Republicans - King, N; Latham, N.



KANSAS

Democrats - Boyda, Y; Moore, Y.

Republicans - Moran, N; Tiahrt, N.



KENTUCKY

Democrats - Chandler, Y; Yarmuth, Y.

Republicans - Davis, N; Lewis, N; Rogers, N; Whitfield, N.



LOUISIANA

Democrats - Jefferson, Y; Melancon, N.

Republicans - Alexander, N; Baker, N; Boustany, N; Jindal, N; McCrery, Y.



MAINE

Democrats - Allen, Y; Michaud, Y.



MARYLAND

Democrats - Cummings, Y; Hoyer, Y; Ruppersberger, Y; Sarbanes, Y; Van Hollen, Y; Wynn, Y.

Republicans - Bartlett, N; Gilchrest, Y.



MASSACHUSETTS

Democrats - Capuano, Y; Delahunt, Y; Frank, Y; Lynch, Y; Markey, Y; McGovern, Y; Meehan, Y; Neal, Y; Olver, Y; Tierney, Y.



MICHIGAN

Democrats - Conyers, Y; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Kilpatrick, Y; Levin, Y; Stupak, Y.

Republicans - Camp, N; Ehlers, N; Hoekstra, N; Knollenberg, N; McCotter, N; Miller, N; Rogers, N; Upton, N; Walberg, N.



MINNESOTA

Democrats - Ellison, Y; McCollum, Y; Oberstar, Y; Peterson, N; Walz, Y.

Republicans - Bachmann, N; Kline, N; Ramstad, N.



MISSISSIPPI

Democrats - Taylor, N; Thompson, Y.

Republicans - Pickering, N; Wicker, N.



MISSOURI

Democrats - Carnahan, Y; Clay, Y; Cleaver, Y; Skelton, Y.

Republicans - Akin, N; Blunt, N; Emerson, N; Graves, X; Hulshof, N.



MONTANA

Republicans - Rehberg, N.



NEBRASKA

Republicans - Fortenberry, N; Smith, N; Terry, N.



NEVADA

Democrats - Berkley, Y.

Republicans - Heller, N; Porter, Y.



NEW HAMPSHIRE

Democrats - Hodes, Y; Shea-Porter, Y.



NEW JERSEY

Democrats - Andrews, Y; Holt, Y; Pallone, Y; Pascrell, Y; Payne, Y; Rothman, Y; Sires, Y.

Republicans - Ferguson, Y; Frelinghuysen, Y; Garrett, N; LoBiondo, Y; Saxton, Y; Smith, N.



NEW MEXICO

Democrats - Udall, Y.

Republicans - Pearce, N; Wilson, N.



NEW YORK

Democrats - Ackerman, Y; Arcuri, Y; Bishop, Y; Clarke, Y; Crowley, Y; Engel, X; Gillibrand, Y; Hall, Y; Higgins, Y; Hinchey, Y; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maloney, Y; McCarthy, Y; McNulty, Y; Meeks, Y; Nadler, Y; Rangel, Y; Serrano, Y; Slaughter, Y; Towns, Y; Velazquez, Y; Weiner, Y.

Republicans - Fossella, N; King, N; Kuhl, Y; McHugh, N; Reynolds, N; Walsh, Y.



NORTH CAROLINA

Democrats - Butterfield, Y; Etheridge, Y; McIntyre, N; Miller, Y; Price, Y; Shuler, N; Watt, Y.

Republicans - Coble, N; Foxx, N; Hayes, N; Jones, N; McHenry, N; Myrick, N.



NORTH DAKOTA

Democrats - Pomeroy, Y.



OHIO

Democrats - Jones, Y; Kaptur, Y; Kucinich, Y; Ryan, Y; Space, Y; Sutton, Y; Wilson, Y.

Republicans - Boehner, N; Chabot, N; Gillmor, N; Hobson, N; Jordan, N; LaTourette, N; Pryce, Y; Regula, N; Schmidt, N; Tiberi, N; Turner, N.



OKLAHOMA

Democrats - Boren, N.

Republicans - Cole, N; Fallin, N; Lucas, N; Sullivan, N.



OREGON

Democrats - Blumenauer, Y; DeFazio, Y; Hooley, Y; Wu, Y.

Republicans - Walden, Y.



PENNSYLVANIA

Democrats - Altmire, Y; Brady, Y; Carney, N; Doyle, Y; Fattah, X; Holden, Y; Kanjorski, Y; Murphy, Patrick, Y; Murtha, Y; Schwartz, Y; Sestak, Y.

Republicans - Dent, Y; English, Y; Gerlach, Y; Murphy, Tim, N; Peterson, N; Pitts, N; Platts, Y; Shuster, N.



RHODE ISLAND

Democrats - Kennedy, Y; Langevin, Y.



SOUTH CAROLINA

Democrats - Clyburn, Y; Spratt, Y.

Republicans - Barrett, N; Brown, N; Inglis, N; Wilson, N.



SOUTH DAKOTA

Democrats - Herseth Sandlin, Y.



TENNESSEE

Democrats - Cohen, Y; Cooper, Y; Davis, Lincoln, N; Gordon, N; Tanner, X.

Republicans - Blackburn, N; Davis, David, N; Duncan, N; Wamp, N.



TEXAS

Democrats - Cuellar, Y; Doggett, Y; Edwards, Y; Gonzalez, Y; Green, Al, Y; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson-Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., X; Lampson, X; Ortiz, X; Reyes, Y; Rodriguez, Y.

Republicans - Barton, N; Brady, N; Burgess, N; Carter, N; Conaway, N; Culberson, N; Gohmert, N; Granger, N; Hall, N; Hensarling, N; Johnson, Sam, N; Marchant, N; McCaul, N; Neugebauer, N; Paul, X; Poe, N; Sessions, N; Smith, N; Thornberry, N.



UTAH

Democrats - Matheson, Y.

Republicans - Bishop, N; Cannon, N.



VERMONT

Democrats - Welch, Y.



VIRGINIA

Democrats - Boucher, Y; Moran, Y; Scott, Y.

Republicans - Cantor, N; Davis, Jo Ann, X; Davis, Tom, N; Drake, N; Forbes, N; Goode, N; Goodlatte, N; Wolf, N.



WASHINGTON

Democrats - Baird, Y; Dicks, Y; Inslee, Y; Larsen, Y; McDermott, Y; Smith, Y.

Republicans - Hastings, N; McMorris Rodgers, X; Reichert, Y.



WEST VIRGINIA

Democrats - Mollohan, Y; Rahall, Y.

Republicans - Capito, N.



WISCONSIN

Democrats - Baldwin, Y; Kagen, Y; Kind, Y; Moore, Y; Obey, Y.

Republicans - Petri, N; Ryan, N; Sensenbrenner, N.



WYOMING

Republicans - Cubin, X.

©365Gay.com 2007
http://www.365gay.com

[sjbouza]

SWEETNESS!!!!!!

That is some great news!!! Does anyone know anything about the Job Anti Discrimination bill? Just wondering how that is going also.

You know these are the first steps for a very large thing, at least in my opinion. This designates sexual orientation and gender as class now. That means we now have rights!!!! I dont think it is going to be very far off for gay marriage across the board.

:weee: :pray: :sing: :weee: :pray: :sing:

[Sherrie Z]

Hooray, the bill passed the House! Now on to the Senate ...

Here are more details on the hate crimes legislation -- also please see the Matthew Shepard *petition* link below

The bill that passed the House on May 3rd (H.R. 1592) now goes to the Senate as S. 1105 ... legislators will recognize either name or bill number ... but for simplicity, when you contact your senators ... you can refer to this bill as the Matthew Shepard Act or S. 1105 ... or as the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.


EXCERPT from the Matthew Shepard Foundation website:

This inclusive hate crimes legislation titled the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (LLEHCPA) and renamed the Matthew Shepard Act in the United States Senate is an appropriate and measured response to the unrelenting and under-addressed problem of hates crimes against individuals based on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability.

For more details -- and to sign an online petition -- go to: www.matthewshepard.org

The Matthew Shepard Foundation is asking for donations to help in the effort to pass this legislation.

************************************************** ***

People for the American Way provides a convenient format for contacting senators by email, see link below. Please also consider calling and snail-mailing your senators ... thank you.

http://www.pfaw.org/go/HateCrimesPetition

The Human Rights Campaign is asking for donations to help in the effort to pass this legislation. For more info, go to:

http://www.hrc.org/

Thanks! : )

[sjbouza]

The White House has already said they will veto it. Not sure if that was publicly or just a rumor. Whichever it is, it wouldnt surprise me one bit if good ole boy Bushie and he puppet master Dobson smash it down.

[Emproph]

I'm sure they'll be replaying this for awhile.

This is absolutely incredible. The TRUE colors are showing. Best and Worst.

They just said it will play again at 11:30. Catch it if you can stomach it.

Gotta go, the theocratic traiters are just about to debate each other.. :D

[Dash]

So I'm just coming back up from a nasty pit of political sloggery with some NeoConservative neighbors...over at another forum.

It began with a post by Congressman Jeb Hensarling, proudly posting a letter that had been sent to President Bush encouraging him to veto the hate crime bill. I joined in after Hensarling responded to a gay Republican who expressed his opposition to the legislation for his own misguided reasons:

"Fair post" by Congressman Jeb Hensarling

Thanks for responding.

All of us, regardless of party or ideology, want to deter crimes against young women, old men, African Americas, homosexuals, pregnant women, veterans and everyone else. What we don’t believe in is dehumanizing people by segregating them into different groups while ignoring them as individual human beings.

"The reality is..." by Dash (though I go by a different handle there)

The reality is that hate crimes against a class of people terrorize the entire group--unlike crimes without special bias...in this case, just as in the past with black Americans, a class of people that is historically unsure the local law enforcement will actively prosecute these crimes.

It is impossible to deny, for example, that local law enforcement has at times treated both black Americans and gay Americans with unfair bias. It is impossible to deny that both black Americans and gay Americans have historically walked the streets of American cities with a remarkably "special" right to be despised by their fellow Americans and an unfortunately "special" right to feel less safe than their white, heterosexual brothers and sisters.

This bill should be supported by all.

"the reality is" by streiff

that federal Civil Rights law covers the action/inaction of police and that there is no evidence that a class of people is "terrorized" because people who commit crimes against them aren't subject to some super special law.

This is simply identity politics of the lowest order.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

"Wrong" by Dash

When I was in high school in rural Oklahoma, a classmate of mine proudly told everyone how he had "decked" an underclassman because he had supposedly winked at him.

What do you think that said to my young, hidden gay heart? No one was going to take seriously the violence that was done to the younger kid--who may not have even been gay. People are proud of this kind of thing. But I knew how careful I had to be, and how dangerous and unsafe my classmate was to me.

It is the same everywhere today. It is disingenous for politicians to deny that gay folk walk the streets with a different kind of fear, which is directly instilled by bias crimes and the difficulty of prosecuting them.

There is nothing "low" about this legislation, but yes, "low" politics is active in regard to this issue. Very much so.

"big deal" by streiff
don't much care about your gay heart or any other gay body part.

Your lack of self esteem and unreasoning fear doesn't mean that anyone should care much less pass a law to make you feel better.

News flash, Sparky, if anyone had hit you the assault and battery laws on the books cover it nicely.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

"I'm sorry you don't care about me." by Dash

But that is exactly why this legislation is needed. You have proved it. People don't care.

A moment ago you argued that there was no evidence that a class of people is terrified by bias crime. When I showed you how it works in daily life, your response is merely to reinforce how little regard society has for the safety of some people. What happened to there is no evidence that bias crime terrorizes people?


"not really" by streiff

what you showed me was that you are a wuss who can't walk without jumping at loud noises. You made a compelling case that you are in need of therapy or medication, you didn't make a case for a law to make you feel better about yourself.

There is a statistical axiom: the plural of anecdote is not data. Your story is completely covered by this time tested principle.

My response was not about how little society cares about a class of people (one does not usually constitute a class) but to tell you to man up and stop sniveling.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

"And now" by Dash

I think you have gone completely off topic and into personal attacks.

That's okay. I'm not as wounded as you think I am. I was just trying to show you how things work from a perspective with which you might be unfamiliar.

"good for you" by streiff

I'm happy to have been of assistance

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

"Thank you" by Dash

May I have another?

;-)

Well...watcha think?

[u-dog]

that you did splendidly.

I think that he will never change his mind because thinking and learning are not part of what he is wired to do.

I think that anyone who didn't have an opinion on the issue and had an open mind was probably persuaded to YOUR POINT OF VIEW... by HIS pathetic yammering.

You basically let him do all the work for you. Nice job!

[BrentRichards]

Sigh. I'm not having very non-violent thoughts right now. This is why I hate online forums, for the most part ... hiding behind a keyboard gives some people all kinds of "courage" to talk big and say brutal things they'd never (I hope) say to someone's face. He is a coward of the first water, and an imbecile. Alas, he is, most likely, also a voter. The foibles of democracy.

I agree with U-Dog that you allowed him to demonstrate his neanderthal nature quite well. I know you didn't take him seriously, but ...

We call people "wuss" when we identify our agression with "courage."

We call people "sniveling" when their courage to be vulnerable threatens to expose our own weakness.

We tell people to "be a man" when we know we ourselves have failed to be.

Hear this, my friend: You are genuinely courageous, courageously vulnerable, and a REAL man.

Illegitimus non carborundum (Don't let the bastards grind you down.)

[Zerbie]

Dash. Goodness if you can listen to that and not flip out, you're on your way to sainthood.

I read this exchange yesterday and was horrified about the sheer degree o permission people in this world feel to say the cruelest imaginable things to cut another person's heart.

At 4am I woke up thinking of the exchange quoted above and feeling sickened by it. Something is really really sick about thinking it's okay and even laudable to try and hurt people like that.

I'm going to retreat to my happy little bubble of a world, now. Something's got me being all testy this morning.

[nmwolfboy]

Dash. Goodness if you can listen to that and not flip out, you're on your way to sainthood.


i second that, Zerbie!

Dash, your opponent on that other forum demonstrated something that i see all too frequently. Which is:
We respond thoughtfully and in a straightforward manner to those who seek to demean us as lgbt people.
The response we get is a personalized attack that quickly degenerates into insults.

I'm led to the thought that if that's all they can offer as a standard rejoinder, then they already know how weak their stance really is. Mel is right - the debate really is over.

Pax :dove:

scott

[dsdrane]

Well...watcha think?

...but now I need a Xanax...

...and an anger-management program, because

I want to put some hurtin' on that guy.

:mad: :smashy:

[Britt.]

I don't even remember where I saw the thread about the veto threat. No reason why the post can't go here, so I'm giving up on that.

I was talking to Carlton today (he was there, when they addressed congress). I don't think Bush cares. He also no real incentive to veto & put up w/ the public anger. What are his right wing nutcase buddies going to do? Not vote for him next year?

[Zerbie]

I don't even remember where I saw the thread about the veto threat. No reason why the post can't go here, so I'm giving up on that.

I was talking to Carlton today (he was there, when they addressed congress). I don't think Bush cares. He also no real incentive to veto & put up w/ the public anger. What are his right wing nutcase buddies going to do? Not vote for him next year?

Right, but I think W is an ideologue who adheres to that sort of policy himself. He'll veto, I expect.

That's why we have to try and find some persuadable congresspersons so they can override a veto if (when) it comes.

Lobby, folks!!

Done my bit: sent emails to both senators, AND mailed paper letters today. Will make phone calls too, but figgered I'd space that out and call next week.

Contact your senators, folks! Let's make progress.

[Britt.]

Well, hopefully I'm right, but I've done some emailing & such just in case I'm not.

[Dash]

Thanks all for the loving thoughts. It is difficult to visit that forum, but I go there because I am determined to master my anger. I do not post very often, and NOT replying is perhaps the most difficult thing to do.

But it is their forum. I and other liberals who visit are really there to be bashed by them. They sharpen their swords on liberal bones.

Republican Congressmen are among those who blog there. The diarists are wealthy businessmen, powerful in their own realms, astute in their thinking and articulate in their words (despite Streiff's rather brutish tone). The regulars are mostly devout Christian men and women (well let's be honest...mostly men) with lovely children and families of their own. Streiff recently posted a picture of his beautiful 7-year old daughter at her Catholic confirmation (I think it was confirmation).

It is my pleasure and my pride to reply gently to their unquiet minds. But my heart burns and pounds and my blood bursts into flames... And I'm not always equally successful.

Oh...if only I could put a wire in my skin, my rage would sometimes power whole worlds with it's thundering arcs!!! :mad: :mad:

hahahh!!! I just don't want to become a Rage, or an Anger... sometimes I think thats what happens to people. But not us...

:love: :flower: :dove:

[Zerbie]

Thanks all for the loving thoughts. It is difficult to visit that forum, but I go there because I am determined to master my anger. I do not post very often, and NOT replying is perhaps the most difficult thing to do.

But it is their forum. I and other liberals who visit are really there to be bashed by them. They sharpen their swords on liberal bones.

Republican Congressmen are among those who blog there. The diarists are wealthy businessmen, powerful in their own realms, astute in their thinking and articulate in their words (despite Streiff's rather brutish tone). The regulars are mostly devout Christian men and women (well let's be honest...mostly men) with lovely children and families of their own. Streiff recently posted a picture of his beautiful 7-year old daughter at her Catholic confirmation (I think it was confirmation).

It is my pleasure and my pride to reply gently to their unquiet minds. But my heart burns and pounds and my blood bursts into flames... And I'm not always equally successful.

Oh...if only I could put a wire in my skin, my rage would sometimes power whole worlds with it's thundering arcs!!! :mad: :mad:

hahahh!!! I just don't want to become a Rage, or an Anger... sometimes I think thats what happens to people. But not us...

:love: :flower: :dove:

Dearest Dash,
:love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love: :love:

Part of me wants to exhort you not to visit that forum again.

Otoh, I trust your decisions and trust that know what you're doing. I'm glad, with you visiting places like that, that once again you have a home base here. You are much cherished here, Dash. :love:

The only thing I really want to express is going to post automatically below in my signature line. In essence, we become like those with whom we associate, :pray: and become like that which we think about. :pray:

We love you, Dash. You are not an anger. You are a beautiful, loving heart. You are gentleness. :dove:

[simpleman]

The guy who argued with Dash completely diverged from his point, went to personal attacks, and is wrong for that.

Anyway...

Just for kicks, I read over the bill, and it really does sound like a "feel-good" piece. I fear, for many of you, that it is more or less useless. I know that many of you believe that somehow this bill is going to make local law enforcement officers who won't prosecute these things somehow prosecute them now, but there is nothing in the bill that says that. All it says that "at the request" of local law enforcement, the Attorney General can provide CSI-like crime lab support, etc. If the law enforcement wouldn't do it before, they certainly won't request help from the AG now.

Also, there is a big chunk about grants that can be provided by the AG's office to local law enforcement agencies who apply for them, such that they be used for the prosecution of hate crimes. The legislation is very clear, however, that applying for federal funds is only possible after exhausting all other options, including using their own money, not-for-profit organizations and pro bono legal organizations. These local agencies have the money themselves already, so they won't be able to get a grant to prosecute hate crimes anyway. If they have the money to prosecute crime, they have the money to prosecute hate crime. From a financial perspective, there is no difference.

Though it does "feel good" to many of you to see that sexual orientation and gender identification are on a piece of legislation, but the piece itself isn't really going to help anybody. The local law enforcement agencies who won't prosecute with their own funds before, won't be able to even boondoggle the government out of federal money to prosecute the crime now. Law enforcement agencies that do what they are supposed to do already won't be able to get federal money, because they already use their own money to prosecute such crimes, just like they use it to prosecute other crimes.

These are some things missing from the bill that would actually help, and why adding them to this piece or a future piece would make it unpassable:

1. An "extra" penalty for hate-motivated crimes.
This would never work because it punishes people for being ignorant, hateful, etc. It's like saying "Mr. Smith, you will be sentenced to 15 years for aggravated assault and 3 years for being homophobic".

2. A penalty for law enforcement agency malfeasance that results in a mishandling of a specific hate-crime case.
There's a bunch of pesky precedent for suing the state, or bringing charges against the state. Not to mention, the appelant would actually have to demonstrate that it was a strictly hate-motivated crime in court.

3. Financial grants given to agencies who demonstrate proper handling of hate crimes.
The government simply doesn't give out cash prizes for not being corrupt.

I guess it's hopeful for all of you, and you'll think I'm a jerk for seemingly poking a hole in that (not my intention), but the legislation that you really want just can't work in our system.

[Dash]

Just for kicks, I read over the bill, and it really does sound like a "feel-good" piece. I fear, for many of you, that it is more or less useless. I know that many of you believe that somehow this bill is going to make local law enforcement officers who won't prosecute these things somehow prosecute them now, but there is nothing in the bill that says that. All it says that "at the request" of local law enforcement, the Attorney General can provide CSI-like crime lab support, etc. If the law enforcement wouldn't do it before, they certainly won't request help from the AG now.


Hello Simpleman,

It appears that you may have either misread or misunderstood this legislation. I have to get ready for Church at the moment and will not be back until this afternoon at which point I would like to address your post. In the meantime, I encourage you and others to re-read the bill in question:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592

[sjbouza]

Simpleman,

Yes it may be a feel good bill, however, it will do one important thing...list us as a class of people. I see this as a very important thing in our struggle for equal rights. This I see as a "first step" in this process. I foresee that once the government lists us as a class in a law, then eventually they will no longer be able to deny that we are equal under the Constitution and grant us other rights that we are currently denied.

I may be wrong, but this is the way I see our future in the struggle for equal rights.

[andrewlittle]

While much of what you have said, Simpleman, is true, you did not say everything that is true.

The bill modifies title 18 of the U.S.Code to include not just violent acts against GLBT as "hate crimes" with particular sentencing guidelines, but also wording that broadens the basis of "hate crimes" against other groups. Notably a person doesn't have to be a member of one of the at risk groups, but is included if they are "perceived" to be a member of such a group.

By modifying the U.S.Code, this bill is not limited to just what is contained within it, it adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the classes of people who may be the victims of "hate crime", and the processes and remedies already existing in the various sections of federal law.

Also, as has always been the case, federal "hate crimes" prosecution is subordinate to state prosecution, except in certain cases in which the crime involves travelling across state lines (i.e. kidnapping, etc). As has occurred in other situations, if the state prosecution is finished but is deemed inadequate or flawed, federal charges can be filed and prosecuted. This is not new for "hate crimes" generally, but is for those committed on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

[Zerbie]

Interesting, Simple. I'm going to re-read it later today with those points in mind and see what better understanding I can glean.

Tho right off the bat I have to wonder then, why we have hate crime statutes already for certain groups (race or ethnicity for ex), if in fact it does nothing?

Back later!

[Dash]

Just for kicks, I read over the bill, and it really does sound like a "feel-good" piece. I fear, for many of you, that it is more or less useless. I know that many of you believe that somehow this bill is going to make local law enforcement officers who won't prosecute these things somehow prosecute them now, but there is nothing in the bill that says that. All it says that "at the request" of local law enforcement, the Attorney General can provide CSI-like crime lab support, etc. If the law enforcement wouldn't do it before, they certainly won't request help from the AG now.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592

Section 3 specifically extends federal jurisdiction over the crimes of bias which are defined in the bill. It does say "at the request of local agencies" but I think it is important to remember that it does not specify any particular level of local enforcement agency. There are many levels at which justice can fail the victim, and this provides more opportunity for interested parties to request federal assistance, when justice is not being served.

I think the most important point is that certification of the act as a hate crime changes the umbrella of jurisdiction. In my opinion you are underestimating this point. It's like when one of my friends went camping in a National Park, and they were caught with a campfire. It was a federal crime...not just a state crime, with significant penalties and other ramifications. Thus, it adds and extra level of deterrent in regards to the commission of hate crimes.

Also, there is a big chunk about grants that can be provided by the AG's office to local law enforcement agencies who apply for them, such that they be used for the prosecution of hate crimes. The legislation is very clear, however, that applying for federal funds is only possible after exhausting all other options, including using their own money, not-for-profit organizations and pro bono legal organizations. These local agencies have the money themselves already, so they won't be able to get a grant to prosecute hate crimes anyway. If they have the money to prosecute crime, they have the money to prosecute hate crime. From a financial perspective, there is no difference.

Though it does "feel good" to many of you to see that sexual orientation and gender identification are on a piece of legislation, but the piece itself isn't really going to help anybody. The local law enforcement agencies who won't prosecute with their own funds before, won't be able to even boondoggle the government out of federal money to prosecute the crime now. Law enforcement agencies that do what they are supposed to do already won't be able to get federal money, because they already use their own money to prosecute such crimes, just like they use it to prosecute other crimes.

I think you misunderstand the purpose the grant program being established. Yes, it is for extraordinary expenses. Seems to me this is assistance for local agencies that might have trouble funding investigations and prosecutions. I know that the rural Oklahoma county in which I grew up probably would not have funds for any extensive investigation or prosecution.

In the requirements, it does not say that local enforcement agencies must seek funds from nonprofit groups before applying for federal grant money, but rather they must "demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental violence recovery service programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes." I think you simply misread that section as there is no indication law enforcement agencies must seek funds from private or nonprofit institutions.

Further, Section 4 provides for "programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes." This is a significant addition to federal involvement in prevention of hate crimes.

These are some things missing from the bill that would actually help, and why adding them to this piece or a future piece would make it unpassable:

1. An "extra" penalty for hate-motivated crimes.
This would never work because it punishes people for being ignorant, hateful, etc. It's like saying "Mr. Smith, you will be sentenced to 15 years for aggravated assault and 3 years for being homophobic".

2. A penalty for law enforcement agency malfeasance that results in a mishandling of a specific hate-crime case.
There's a bunch of pesky precedent for suing the state, or bringing charges against the state. Not to mention, the appelant would actually have to demonstrate that it was a strictly hate-motivated crime in court.

3. Financial grants given to agencies who demonstrate proper handling of hate crimes.
The government simply doesn't give out cash prizes for not being corrupt.

I guess it's hopeful for all of you, and you'll think I'm a jerk for seemingly poking a hole in that (not my intention), but the legislation that you really want just can't work in our system.

Here are some significant things this bill provides for:

Section 5 authorizes funds to increase federal personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations.

Section 6 amends the US code, adding Section 249 to Title 18, Chapter 13 (http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_chapter13_.html)(which deals with civil rights) with specific penalties for the hate crimes defined with additional specifications for crimes involving elements of interstate or foreign commerce. In that amendment, under the certification requirement, as one of the conditions, it considers as one of the "certifying" factors of federal involvement a determination that "the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence."

That last statement should not be underestimated, I think.

Finally, and as a bit of an aside, since you did not mention it, but it is being widely misstated by those who oppose this legislation...

Section 8 says, "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

In contrast to your main point--that this is merely "feel good" legislation--I think it provides a number of very useful protections against crimes of bias related to actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim.

[simpleman]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592

Section 3 specifically extends federal jurisdiction over the crimes of bias which are defined in the bill. It does say "at the request of local agencies" but I think it is important to remember that it does not specify any particular level of local enforcement agency. There are many levels at which justice can fail the victim, and this provides more opportunity for interested parties to request federal assistance, when justice is not being served.

I think the most important point is that certification of the act as a hate crime changes the umbrella of jurisdiction. In my opinion you are underestimating this point. It's like when one of my friends went camping in a National Park, and they were caught with a campfire. It was a federal crime...not just a state crime, with significant penalties and other ramifications. Thus, it adds and extra level of deterrent in regards to the commission of hate crimes.

True, but a fire is a fire. If you lit one, you are guilty. You are on federal property, it is a federal crime. With hate crimes, there is a lot more subjectivity. Is this actually a solely hate-motivated crime? Or is it partly because of hate and partly something else? Is it more hate than something else, or more something else than hate? I think this is a problem with the entirety of the bill, and of the 1994 act.



I think you misunderstand the purpose the grant program being established. Yes, it is for extraordinary expenses. Seems to me this is assistance for local agencies that might have trouble funding investigations and prosecutions. I know that the rural Oklahoma county in which I grew up probably would not have funds for any extensive investigation or prosecution.



True, but does this mean that they don't have the money to prosecute the murder of a white straight man by another white straight man, too? Is there any other system of federal aid for that case? Or is the dead man's family out of luck because this wasn't a hate crime?



In the requirements, it does not say that local enforcement agencies must seek funds from nonprofit groups before applying for federal grant money, but rather they must "demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental violence recovery service programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes." I think you simply misread that section as there is no indication law enforcement agencies must seek funds from private or nonprofit institutions.




I see how that can be seen that way. Even so, I don't think that's the bigger point of this piece. That just means a quicker dispersal of federal funds for such investigations.



Further, Section 4 provides for "programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes." This is a significant addition to federal involvement in prevention of hate crimes.

Here are some significant things this bill provides for:

Section 5 authorizes funds to increase federal personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations.

Section 6 amends the US code, adding Section 249 to Title 18, Chapter 13 (http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_chapter13_.html)(which deals with civil rights) with specific penalties for the hate crimes defined with additional specifications for crimes involving elements of interstate or foreign commerce. In that amendment, under the certification requirement, as one of the conditions, it considers as one of the "certifying" factors of federal involvement a determination that "the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence."

That last statement should not be underestimated, I think.



Yes, I saw that. But does this mean that the Federal government will appeal the case? Or must the victim again bring charges in the federal arena? Also, I can assume from reading this that if the Federal government feels that the person should have been found guilty on State charges, they can re-try? But I don't think that's possible because of double jeopardy, etc.



Finally, and as a bit of an aside, since you did not mention it, but it is being widely misstated by those who oppose this legislation...

Section 8 says, "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."



To me, if it's a hate crime, it's still a crime. Regardless of freedom of expression, etc, it's still a crime that was committed (see, if you light the fire, you get a federal citation). I don't think anything in there prohibits rights under the Constitution.



In contrast to your main point--that this is merely "feel good" legislation--I think it provides a number of very useful protections against crimes of bias related to actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim.

Sure, it does, but it is more or less already there. A crime is supposed to be a crime, no matter who committed it and who they committed it against. The idea of criminal justice, and justice in itself, is that justice is brought to a person who actually committed a quantifiable crime or is quantifiably negligent in a tort case. If charges are pressed, they must be brought. If the prosecutor willfully doesn't carry out justice properly (see Duke Lacrosse) he can be held liable by our current laws. The things that you mention are helpful, but they also open up a whole new world of red tape that has to be cut through. "Is this a hate crime? Is it not? Can we get more money if it is? We can train our officers to prevent hate crime, but aren't they already trained to prevent crime? How good does that do anyway? How do you train a police officer to prevent hate? We can't bring people up to the station on suspicion of hating people, anyhow." What I'm saying is that, sure, this looks really good for everybody because it looks like the government is trying to stop hate crime, but it really isn't that much different from stopping crime in general. It just adds another level of classification to crime, which may or may not be the best thing for the justice system. Hate is hate, and crime is crime, and a hate crime is still, after all, a crime.

I think it's all a moot point, because even if it does pass through the Senate, Bush will veto the thing anyway. I can't say that his intentions in a veto would be pure, but that's what is probably going to happen.

[Simon]

True, but a fire is a fire. If you lit one, you are guilty. You are on federal property, it is a federal crime. With hate crimes, there is a lot more subjectivity. Is this actually a solely hate-motivated crime? Or is it partly because of hate and partly something else? Is it more hate than something else, or more something else than hate? I think this is a problem with the entirety of the bill, and of the 1994 act.



True, but does this mean that they don't have the money to prosecute the murder of a white straight man by another white straight man, too? Is there any other system of federal aid for that case? Or is the dead man's family out of luck because this wasn't a hate crime?




I see how that can be seen that way. Even so, I don't think that's the bigger point of this piece. That just means a quicker dispersal of federal funds for such investigations.



Yes, I saw that. But does this mean that the Federal government will appeal the case? Or must the victim again bring charges in the federal arena? Also, I can assume from reading this that if the Federal government feels that the person should have been found guilty on State charges, they can re-try? But I don't think that's possible because of double jeopardy, etc.



To me, if it's a hate crime, it's still a crime. Regardless of freedom of expression, etc, it's still a crime that was committed (see, if you light the fire, you get a federal citation). I don't think anything in there prohibits rights under the Constitution.



Sure, it does, but it is more or less already there. A crime is supposed to be a crime, no matter who committed it and who they committed it against. The idea of criminal justice, and justice in itself, is that justice is brought to a person who actually committed a quantifiable crime or is quantifiably negligent in a tort case. If charges are pressed, they must be brought. If the prosecutor willfully doesn't carry out justice properly (see Duke Lacrosse) he can be held liable by our current laws. The things that you mention are helpful, but they also open up a whole new world of red tape that has to be cut through. "Is this a hate crime? Is it not? Can we get more money if it is? We can train our officers to prevent hate crime, but aren't they already trained to prevent crime? How good does that do anyway? How do you train a police officer to prevent hate? We can't bring people up to the station on suspicion of hating people, anyhow." What I'm saying is that, sure, this looks really good for everybody because it looks like the government is trying to stop hate crime, but it really isn't that much different from stopping crime in general. It just adds another level of classification to crime, which may or may not be the best thing for the justice system. Hate is hate, and crime is crime, and a hate crime is still, after all, a crime.

I think it's all a moot point, because even if it does pass through the Senate, Bush will veto the thing anyway. I can't say that his intentions in a veto would be pure, but that's what is probably going to happen.


Hello Dash and Simpleman,

Sorry to butt in on your conversation, but I must admit that it caught me interested. I am a history scholar and I found the arguments you both have, very similar to the ones of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, regarding criminal penalties. Adams, a staunch Federalist, considered that all crimes in the newly founded US of A, should be dealt within the federal jurisdiction, unlike Jefferson, who believed that punishment for violent crimes should be held by a state level. As the history shows, our country has accepted a Jeffersonian approach, and this is why I think this hate crime legislation has created such a polarizing issue in our country. Some states have hate crime laws, where sexual orientation is listed, like Pennsylvania, where I am from. I personally don't mind having hate crime laws as long as their interpretation won't ever get misused and abused.

Dash, thanks for the link. Now, I can see clearly what this bill is about.

Simon

[antonyh]

True, but does this mean that they don't have the money to prosecute the murder of a white straight man by another white straight man, too? Is there any other system of federal aid for that case? Or is the dead man's family out of luck because this wasn't a hate crime?


Hate Crime Definition:

"...is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws."

The murder of a white, heterosexual male because they are white or heterosexual IS included in this bill. The categories are "actual or perceived race" and "sexual orientation". Not black or gay.

I would recommend reading the Victims Hate Crimes Statistics from the FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/victims.htm

Anti-white bias makes up 19.9 percent of hate crimes based on race and anti-heterosexual bias makes up 1.9 percent of hate crimes based on sexual orientation.

I guess white, heterosexual males are just safer in America. Anti-black bias makes up 67.9 percent of hate crimes based on race and male anti-homosexual bias makes up 61.3 percent of hate crimes based on sexual orientation. If you add the women, you have to add 15.3 percent to these figures.

Anti-Religious bias makes up 16.0 percent of the hate crime pie. This bill also protects the Religious Right who want to derail it.

And when you write your Senator, please make that point.

[tdogg]

Simpleman,

This particular bill might not be the end all, but it's certainly progress. Not only for GLBT people but in the end for everyone. Maybe not perfection, but vast improvement yes. Maybe not all-encompassing, but I would say significant, and I believe as part of a community extremely susceptible to hate crimes, an absolute necessity.

So, then one who would oppose it, must search within to come up with examples of how this bill, if passed, would be a detriment to one's own self. If not, then why not?

And, the bill is not on Dubya's desk yet, so I wouldn't exactly count any chickens before they are hatched. We have time, we can take action and while we might not have the final say, we can certainly have A say in it.

To those who want to do something to get this bill passed - Write, call, email. Then, when you think you've done enough, write, call and email some more.

[tdogg]

Dash,

I wanted to say, you are a very brave, sweet, sensitive and smart guy. While I was initially alarmed at the responses to you, I admire you for taking this task on. I believe the more we can engage, in a compassionate and intelligent way, the less 'they' will have to feel threatened about. You are great!! :cowboy: :love:

[simpleman]

Here is a current example of why we need Federal Hate Crime Laws:

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=28513&postcount=3

Let me get this straight.

A guy was listening to anti-gay speech. He was gay, so he stood up. The anti-gay speaker attacked him. He suffered minor injuries, but, according to autopsies, he died of natural causes, because he was 72 years old.

So to you, this means:

We need hate crime laws so that the anti-gay speaker would not have been speaking hate in the first place. These federal hate crimes laws would also provide federal funding for another autopsy to be done, and for law enforcement to be able to investigate the event again, so that the guy screaming anti-gay stuff will rot in prison.

To me it means:

He was assaulted. The autopsy, performed by a local coroner, says that he died of natural causes. His family can bring charges for the assault. The guy will probably be found guilty of assault, put in jail, fined, whatever. The family can also request a second opinion for autopsy, if they don't have the money, they can probably find some ACLU legal/financial support, particularly if it can be proven as a hate crime. If it turns out that the death might have been directly from the assault (highly unlikely from a simple assault), he might get charged with involuntary manslaughter or could be sued for wrongful death.

Problem is, you make the assumption that the coroner is corrupt, or that the law enforcement is guilty of some wrongdoing, and that if there were these laws, those people would burned. Most likely, these people are just hard-working Americans trying to do their jobs, and just because that poor guy's autopsy said it was natural causes, not because somebody hit him, you want to call for their heads.

Furthermore, the anti-gay speech guy is protected under freedom of speech. Those pesky freedoms keep these hate crimes laws that you want (not necessarily the particular one in question) from happening. You can't lock people up for hating somebody because you think for some reason that because they hate somebody they will hit them, too. That's like saying that we have to arrest everyone who is shy and Asian because Cho Seung-Hui massacred 32 people at Virginia Tech. It can't be done.

[Simon]

Here is a current example of why we need Federal Hate Crime Laws:

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=28513&postcount=3

I beg your pardon, Antony. But wasn't it proven that Mr. Anthos died of natural causes and that young man in Minnesota was not targeted because of his sexual orientation? All I saw in that link that you provided was that Matt Foreman, was accusing conservative Christian organizations for wanting to kill homosexuals. Well, that's his opinion and I respect that, but I am wondering on which grounds is he basing it on?

FYI, depending on a severity of a certain crime, there are specified degrees. So, I was wondering how about making all biased motivated crimes, including GLBT people a 1st degree ones, whether it is murder, assault, or vandalism? Just a food for a thought.

The way I see it, by having a Hate Crime Prevention Act (that's how it was originally called back in the 1970s) even if it was just about people of color and religion, it automatically nullifies the 14th Amendment, which clearly states that all American citizens despite of their differences are equally important in terms of having their lives, liberties, and properties protected from infringement. This act is saying that some people are more important than others, which is contrary to our Constitution.

Let me get this straight.

A guy was listening to anti-gay speech. He was gay, so he stood up. The anti-gay speaker attacked him. He suffered minor injuries, but, according to autopsies, he died of natural causes, because he was 72 years old.

So to you, this means:

We need hate crime laws so that the anti-gay speaker would not have been speaking hate in the first place. These federal hate crimes laws would also provide federal funding for another autopsy to be done, and for law enforcement to be able to investigate the event again, so that the guy screaming anti-gay stuff will rot in prison.

To me it means:

He was assaulted. The autopsy, performed by a local coroner, says that he died of natural causes. His family can bring charges for the assault. The guy will probably be found guilty of assault, put in jail, fined, whatever. The family can also request a second opinion for autopsy, if they don't have the money, they can probably find some ACLU legal/financial support, particularly if it can be proven as a hate crime. If it turns out that the death might have been directly from the assault (highly unlikely from a simple assault), he might get charged with involuntary manslaughter or could be sued for wrongful death.

Problem is, you make the assumption that the coroner is corrupt, or that the law enforcement is guilty of some wrongdoing, and that if there were these laws, those people would burned. Most likely, these people are just hard-working Americans trying to do their jobs, and just because that poor guy's autopsy said it was natural causes, not because somebody hit him, you want to call for their heads.

Furthermore, the anti-gay speech guy is protected under freedom of speech. Those pesky freedoms keep these hate crimes laws that you want (not necessarily the particular one in question) from happening. You can't lock people up for hating somebody because you think for some reason that because they hate somebody they will hit them, too. That's like saying that we have to arrest everyone who is shy and Asian because Cho Seung-Hui massacred 32 people at Virginia Tech. It can't be done.

Excellent points, Simpleman.

[Zerbie]

LSo to you, this means:

We need hate crime laws so that the anti-gay speaker would not have been speaking hate in the first place. These federal hate crimes laws would also provide federal funding for another autopsy to be done, and for law enforcement to be able to investigate the event again, so that the guy screaming anti-gay stuff will rot in prison.


Furthermore, the anti-gay speech guy is protected under freedom of speech. Those pesky freedoms keep these hate crimes laws that you want (not necessarily the particular one in question) from happening. You can't lock people up for hating somebody because you think for some reason that because they hate somebody they will hit them, too. That's like saying that we have to arrest everyone who is shy and Asian because Cho Seung-Hui massacred 32 people at Virginia Tech. It can't be done.


Whoa, whoa! back up. You've ceased to make sense. Why are you putting words into several peoples' mouths, saying that some members here are trying to use hate crimes legislation to muzzle freedom of speech?! That IS what you've said above. And I haven't run across any one member of this forum who advocates for legal restrictions on freedom of speech or expression. AND the hate crimes law does NOT legislate against speech. Stop conflating the two.

To Simon: I've looked from all different angles and cannot by any process of logic come up with hate crime legislation nullifying the 14th amendment. Rather, what the legislation does is fulfill the promise that all American's lives are valued equally by providing means to bring justice to communities who are otherwise marginalized and not seeing justice done.

I just don't see how you can equate taking steps towards providing protection for gay persons equal to that of others as saying some persons are more important than others. The present state of things DOES have some persons more important than others (straights being "more important" than gays,) and this legislation is a step towards bringing things to the fair balance that all Americans are promised. Plus, as has been said before, the legislation protects ALL of us on the basis of sexual orientation, including PERCEIVED sexual orientation, whatever that orientation may be.

I agree with you that all human lives have precious value. That same belief leads me to support the hate crimes legislation, because as long as we do not have it yet continue to witness hate-motivated violence against certain groups of people, we need to take measures to ensure that their lives ARE treated with value and respect. One way of doing so is to investigate for the truth of the matter behind cases like the ones being discussed above (whatever the truth might be), and to bring any perpetrators to justice.

[Dash]

Before I'm off to bed, I gotta think about posting the epilogue to my previous discussion with Strieff upthread.

It is directly pertinent to this portion of the discussion, but it'll make people mad to see how those NeoConservative folks vent their anger on me. Anybody up for it? Or will it be too much??

I promised to go to bed in another thread, so I'll think about this tomorrow.

Night.

[simpleman]

Zerbie,

Neither Simon or I are saying that these pieces of legislation specifically go against the Constitution. However, their purpose and intent blurs the lines between freedom of speech and speech as a crime (i.e. verbal harassment). It's not intentional, and I don't have a conspiracy theory about anybody's agenda, but the road to hell is paved on good intentions. No, they bills do not say "Some people need more protections than others, especially gay people," but the precedent that it provides can put liberties of speech and expression, in addition to equal protection under the law, in jeopardy.

Furthermore, the people whom it protects already have those protections under other laws. The piece isn't about hate crime, it's about hate itself. The problem is, as I have said over and over again, the Constitution protects the right to hate somebody for any reason under the sun. The crime is still the crime, whether or not it is motivated by hate or not. The legislation is about eradicating hate itself, not just hate crime, which will not happen through legislation.

As for putting words in people's mouths, antony specifically said that this instance was a compelling reason for hate crime legislation. That's saying that this guy wasn't served justice because he was gay and was assaulted. There is no proof of this, and all he is doing is crying foul that the autopsy would have been different, or that the cops are corrupt, just because this guy is gay. He is calling for hate crimes laws so that the federal government can lead a witch hunt against the coroner and the local cops because they aren't proving that the guy died because of hate. He also said, specifically, that there is a direct correlation between religious "hate speech" and hate crime. This proves that the agenda here is not about just the crime, but about punishing the hate or eliminating the hate through legislation. If I'm misconstruing this, I'll be glad to hear antony explain it to me.

Punishing and eradicating Constitutionally protected hatred through legislation is just like trying to punish or eradicate Constitutionally protected homosexuality in the same way. I think that's what this bill is trying to do, even if it reads that it is supposed to add money here and forensic services there, in addition to more federal government assistance for hate crime prosecution.

[Simon]

Zerbie,

Neither Simon or I are saying that these pieces of legislation specifically go against the Constitution. However, their purpose and intent blurs the lines between freedom of speech and speech as a crime (i.e. verbal harassment). It's not intentional, and I don't have a conspiracy theory about anybody's agenda, but the road to hell is paved on good intentions. No, they bills do not say "Some people need more protections than others, especially gay people," but the precedent that it provides can put liberties of speech and expression, in addition to equal protection under the law, in jeopardy.

Furthermore, the people whom it protects already have those protections under other laws. The piece isn't about hate crime, it's about hate itself. The problem is, as I have said over and over again, the Constitution protects the right to hate somebody for any reason under the sun. The crime is still the crime, whether or not it is motivated by hate or not. The legislation is about eradicating hate itself, not just hate crime, which will not happen through legislation.

As for putting words in people's mouths, antony specifically said that this instance was a compelling reason for hate crime legislation. That's saying that this guy wasn't served justice because he was gay and was assaulted. There is no proof of this, and all he is doing is crying foul that the autopsy would have been different, or that the cops are corrupt, just because this guy is gay. He is calling for hate crimes laws so that the federal government can lead a witch hunt against the coroner and the local cops because they aren't proving that the guy died because of hate. He also said, specifically, that there is a direct correlation between religious "hate speech" and hate crime. This proves that the agenda here is not about just the crime, but about punishing the hate or eliminating the hate through legislation. If I'm misconstruing this, I'll be glad to hear antony explain it to me.

Punishing and eradicating Constitutionally protected hatred through legislation is just like trying to punish or eradicate Constitutionally protected homosexuality in the same way. I think that's what this bill is trying to do, even if it reads that it is supposed to add money here and forensic services there, in addition to more federal government assistance for hate crime prosecution.

Apparently, the Hate Crimes bill itself does not intend to curb the First Amendment, as it says in Section 8 of it. However, some people intend to abuse it once it gets legislated, like Matt Foreman from NGLTF, as far as I can see. This is what I would not want to ever happen.

[tdogg]

This act is saying that some people are more important than others, which is contrary to our Constitution.



If this is the case, then why do we have laws in this country, apparently contrary to our Constitution, that provide a select group of people special priviledges, that others are not entitled to? What you are saying is that this law will give a select group of people protections, that not everyone will be entitled to?

Well, take heterosexual marriage for instance....You have a select group of people (heterosexual) who marry (of the opposite sex of course) and they suddenly are entitled to around 1400 - 1500 special priviledges that homosexual people are not entitled to (if they marry the person they love, who happens to be of the same sex), because they are not provided the same opportunity to marry and thus obtain those nearly 1500 priviledges.

Hmmmm, sounds like this country considers some more important that others, and as you have pointed out, that is contrary to our Consitution..... :cool: :rolleyes:

I'm just not seeing any argument against the hate crimes bill that would be a detriment for you, Simpleman and Simon (or anyone else). It seems that it would only strengthen the law to investigate and prosecute those committing these heinous acts. So, I have to question the motive of anyone who is vehemently opposed to the passing of this bill. There is much in this bill that isn't currently covered. We as GLBT people do NOT have federal protection. Sure, crimes are prosecuted, people go to jail and prison - but I believe your eyes would really be open if you knew just how little time many of those perpetrating hate crimes get.

Haven't heard any of your arguments that would sway me to agree with you. Sorry. As for your case that passing this into law would provide an opportunity for people to abuse it, well, that's just how it is in this world. Every law provides an opportunity for abuse, a opening to search for a loophole, an opening to provide a defense - it doesn't always work, but often it does.

[tdogg]

I beg your pardon, Antony. But wasn't it proven that Mr. Anthos died of natural causes and that young man in Minnesota was not targeted because of his sexual orientation?

Just want to make sure I'm hearing you right...are you saying that Mr. Anthos attack and subsequent injuries and death were not caused by his being attacked? Are you saying that he would have died at that moment anyway because a coroner indicated his death was caused by natural injuries? Dude, he is 72 years old, even a child could see that Mr. Anthos is attacked, he suffered injuries (minor or otherwise), and soon died...Hmmm, sounds like his death is most definitely linked to the attack no matter what the coroner or anyone else says. Pretty straight-forward.

You can't necessarily go by the coroner's report - they are just paid to determine the 'physical cause of death', not to consider the events or situation surrounding the death. "Natural causes" just means they couldn't attribute the actual cause of death to any specific body part of disease/injury. It's a pretty common conclusion, and for those wanting to know 'why' it inconclusive at best.

Don't kid yourself, this is a hate crime. There are MANY more examples than this particular one, if for whatever reason, this particular case is vague for you.

[Dash]

From Wikipedia: Wisconsin v. Mitchell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell)

Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court. It is an important and noteworthy precedent pertaining to First Amendment free speech arguments against hate crime legislation. In effect, the Court ruled that a state may consider whether a crime was committed or initially considered due to an intended victim's status in a protected class.

The crime occurred in Kenosha, Wisconsin. A group of African American men beat a white 14-year old. I won't go further into the background, since you can read the short article youself. It was quite obviously a crime of racial bias. By the time the case made it to the Supreme Court, the issue was exactly what we are talking about here: the constitutionality of hate crime laws in regard to 1st amendment rights.

Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice William Rehnquist reasoned that, in substance, Wisconsin's law served the same purpose as federal antidiscrimination law. Whereas in R.A.V., the ordinance struck down was explicitly targeted at expression, the statute in this case was directed towards conduct that was not expressive as such, but was instead directed at violence in particular.

The Court further stated that Wisconsin was within its rights to offer sentence enhancement in bias-motivated crime because it had a compelling interest in preventing the negative secondary effects of such crimes. Among these secondary effects mentioned were the increased likelihood of a bias-motivated crime to provoke retaliation, to inflict greater emotional distress on the victim, and to incite community unrest. The Court explained that these secondary effects were more than adequate reason for such a sentencing enhancement, especially if, as stated above, the law was not explicitly targeting beliefs or statements.

Regarding the "chilling effect" argument presented by Mitchell's side, the Court stated that it "[found] no merit in this contention." The Court determined that this rationale was far too speculative in nature to merit a genuine complaint of a statute's constitutional overbreadth. Because lesser crimes such as "negligent operation of a motor vehicle" (cited in the opinion) were very unlikely to ever be racially-based, the Court stated that for this statute to be overbroad one would have to consider the prospect of a citizen actively suppressing their bigoted beliefs because they believed they could be used against him or her at a trial for a serious offense, such as burglary, battery, or murder.

Finally, the Court noted that it is relatively commonplace for a defendant's prior speech to be presented to the court as evidence. This is a tool in the judicial process, often serving a vital role in establishing the defendant's motive.



I was going to highlight the most important points, but then I realized that the entire four paragraphs would be highlighted. :D :o

[Dash]

Just want to make sure I'm hearing you right...are you saying that Mr. Anthos attack and subsequent injuries and death were not caused by his being attacked?

...

Don't kid yourself, this is a hate crime. There are MANY more examples than this particular one, if for whatever reason, this particular case is vague for you.

Tdogg, I think we do need to address the silent, underlying premise here, which is that many people don't really believe there are hate crimes against gays.

[simpleman]

According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:



Is there another side of the story I could see here? Because a pontificating statement directly from the mouth of Matt Foreman, clearcut member of one side, is failing miserably in terms of the ethos appeal. I'm not going to read the statement of a LGBT activist group over and over again and somehow be convinced that the entire Detroit PD and Wayne County Medical Examiner's office are homophobic bigots.

To everyone else, I never said that this was not a hate crime. I also never said that I believe that hate crimes don't exist against gay people. I live in the Deep South, I know that people thought of as gay have been beaten mercilessly. Even if they weren't actually gay! I know I disagree with you, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that hate crime doesn't exist.

My point is this: hate crime, is still crime. Crime is wrong, illegal, and has a system in place with protections already available. It's not that I think that hate crimes should be left unnoticed, but from a legal perspective, hate crimes are still crimes. I don't have any official documents, etc. of Anthony Anthos' autopsy, but even if somebody from the NGLTF can come forward with legally admissible evidence that Mr. Anthos died directly as a result of being hit and knocked down, which will be difficult because he was old and had pre-existing ailments, the best you could get would be criminal negligence in wrongful death, and a big maybe for involuntary manslaughter. However, he was assaulted, and if he was just hit with a fist, it would probably be simple assault and battery, which often gets put on the backburner at police stations like Detroit, because they have more pressing things to deal with like crack on the streets and gang violence. This happens a lot in big cities, and it doesn't just happen in hate crimes. If someone can find the suspect, they will bring him up on charges of assault and battery, and then the NGLTF can try to charge whatever they want.

I don't oppose this legislation because I want people to get away with crimes, but because of the dangerous legal precedent it creates. When crafting and considering legislation, you have to consider the possible future ramifications. Allowing the federal government to go snooping around in state and local matters in situations of suspected or alleged hate crimes, creates a precedent of allowing the federal government to go snooping around in local matters for other reasons. A future legislator would say "well, if the federal government is allowed to interfere in hate crime situations, what's to say they can't interfere in <name a situation>". Sure, this piece is built on good and positive intentions, but it's future ramifications could be dangerous.

[Zerbie]

Simple,

Since you fear hate crimes legislation will create a dangerous precedent, what are you doing about the fact that hate crimes legislation already exists covering certain groups (such as race and ethnicity?) Has the existing situation brought about this slippery slope of which you speak?

Or is there something different that you find menacing about extending protections to gays and lesbians?

And I feel like a broken record here saying this but apparently it needs to be repeated: the hate crimes legislation is a step towards providing the legal redress that all Americans are promised, since WITHOUT it, gay and lesbian citizens are still too often refused that redress.

Do you not see that gay persons are still refused legal redress of wrongs committed against them? Wrongs that the Constitution actually covers. Yet our institutions permit gay persons to be singled out for exclusion from the Constitutional promise. We wouldn't need hate crimes legislation if bias-motivated crimes were consistently investigated and prosecuted the way they are supposed to be.

Lastly: the fact that some members of this forum (perhaps many) have philosophical conversations about cause & effect, about the connections between hate-inciting speech and devastating acts of violence IN NO WAY changes the way the legislation is written to encompass acts of speech.

[Dash]

For your convenience, the text of Wisconsin v. Mitchell may be found here:

Wisconsin v. Mitchell @ FindLaw (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=508&invol=476)

Wisconsin v. Mitchell @ Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-515.ZO.html)

I really hope, Simpleman, that you will take the time to read the entire decision and give serious consideration to its implications for the beliefs you hold.

A few pertinent portions from the decision:

While it is equally true that a sentencing judge may not take into consideration a defendant's abstract beliefs, however obnoxious to most people, the Constitution does not erect a per se barrier to the [508 U.S. 476, 477] admission of evidence concerning one's beliefs and associations at sentencing simply because they are protected by the First Amendment. Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159 ; Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 (plurality opinion).

Moreover, the State's desire to redress what it sees as the greater individual and societal harm inflicted by bias-inspired conduct provides an adequate explanation for the provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. Pp. 485-488.

Because the statute has no "chilling effect" on free speech, it is not unconstitutionally overbroad. The prospect of a citizen suppressing his bigoted beliefs for fear that evidence of those beliefs will be introduced against him at trial if he commits a serious offense against person or property is too speculative a hypothesis to support this claim. Moreover, the First Amendment permits the admission of previous declarations or statements to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent, subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like. Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 . Pp. 488-490.

[Dash]

Since you fear hate crimes legislation will create a dangerous precedent, what are you doing about the fact that hate crimes legislation already exists covering certain groups (such as race and ethnicity?) Has the existing situation brought about this slippery slope of which you speak?


Yes! And let's be perfectly clear also about the fact that hate crime legistlation presently covers religion; so Christians and people of all faiths are protected. Yet, many of them wish to deny GLTB folk this same protection under law.

I refer you to Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 245 of the US Code:

US Code: Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 245 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC245)

It states:

(b)Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with--

(2) any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin...

...and provides the penalties listed.

[suzer1013]

I don't have any official documents, etc. of Anthony Anthos' autopsy, but even if somebody from the NGLTF can come forward with legally admissible evidence that Mr. Anthos died directly as a result of being hit and knocked down, which will be difficult because he was old and had pre-existing ailments, the best you could get would be criminal negligence in wrongful death, and a big maybe for involuntary manslaughter. However, he was assaulted, and if he was just hit with a fist, it would probably be simple assault and battery, which often gets put on the backburner at police stations like Detroit, because they have more pressing things to deal with like crack on the streets and gang violence.


Actually, what happened to Mr. Anthos can be charged as felony murder -- a very serious crime. Felony murder is when a victim dies during the commission of a felony, and in most states it carries with it severe penalties. That is, assuming the local police and DA prosecute it. Felony murder in some states is punishable by the death penalty.

It seems you are making an argument along the lines of "gee, they assaulted him and he just happened to die." Legally, that is not considered negligence or involuntary manslaughter -- it is felony murder. This was not a misdemeanor assault case -- Mr. Anthos was beaten, not merely jostled or slapped across the face.

A good example of why we need hate crimes provisions is the case of Brandon Teena, whose story was also told in the movie Boys Don't Cry. Teena, a female to male transgender, was beaten and raped when several men became enraged over discovering her true gender (in other words, because of her gender identity). The local police showed little interest in prosecuting the crime. The men later murdered Brandon Teena and her friend, and I believe a small child in the process. Had the local police been required to report this to the federal authorities as a hate crime, perhaps these lives would have been saved.

Finally, if you want additional sources to Mr. Anthos' story other than those you perceive are slanted, Google is an excellent search engine. Try it.

Susan

[Simon]

If this is the case, then why do we have laws in this country, apparently contrary to our Constitution, that provide a select group of people special priviledges, that others are not entitled to? What you are saying is that this law will give a select group of people protections, that not everyone will be entitled to?

Well, take heterosexual marriage for instance....You have a select group of people (heterosexual) who marry (of the opposite sex of course) and they suddenly are entitled to around 1400 - 1500 special priviledges that homosexual people are not entitled to (if they marry the person they love, who happens to be of the same sex), because they are not provided the same opportunity to marry and thus obtain those nearly 1500 priviledges.

Hmmmm, sounds like this country considers some more important that others, and as you have pointed out, that is contrary to our Consitution..... :cool: :rolleyes:

I'm just not seeing any argument against the hate crimes bill that would be a detriment for you, Simpleman and Simon (or anyone else). It seems that it would only strengthen the law to investigate and prosecute those committing these heinous acts. So, I have to question the motive of anyone who is vehemently opposed to the passing of this bill. There is much in this bill that isn't currently covered. We as GLBT people do NOT have federal protection. Sure, crimes are prosecuted, people go to jail and prison - but I believe your eyes would really be open if you knew just how little time many of those perpetrating hate crimes get.

Haven't heard any of your arguments that would sway me to agree with you. Sorry. As for your case that passing this into law would provide an opportunity for people to abuse it, well, that's just how it is in this world. Every law provides an opportunity for abuse, a opening to search for a loophole, an opening to provide a defense - it doesn't always work, but often it does.

Hi Tdogg

While, I have no idea how many rights married couples get, since I am not married, I would like to remind you that from historical legal perspective, the right to marry, just like the right to serve in the military, as well as the right to retain your employment is not a constitutional civil right covered in the 14th Amendment. I have a degree in History, specializing in the history of the US. Our constitution only considers rights that are civil, the ones that directly affect your life, liberty, and property. Surely, denial of marriage does not automatically turn a person into a corpse. However, putting a bullet into somebody's brain does. So, the 14the Amendment deals with crimes involving murder, manslaughter, assault, robbery, and vandalism, committed against people. Employment and marriage benefits don't apply here.

I know that you or other might invoke Loving vs. Virginia court case which lifted the ban on interracial marriages, so some might argue that it was a civil rights issue and the same should be applied to same-sex couples. I have studied that case specifically and I even read the book called "Tell the court I love my wife," and I learned that the reason why it was ruled so, had to with having already anti-segregation laws in the state of Virginia, which logically stated that since people of different races are integrated in public sphere, it is a possibility for them to want to get married, therefore, there should be no reason to deny it. Once again, it had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment, but having a lack of legal precedent, which previously was upholding segregation. This was the reason why interracial marriages were banned, but now since the segregation was gone, it was no longer applicable. Bottom line is, the 14th Amendment does not establish how much benefits each person is entitled to, therefore it does not apply to gay marriages just like it does not apply to interracial marriages.

You have made a good point by asking why we have laws that are unconstitutional. It is very true. There are some states, who have various laws who are like that. It happens because there are judges who are very sentimental, and want to please the people more than they want to follow the law. Just my two cents.

As far as this Hate Crimes Bill, I'd like to tell you a bit about it. Ten years ago, a Nation of Islam minister Khalid Muhammad published an article against Jews. In it, he called Jews a gutter race, and even advocated the killings of Jewish babies. At that time, Jews like any people of relgion, were protected under Hates Crimes Bill, so the Anti Defamation League decided to convince the federal government to press charges against Muhammad by using the Hate Crimes Bill. However, nothing worked because it was settled out that he had a right to say what he wanted because of the First Amendment. In the state of Pennsylvania, where there is a Hate Crimes law, including sexual orientation as protected entity, a group called Repent America have protested a Gay Pride parade in Philly. For that, they got arrested and charged with a hate crime, but eventually the charges were dropped, since it was proven that they did not attack anybody but freely excercised what was guaranteed to them by the First Amendment, freedom of speech and religion.

So, by looking at both situations, I think that if the Hate Crimes law will be passed, including homosexual orientation, I can imagine that various gay rights activist groups would be eager to press charges against Dobson, Matt Barber, Cindy Rios, Falwell, Kennedy, Fred Phelps, etc, but likely those charges are going to be dropped.

[simpleman]

Actually, what happened to Mr. Anthos can be charged as felony murder -- a very serious crime. Felony murder is when a victim dies during the commission of a felony, and in most states it carries with it severe penalties. That is, assuming the local police and DA prosecute it. Felony murder in some states is punishable by the death penalty.


There would have to be overwhelming proof of aggravated assault and felony battery. Generally speaking, aggravated assault is only assault that includes a) a deadly weapon (knife, gun, club, etc.) b. serious malicious intent (such as that to rape, murder, or permanently maim) c. or that the assault was committed against a police officer. Clearly the autopsy didn't show overwhelming evidence of massive assault.

In American law, we do have a general "felony murder" doctrine, but it is generally charged under 1st degree murder, which must include malice in forethought, and intent to kill prior to committing a murder. In many states, it would fall under 2nd degree murder, which is a murder that happens in the heat of another felony offense, such as rape, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. In addition, the death penalty is very rare in cases that don't include specific, documented evidence of specific intent to kill or rape a victim. From a legal perspective, and from the autopsy report, it sounds like the worst you could charge would be misdemeanor assault and battery.

I saw "Boys Don't Cry". I don't know exactly how close to real life the movie was. Anyway, what the local law enforcement did was obstruct justice. This was clearly a case of rape, triple murder, assault with intent, etc. and the local law enforcement obstructed justice and concealed evidence. There are already federal and state protections for these law enforcement offenses. No magic hate crime law can make the local law enforcement cooperate, because what they are doing is already illegal, and they've already decided not to care.

Antony, nobody is playing lawyer and I don't think it follows the model of anything any of you stand for to simply dismiss my points as just a game. I'm not playing a game with anybody. You are basically saying that the state's rights and other protections don't matter because they go against what you want, and I'm telling you that you can't just tear down the fabric of America because people use their rights to free speech and expression to speak and express disdain for gay people. There are other people out there, such as the Detroit police officer, who is just trying to do his job, feed his family, and go home alive every night. He didn't wake up one morning and say to himself "today I am going to cover up that gay man's death because it'll be better for everybody". As soon as the body rolled into the morgue, the coroner didn't say "Hmm, this man is gay? I'll be sure to include that he didn't die because someone beat him up, because it will be better for everyone." It sounds to me like if you had your way, you'd have Detroit's police chief and the Wayne County medical examiner fired just because you believe that they are covering up a hate crime, even if their findings say otherwise.

[Simon]

This is not a hate speech bill, but a hate crimes bill. It is dealing with a situation AFTER a crime has been committed.

Antony,

If you read carefully, Khalid Muhammad have stated in his speech, he wanted to kill Jewish babies. That's why the ADL wanted to press charges against him. They invoked Hate Crime Prevention Act, where race and religion was included. As far as I understood, this new federal bill, which would include sexual orientation, gender, and disability, is an extention to the Hate Crime Prevention Act, or is it a new bill? Doesn't seem like it.

[Dash]

:wave: :hissy:

Hi Simon! Hi Simpleman!

I've been very impressed with your patience and the tone of your dialogue here. I'm delighted that you are interested in hearing what we have to say.

But...

I have provided you with some primary source material that is directly pertinent to our discussion. In particular, it addresses the very problems you have with hate crime legislation.

You both seem to be ignoring the implications of what I have presented. :inspector:Since I went to some effort to locate, digest and present the information to you, I would hope you would be willing to devote a little effort likewise to consider and respond to it.

I think in order to maintain some credibility and show us, as your friends some good faith in dialogue, you might consider addressing what I have shown you.

Just sayin'...:love: :cool:

[Simon]

:wave: :hissy:

Hi Simon! Hi Simpleman!

I've been very impressed with your patience and the tone of your dialogue here. I'm delighted that you are interested in hearing what we have to say.

But...

I have provided you with some primary source material that is directly pertinent to our discussion. In particular, it addresses the very problems you have with hate crime legislation.

You both seem to be ignoring the implications of what I have presented. :inspector:Since I went to some effort to locate, digest and present the information to you, I would hope you would be willing to devote a little effort likewise to consider and respond to it.

I think in order to maintain some credibility and show us, as your friends some good faith in dialogue, you might consider addressing what I have shown you.

Just sayin'...:love: :cool:

Dash,

Didn't I already state that I was grateful to you for the links that you provided, especially the Section 8, dealing with freedom of religion and speech. I said that I don't mind having this bill, but I would mind if it gets abused. The examples of Muhammad and ADL and the example of Repent America in Philadelphia show that legal provision dealing with "hate crimes" perpetrates abuse and misuse. Also, from constitutional perspective and by allowing legal jurisdictions to assigning degrees to crimes, any Hate Crime laws are unnecessary. I studied American legal history for a couple of years, and trust me, I know what I'm talking about. Hypothetically speaking, should we amend our constitution, by modifying 1st and 14th Amendments, then I might say something different. But as long as they exist where there are, I will stand where I am.

As for Teena Brandon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teena_Brandon#The_murder), she was raped by two drunk punks, since they found out that she had a female genitalia. She reported her rape to the police, and the men killed her, out of fear for being arrested, not because they hated her for being a transgender. However, we could say that the cops didn't offer her enough protection to prevent this from happening, and it could be done because of prejudice.

Also, does everybody believe that what Matt Foreman says is totally unslanted?

[simpleman]

You are playing intellectual games. You were presented with the death of another human being and you continued to trifle with a technical analysis of the law instead of embracing the human side of the issue. How much more cold hearted and callous could that be?



Matt Foreman is presented with the same death and he wants to use it to twist legislators' arms into passing unnecessary legislation clearly designed to punish thought as well as action. I don't see a lot of human interest in trying to take advantage of someone's death in order to push an agenda. You and Matt Foreman are crossing your fingers that he was violently beaten to death by some hate-monger, so that you can show the world that the Detroit Police Department, the Wayne County coroner's office, and every other local law enforcement agency needs to be babysat by the federal government because not only are they incompetent but they are also malicious in their intent. Don't try and pass it off like you don't have ulterior motives. I don't have any motive other than the one I've put forward, which is that this legislation goes against several important legal foundations.


The fact that you just assume that local law enforcement and the coroners office investigated it clearly demonstrates why we need a Hate Crimes Bill. How naive could you possibly be?

So under your logic, if you, or somebody else decides to believe that a local law enforcement agency or court has erred because they didn't say what you wanted to hear, you can just cry foul and call in the feds to investigate? And that this should only apply to hate-motivated crimes? It's not fair to someone else for whom justice wasn't served in a non-hate crime to have federal assistance only for hate crimes. Believe it or not, the justice system fails for people who weren't involved in hate crimes, too.

Consider this: a woman gets beaten by her ex for cheating on him. And then, she dies later from complications due to an unknown health problem, that might or might not have been set off by the beating. Nobody charges murder because the coroner said that she died from complications due to whatever, and then there isn't enough evidence to convict the man for murder, only assault. Can her family call in the feds because they believe justice wasn't served? No. Why not? Because it was a passion-motivated crime, not a hate-motivated crime. That's not fair, and it creates a dangerous precedent that says that the motivation of a crime is more important than crime itself.

[Simon]

Just because somebody disagrees with another person on political issues, does that mean that the disagreeing party is a hater? This seems odd.
FYI, I have many friends friends who don't agree with me, but we are still friends.

[u-dog]

Matt Foreman is presented with the same death and he wants to use it to twist legislators' arms into passing unnecessary legislation clearly designed to punish thought as well as action. I don't see a lot of human interest in trying to take advantage of someone's death in order to push an agenda. You and Matt Foreman are crossing your fingers that he was violently beaten to death by some hate-monger, so that you can show the world that the Detroit Police Department, the Wayne County coroner's office, and every other local law enforcement agency needs to be babysat by the federal government because not only are they incompetent but they are also malicious in their intent. Don't try and pass it off like you don't have ulterior motives. I don't have any motive other than the one I've put forward, which is that this legislation goes against several important legal foundations.


Your hateful rhetoric speaks for itself and does more to advocate for the Hate Crimes Bill that anything I could ever say.


You guys need to go out and play in the sunshine for a little while. You're both getting kind of cranky. Come back at it tomorrow.

[tdogg]

I think we do need to address the silent, underlying premise here, which is that many people don't really believe there are hate crimes against gays.

Dash, sadly it's true. Is it because they do not see us as actual people? Are we an afterthought? Perhaps no thought at all? Not worthy of protections? Not worthy of all the same rights? Sadly, it appears to be true.... :'(

So Simple and Simon - you are saying that you do not believe Mr. Anthos died because of anything to do with the beating he received? You believe that he would have died at the same time even if he weren't beaten? You do not believe that the beating had anything whatsoever to do with Mr. Anthos being gay?

Again Simple and Simon - you are saying that Teena Brandon's death had nothing to do with his being a transgender? So, he was raped (and whatever other gastly things done) because the fellows he associated with determined he had female genitalia. They violently abused him because he was transgender. Then killed him, but it had nothing to do with his being transgender? You've got to be kidding!!!??? :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Ahhhhhh....now that's feels better!

[simpleman]

Your hateful rhetoric speaks for itself and does more to advocate for the Hate Crimes Bill that anything I could ever say.

Antony, if you honestly believe that every disagreement with you, or every condemnation of something that someone else believes is wrong is somehow hatred, then you will never find a world without hate.

I've been open and straightforward the whole time I've been here, and I've done nothing but offer logical points without making things personal, so why now, when I ask of you reasonable questions, would you not offer answers but rather just resort to calling me hateful? I have not said anything hateful since I've been here; I'll I've done is raise questions as to the legality and Constitutionality of what you want to happen in the legislature. Explain to me, please, how this is hateful?

Furthermore, I guess you aren't going to answer how that poor woman who got beaten by her ex isn't important enough for federal aid in her case. Is it simply because she is only hypothetical?

[Dash]

The examples of Muhammad and ADL and the example of Repent America in Philadelphia show that legal provision dealing with "hate crimes" perpetrates abuse and misuse.

In my opinion, what these examples show is that our system of law still continues to support free speech, despite the introduction of hate crime legislation. You've not provided examples of abuse of hate crime legislation, though perhaps of failed attempts.

Also, from constitutional perspective and by allowing legal jurisdictions to assing degrees to crimes, any Hate Crime laws are unnecessary.

In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, Mitchell argued:
Mitchell's failed argument:
Thus, although the statute punishes criminal conduct, it enhances the maximum penalty for conduct motivated by a discriminatory point of view more severely than the same conduct engaged in for some other reason or for no reason at all. Because the only reason for the enhancement is the defendant's discriminatory motive for selecting his victim, Mitchell argues (and the Wisconsin Supreme Court held) that the statute violates the First Amendment by punishing offenders' bigoted beliefs.

How do you feel about Justice Rehnquist's opinion? In writing for a unanimous Supreme Court he says of the enhanced sentencing:

Supreme Court's response:
Moreover, the State's desire to redress what it sees as the greater individual and societal harm inflicted by bias-inspired conduct provides an adequate explanation for the provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases.

I think you are ignoring this very important point. If all Supreme Court Justices felt there was added harm to society by bias-motivated crime, and therefore enhanced sentencing is appropriate, don't you think you have good reason to reconsider your position?


Also, does everybody believe that what Matt Foreman says is totally unslanted?

He suspects injustice and seeks redress. If that's slanted...

[simpleman]

Dash, sadly it's true. Is it because they do not see us as actual people? Are we an afterthought? Perhaps no thought at all? Not worthy of protections? Not worthy of all the same rights? Sadly, it appears to be true.... :'(

So Simple and Simon - you are saying that you do not believe Mr. Anthos died because of anything to do with the beating he received? You believe that he would have died at the same time even if he weren't beaten? You do not believe that the beating had anything whatsoever to do with Mr. Anthos being gay?

Again Simple and Simon - you are saying that Teena Brandon's death had nothing to do with his being a transgender? So, he was raped (and whatever other gastly things done) because the fellows he associated with determined he had female genitalia. They violently abused him because he was transgender. Then killed him, but it had nothing to do with his being transgender? You've got to be kidding!!!??? :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Ahhhhhh....now that's feels better!

I didn't say anything like that. I am sure that the assault on Mr. Anthos because he was gay. I'm not the coroner, I haven't seen the body, so I can't say for sure whether he died directly as a result of the injuries sustained or whether it was because they aggravated previous ailments.

As for Teena Brandon, I know that the crimes committed against him were because he was transgender. He was raped, killed, and so were the others because he was transgender.

I do not believe that hate crimes don't happen. I've already said that.

What I am saying is that all of these things are still crimes, and there are already laws against them. The laws don't say that gay people don't have the right to press charges. I'm saying that hate crimes are not the only crimes wherein the justice system fails. It's unfair to everyone else to say that only hate crimes warrant federal aid or a special set of legislation. Crime is crime, it is wrong, it is bad, it is illegal, no matter what the motivation is. Having a bill that says that one motivation makes one crime worse than another crime is unfair and arguably unconstitutional.

That's my point, and I'm not trying to say that hate crime doesn't exist. The fact that it is a crime already includes the legal ramifications that come along with it. My point is that the legislation is more about condemning hate than it is bringing to justice those accused of hate-motivated crime, because they can be brought to justice without it.

[Dash]

Simpleman,

You have not yet responded to my posts about Wisconsin v. Mitchell. I'm callin' you out!

Princess does not like to be ignored!:mad:

:lol: :rolleyes:

[simpleman]

No we're just using these deaths to trumpet our own political agenda. The hate crime statistics by the FBI were fabricated by us in a sinister plot to make this a homosexual nation of which the Hate Crimes Bill is the first step.


I never said that anything you said was fabricated. All I said was that you seem to want to break open every case that somebody might think was a hate crime and accuse the officers involved of malfeasance with no evidence other than your own thoughts. The distrust of law enforcement is clearly because of your own bias.

[simpleman]

Simpleman,

You have not yet responded to my posts about Wisconsin v. Mitchell. I'm callin' you out!

Princess does not like to be ignored!:mad:

:lol: :rolleyes:

I'm getting there! I promise! I have an exam in an hour, and I need to do some calculus work in addition to reading the case and opinion! I'll get to it though, I promise!

[Simon]

Dash, sadly it's true. Is it because they do not see us as actual people? Are we an afterthought? Perhaps no thought at all? Not worthy of protections? Not worthy of all the same rights? Sadly, it appears to be true.... :'(

So Simple and Simon - you are saying that you do not believe Mr. Anthos died because of anything to do with the beating he received? You believe that he would have died at the same time even if he weren't beaten? You do not believe that the beating had anything whatsoever to do with Mr. Anthos being gay?

Again Simple and Simon - you are saying that Teena Brandon's death had nothing to do with his being a transgender? So, he was raped (and whatever other gastly things done) because the fellows he associated with determined he had female genitalia. They violently abused him because he was transgender. Then killed him, but it had nothing to do with his being transgender? You've got to be kidding!!!??? :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Ahhhhhh....now that's feels better!

Well, T.

I don't have the ability to read people's hearts, so I can't say whether the killers of Teena Brandon could have something else against him or her, besides being afraid of him or her pressing rape charges against them. That's what I discovered so far about this case. It's possible that they could have hated Teena for being transgendered, but how can we know for sure, if we can't prove it?

As far as Anthony Anthos, there is still not enough evidence besides the autopsy report. While, he had a special medical condition that more likely caused him to have a heart failure, which could be an emotional reaction to hearing anti-gay taunts. If he didn't have this medical condition, he probably wouldn't die. But, there could be still more evidences found, so I don't know.

[suzer1013]

There would have to be overwhelming proof of aggravated assault and felony battery. Generally speaking, aggravated assault is only assault that includes a) a deadly weapon (knife, gun, club, etc.) b. serious malicious intent (such as that to rape, murder, or permanently maim) c. or that the assault was committed against a police officer. Clearly the autopsy didn't show overwhelming evidence of massive assault.

In American law, we do have a general "felony murder" doctrine, but it is generally charged under 1st degree murder, which must include malice in forethought, and intent to kill prior to committing a murder. In many states, it would fall under 2nd degree murder, which is a murder that happens in the heat of another felony offense, such as rape, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. In addition, the death penalty is very rare in cases that don't include specific, documented evidence of specific intent to kill or rape a victim. From a legal perspective, and from the autopsy report, it sounds like the worst you could charge would be misdemeanor assault and battery.


I'm afraid you are mistaken on your understanding of the felony murder rule.
First, there is no intent requirement under felony murder -- the perpetrator need only have the intent to commit the underlying felony (in the Anthos case, assault and battery). If the perpetrator had intent to kill, then he would be charged with murder. The whole point of the felony murder rule is that prosecutors don't need to prove malice or intent to kill -- they need only prove the intent to commit the underlying felony. There is a good bit of argument within the legal community as to whether the felony murder rule is fair or not, but I'm not arguing that here -- I'm just presenting that it exists and could possibly be used in cases like Mr. Anthos' death.

Second, each jurisdiction has variations on the felony murder rule, and the underlying felonies that trigger the rule are different in each state. I was unfamiliar with Michigan law, so I looked up the statute and it is unclear to me whether or not the felony murder rule would be invoked in the Anthos case. (I had not looked up the Michigan specifics before writing my previous post -- I was relying on the general rule as I learned it in law school in NY.)

I have not followed the Anthos story closely, and I don't know all the specifics nor do I have the time to research it at the moment. I simply want to make a point about the felony murder rule at the moment, and I may have more time to come back to the specifics of the Anthos case if I have time tonight.

Susan

[Zerbie]

Yes, reading this thread is inflammatory and I've had more than uncharitable thoughts. Admitted.

That said, there are two points worth bringing up:

yes, apparently there is a potential for abuse, as there is with darned well everything human beings come up with, system-wise. I've been to several gay pride parades and most of those had some protestors, so-called "christians" with big signs, and ya know what? They were there to cause a ruckus, and a few folks engaged in screaming with them, but 95% of us just stayed away and ignored them, and had a wonderful time. To be arrested MERELY for standing on the sidewalk with a "Repent" sign is indeed a problem. Assuming those folks were not actively inciting a violent disturbance, and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they weren't, then arresting them was wrong. Period. The hate crimes bill is for VIOLENT CRIMES. It has no intent of curtailing free speech, and if it did I would not support it because goodness knows my own political views are not exactly popular, most of the time, in most places.

The other point regards NGLTF. I am not an expert on every gay rights organization out there, but from the few blurbs I've seen, I do have to say that some of the language coming out of there is overly simplistic/overly B&W. That's all I'll say, since I don't recall any specifics. I just remember getting something in my email inbox from them about this bill and thinking, "Well, the issue doesn't quite work that way." They just want us to support the hate crimes legislation, which I agree with, but sometimes the language is overly simplistic.

However, I find it quite offensive, Simple, that you continue to make statements on this board like "What You Want Is. . . " And then proceed to an absurd conclusion.

What the majority of forum members here want is to see justice done, fairly and equitably. *IF* that coroner deliberately misconstrued something, then, yes, he should be held responsible - whatever that might mean. If he did not, then no blame should fall on him. What I think most forumites WANT, is to FIND OUT.

My impression is that you are deeply invested as portraying the hate crimes legislation as having malicious intent. If you are, WHY?

[Dash]

You've got to be kidding!!!??? :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Ahhhhhh....now that's feels better!

Easy darlin'! :laughing: Remember, as practitioners of nonviolence we do not participate in our own oppression.

Step away from the brick wall. Despite what you may think, it is not a good example of redemptive suffering.

:lol:

[Zerbie]

My point is that the legislation is more about condemning hate than it is bringing to justice those accused of hate-motivated crime, because they can be brought to justice without it.

[/COLOR]No. They (often) cannot. That is WHY the hate crimes bill is under discussion.

If I believed that justice could be obtained without this bill, then I would not support it either.

But it cannot, all too often.

The fact that one scenario perhaps cannot seek redress (your hypothetical woman) does not mean that others should INTENTIONALLY be deprived of the opportunity. Ideally, no one would be left without redress. Instead of arguing that gays can't be protected because your hypothetical woman was not protected, why are you not shouting HURRAH! that a solution has been posed that would enable *some more* of our marginalized fellow citizens to seek the redress that all should have? We need to work to create a world where ALL have value, and ALL have the proper opportunities to seek redress.

If to you, a hate crimes bill does not amount to a step in that direction, then what can you propose AND ACT UPON that WOULD make the ideal of equal protection under the law closer to reality? What positive alternative can you suggest? And then, pursue it! By all means, please make the world a better place, for the hypothetical ex-girlfriend AND for gays and lesbians.

Please. Make something better. :pray:

[Dash]

I'm getting there! I promise! I have an exam in an hour, and I need to do some calculus work in addition to reading the case and opinion! I'll get to it though, I promise!

Alright, pardner....

I'm puttin' away my peashooters for now.:cowboy:

Anybody that's doing calculus has my sympathy. God bless you in your trial by numbering. :pray: :flower:

[simpleman]

Dash,

Worry not, I will soon have some kind of response for Wisconsin.

Anyhow, to address some other concerns.

First of all, for a reset, I've only seen the movie "Boys Don't Cry", so I did some research on the case. From what I know about Teena Brandon, she was raped when two guys found out she wasn't actually male. They then subsequently murdered her because she was the only witness to her own rape. I have very little doubt in my mind that the rape was because she was transgender, and they felt betrayed by her pretending to be a male. The murder was probably because they thought that they could get away with the rape if they just killed her and disposed of the evidence against them in the rape case. I don't think they killed her just because she was trans, but because they had to cover up the other crime that they committed because she was trans.

In addition, I read up on carrying out of justice in the case and this is what I found:
One of the men is sitting in jail facing a reduced sentence for testifying against the other who currently sits on death row. They are both awaiting appeals, but for now they are rotting in prison.

So here's my question. What more do we need in terms of hate crime legislation? One of the men who raped and killed the transgendered person is awaiting execution and the other is rotting away in the penitentiary. I don't understand what else all of you think is needed. Please explain to me why we need another law for this, when the current laws have one guy rotting in prison and the other one sitting in a solitary cell waiting to find out whether they are going to execute him or not. What else do you want from the system? Is death not punishment enough for a hate crime?

As for Mr. Anthos' case, there is a large amount of conflicting evidence. You've all quoted repeatedly Matt Foreman's thoughts, but there's no ethos there. That would be like me posting the opinion of Gary Glenn, of the American Family Association of Michigan, who is demanding an apology from Foreman and vowing to bring to justice those who helped Anthos file the police report about the incident, which Glenn believes to be entirely false. You would all think that Mr. Glenn is slanted and biased, so why do you expect me or Simon to believe that Mr. Foreman isn't?

I think that the Brandon Teena/Teena Brandon case is enough to prove that Hate Crime legislation is not about crime, but it's about hate, because the crime happened and both of those responsible are rotting in prison right now. I really believe this legislation to be a subversive way to, as Simon says, try to combat people's personal opinions and the expression thereof, because no matter how many statistics you toss out about how hate speech (as you define it) leads to hate crime, you can't punish anybody, or put anybody away until they actually commit a crime, because we don't live in an Orwellian world where the Thought Police can come arrest people for Thought Crimes.

I hope that makes sense, and hopefully I'll get to the Wisconsin thing sooner rather than later.

[Simon]

From Wikipedia: Wisconsin v. Mitchell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell)



The crime occurred in Kenosha, Wisconsin. A group of African American men beat a white 14-year old. I won't go further into the background, since you can read the short article youself. It was quite obviously a crime of racial bias. By the time the case made it to the Supreme Court, the issue was exactly what we are talking about here: the constitutionality of hate crime laws in regard to 1st amendment rights.



I was going to highlight the most important points, but then I realized that the entire four paragraphs would be highlighted. :D :o

Dash, I read through the case. The ruling of it was that offenders should get tougher sentences for committing criminal conduct against individuals due to biases, like race, gender, sexual orientation. Furthermore, it ruled that if offenders committed a violent hate crime, any prior hateful speeches they made, can be used as evidence against them in court. I was never against that. That's why I proposed an idea that biased motivated crimes should be charged as 1st degree. For example, 1st degree murder is a very serious offense, in many states you could get at least 30 years up to life or death penalty.

However, I still think that having Hate Crime laws on the book, is sending the message that the 14th Amendment is useless, that it does not fully protects all American citizens, regardless of who they are. When the politicians see it, they are prompted to create a variety of strange and weird laws. How do you think we got affirmative action with a demand to have racial and ethnic quotas in employment? That has become very problematic. I think that if we would have all held the 14th Amendment in high regards, 40 something years ago, none of this would have happened.

[Dash]

So here's my question. What more do we need in terms of hate crime legislation? One of the men who raped and killed the transgendered person is awaiting execution and the other is rotting away in the penitentiary. I don't understand what else all of you think is needed. Please explain to me why we need another law for this, when the current laws have one guy rotting in prison and the other one sitting in a solitary cell waiting to find out whether they are going to execute him or not. What else do you want from the system? Is death not punishment enough for a hate crime?

Hope your exam went well. :)

I think this is a good question. I can give you my take on it...don't know if everyone would agree, but...

It's not about harsher punishment...or some kind of retribution. Not at all. It is about deterring these kind of crimes.

Well...one asks...how's enhanced sentencing going to deter anything? Does punishment even "deter" crime? Tough, valid questions. For me, the answer is in a phrase that you will come across in the various legal language: "protected status". At first glance, it sounds like we are seeking some kind of special right or status. But that's not it. The "protected status" is our "being what we are". It is "protected" in the sense that in this "great" country of ours, we constantly have to reiterate that "it really is okay that people are what they are."

Are they black? That's okay...they are valid citizens with equal rights. This actually has to be said because they were once defined as only 3/5 a person. Then for years, people still treated them as lesser folk. Their "color" is protected. Are they Irish? Mexican? That too is okay...there's nothing wrong with it. We actually have to tell some people this. Seems obvious to us, but some people are raised thinking they are lesser folk. Their "nationality" is protected. We have to say it, because people that look down on others in this way don't think those they despise deserve equal protection. They really don't think they are doing as much wrong when they go after people in the groups they hate.

Worse...and oh, so common...is the instictive habit of blaming the victim. "He had it coming," "He shoulda been more a man," "Look at the way he dressed!" Society successfully blames gay victims for the many bias crimes that are perpetrated against them. Hate crime legislation is partly about helping this nation affirm that nothing the victim did or "is" justifies the violence against them.

And that, my friend, is the all-important message that this country needs to hear and affirm. Including sexual orientation, gender, and gender identity is about saying, "Some people may look funny to you, act different, and eve be gross to you....leave 'em be..." We actually have to spell it out to America, and until we do, things will stay the same. We need the hate crime legislation because even though murder, assault and other violence is covered under the law...too many clearly believe that when it is done against gays it isn't really such a crime. It's not only those who commit the crimes that think this, but also those who wink at the crimes, and those who are supposed to be protecting against the crimes, and those who are supposed to be prosecuting the crimes.

Hate crime laws are a conscious change of the nation's attitude...a reaffirmation of the humanity and value of all it's citizens.

[suzer1013]

So here's my question. What more do we need in terms of hate crime legislation? One of the men who raped and killed the transgendered person is awaiting execution and the other is rotting away in the penitentiary. I don't understand what else all of you think is needed. Please explain to me why we need another law for this, when the current laws have one guy rotting in prison and the other one sitting in a solitary cell waiting to find out whether they are going to execute him or not. What else do you want from the system? Is death not punishment enough for a hate crime?


Hi Simpleman. The point is not necessarily harsher punishment, though that can be a factor in sentencing. The point is that, had there been hate crime protections in place for Brandon Teena, he might be alive today. After the rape was reported, the feds would have been notified and stepped in where local police were unwilling to do so.

So, had there been hate crime protection, there would be three people alive now that are not, there would be one less person on death row, and both men who are incarcerated would have had shorter sentences and (in my hopeful mind) had some chance to change their ways and live a better life when their sentences ended. Not only were these lives changed forever, the families and friends of all these people were affected as well.

We can't just look at it from the end result and say "they are rotting in jail, so the law worked." We need to imagine if the law had worked differently in the first place (or at all, while Brandon was alive), what could the result have been?

Susan

[tdogg]

Easy darlin'! :laughing: Remember, as practitioners of nonviolence we do not participate in our own oppression.

Step away from the brick wall. Despite what you may think, it is not a good example of redemptive suffering.

:lol:

Thanks for that Dash! :love: I'm so glad that it was my virtual head banging against the brick wall and not the real thing!!! :eek:

Simple & Simon, so far for me, haven't heard an argument that would make me think about swaying on the hate crimes bill in question. It's about time, it's necessary and it certainly will be an improvement over what we currently have. Brandon Teena and Mr. Anthos aren't the only victims of hate crimes. Others have suffered humiliation; verbal, emotional and physical abuse; violent acts including assaults, beatings, acts that are so heinous it's sickening; and yes sometimes even death - all technicalities aside.

[Simon]

Thanks for that Dash! :love: I'm so glad that it was my virtual head banging against the brick wall and not the real thing!!! :eek:

Simple & Simon, so far for me, haven't heard an argument that would make me think about swaying on the hate crimes bill in question. It's about time, it's necessary and it certainly will be an improvement over what we currently have. Brandon Teena and Mr. Anthos aren't the only victims of hate crimes. Others have suffered humiliation; verbal, emotional and physical abuse; violent acts including assaults, beatings, acts that are so heinous it's sickening; and yes sometimes even death - all technicalities aside.

Hi T.

I highly respect your views and I won't ever try to "convert" you. I just hope that you understand that the reason I oppose Hate Crime laws is not about adding sexual orientation on the books, but about having the mere presence of such laws conflicting with the 14 Amendment. I still stand that anybody who commits violence against anybody, including GLBTQ population, should not be immune from punishment.

Peace.

[simpleman]

Simple & Simon, so far for me, haven't heard an argument that would make me think about swaying on the hate crimes bill in question. It's about time, it's necessary and it certainly will be an improvement over what we currently have. Brandon Teena and Mr. Anthos aren't the only victims of hate crimes. Others have suffered humiliation; verbal, emotional and physical abuse; violent acts including assaults, beatings, acts that are so heinous it's sickening; and yes sometimes even death - all technicalities aside.

Yes, but all of those things are already illegal. I already explained how Brandon Teena's assailants were served justice quite sharply. In addition, I know that others are victims of hate crimes, and I can recall several cases where people have been put on trial, sentenced, and jailed for them. All of the things that you speak of are already against the law, and can be prosecuted as such. What is it really going to do other than promote federal interference and create a precedent for federal undermining of local authority?. I mean, if you look at all the benefits that all of you insist are in the bill, they all already exist in our current system. There is nothing new in it except that federal investigators can now undermine local authorities, where before, local authorities were let be.

As for prevention of hate crime, good luck with that. All the civilizations in all the world have all tried somehow to prevent crime. There isn't one instance where it has actually worked. Sure, some methods are better than others, but whether local or federal law enforcement investigates, prosecutes, and convicts, the sentence will be about the same. The sentence, i.e. the punishment, is what is designed to prevent. Nothing in this bill is going to keep those who hate from hating, and those who choose to commit hate crime to not commit hate crime.

[Daniel]

I highly respect your views and I won't ever try to "convert" you. I just hope that you understand that the reason I oppose Hate Crime laws is not about adding sexual orientation on the books, but about having the mere presence of such laws conflicting with the 14 Amendment. I still stand that anybody who commits violence against anybody, including GLBTQ population, should not be immune from punishment.


This reader finds it ironic that your opposition to legislation is based on an amendment that was written after the civil war with the express purpose of securing rights for former slaves.

This begs the question: are in in favor of any gay rights at all? What about the right to marry?

And let's be clear here: your saying that you are not intent on converting gay people points out that, if you had the chance, you probably would, right? If not, why do you even bring up that matter?

You give this reader the distinct impression that you are hiding some degree of animus towards gays persons behind the skirts of the Constitution.


The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments, intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses among others. It was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.[1] It is now regarded as one of the most important components of the Constitution.

The amendment provides a broad definition of national citizenship, overturning the Dred Scott case, which excluded African Americans. It requires the states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons (not only to citizens) within their jurisdictions, and was used in the mid-20th century to dismantle legal segregation, as in Brown v. Board of Education. Its Due Process Clause has driven many important and controversial cases around privacy rights, abortion (see Roe v. Wade), and other issues.

The other two post-Civil War amendments are the Thirteenth Amendment (banning slavery) and the Fifteenth Amendment (banning race-based voting qualifications). According to Supreme Court Justice Noah Swayne, "Fairly construed, these amendments may be said to rise to the dignity of a new Magna Carta."

[Simon]

This reader finds it ironic that your opposition to legislation is based on an amendment that was written after the civil war with the express purpose of securing rights for former slaves.

This begs the question: are in in favor of any gay rights at all? What about the right to marry?

And let's be clear here: your saying that you are not intent on converting gay people points out that, if you had the chance, you probably would, right? If not, why do you even bring up that matter?

You give this reader the distinct impression that you are hiding some degree on animus towards gays persons behind the skirts of the Constitution.

Hi Daniel,

I thought that Tdogg was thinking that I was trying to convince her that we shouldn't have Hate Crimes law and I wanted to point out that it was never my intention, just to make things clear. That's the impression I got from her. Furthermore, I don't believe it is ever possible to convince people with having very strong beliefs about something to change their heart and mind, but I see nothing wrong with sharing what you believe and where you are coming from.

Also, right to marry is not a civil right, from legal perspective. Since, it does not deal with 14th Amendment, which protects people from physical violence mainly, I'd say that I am willing to discuss the marriage subject in a different thread. Just to touch base briefly, I don't mind if same-sex couples register their relationships civilly, but I am totally against the churches being obligated to perform same-sex weddings, if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. It is their constitutional right to refuse such potential weddings.

About animus, which I have heard in psychology means girls having some masculine traits, but I guess you are using it in the different context, right? I generally don't appreciate various left wing activists who have influenced the creation of laws that are totally out of line with our Constitution that open doors of redifinition of many things, like Roe vs. Wade and affirmative action, throughout our history. I think that the gay people you mentioned, were only liberal gays. For the record's sake, not all GLBT people are liberals, ever heard of Tammy Bruce? So, let's avoid generalizations and stereotyping.

I see that you live in NYC. Great city! My dad actually lives in Staten Island, which borough do you live? I heard that the State of New York does have a Hate Crime law, where sexual orientation is listed as a protected entity, am I correct?

[Daniel]

Hi Daniel,

I thought that Tdogg was thinking that I was trying to convince her that we shouldn't have Hate Crimes law and I wanted to point out that it was never my intention, just to make things clear. That's the impression I got from her. Furthermore, I don't believe it is ever possible to convince people with having very strong beliefs about something to change their heart and mind, but I see nothing wrong with sharing what you believe and where you are coming from.

With all due respect: if you want to know what Tdogg was thinking, please ask her, rather than talk about it second hand to me.

Also, right to marry is not a civil right, from legal perspective. Since, it does not deal with 14th Amendment, which protects people from physical violence mainly, I'd say that I am willing to discuss the marriage subject in a different thread. Just to touch base briefly, I don't mind if same-sex couples register their relationships civilly, but I am totally against the churches being obligated to perform same-sex weddings, if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. It is their constitutional right to refuse such potential weddings.

It is my understanding that marriage is a 'right' that is bestowed by the state, and as such, is civil rather than religious in its purview. If you do a little research, I think you will find that in jurisdictions that have gay marriage, none of them require churches to perform them.

About animus, which I have heard in psychology means girls having some masculine traits, but I guess you are using it in the different context, right? I generally don't appreciate various left wing activists who have influenced the creation of laws that are totally out of line with our Constitution that open doors of redifinition of many things, like Roe vs. Wade and affirmative action, throughout our history. I think that the gay people you mentioned, were only liberal gays. For the record's sake, not all GLBT people are liberals, ever heard of Tammy Bruce? So, let's avoid generalizations and stereotyping.

an·i·mus
n.
An attitude that informs one's actions; disposition.
A feeling of animosity; ill will. See synonyms at enmity.
In Jungian psychology, the masculine inner personality as present in women.


Please do a little research before you take issue with another's use of language. You might use this resource: answers.com

I stand by my use of the term.

I see that you live in NYC. Great city! My dad actually lives in Staten Island, which borough do you live? I heard that the State of New York does have a Hate Crime law, where sexual orientation is listed as a protected entity, am I correct?

This thread, and others are replete with information and sources which have been offered up to you for food for thought, which, frankly, you seem to have a way or either discounting or ignoring because they does not suit your purposes. Of course, that is your right. That said, I appreciate that you are trying to be cordial, but I'm not exactly inclined to do your work for you when the effort will only result in more of the same.

And while it may be too fine a point, sexual orientation, which is a trait, is not, properly speaking, an entity. A person is an entity. And a class of persons who have the trait called sexual orientation is what is protected by hate crime laws.

[Dash]

Hey...I was going to go through this thread and recap/summarize our thoughts, but then I ended up working on an outline. I'm freely borrowing from everyone's thoughts...thanks for all the careful, thoughtful debate.

This is frankly, unfinished (kinda trails off at the end). I just ran out of steam, and am heading downtown to enjoy some of my vacation time out of doors (imagine that). Please make suggestions to me (you can PM me, if you want) for any added points or corrections. I'll come back and edit this post later to see if I can produce a clear statement that expresses our perspective.
_____________________________

Why Hate Crime Legislation is Needed

1) Hate crimes terrorize an entire class of people
a. Because that class knows that “who they are” is all the provocation perpetrators need
i. They know that they must be careful to not let who they are show in public

ii. They know that citizens who do not share their nature are thus naturally safer in public

iii. They know by experience and communication that various regions of stronger anti-gay bias exist in the country (and around the world) and are often told by both friendly and unfriendly voices to choose carefully where they live, visit, worship, study, and take their leisure-- or risk extra danger
b. Because they have a strong, historically informed perception that law enforcement does not serve them equally, which leaves them feeling less sure of adequate protection and hope for justice
i. Because even among law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, jurists and communities anti-gay bias flourishes
1. “With respect to the crimes and offenses showing increases in 2006,most involved law enforcement personnel (it appears that a significant jump in anti-LGBT police activity in Columbus is almost wholly responsible for these changes) and included: Police raids (100%), from 3 to 6, police entrapment (82%), unjustified arrest (14%), robbery (12%)” (Anti-Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Violence In 2006 (http://www.avp.org/publications/reports/2006NtnlHVReportReleaseEdition.pdf) , by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, p6)

2. “Looking further at law enforcement reporting and response data, one category that showed a substantial increase was the number of complaints refused by police, which rose 17%, from 71 such incidents in 2005 to 83 in 2006.” (Ibid (http://www.avp.org/publications/reports/2006NtnlHVReportReleaseEdition.pdf) , p12)

3. “…where information was available, victims described law enforcement response as “courteous” 49% of the time, “indifferent” 34% of the time, verbally abusive 11% of the time, and physically abusive 6% of the time.” (Ibid (http://www.avp.org/publications/reports/2006NtnlHVReportReleaseEdition.pdf), p13)

4. “The victims ran for help to the precinct located across the street from where the incident took place, but the police were indifferent and refused to intervene. (New York)” (Ibid (http://www.avp.org/publications/reports/2006NtnlHVReportReleaseEdition.pdf), p13)

5. "While victims gave a variety of reasons for not reporting the anti-LGTB hate crimes to the authorities, one most often cited reason was a fear of bias attitude from and revictimization by the police. These statements are paralleled by 25% drop in reported courteous attitude exhibited by the police." (Ibid (http://www.avp.org/publications/reports/2006NtnlHVReportReleaseEdition.pdf), p33)


ii. Because (perhaps with circular reasoning, but true nonetheless) this country still denies specific legal protection in its criminal code in regard to sexual orientation (See Title 18, Chapter 13 of US Criminal Code (http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_chapter13_.html))
c. Because very strong hateful language is still presently and widely disseminated from powerful religious and political groups
i. Levitical language used to describe homosexuals as worthy of death

ii. Gospel language used to describe homosexuals as aberrant

iii. New Testament Epistle language used to describe homosexuals as immoral and eternally damned

iv. Common references and obvious perceptions among biased groups to homosexuals as being either too feminine or too butch, un-American, filthy, diseased, dangerous, etc..

v. Common language describing homosexuals as attempting to militantly overthrow the traditions, institutions and laws of the United States

vi. A financial incentive in the perpetuation of anti-GLTB bias by certain conservative religious organizations also unfortunately exists

1. Anti-gay “Action Alerts” to an organization’s donation base--such as Dobson’s “Declaration of War” on homosexuality—individually generate millions of dollars in donations. This represents a prized cash cow of unusually lucrative return (see James Dobson’s War on America, by Gil Alexander-Moegerle. Reviewed in "Christian Century", Sept 24, 1997 by Timothy Frederick Simpson (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n26_v114/ai_19905226) )

2. Organizations like Exodus International, Americans for Truth and others exist and survive solely on revenue derived from anti-gay beliefs of their donation base.
d. Because they have heard praise and support for hatred and violence against GLTB folk among their peers, classmates, community groups, and sadly sometimes even among their friends and families

e. And because there is an observable connection between the level of anti-gay rhetoric in society and the level of anti-gay violence
i. Extraordinarily elevated statistics in anti-GLTB bias crime reports during the last half of 2003 through 2005 reflect vocal religious and political backlash to same-sex marriage issues, the Supreme Court’s striking down of sodomy laws, the visibility of gay and lesbian people in media and popular culture, as well as Presidential election cycle rhetoric. (Anti-Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Violence In 2006 (http://www.avp.org/publications/reports/2006NtnlHVReportReleaseEdition.pdf), pp3-4)
2) Hate crimes are striking and distinguished from crimes motivated by theft, passion or negligence for their often intensely brutal nature
a. Often marked by various forms of torture

b. Unusual and excessively brutal methods of murder

c. Accompanied by verbal expressions of hatred

d. Excessive destruction of the victims’ body, far beyond what would commonly kill a person—sometimes obviously continued after the person is already deceased
3) Hate crimes increase the risk of civil unrest
a. Stonewall riots (related to unfair law enforcement against GLTB community)

b. Los Angeles riots (related to Rodney King beating)

c. William v. Mitchell
i. Moreover, the State's desire to redress what it sees as the greater individual and societal harm inflicted by bias-inspired conduct provides an adequate explanation for the provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases
4) Hate crime legislation is not in conflict with the 1st Amendment to the Constitution
a. Effect on free speech purely speculative
i. “Because the statute has no "chilling effect" on free speech, it is not unconstitutionally overbroad. The prospect of a citizen suppressing his bigoted beliefs for fear that evidence of those beliefs will be introduced against him at trial if he commits a serious offense against person or property is too speculative a hypothesis to support this claim.” (Supreme Court case William v. Mitchell)
b. Speech of criminals already used against them in court proceedings
i. “Moreover, the First Amendment permits the admission of previous declarations or statements to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent, subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like.” (Supreme Court case William v. Mitchell)
5) Hate crime legislation is not in conflict with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution
a. 14th Amendment itself established and secured rights for a suppressed group—hate crime legislation shares that spirit and motivation

b. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment explicitly states, “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
i. Hate Crime legislation is appropriate legislation to uphold the provisions of this amendment.
c.
6) The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is supported by 26 state Attorneys General and over 280 national law enforcement, professional, education, civil rights, religious, and civic organizations. (List of LLEHCPA supporters from CivilRights.org (http://www.civilrights.org/issues/hate/llehcpa-supporter.html) )
a. Law enforcement organizationas
i. Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
ii. Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association
iii. Hispanic National Law Enforcement Association
iv. International Association of Chiefs of Police (http://www.civilrights.org/assets/pdfs/IACP-letter.pdf)
v. Major Cities Chiefs Association (http://www.civilrights.org/assets/pdfs/Chiefs-Letter.pdf)
vi. National Asian Peace Officers Association
vii. National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees
viii. National Black Police Association
ix. National Coalition of Public Safety Officers
x. National District Attorneys Association
xi. National Latino Police Officers Association
xii. National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
xiii. National Sheriffs' Association
xiv. Police Executive Research Forum (http://www.civilrights.org/assets/pdfs/PERF-HR-1592-support-letter.pdf)
xv. Police Foundation
xvi. Texas Police Chiefs Association (http://www.civilrights.org/assets/pdfs/Texas-Police-Chiefs-Assn-letter.pdf)
2. The Harris County Sheriff’s department investigated a particularly horrible hate crime last year, when a Spring teenager named David Ritcheson was beaten nearly to death and sodomized with an outdoor umbrella pole by two other teenagers who attacked him because of his Hispanic heritage.
xvii. The United States Conference of Mayors
xviii.

b. Religious Organizations
i. African American Ministers in Action
ii. African-American Women's Clergy Association
iii. American Islamic Congress
iv. American Jewish Committee
v. American Jewish Congress
vi. B'nai B'rith International
vii. Buddhist Peace Fellowship
viii. Catholics for Free Choice
ix. Central Conference of American Rabbis
x. Christian Church Capital Area
xi. Congress of National Black Churches
xii. Disciples of Christ Advocacy Washington Network
xiii. The Episcopal Church
xiv. Equal Partners in Faith
xv. Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Office for Government Affairs
xvi. Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America
xvii. Interfaith Alliance
xviii. International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists
xix. International Association of Jewish Vocational Services
xx. Jewish Labor Committee
xxi. Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
xxii. Jewish War Veterans of the USA
xxiii. Jewish Women International
xxiv. Methodist Federation for Social Action
xxv. National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA
xxvi. National Council of Jewish Women
xxvii. National Jewish Democratic Council
xxviii. National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States
xxix. NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
xxx. Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office
xxxi. The Rabbinical Assembly
xxxii. Union of Reform Judaism
xxxiii. Unitarian Universalist Association
xxxiv. United Church of Christ – Justice and Witness Ministries
xxxv. United Church of Christ - Office of Church in Society
xxxvi. United Methodist Church – General Board of Church and Society
xxxvii. United Methodist Church - General Commission on Religion and Race
xxxviii. United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
xxxix. Women of Reform Judaism, Federation of Temple Sisterhoods
xl. Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics & Ritual
c. http://www.usdoj.gov/crs/pubs/htecrm.htm

7) Hate crimes are often difficult to investigate, requiring higher levels of funding and personnel
[INDENT]

[Zerbie]

Wow dash. I got the shivers reading that.

Enjoy your vacation time!!!

Now when ya get back: It really needs to be stressed that above and beyond all those points you make, the legislation is needed because law enforcement still too often looks the other way with a wink, in regard to anti-gay violence. THAT is the most pressing, practical reason this bill is necessary. ENFORCEMENT. JUSTICE.

With some digging, we could find examples (possibly very numerous) of law enforcement looking the other way, responding with a mere wink and slap on the wrist, etc. I've seen many, many such accounts in the 12 years I've been involved with the gay community, and never thought to keep a collected list or record of them. So I cannot provide citation, only state that I KNOW that the law has not been enforced, in all too many cases. Since I intend to spend my summer working on MUSIC, and on projects around the house, many someone else (Dash?) will feel motivated to dig around and collect some case scenarios? (hint, hint?)

[ReligionProf]

How can anyone possibly think, whatever their viewpoint, that it is appropriate for Christians to expose others to hate crimes, to not protect them whoever they may be? Is the thinking that, while they would not kill or abuse people themselves, it is OK, perhaps even appropriate, to leave the door open for someone else to do it? That is what was done by some during Hitler's time in Nazi Germany. Others perhaps didn't go quite that far, they just didn't speak out, didn't make their voice heard one way or the others. We still consider such people accountable, as sharing in the guilt for what happened in that horrific period in history.

The Bible regularly accuses people not only if they mistreated the poor themselves but if they failed to defend them, the widows and the orphans. Anyone who calls themself a Christian and yet opposes a bill against hate crimes apparently has failed to grasp even the most basic and fundamental teachings of Christianity.

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/blog/

[simpleman]

First of all, to religionprof, I have to ask how you compare government sponsored genocide to this situation? Our government does not condone hate crimes, nor does it perpetrate them, nor does it even allow them. Those of us against this bill don't commit hate crime, support hate crime, or try to pretend like hate crimes don't happen. The rank-and-file poor Germans that you condemn of failing to stand up for what was wrong, were living in a poverty-stricken, war-torn country with no freedoms. To say that they are somehow at fault for the genocide that most of them had no idea about is absurd. If somebody clever did figure it out, and try to stop it (google: Corrie ten Boom), they were sent right along with those who were being killed. This wasn't only for actual German citizens, but for citizens of everywhere else the Germans invaded.

I think you are missing the crux of the issue here, which is not that those against this bill want hate crime to occur, or don't believe it occurs, or want to cover up the fact that it occurs, but to point out that the legislation itself is redundant, and further blurs the lines between federal authority and state authority. I think that the reason that there is argument about this is because everybody simply refuses to believe that gays are already protected in the criminal code against violent and even not-as-violent crime. This piece of legislation is nothing more than a feel-good piece, and on the other side it creates a potentially harmful precedent in law.

In conclusion, nobody here is against the Hate Crimes Bill because we want hate crimes to keep happening, we're against it because it undermines other freedoms to provide redundant and unnecessary extra protections.

All that being said,

Dash,

Excellent work on your outline. It was clearly well thought out. Enjoy your vacation! I'm about to embark on summer vacation myself. Anyhow, I thought I would put your outline up here and see if I can't take a few cuts at it.

1) Hate crimes terrorize an entire class of people

a. Because that class knows that “who they are” is all the provocation perpetrators need



Yes, but someone hating who someone else is is constitutionally protected. And if the would-be-perpetrator actually commits an act, he is subject to criminal penalties. Regardless if it's "This is the day that I kill someone day" in a person's mind or if it's "that person is gay, I will kill him" the crime committed is still the crime committed. I know it's awful that gays don't feel safe in public, but there is no way to write up a law that says that everybody else has to go out of their way to make gays feel safe.



i. They know that they must be careful to not let who they are show in public



That isn't a reason for legislation! Steve Bartman (google him if you need to) had to be careful not to let anybody who he was because he ruined the Cubs chance at their first pennant in years. If anybody had attacked him, it would have been a crime, motivated solely by the fact that he caught a ball.



ii. They know that citizens who do not share their nature are thus naturally safer in public


Sure, but aren't men safer than women in public? Aren't larger people safer than smaller people? There are some people who are simply just safer in public than others. You can't really write this into law. There are no laws that say that some people should have special protections when walking down the street.



iii. They know by experience and communication that various regions of stronger anti-gay bias exist in the country (and around the world) and are often told by both friendly and unfriendly voices to choose carefully where they live, visit, worship, study, and take their leisure-- or risk extra danger



This is moving more and more towards "we shouldn't have to get our feelings hurt" legislation, which is really pointless. It is bad that people get their feelings hurt, but you can't make it illegal to hurt somebody's feelings.



b. Because they have a strong, historically informed perception that law enforcement does not serve them equally, which leaves them feeling less sure of adequate protection and hope for justice



Again, people's "feelings" can't really be protected by law. You start getting into thought crimes when you start saying that gay people's fragile feelings must be protected by laws. Furthermore, is it really fair to law enforcement to enact laws condemning them as corrupt? If I were an officer I would be offended that all of you think that I am not capable of properly handling a crime, or that I somehow wouldn't do my duty to my city because the victim of a crime was gay.



i. Because even among law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, jurists and communities anti-gay bias flourishes



I would say "exists" rather than "flourishes". Again it's an unfair assumption to say that. There are many law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges, and jurists who take their jobs very seriously as a service to their communities. Don't be so quick to assume that they wouldn't do their jobs just because a crime victim is gay.


ii. Because (perhaps with circular reasoning, but true nonetheless) this country still denies specific legal protection in its criminal code in regard to sexual orientation



I would change "criminal" to "civil". There is nothing in the criminal code that says "Gay people are not allowed to press charges against people for crimes." The civil code does seem to lack the specific legal protections of marriage, or union, etc.



c. Because very strong hateful language is still presently and widely disseminated from powerful religious and political groups

i. Levitical language used to describe homosexuals as worthy of death

ii. Gospel language used to describe homosexuals as aberrant

iii. New Testament Epistle language used to describe homosexuals as immoral and eternally damned

iv. Common references and obvious perceptions among biased groups to homosexuals as being either too feminine or too butch, un-American, filthy, diseased, dangerous, etc..



Levitical and Gospel language are based on their personal religious beliefs. You disagree with them, but under their holy book, being gay is sinful. This not only falls under freedom of speech but freedom of religion. If the religion says homosexuals will burn in hell, there is no reason that a person of that religion can't say that. Sure, it will hurt feelings, and it isn't polite, but politeness isn't required, and not allowing such speech is against the Constitution.



v. Common language describing homosexuals as attempting to militantly overthrow the traditions, institutions and laws of the United States



Not saying this is accurate, but there is a fine line between peaceful assembly and riot. Many gay activists are quite militant in their work. Not saying any of you are, but most of you are very strident. I'm not saying that this is even wrong, but I don't see how saying it is somehow hateful.


d. Because they have heard praise and support for hatred and violence against GLTB folk among their peers, classmates, community groups, and sadly sometimes even among their friends and families



I think that is quite a stretch. I don't think there is as much praise and support for violence as you think, however I do believe there is much more "turning away and pretending it doesn't exist or doesn't matter" than there should be.


2) Hate crimes are striking and distinguished from crimes motivated by theft, passion or negligence for their often intensely brutal nature

a. Often marked by various forms of torture

b. Unusual and excessively brutal methods of murder

c. Accompanied by verbal expressions of hatred

d. Excessive destruction of the victims’ body, far beyond what would commonly kill a person—sometimes obviously continued after the person is already deceased


Not always. There have been some pretty heinous crimes that weren't hate crimes. Charles Manson and his gang killed Sharon Tate in a most gruesome way, for no other reason than for fun. She even begged for her baby's life to no avail. Ed Gein murdered two women and cut them up like livestock in his barn because he was a serious necrophile case, coupled with overwhelming unhealthy obsession with his mother. All of these things are already illegal, and when they happen, people get tried, convicted, and put in jail. Heinous, sickening crime isn't a new phenomenon that comes along with hatred, it's been around a lot longer than that.

As for 3. Civil unrest is not the fault of the killer or the killed, it is the fault of those causing the unrest. Sure people may rally around a death and riot, but that isn't the fault of the government, nor should it be in legislation.

As for 4, I know what the bill says about it's relation to free speech, but I think the underlying current is one of silencing speech that people deem mean, rude, or "hateful" in nature, which is all protected by the Constitution.

As for 5, I don't know the 14th Amendment well enough to say whether it is or isn't in conflict.

[revtj]

Don't kid yourself, this is a hate crime. There are MANY more examples than this particular one, if for whatever reason, this particular case is vague for you.

I agree, the right is teaching thousands of sheep that hate crimes legislation is akin to special rights for homosexuals. They say we already have protection and we don't deserve to be singled out for special protection because God condemns our lifestyle.

Q: If we're already covered by the law, then why are the majority of the cases of violence and murder against LGBT people not prosecuted or leniently remanded?

A: Homosexuals/LGBT peoples are not equal under the law to their straight, white, affluent counterparts as citizens and our lives are not worth the prosecution. To me that's the only conclusion one can reach if we follow the "already have protection" logic.

In every large city of America there are piles of cold case files of transgendered and gay murders sitting there. No one would know about them if the gay press and gay/trans activists weren't constantly reminding us of them. They don't get priority because the people prosecuting them are consciously or unconsciously homophobic = they don't care!

[Zerbie]

The legislation is NOT redundant because many of these crimes are NOT prosecuted.

If you were an officer you would be offended?!? I doubt that, because if you believe gay persons should be valued and protected, you as officer might be part of those wonderful and commendable people in law enforcement who actually reach out to their local LGBT communities and hold forums to discuss whether the community's needs are being met, and if not, how they might better serve them. Yes, such wonderful rarities exist here or there. If you would be so offended at being viewed as biased against gays, then you would be one of the wonderful few DOING something about it. No?

Sadly, this scenario of outreach in law enforcement is still relatively rare. One of our valley's towns recently had an anti-gay assault. Two gentlemen were assaulted at a restaurant. One, I believe, sustained minor injuries, the other was, I think, unharmed. Police were called immediately as the assault was happening. They arrived? Two. Hours. Later. Sorry, but, if responding to an assault in process in the center of town takes the police TWO HOURS, sure seems like somebody doesn't care. That is PRECISELY the type of apathy we have witnessed and been concerned about.

Oh and there was a feature article about a dozen years ago, I think it was in the Associated Press - this was shortly before I got involved in following these issues, and the first I heard of anti-gay assault crimes. A 19 year old gay man was violently assaulted by gay bashers in the streets of L.A. Police were summoned, and allegedly stood over the beaten man, laughing at him, calling him by a variety of names one uses to insult gay men, and telling him he deserved it until he cried. Don't go telling me it's an insult to law enforcement to raise attention to this sort of a trend!! Any officer worth their salt would take offense that a fellow officer BEHAVES like this, not be offended that the public objects!

The tone of your arguments now leads me to believe that it's not concern for legal precedents that brings you to the conversation, but objection to seeing the lives of gay persons upheld with value equal to other persons. It's the overwhelming *impression* that rides underneath the words you've written - I believe you are struggling with anti-gay animus, whether you're aware of it or not. When homophobia gets into our brains, it likes to take the form of, "well of course, homosexuals are people and no, they shouldn't be murdered, BUT. . . " Just sayin'. That is what *I* get from reading your posts.

Question: What's so dangerous about the precedent of federal versus state authority? The way I see it, authority is authority, bureacracy is bureacracy, so what's the diff? AND what about my earlier point that we HAVE hate crimes legislation covering some groups already? What is so dangerous about this particular inclusion? I ask because it really seems to come down to you not wanting to protect gays.

This is NOT about "the fragile feelings of gays." Oh boy, if karma lessons play out, you'd be in for a rough, rude ride if, for instance, you had to be gay for year. I kind of wish you could experience it so that you know what's being talked about, both in the realm of feelings (it goes so beyond "hurt" you cannot even imagine it if you're straight,) AND in the realm of your ability to go about your life and receive the same rights and regard that you are accustomed to now. Man oh man, please listen to what we're telling you. Not just for us, okay? This goes very deep.

[keltic63]

Yes, but someone hating who someone else is is constitutionally protected. And if the would-be-perpetrator actually commits an act, he is subject to criminal penalties. Regardless if it's "This is the day that I kill someone day" in a person's mind or if it's "that person is gay, I will kill him" the crime committed is still the crime committed. I know it's awful that gays don't feel safe in public, but there is no way to write up a law that says that everybody else has to go out of their way to make gays feel safe.


I've stayed out of this discussion for many reasons. However, I feel the need to jump in now. If the laws of this country are in place to make all citizens feel safe, why is it wrong, in your opinion, to put laws into place that protect minority groups(allow them to feel safe)?


This is moving more and more towards "we shouldn't have to get our feelings hurt" legislation, which is really pointless. It is bad that people get their feelings hurt, but you can't make it illegal to hurt somebody's feelings.



Again, people's "feelings" can't really be protected by law. You start getting into thought crimes when you start saying that gay people's fragile feelings must be protected by laws.

This is where I'm getting offended by your posts. You have repeatedly ignored the evidence put in front of you that this isn't about "feelings," it is about the actual crimes, very real violence, committed out of hatred for lgbt people. By continuing to refer to this as protecting the "feelings" of lgbt people, you are demeaning us, and belittling the problems that we face.


Furthermore, is it really fair to law enforcement to enact laws condemning them as corrupt? If I were an officer I would be offended that all of you think that I am not capable of properly handling a crime, or that I somehow wouldn't do my duty to my city because the victim of a crime was gay.

That's commendable of you. However, I think there is enough proof out there that not all law enforcement is as noble as you claim you would be. I know that I had misgivings about calling the police concerning a crime that was committed against me. I did make the call, and because of the nature of the crime, I had to out myself to the police officer (I had some mail stolen, that I later found discarded; one of the other residents in the apt. building most likely stole it. It was a news magazine for the lgbt community.) although the officer did indeed respond appropriately, I was encouraged to let it go, not press charges. I also would have had to contact my Postmaster and pursue charges through the federal system.
A friend of mine is a director for a major women's protective services center. a significant number of women in the shelter are abused by their police officer husbands/significant others, and those men are protected by their fellow officers. My friend experienced the same kind of harassment, lack of action by law enforcement, when she divorced her police officer husband.






Levitical and Gospel language are based on their personal religious beliefs. You disagree with them, but under their holy book, being gay is sinful. This not only falls under freedom of speech but freedom of religion. If the religion says homosexuals will burn in hell, there is no reason that a person of that religion can't say that. Sure, it will hurt feelings, and it isn't polite, but politeness isn't required, and not allowing such speech is against the Constitution.

again with the belittling of our problem.



Not saying this is accurate, but there is a fine line between peaceful assembly and riot. Many gay activists are quite militant in their work. Not saying any of you are, but most of you are very strident. I'm not saying that this is even wrong, but I don't see how saying it is somehow hateful.

this is very insulting. you want us to play nice and beg for the respect and protections provided to the rest of the population?

[Dash]

Good As You (http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/05/video_colbert_o.html) has posted a hilarious clip from the Colbert Report regarding the Hate Crime Bill.

I seriously laughed out loud twice! :laughing: :rofl:

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/05/video_colbert_o.html

[Dash]

Adding to the outline above-thread, all the law enforcement agencies that support the Hate Crime Bill. Below is what I have added to section 6. Click the link to see the entire list of supporters--there are many many more than I included here. It's inspiring to read how many people support it.:) :pray:


Why Hate Crime Legislation is Needed


6) Hate crime legislation is supported by law enforcement and federal agencies
a. http://www.usdoj.gov/crs/pubs/htecrm.htm

b. List of LLEHCPA supporters from CivilRights.org (http://www.civilrights.org/issues/hate/llehcpa-supporter.html) The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is supported by 26 state Attorneys General and over 280 national law enforcement, professional, education, civil rights, religious, and civic organizations.
i. Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
ii. Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association
iii. Hispanic National Law Enforcement Association
iv. International Association of Chiefs of Police (http://www.civilrights.org/assets/pdfs/IACP-letter.pdf)
v. Major Cities Chiefs Association (http://www.civilrights.org/assets/pdfs/Chiefs-Letter.pdf)
vi. National Asian Peace Officers Association
vii. National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees
viii. National Black Police Association
ix. National Coalition of Public Safety Officers
x. National District Attorneys Association
xi. National Latino Police Officers Association
xii. National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
xiii. National Sheriffs' Association
xiv. Police Executive Research Forum (http://www.civilrights.org/assets/pdfs/PERF-HR-1592-support-letter.pdf)
xv. Police Foundation
xvi. Texas Police Chiefs Association (http://www.civilrights.org/assets/pdfs/Texas-Police-Chiefs-Assn-letter.pdf)
2. The Harris County Sheriff’s department investigated a particularly horrible hate crime last year, when a Spring teenager named David Ritcheson was beaten nearly to death and sodomized with an outdoor umbrella pole by two other teenagers who attacked him because of his Hispanic heritage.
xvii. The United States Conference of Mayors
xviii.

[Daniel]

How can anyone possibly think, whatever their viewpoint, that it is appropriate for Christians to expose others to hate crimes, to not protect them whoever they may be? Is the thinking that, while they would not kill or abuse people themselves, it is OK, perhaps even appropriate, to leave the door open for someone else to do it? That is what was done by some during Hitler's time in Nazi Germany. Others perhaps didn't go quite that far, they just didn't speak out, didn't make their voice heard one way or the others. We still consider such people accountable, as sharing in the guilt for what happened in that horrific period in history.


Welcome! Well said!

What boggles the mind is that it is all too easy to look the other way. If one's perception is that one isn't doing it, well then, violence against gay people must not be happening, right? This viewpoint- as it relates to the 'good German' has been well documented and even made into a film.


The Good German

The Good German is an Academy Award-nominated 2006 feature film adaptation of a novel by Joseph Kanon. Directed by Steven Soderbergh and starring George Clooney, Cate Blanchett, and Tobey Maguire...

The film's title alludes to the concept of "a good German", ostensibly one who was not to blame for allowing Hitler to do the evil that he did, and who did not see the Holocaust as it occurred before their eyes. Thematically, the film centers on guilt, and the unanswered question: "Is it possible to both survive the atrocities and yet to be unaware of and uncomplicit in them?"

Interestingly, there was study that I read in the New York Times this past year (which, as yet, I have been unable to locate) which showed that, when given permission, people will cause harm to another person. The researchers showed that societal norms and expectations influence how we treat one another. This is one explanation for the 'good german' and that which leads to hate crimes. When it is part of the air one breaths, it doesn't seem like anything to be concerned about.

I did, however, stumble upon onther study that is provocative in its implications. This study found that those who feel harmed in some way actually return the harm they feel is imposed on them in greater measure. What does this say, I wonder, about the Christian conservative who feels as though he/she is being attacked by the world- and that gay people are destroying marriage etc?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/opinion/24gilbert.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=ccbeabdcb4bed41e&ex=1178769600

This study made it possible to put pressure on another person's finger and then the recipient of that pressure was asked to return the same amount of pressure. Here's what they found.


The results were striking. Although volunteers tried to respond to each other’s touches with equal force, they typically responded with about 40 percent more force than they had just experienced. Each time a volunteer was touched, he touched back harder, which led the other volunteer to touch back even harder. What began as a game of soft touches quickly became a game of moderate pokes and then hard prods, even though both volunteers were doing their level best to respond in kind.

Each volunteer was convinced that he was responding with equal force and that for some reason the other volunteer was escalating. Neither realized that the escalation was the natural byproduct of a neurological quirk that causes the pain we receive to seem more painful than the pain we produce, so we usually give more pain than we have received.

Research teaches us that our reasons and our pains are more palpable, more obvious and real, than are the reasons and pains of others. This leads to the escalation of mutual harm, to the illusion that others are solely responsible for it and to the belief that our actions are justifiable responses to theirs.

None of this is to deny the roles that hatred, intolerance, avarice and deceit play in human conflict. It is simply to say that basic principles of human psychology are important ingredients in this miserable stew. Until we learn to stop trusting everything our brains tell us about others — and to start trusting others themselves — there will continue to be tears and recriminations in the wayback.

It would seem that the methods of nonviolence are greatly needed in a world where self-perception and preoccupation leads to violence.

[BrentRichards]

Thanks, Dash ... I was going to go looking for that ... guess they're not very offended, are they?

Once again, I think the overarching difficulty here is the tendency to look at the issue from the perspective of power ... the idea that it's just about "getting your feelings hurt" comes from being in the position where's that's pretty much the worst society is going to do to you. At least with regard to your orientation, that's the position you're in (you're also male, I assume, though I have no idea if you're in the racial or socio-economic majority) Simple, I think you've said you're trying to see things from our standpoint, so difficult as this is, imagine for one moment that the large majority of people in this world find you disgusting and immoral, and would love any opportunity to stick it to you. Then look at the issues through that lens. Far more than our "feelings" are at stake here. Much of the language you use in your arguments assumes that we (the gay community) are in a position of power to "force" others to give us "special rights." In fact, we're not in a position to force anything, so yes, we speak up loudly, and ask others to help make sure we get treated fairly. I suspect, if you were afraid of what people might do to you simply for who you are, you'd speak up too! Try to see it from outside of the "power" position.

[Daniel]

I encourage everyone to read the 2006 National Hate Crimes Report here:

http://www.avp.org/publications/reports/reports.htm#Rep_hate

A close reading shows that hate crimes are unreported, and for those that are, many are not classified as hate crimes by police. As noted in the report, gay people are, historically speaking, loath to report a crime out of fear of how they will be treated by the police.

[Dash]

I added religious organizations that support the bill. It's heartening to know that so many faith groups are in favor of this important legislation. Our most vocal opponents are religious, but they do not represent all people of faith, or even all Christian groups.

Hooray!!


Why Hate Crime Legislation is Needed

6) The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is supported by 26 state Attorneys General and over 280 national law enforcement, professional, education, civil rights, religious, and civic organizations. (List of LLEHCPA supporters from CivilRights.org (http://www.civilrights.org/issues/hate/llehcpa-supporter.html) )
a. Law enforcement organizations
...


b. Religious Organizations
i. African American Ministers in Action
ii. African-American Women's Clergy Association
iii. American Islamic Congress
iv. American Jewish Committee
v. American Jewish Congress
vi. B'nai B'rith International
vii. Buddhist Peace Fellowship
viii. Catholics for Free Choice
ix. Central Conference of American Rabbis
x. Christian Church Capital Area
xi. Congress of National Black Churches
xii. Disciples of Christ Advocacy Washington Network
xiii. The Episcopal Church
xiv. Equal Partners in Faith
xv. Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Office for Government Affairs
xvi. Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America
xvii. Interfaith Alliance
xviii. International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists
xix. International Association of Jewish Vocational Services
xx. Jewish Labor Committee
xxi. Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
xxii. Jewish War Veterans of the USA
xxiii. Jewish Women International
xxiv. Methodist Federation for Social Action
xxv. National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA
xxvi. National Council of Jewish Women
xxvii. National Jewish Democratic Council
xxviii. National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States
xxix. NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
xxx. Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office
xxxi. The Rabbinical Assembly
xxxii. Union of Reform Judaism
xxxiii. Unitarian Universalist Association
xxxiv. United Church of Christ – Justice and Witness Ministries
xxxv. United Church of Christ - Office of Church in Society
xxxvi. United Methodist Church – General Board of Church and Society
xxxvii. United Methodist Church - General Commission on Religion and Race
xxxviii. United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
xxxix. Women of Reform Judaism, Federation of Temple Sisterhoods
xl. Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics & Ritual
c. http://www.usdoj.gov/crs/pubs/htecrm.htm

[nmwolfboy]

Wonderful, Dash! :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: Thanks for the link to the Colbert Report clip.

But, back to the matter at hand :shifty:

While it is true that there are already laws that can be used to prosecute crimes that would be covered by Hate Crimes legislation, there is a major difference that imo gets overlooked or downplayed by advocates of that position.

Violent crimes that are motivated solely by personal animosity or are committed for economic gain are very different from violent crimes motivated by a bias against an identifiable social group. Some folks do not recognize that there is a difference. Some folks do.

For me, that's the crux of the argument for or against the passage of the current Federal Hate Crimes legislation. It so happens that from personal experience, i've been convinced that there is a very big difference. I've been violently mugged by men wanting cash, and i've been assaulted simply because i'm gay. i've also witnessed both types of crime happening to others.

When my ex-partner & i were jumped in 1990 (less than a block from our apartment), it was clearly motivated by animosity towards the fact that we were gay. Our assailants jumping out at us yelling "Faggots" kind of clued us in. :eek: Luckily one of our neighbors came charging out of her house with her two HUGE dogs, and the attackers ran off. She'd already called the cops, who pulled up while our attackers were pealing out in their car. We quickly told the cops that we'd been jumped by the two guys (who were getting away!) The older cop asked if we'd been robbed, and we said no, they just jumped us while yelling "Faggots!" The cop asked us "Are you guys gay?" at which point my ex said "Yeah but what's that got to do with anything? They're getting away!" Both cops went back to their car, obviously in no hurry to catch our attackers. In fact they never did chase them, and when i told them that i knew what family one of the attackers belonged to (this was in a really small town) the older cop said "One of ____'s boys, huh?"

To my knowledge, the police never followed up on our assault, nor was anyone ever brought up on charges. We called the police station several times, but it became obvious that they weren't interested in prosecuting anyone. We didn't have much money, so couldn't afford a lawyer to push the case. Less than a year later we moved away, leaving small town life for the relative safety of a gay ghetto in Pittsburgh.

i was mugged in Pittsburgh a couple of years later in broad daylight, two blocks from my apartment. I stumbled a half block to the nearby apartment of a friend, and she called the cops. They were there in a few minutes. They took down the description of my assailants; there were noticeably more cop cars driving through our neighborhood over the next several hours.

The first gay-based assault and its lack of police action angered me. It angered my friends and neighbors. It scared many of my glbt friends for several weeks. I developed a tendency to distrust the police, and have never completely gotten over my anger at the injustice.

The second assault scared me. I couldn't walk through my neighborhood unaccompanied for about a week. Even once i got my courage back, my pulse would race when a stranger walked too near me. But my friends were only concerned for me. They weren't afraid for themselves or their other friends. The police kept in touch for a while, but weren't able to round up any suspects. It was a big city. i got over feeling scared, and got alot more street smart.

The first was a hate crime. Its effect was markedly different and more far-reaching in the community than the mugging i experienced later. The mugging was definitely a non-hate motivated crime, and mostly affected only me.

Perhaps if sexual orientation had been covered as a hate crime, the cops who arrived on the scene of my first assault would have been more motivated to do something. Hopefully the guys who jumped my ex & i weren't emboldened by the indifference of their town's police to the beating of a faggot. After all, what they did was a crime; unfortunately it just wasn't treated like one.

Pax :dove:

scott

[Dash]

Scott...Thank you for telling your story. It's awful to hear, but important that it be told. I have a NeoConservative challenger who likes to say, "The plural of anecdote is not data." He's wrong, of course. Every story is meaningful. Every story is important. Every story adds to the mountain of irrefutable data that will someday overwhelm even the hearts most hardened against us.

Daniel...thanks for both the "Pain" study (wow!) and the Violence Report. I'm working my way through the report, with intent to bolster my outline. I'm taking particular note (thanks Zerbie for the nudge) of the data in regard to Police indifference.

Brent...Power...We aren't the one's with it. You remind me of Gandhi's words:

"It is not the suppressed that sin. It is the suppressor who has to answer for his crime against those whom he suppresses. ~ Gandhi"

[tdogg]

,

I thought that Tdogg was thinking that I was trying to convince her that we shouldn't have Hate Crimes law and I wanted to point out that it was never my intention, just to make things clear. That's the impression I got from her. Furthermore, I don't believe it is ever possible to convince people with having very strong beliefs about something to change their heart and mind, but I see nothing wrong with sharing what you believe and where you are coming from.


Hi Simon, I didn't think you were trying to 'convince' me. I believe you are trying to lay out your justifications for your opinion on the hate crimes bill. I was just saying that I haven't heard any arguments from you or Simple that would make me feel like swaying in my opinion - in other words, I'm just not seeing the connection to the hate crimes bill and your worry that it would be a problem with the constitution and/or freedom of speech.

Dash, wow, thanks for all the work you put into your outline. Awesome and right on the mark!!! Preaching to choir here, but everything you said AND more! Loads of examples. Back to Brandon Teena, justice wasn't served, he ended up DEAD when there was plenty enough going on to put those boys behind bars BEFORE they killed Brandon. But aside from this particular example, there are plenty more including those on this thread and others.

Hopefully, we will all do our part to get this thing through, in spite of those who are opposed. It's such an important issue. Simon & Simple, see, it goes way beyond someone feeling threatened with a free speech issue. There are people who live in fear and concern every day in just living their lives. My partner is not always comfortable to display affection in public, at the least we get stares, upturned noses and lips, sighs and other noises. At worst we risk our safety and possibly our lives. Can I display a rainbow sticker on my car? Sure, but with that comes the possibility of someone damaging my car (that's the best scenario), or hey, maybe if the mood is there they would just as soon run me off the road.

GLBT live with these threats every day of our lives when we are out. Without being out, we cannot be ourselves. We cannot show others that we are as worthy and important as they are. Some feel they must hide, some are killed for just being gay. Do the research. Wait, Dash and others have done quite a bit for you already.

[dewdrop_world]

A couple of threads have been touched on here, but not connected, and I think it strengthens the case to make the connection explicitly.

Additional penalties for bias motivated crimes acknowledge something very important about the nature of hate crime. In a standard case of assault, say a mugging or a bar fight, the only intended victim is the person who gets beat up. This, as has been correctly pointed out several times, is already illegal and penalties are already established by law.

In a hate crime, a very small number of people (often just one) directly receive the violence, but in no way are they the only victims. Consider some of the defining characteristics of a typical hate crime:

- Random choice of victim. To the gay basher, one dead homo is as good as another, just like lynch mobs didn't care which black man they strung up. The victim happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but the real message of the crime is that every member of the class is potentially a victim -- thus every member should live in fear.

- Outnumbering the victim. Often it's a gang of young men, five or six, picking on one or two. The message to the class is, be afraid because numbers are not on your side.

- Excessive force. It is not enough to incapacitate or kill the victim -- the victim is often wounded beyond recognition. The message is, the victim's identity -- membership in the protected class -- must be destroyed, wiped out for good, and by extension, that the protected class itself must be eradicated.

A hate crime is an attempt to instill terror in a whole class of people. Whether the perpetrators are conscious of that motivation, it plays itself out again and again and again -- you can pretend it isn't real, but if it isn't real, how come it happens so often?

Conservatives have no problem with legislation that sends a moral message to society. Hate crime legislation actually falls into that category. It seeks to send the message -- fundamentally a moral statement -- that our society will not condone this type of terror inflicted on any class of people.

Because the crime in a hate crime goes far beyond the simple act of violence, we may rationally -- and justly -- penalize not only the violence, but also the terror inflicted. "15 years for aggravated assault and 3 years for homophobia" is a distorted reading. It would be more accurate to say, 15 years for aggravated assault and 3 years for inflicting fear on an entire group. (Unless society's opinion is that certain people should live in fear for their lives... I think I'm right in finding that a morally bankrupt outcome.)

This is not a legal argument. It's a moral one. If there are specific flaws in the bill as written, they can be addressed -- in an ideal world, the law is in service of ethics. (We do not live in that world, sadly.)

In my admittedly rapid reading of this thread, I have not seen a profound rebuttal to this core point of ethics. The counterarguments seem to boil down to the assertion that there is nothing to hate crime other than the violent crime itself, and even if there is something more, law enforcement shouldn't care. That's not a carefully reasoned rebuttal, more like stubborn denial.

I'm looking forward to reading a thoughtful counterargument in future posts.

James

[Simon]

Keltic and Simpleman,

I understand that you all got fired up over Dash's comments regarding Gospel and Leviticus, which caused the heat between the two of you. Let's just calm down a little bit and try to sort things out.

I think Dash was implying that the religious text is being used as an interpretation by some people to physically hurt LGBT people, unless I'm mistaken. However, the Hate Crimes Bill including protecting people from violence based on their sexual orientation, does not intend to outlaw any speech per se, even it says that homosexuals will go to hell, am I correct? It looks like there was a miscommunication problem, but we can try to fix it civilly, can't we? I understand that because of the cyberspace environment, it tends to make it difficult to express our points clearly. But let's not bash each over this technical issue.

Judging by the section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which states that the Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article, in order to make sure that all American citizens have their civil rights as life, liberty, and property respected and protected. Therefore, Dash would be right by saying the enactment of Hate Crimes Act is constitutional, if it is truly intended to enforce the protection of civil rights. However, the question arises whether or not Hate Crimes Act is the only option and whether or not it is the best option? I personally believe that there could be other options but I might be wrong. Since I'm not a politician, I don't really know. However, I have good faith in our lawmakers and I believe that whatever decision they make regarding enforcing the 14th Amendment, I will respect it, even if keeping Hate Crimes Act on the book, by adding sexual orientation. The big question follows is how is it all going to affect us in the future? As it was pointed out by several posters, it is possible that any laws can be misused and abused, just like they can serve a valuable purpose, so things can go either way, depending on a situation.

[Zerbie]

When my ex-partner & i were jumped in 1990 (less than a block from our apartment), it was clearly motivated by animosity towards the fact that we were gay. Our assailants jumping out at us yelling "Faggots" kind of clued us in. :eek: Luckily one of our neighbors came charging out of her house with her two HUGE dogs, and the attackers ran off. She'd already called the cops, who pulled up while our attackers were pealing out in their car. We quickly told the cops that we'd been jumped by the two guys (who were getting away!) The older cop asked if we'd been robbed, and we said no, they just jumped us while yelling "Faggots!" The cop asked us "Are you guys gay?" at which point my ex said "Yeah but what's that got to do with anything? They're getting away!" Both cops went back to their car, obviously in no hurry to catch our attackers. In fact they never did chase them, and when i told them that i knew what family one of the attackers belonged to (this was in a really small town) the older cop said "One of ____'s boys, huh?"

To my knowledge, the police never followed up on our assault, nor was anyone ever brought up on charges. We called the police station several times, but it became obvious that they weren't interested in prosecuting anyone. We didn't have much money, so couldn't afford a lawyer to push the case. Less than a year later we moved away, leaving small town life for the relative safety of a gay ghetto in Pittsburgh.

i was mugged in Pittsburgh a couple of years later in broad daylight, two blocks from my apartment. I stumbled a half block to the nearby apartment of a friend, and she called the cops. They were there in a few minutes. They took down the description of my assailants; there were noticeably more cop cars driving through our neighborhood over the next several hours.

The first gay-based assault and its lack of police action angered me. It angered my friends and neighbors. It scared many of my glbt friends for several weeks. I developed a tendency to distrust the police, and have never completely gotten over my anger at the injustice.

The second assault scared me. I couldn't walk through my neighborhood unaccompanied for about a week. Even once i got my courage back, my pulse would race when a stranger walked too near me. But my friends were only concerned for me. They weren't afraid for themselves or their other friends. The police kept in touch for a while, but weren't able to round up any suspects. It was a big city. i got over feeling scared, and got alot more street smart.

The first was a hate crime. Its effect was markedly different and more far-reaching in the community than the mugging i experienced later. The mugging was definitely a non-hate motivated crime, and mostly affected only me.

Perhaps if sexual orientation had been covered as a hate crime, the cops who arrived on the scene of my first assault would have been more motivated to do something. Hopefully the guys who jumped my ex & i weren't emboldened by the indifference of their town's police to the beating of a faggot. After all, what they did was a crime; unfortunately it just wasn't treated like one.

Pax :dove:

scott

Oh my goodness, Scott! Thank you for sharing that story. I am just filled with dismay. :'( :love: Actually, my legs shook when I read that, because I was angry.

Yes, the difference in police response matters greatly. There is such a thing as "secondary wounding," which is when a person or institution who SHOULD help only adds to the victimization, as the local cops did to you in the 1990 incident. You were treated like you didn't matter, and cops played up the fact that they were friendly with the perpetrator's father.

Yes, I saw this in my own experience too, and don't wish to say much publicly about it. But I've seen it happen exactly like what happened to you. The nod, the wink, the good ol' boy network. That's why the critical thing about hate crimes legislation is the ENFORCEMENT. Secondarily, the measures of protection it provides to the extended community.

One experience that I CAN share was this: I was out with a friend, sipping coffee at a table outside a gay bookstore that had a café. The bookstore was located at a major crossroads. There were a lot of gentlemen there that evening and all the tables were full. Suddenly, I heard a lot of strange noise, shouting, and noticed broken glass raining down over me and the table. While looking down to shield my face I heard voices yelling "Faggots!" A squeal of tires alerted me to where the glass and epithets had come from, as the pick-up sped away. It took a few seconds to puzzle together what had happened, by which time I was asking all the guys there if they had spied a license plate number. I kept insisting that we call the police. Some gentlemen there restrained me, saying, "You don't understand. We can't call the police. The police are not our friends - they don't care about us. Oh, relax honey, you'll get used to it." The gentleman who assured me I would get used to it was soon busy procuring a broom for sweeping the glass shards off the sidewalk.

Scott. You raised the hope that the complete lack of police response did not embolden the perpetrator to repeat the crime. If it did, the perp might have escalated the next time. Suppose some time later he did something that went way too far, or there was a different set of cops on duty - then he'd suddenly find himself locked away for a long time. Yet another ruined life.

There is also the matter of justice that fails not only the targeted individuals but the community at large. Justice denied is denied also to the family, friends, and extended community of the victim. That matters too. A great deal.

The denial of justice, the complicity of the police with your perpetrators can be traumatizing. There is no reason to believe there is anything special about ENFORCING the law. Hate crimes legislation will help ENFORCE the law. Basta.

Scott, thanks again for sharing your personal experience with this. I'm really sorry that happened to you, and I'm damn pissed at the way those cops completely dismissed the assault.

Thanks for telling us.
:love: :love: :love:

[Zerbie]

K

Judging by the section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which states that the Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article, in order to make sure that all American citizens have their civil rights as life, liberty, and property respected and protected. Therefore, Dash would be right by saying the enactment of Hate Crimes Act is constitutional, if it is truly intended to enforce the protection of civil rights. However, the question arises whether or not Hate Crimes Act is the only option and whether or not it is the best option? I personally believe that there could be other options but I might be wrong. Since I'm not a politician, I don't really know. However, I have good faith in our lawmakers and I believe that whatever decision they make regarding enforcing the 14th Amendment, I will respect it, even if keeping Hate Crimes Act on the book, by adding sexual orientation. .

Well now we're REALLY having a conversation. Whew! :)

I wish I had as much trust in lawmakers as you seem to have. Sigh.

But - to the point! Yes, hate crimes legislation is intended to protect the right to live without unreasonable fear for life and limb, and to enforce the laws that are only enforced sporadically and spottily at best.

I think the question of whether it is the only or best option available is an interesting one. It's the only one I am aware of, and I don't know what might constitute an alternative solution, save the Pollyann-ish notion of saving the world by eradicating hatred, and we all agree that's a long way off, if ever. SINCE it is the only option we have, and one with promise, I strongly support it.

I hope you'll continue to consider this in light of all the MANY points that have been discussed here.

:pray:

[Emproph]

Ahem, Simpleman. You do realize I can eat you alive? And yes I realize that my expression of that fact is prideful, arrogant, wrong, bad, and evil. I neither deny that nor defend it. I would just ask that for the sake of those you respect around here that you answer a very simple question that has already been asked numerous times of you, in one way or another, on various threads.

From now on, I'm going to continue to ask the same questions, again, and again, and again, until you answer them. Because you are truly a master of subterfuge and obfuscation. And I for one am getting rather sick and tired of it.

Zerbie, among others, has posted my observations much more eloquently and non-violently than I could hope to:

Simple,

Since you fear hate crimes legislation will create a dangerous precedent, what are you doing about the fact that hate crimes legislation already exists covering certain groups (such as race and ethnicity?) Has the existing situation brought about this slippery slope of which you speak?

Or is there something different that you find menacing about extending protections to gays and lesbians?

My impression is that you are deeply invested as portraying the hate crimes legislation as having malicious intent. If you are, WHY?

The tone of your arguments now leads me to believe that it's not concern for legal precedents that brings you to the conversation, but objection to seeing the lives of gay persons upheld with value equal to other persons. It's the overwhelming *impression* that rides underneath the words you've written - I believe you are struggling with anti-gay animus, whether you're aware of it or not. When homophobia gets into our brains, it likes to take the form of, "well of course, homosexuals are people and no, they shouldn't be murdered, BUT. . . " Just sayin'. That is what *I* get from reading your posts.

Question: What's so dangerous about the precedent of federal versus state authority? The way I see it, authority is authority, bureacracy is bureacracy, so what's the diff? AND what about my earlier point that we HAVE hate crimes legislation covering some groups already? What is so dangerous about this particular inclusion? I ask because it really seems to come down to you not wanting to protect gays.

So Simpleman, a simple question: Do you support the repeal of ALL hate crime legislation?

And for the rest of you -- my beloved compatriots -- you know he knows what I mean by that. So unless you want to see fireworks, I suggest you hold him to task. Please.

[Simon]

Well now we're REALLY having a conversation. Whew! :)

I wish I had as much trust in lawmakers as you seem to have. Sigh.

But - to the point! Yes, hate crimes legislation is intended to protect the right to live without unreasonable fear for life and limb, and to enforce the laws that are only enforced sporadically and spottily at best.

I think the question of whether it is the only or best option available is an interesting one. It's the only one I am aware of, and I don't know what might constitute an alternative solution, save the Pollyann-ish notion of saving the world by eradicating hatred, and we all agree that's a long way off, if ever. SINCE it is the only option we have, and one with promise, I strongly support it.

I hope you'll continue to consider this in light of all the MANY points that have been discussed here.

:pray:

Another option I might consider is making all hate motivated crimes a 1st degree. I think I've mentioned it already. Like the assault on Scott, should be a 1st degree assault, just because he was attacked due to hatred. BTW, Scott, I'm very sorry to hear about it.

[keltic63]

Keltic and Simpleman,

I understand that you all got fired up over Dash's comments regarding Gospel and Leviticus, which caused the heat between the two of you. Let's just calm down a little bit and try to sort things out.

I think Dash was implying that the religious text is being used as an interpretation by some people to physically hurt LGBT people, unless I'm mistaken. However, the Hate Crimes Bill including protecting people from violence based on their sexual orientation, does not intend to outlaw any speech per se, even it says that homosexuals will go to hell, am I correct? It looks like there was a miscommunication problem, but we can try to fix it civilly, can't we? I understand that because of the cyberspace environment, it tends to make it difficult to express our points clearly. But let's not bash each over this technical issue.



I'm not sure why you think I'm all fired up. I also don't know where you got the idea that Dash's comments caused me to post as I did. I'm not sure that there's any reason for me to "calm down."
Did I say something offensive?

I believe I expressed my opinion that reducing much of what we're talking about to "hurt feelings" is offensive. I also note that I am not the first poster in this thread to express that sentiment.

[Emproph]

Another option I might consider is making all hate motivated crimes a 1st degree. I think I've mentioned it already. Like the assault on Scott, should be a 1st degree assault, just because he was attacked due to hatred.

But isn't that the principle of hate crime legislation? To help determine the "degree" of the criminal intent. Like with First degree murder vs. third degree murder.

First degree is when it's planned ahead of time. Where there was ample time, opportunity etc., to choose a lawful response. Where there was ample time to consider the full consequences of the action.

Whereas third degree might be considered a crime of passion -- where human emotion reaches such a fever pitch, so quickly, that actions are taken without the consideration of their consequences.

First degree is inherently more dangerous to society as a whole, because the crime was designed intentionally.

Third degree is absent malice of forethought, and was no more designed than the unpreparedness to the situation that caused it was designed.

Isn't that precisely the reason for the punishment of intent, rather than ONLY the crime itself? Essentially to determine the "degree" of danger that the same crime/criminal presents to society at large?

There very well may be better options than hate crime legislation as it is, so I'm just asking. Wouldn't what you suggested require the principle of hate crime legislation? What would be the difference?

~~
That one's for you too Simpleman. I'd appreciate it very much if you would answer that too please. Not the part I posed to Simon, but the part asking whether we should also do away with all laws that measure the INTENT of crime? As you stated here:

It's unfair to everyone else to say that only hate crimes warrant federal aid or a special set of legislation. Crime is crime, it is wrong, it is bad, it is illegal, no matter what the motivation is. Having a bill that says that one motivation makes one crime worse than another crime is unfair and arguably unconstitutional.

That pretty much says to me that you would do away with all measurement of a crime's danger to society. Is this your arguement?

[dewdrop_world]

Isn't that precisely the reason for the punishment of intent, rather than ONLY the crime itself? Essentially to determine the "degree" of danger that the same crime/criminal presents to society at large?

Indeed... that's pretty much what I was getting at. It's been argued on this thread that the current form of hate crime legislation tears the fabric of American society. What I'm saying, and Emproph, and most other posters on this thread is that a crime designed to terrorize a class of people not only tears at the fabric of society -- it douses that fabric in kerosene and drops a lighted match.

I don't believe it's any exaggeration to call hate crime a form of terrorism. Why the veto threat from W, then? Isn't he supposed to be the "war on terror" president? ;) That's a bit facetious -- the kind of terror he's interested in is terror against the American state, which is not exactly the same.

I would argue, though, that Islamo-fascist terror and homophobic terror, while different in target and intensity, share the characteristic of indiscriminate targeting to make a whole population feel at risk. The underlying impulse is not so different.

Must go to work now. I've one more spade to call a spade tonight...

James

[Dash]

I've added points to the outline regarding perception of law enforcement indifference to anti-gay bias crime, as well as a bit to the use of anti-gay language against the GLTB community.


Why Hate Crime Legislation is Needed

Section 1.b

i. Because even among law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, jurists and communities anti-gay bias flourishes
1. “With respect to the crimes and offenses showing increases in 2006,most involved law enforcement personnel (it appears that a significant jump in anti-LGBT police activity in Columbus is almost wholly responsible for these changes) and included: Police raids (100%), from 3 to 6, police entrapment (82%), unjustified arrest (14%), robbery (12%)” (Anti-Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Violence In 2006 (http://www.avp.org/publications/reports/2006NtnlHVReportReleaseEdition.pdf) , by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, p6)

2. “Looking further at law enforcement reporting and response data, one category that showed a substantial increase was the number of complaints refused by police, which rose 17%, from 71 such incidents in 2005 to 83 in 2006.” (Ibid (http://www.avp.org/publications/reports/2006NtnlHVReportReleaseEdition.pdf) , p12)

3. “…where information was available, victims described law enforcement response as “courteous” 49% of the time, “indifferent” 34% of the time, verbally abusive 11% of the time, and physically abusive 6% of the time.” (Ibid (http://www.avp.org/publications/reports/2006NtnlHVReportReleaseEdition.pdf), p13)

4. “The victims ran for help to the precinct located across the street from where the incident took place, but the police were indifferent and refused to intervene. (New York)” (Ibid (http://www.avp.org/publications/reports/2006NtnlHVReportReleaseEdition.pdf), p13)

5. "While victims gave a variety of reasons for not reporting the anti-LGTB hate crimes to the authorities, one most often cited reason was a fear of bias attitude from and revictimization by the police. These statements are paralleled by 25% drop in reported courteous attitude exhibited by the police." (Ibid (http://www.avp.org/publications/reports/2006NtnlHVReportReleaseEdition.pdf), p33)

...

Section 1.c

c. Because very strong hateful language is still presently and widely disseminated from powerful religious and political groups

...

vi. A financial incentive in the perpetuation of anti-GLTB bias by certain conservative religious organizations also unfortunately exists

1. Anti-gay “Action Alerts” to an organization’s donation base--such as Dobson’s “Declaration of War” on homosexuality—individually generate millions of dollars in donations. This represents a prized cash cow of unusually lucrative return (see James Dobson’s War on America, by Gil Alexander-Moegerle. Reviewed in "Christian Century", Sept 24, 1997 by Timothy Frederick Simpson (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n26_v114/ai_19905226) )

2. Organizations like Exodus International, Americans for Truth and others exist and survive solely on revenue derived from anti-gay beliefs of their donation base.

[Dash]

Addition to Section 1.

In other news, my refrigerator has only been cooling to 60 degrees the last few days--freezer's fine. (I figured this out when I noticed my beer was not cold over the weekend. :lol: ) The workmen came to replace the fridge, which is nice...but they emptied it and hauled it downstairs before they realized the new one had not been delivered yet.

:confused:

Thank goodness, I've not been buying any groceries this week, cuz what little I've got is slowly warming (more) on the counter. :o

Alright back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Oh...and by the way...I've been a little single-minded since I started this outline, but I want to let you know--Simon and Simpleman--that I very much appreciate your continued presence and dialogue. I know that realizing you have exasperated some folks may make you feel like leaving, but it's cool that you haven't just walked away.

:)


Why Hate Crime Legislation is Needed

1) Hate crimes terrorize an entire class of people

...

e. And because there is an observable connection between the level of anti-gay rhetoric in society and the level of anti-gay violence
i. Extraordinarily elevated statistics in anti-GLTB bias crime reports during the last half of 2003 through 2005 reflect vocal religious and political backlash to same-sex marriage issues, the Supreme Court’s striking down of sodomy laws, the visibility of gay and lesbian people in media and popular culture, as well as Presidential election cycle rhetoric. (Anti-Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Violence In 2006 (http://www.avp.org/publications/reports/2006NtnlHVReportReleaseEdition.pdf), pp3-4)

[Emproph]

In other news, my refrigerator has only been cooling to 60 degrees the last few days--freezer's fine. (I figured this out when I noticed my beer was not cold over the weekend. :lol: ) The workmen came to replace the fridge, which is nice...but they emptied it and hauled it downstairs before they realized the new one had not been delivered yet.

It's prayer kneepad time people, the man is on the cusp of his 500th post. And it's just not a celebration unless the alcohol is chilled.

By my calculations it should be too late by the time I press submit, but I'm going for it anyway.

On a humorous side note, and this is funny, I happen to have two refrigerators that I'm not even using. If only teleportation were possible. This type of thing would never have to happen again..

[simpleman]

Ahem, Simpleman. You do realize I can eat you alive? And yes I realize that my expression of that fact is prideful, arrogant, wrong, bad, and evil. I neither deny that nor defend it. I would just ask that for the sake of those you respect around here that you answer a very simple question that has already been asked numerous times of you, in one way or another, on various threads.

So Simpleman, a simple question: Do you support the repeal of ALL hate crime legislation?

And for the rest of you -- my beloved compatriots -- you know he knows what I mean by that. So unless you want to see fireworks, I suggest you hold him to task. Please.

I don't know exactly what you mean by eating me alive, but I suppose it has something to do with argumentation. Of course you could eat me alive, we're in your court. I came here, so I came to your court. There are just some arguments that might be believable or admissible elsewhere, but no one would buy here. There are some arguments for homosexuality and transgenderism that wouldn't be heard or bought at other places, either. There was a nutjob street preacher (youtube: Brother Micah) who came to my university condemning fraternity/sorority members, girls who wore skirts, gays, and pretty much everybody but him, to hell. He can burn you to the ground, because he yells a lot and doesn't listen. He burned everybody who tried to argue with him, because whenever they hit a point he didn't have a direct answer to, he yelled in their face, "MASTURBATOR," and turned away. Who won that round? He did, because he didn't have to listen to anyone else.

Come to think of it, I myself went up to Brother Micah and said "Man, I don't think you are doing very good for the Kingdom by yelling at people." He said "Do you call yourself a Christian?" And I said, "Yes, I believe in Christ." And he said to me, "Well, why aren't you standing up here with me, telling all those people that they are sinners? And I said, because, Brother Micah, I don't believe in what you are doing. Of course he called me a sinner and a masturbator and not really a Christian, etc.

I believe that's the exact same line of questioning that all of you keep hitting me with. It starts with, "Are you homophobic?" "Do you hate homosexuals?" and when I say, "No, I don't hate anybody". You all say, "Then why aren't you standing up for those in need?" And I say to you, "because I just don't believe in it."

Another anecdote (plenty of plurality). A young woman in one of my classes, a strident conservative, was discussing with me the abortion laws. I said I think abortion is murder of a fetus. But I wasn't in favor of the government outlawing it. She said to me, "Well, if you believe that abortion is murder, why don't you stand up against it?!" And to that, I responded, "because I just don't believe in legislating morality in that fashion."

How about another? When I used to go to youth group, back in high school, I asked my youth director why he felt like legislating against abortion was so important. And why we, as Christians, felt like we should be in charge of establishing the laws. He said a bunch of stuff about it being important, etc. but the main thing he said is because, "If we don't stand up, then the pro-choice people will win, and babies will die." I know that paints him like an insensitive jerk, but he was a good man. We just didn't share views on the use of government lobbying to change people's hearts.

I didn't come here to win the argument, or burn anybody to the ground. I came here to learn, and I have learned much. I didn't come here to assume a cause, or to try and condemn one. I didn't come to, as Keltic said, undermine anyone's struggle, I just don't believe that using the government to change hearts is going to work. I don't believe that showing up and yelling at people helps either.

I think if you really put it all out on the table, you will see that hate crime is about the victims punishing the perpetrators. The perpetrators aren't going to read the laws and then change their minds or hearts. They might not even read the laws. The idea of criminal justice is to punish the objective and irrefutable. Adding such subjective measures to the courtroom, is a bad precedent.

So when you ask if I am a homophobe, or if I hate gay people, my answer is no.

If you ask whether I believe that all hate crime legislation should be repealed, I would say yes. But, I wasn't around to oppose it when it first started coming out, so I don't know as much about it. I really believe that Hate Crimes legislation is about hatred, not about crime, and the changing of hearts, and the end of hatred will not happen in an objective courtroom, they will happen in the subjective, where hearts are on the table, not just minds. But, if you want to keep trying to change people's minds, go right ahead. Write your congressmen, but you will not bring about the change that you want just with legislation.

[Zerbie]

Another option I might consider is making all hate motivated crimes a 1st degree. I think I've mentioned it already. Like the assault on Scott, should be a 1st degree assault, just because he was attacked due to hatred. BTW, Scott, I'm very sorry to hear about it.

That's actually very interesting. Yes, I think I did see you post that before. I don't know much about what the "degree" means. Apparently, it already encompasses intent, yes?

Would a change like that actually be feasible? What channels would it have to go through to become statute? Would it be any easier or cleaner than passing a legislation? Or could it be more difficult??

[Zerbie]

Forgot to ask in the last post, even IF all hate-motivated crime were classed as first-degree, how would one prod local law enforcement if they are turning a blind eye to justice? That one still stymies me.

[antonyh]

This is where I'm getting offended by your posts. You have repeatedly ignored the evidence put in front of you that this isn't about "feelings," it is about the actual crimes, very real violence, committed out of hatred for lgbt people. By continuing to refer to this as protecting the "feelings" of lgbt people, you are demeaning us, and belittling the problems that we face.

Thank you. This is why I've exited the debate and put Simpleman on ignore.

[Emproph]

So Simpleman, a simple question: Do you support the repeal of ALL hate crime legislation?...yes...
He really answered me. :love:

[Daniel]

I didn't come here to win the argument, or burn anybody to the ground. I came here to learn, and I have learned much. I didn't come here to assume a cause, or to try and condemn one. I didn't come to, as Keltic said, undermine anyone's struggle, I just don't believe that using the government to change hearts is going to work. I don't believe that showing up and yelling at people helps either.

I think if you really put it all out on the table, you will see that hate crime is about the victims punishing the perpetrators. The perpetrators aren't going to read the laws and then change their minds or hearts. They might not even read the laws. The idea of criminal justice is to punish the objective and irrefutable. Adding such subjective measures to the courtroom, is a bad precedent.

So when you ask if I am a homophobe, or if I hate gay people, my answer is no.

If you ask whether I believe that all hate crime legislation should be repealed, I would say yes. But, I wasn't around to oppose it when it first started coming out, so I don't know as much about it. I really believe that Hate Crimes legislation is about hatred, not about crime, and the changing of hearts, and the end of hatred will not happen in an objective courtroom, they will happen in the subjective, where hearts are on the table, not just minds. But, if you want to keep trying to change people's minds, go right ahead. Write your congressmen, but you will not bring about the change that you want just with legislation.

By this logic, we should do away with all laws since they aren't exactly made to 'change hearts'. They are made to act as a deterrent.

I think you are confusing things.

Laws are made- in point of fact- to punish those who break them. They aren't made to win hearts and minds.

You are asking us to listen to you, but I have yet to heard from you that you understand this issue from our point of view. For all intent and purposes, you may not be screaming at us like the guy you talk about, but I- for one- am not getting the sense that you are listening any more that he was: you're just more polite and have better manners.

Hey- I like manners and all that. They go a long way. Keep it up. But please try to see what we're saying here.

Notice: I did not call into question whether you were homophobic, heartless or indifferent.
What I am calling into question is whether you are actually listening to what is being said to you here in various forms.

The truth is that we've been where you're at (being gay in a straight world is something else- let me tell ya) But it's not clear that you have traveled the distance and walked in our shoes.

[Zerbie]

There are just some arguments that might be believable or admissible elsewhere, but no one would buy here. There are some arguments for homosexuality and transgenderism that wouldn't be heard or bought at other places, either.

We're not arguing *for homosexuality*!!!! We're arguing for people's civil rights, and for the respect and freedom to determine the course of their own lives without overwhelming institutional harassment. We;re not arguing for a thing. We're defending people.

There was a nutjob street preacher (youtube: Brother Micah) who came to my university condemning fraternity/sorority members, girls who wore skirts, gays, and pretty much everybody but him, to hell. He can burn you to the ground, because he yells a lot and doesn't listen. He burned everybody who tried to argue with him, because whenever they hit a point he didn't have a direct answer to, he yelled in their face, "MASTURBATOR," and turned away. Who won that round? He did, because he didn't have to listen to anyone else.

That isn't winning. That's shutting down. He shut down because he lost, Simple.

Come to think of it, I myself went up to Brother Micah and said "Man, I don't think you are doing very good for the Kingdom by yelling at people." He said "Do you call yourself a Christian?" And I said, "Yes, I believe in Christ." And he said to me, "Well, why aren't you standing up here with me, telling all those people that they are sinners? And I said, because, Brother Micah, I don't believe in what you are doing. Of course he called me a sinner and a masturbator and not really a Christian, etc.

You were correct on that one. And he lost, which is why he shut down.

I believe that's the exact same line of questioning that all of you keep hitting me with.

Wow!! Do you really not see how inanely offensive that comparison is?? So you think you've walked into a den full of Looney Toons here? I'm really sad for what you're unable to perceive, then.

It starts with, "Are you homophobic?" "Do you hate homosexuals?" and when I say, "No, I don't hate anybody". You all say, "Then why aren't you standing up for those in need?" And I say to you, "because I just don't believe in it."


"]Oh, Simple. Don't you see? What you have just said above. . . you have just told us that you ARE homophobic.[/B]

I'm glad that it doesn't go so far that you feel hate or feel compelled to act violently, and I'm glad that you are still so willing to converse with a bunch of gay rights activists (on our "court" as you put it.) But you still have a great degree of homophobia if you don't believe that gay people have as much value as you and your family and loved ones have. Oh but they have. :love: And if you don't recognize that, if you "don't believe in" equal protection under the law for gay people - while refusing to see after numerous illustrations and citations the clear fact that gay people DON'T presently have equal protection - then, it's simple, Simple: you ARE homophobic. That's what homophobia IS.

I'm not saying this to try and put you down by calling you names. I used to be homophobic, though not to the same degree. My mother used to be very homophobic, a lot more than you. Numerous friends were (are?) homophobic. Homophobia is something that pervades society so overwhelmingly its in the atmosphere we breathe. Almost everyone either is, or was once, homophobic to at least a small degree. Nearly everyone.


Another anecdote (plenty of plurality). A young woman in one of my classes, a strident conservative, was discussing with me the abortion laws. I said I think abortion is murder of a fetus. But I wasn't in favor of the government outlawing it. She said to me, "Well, if you believe that abortion is murder, why don't you stand up against it?!" And to that, I responded, "because I just don't believe in legislating morality in that fashion."

How about another? When I used to go to youth group, back in high school, I asked my youth director why he felt like legislating against abortion was so important. And why we, as Christians, felt like we should be in charge of establishing the laws. He said a bunch of stuff about it being important, etc. but the main thing he said is because, "If we don't stand up, then the pro-choice people will win, and babies will die." I know that paints him like an insensitive jerk, but he was a good man. We just didn't share views on the use of government lobbying to change people's hearts.

I didn't come here to win the argument, or burn anybody to the ground. I came here to learn, and I have learned much. I didn't come here to assume a cause, or to try and condemn one. I didn't come to, as Keltic said, undermine anyone's struggle, I just don't believe that using the government to change hearts is going to work. I don't believe that showing up and yelling at people helps either.

I think if you really put it all out on the table, you will see that hate crime is about the victims punishing the perpetrators. The perpetrators aren't going to read the laws and then change their minds or hearts. They might not even read the laws. The idea of criminal justice is to punish the objective and irrefutable. Adding such subjective measures to the courtroom, is a bad precedent.

So when you ask if I am a homophobe, or if I hate gay people, my answer is no.

If you ask whether I believe that all hate crime legislation should be repealed, I would say yes. But, I wasn't around to oppose it when it first started coming out, so I don't know as much about it. I really believe that Hate Crimes legislation is about hatred, not about crime, and the changing of hearts, and the end of hatred will not happen in an objective courtroom, they will happen in the subjective, where hearts are on the table, not just minds. But, if you want to keep trying to change people's minds, go right ahead. Write your congressmen, but you will not bring about the change that you want just with legislation.

Simple, once again, hate crimes legislation is not proposed to change hearts. It is proposed to help enforce laws when police turn a blind eye (or when they lack the resources to properly investigate.) By your logic above, we should do away with the criminal justice system entirely, since it is punitive. (and actually, that's a WHOLE 'nother philosophical discussion.)

[Daniel]

Gee Zerbie.....here I was trying to be nice and all that and then this...

Oh, Simple. Don't you see? What you have just said above. . . you have just told us that you ARE homophobic.

sigh......what am I going to do with you....scaring the homoph...I mean simplepersons around here with such talk?

:eek: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:rolleyes:

:pray:

~

Simpleman. It's Ok if you're homophobic. Guess what? There are lots of gay people who are homophobic. It's called internalized homophobia. One has to be carefully taught. In fact, it's been observe that some of the loudest and most vicious homophobes are often gay themselves (I guess that leaves you out). Ain't that a kicker? But it's true. Practically everyone here has a story to tell about that.

You have to be carefully taught to be homophobic. A little bible here- a little snake eyes there. Throw in a hush hush or two and then stir- and you have homophobia! And it doesn't go away overnight by reading a book or two, or visiting a website- though it would be nice if it was so easy.

We all have to deal with homophobia one way or another. Our own or another's.

[Zerbie]

Gee Zerbie.....here I was trying to be nice and all that and then this...



sigh......what am I going to do with you....scaring the homoph...I mean simplepersons around here with such talk?

:eek: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:rolleyes:

:pray:

~

Simpleman. It's Ok if you're homophobic. Guess what? There are lots of gay people who are homophobic. It's called internalized homophobia. One has to be carefully taught. In fact, it's been observe that some of the loudest and most viscious homophobes are often gay themselves (I guess that leaves you out). Ain't that a kicker? But it's true. Practically everyone here has a story to tell about that.

You have to be carefully taught to be homophobic. A little bible here- a little snake eyes there. Throw in a hush hush or two and then stir- and you have homophobia! And it doesn't go away overnight by reading a book or two, or visiting a website- though it would be nice if it was so easy.

We all have to deal with homophobia one way or another. Our own or another's.

True. In fact, I've seen some of the strongest homophobia come from gay persons. That breaks my heart, because it's themselves they feel such loathing of. And they shouldn't. :'(

However, I've been re-thinking where I got the logic behind the conclusion I posted above.

Actually, I believe I mistook Simpleman's meaning. When he said "I don't believe in it," I took the "it" to mean the human value of gay persons in terms of deserving equal protection under the law. That *might* be the case, but it's leaping to a pre-mature conclusion to say so, given what Simple has written so far.

Upon reflecting on what Simple said, I believe the "it" was not "equal protection under the law" but "legislating morality." That, actually, is a potentially good point. After all, it's part of the foundation of our argument against "marriage" amendments.

I think Simple is trying to tell us he's an old-fashioned conservative, from back in the days before "conservative" meant foam-at-the-mouth fanatics and haters. The old, less government, conservative. I thought those were extinct, if that's any explanation for why I failed to see one.

None of this is to say that Simple is for sure NOT a homophobe. He might be, and my feeling is he has some homophobia running in his veins, but as I said, we all do (or did.) I'm just saying the statement I based it on was probably in the wrong context, in which case I don't have the ground I thought I did to make that conclusion.

Simple - sorry to talk about you like you're not here. Is either reading of your post indeed what you meant to convey? I think I mistook your meaning at first. Have I got you correctly now?

[Dash]

Wow! The muse is out in force today!:flower:

wow... thank you...

[BrentRichards]

I added religious organizations that support the bill. It's heartening to know that so many faith groups are in favor of this important legislation. Our most vocal opponents are religious, but they do not represent all people of faith, or even all Christian groups.

Hooray!!

So, my denomination is on this list, thankfully. But they still won't ordain me. Grrr.

[Simon]

That's actually very interesting. Yes, I think I did see you post that before. I don't know much about what the "degree" means. Apparently, it already encompasses intent, yes?

Would a change like that actually be feasible? What channels would it have to go through to become statute? Would it be any easier or cleaner than passing a legislation? Or could it be more difficult??

Forgot to ask in the last post, even IF all hate-motivated crime were classed as first-degree, how would one prod local law enforcement if they are turning a blind eye to justice? That one still stymies me.

Zerbie, to each crimes whether it's murder, assault, robbery, battery, etc, depending on its severity, there is an assigned degree. Crimes that are the most brutal and usual are classified as first degree crimes. Like murders with an intent and that are motivated by hate, are first degree murders. However, murders that happen by an accident or done with an intent to rob, are classified as second degree. Does it make sense? As far as I know, since most murders fall under state jurisdictions, different states decided what charges to pursue. That being said, most of the states insturct DA's to charge with hate motivated crimes as first degrees. This is why the killers of James Byrd in Texas (poor black guy dragged behind the truck) were charged with a first degree murder, and so were the murders of Yusuf Hawkins in New York City (I'm sure our Daniel is familiar with this) ten years earlier.

To make sure it always happens, our Congress might propose making a federal statue to make all biased motivated crimes a first degree. I don't have a clue, when will they become mature enough to come up with something like that. Was it helpful in answering you questions? Please, let me know.

Hugs and blessings,

S.

[simpleman]

Actually, I believe I mistook Simpleman's meaning. When he said "I don't believe in it," I took the "it" to mean the human value of gay persons in terms of deserving equal protection under the law. That *might* be the case, but it's leaping to a pre-mature conclusion to say so, given what Simple has written so far.



Yes! I did not mean that I don't believe in the value of a homosexual person. I believe in the value of all people, no matter what. People are still people. I believe that everyone, all people, no matter what, are equal under the law, are innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, I believe that the reason that people hate gays is simply because they don't understand it, think it's wrong, and think it's weird. Those people cannot differentiate between the person, and the homosexuality.




Upon reflecting on what Simple said, I believe the "it" was not "equal protection under the law" but "legislating morality." That, actually, is a potentially good point. After all, it's part of the foundation of our argument against "marriage" amendments.



Absolutely. Christians should not be able to legislate against gay marriage like we own marriage. Marriage in a Christian sense means a union on a spiritual level, while what gays seek, in addition to the spiritual bond, also the legal rights that come with it. Christians can deny the spiritual bond all they want, but they shouldn't be able to legislate against it or the legal rights involved, either. (Note: I am a Christian, but I don't fall under this category, so I can't decide whether to type "we" or "they")



I think Simple is trying to tell us he's an old-fashioned conservative, from back in the days before "conservative" meant foam-at-the-mouth fanatics and haters. The old, less government, conservative. I thought those were extinct, if that's any explanation for why I failed to see one.



I suppose. I've always thought of it like Charley Reese. "The Federal Government should guard the borders and carry the mail." Everything else should be left up to the states. Of course, this wouldn't ever work, because it would make everything more polar than it is now, but nonetheless I am about as little federal interference as possible. I am definitely not foaming at the mouth here, nor am I hating.



None of this is to say that Simple is for sure NOT a homophobe. He might be, and my feeling is he has some homophobia running in his veins, but as I said, we all do (or did.) I'm just saying the statement I based it on was probably in the wrong context, in which case I don't have the ground I thought I did to make that conclusion.



I don't consider myself a homophobe. I guess I can't really prove it in words, though. My definition of a homophobe is someone who dislikes gay people or fears simply people being gay. I consider anyone who damns homosexuals to hell to be out of line, and overstepping their bounds as a responsible member of the Christian faith, and also a homophobe.

If your definition of homophobe is someone who doesn't believe that homosexuality is right, then I guess I am. But I guess that means I'm an aduleraphobe, a divorceaphobe, and a pre-maritalsexaphobe, too. I have an adulterous and twice-divorced uncle, whom I still love. I have several (lots) of friends who have had pre-marital sex, but I still love all of them. I do know several gay people, one of which gave me a wonderful opportunity to live in Seattle six years ago, a time which I will always cherish in my life. I don't dislike her, or have preconceived notions about her character because she is gay. She is a sweet person with a good soul, and that's all that matters to me. All of you, I'm sure, are the same way, and that's all that matters between us.

So the reason that I bring debate is not because I don't like homosexuals, it's not because I think anyone should be denied rights, it's because I feel like making special laws for special situations is bad for everybody. It creates a dynamic where some victims of some crimes are worse off than others. I also believe that enforcing current laws is always better than making new ones.

Another anecdote: The large, public university where I have struggles with how to deal with its students drinking alcohol (go figure). So they have been dealing with this problem a lot recently. The old policy was clear: no alcohol on campus, period. But of course, college kids, and alums, and everyone else always brought alcohol to football tailgates (google it if you don't know...). The police leave you alone if you have alcohol in a cup, rather than it's original container. They also never patrol fraternity houses, and there are never roadblocks in well-traveled areas. They only give out MIPs if they actually catch you being drunk (IMO a reasonable policy...) but the fact that they have this policy that they don't even seem to have respect for themselves, the kids don't respect it either. If the police don't respect the law, people won't respect it, either. So, many of you want a new law to go after people who don't respect the old laws. What makes you think the new law will be respected? The not-enforcement of the old law has already fostered a disrespect for the law as a whole. So, instead of crafting a new policy, and making a joke out if it (like they have), they should have said "now we're going to enforce it, so man up and follow it".

The laws are already there. They need to be enforced. No new piece of legislation that will anger the already hateful people is going to help that much. Fight for enforcement, fight for pro bono legal work, use the system itself, don't try to change it. When outsiders see you trying to change the system, they believe that you think that you deserve special privileges not available to everyone else. The system is there, find a way to use it. That's my point.



Simple - sorry to talk about you like you're not here. Is either reading of your post indeed what you meant to convey? I think I mistook your meaning at first. Have I got you correctly now?

No harm, no foul, my friend. I think you caught my meaning a lot closer on the second time around.

[dewdrop_world]

The laws are already there. They need to be enforced. No new piece of legislation that will anger the already hateful people is going to help that much. Fight for enforcement, fight for pro bono legal work, use the system itself, don't try to change it. When outsiders see you trying to change the system, they believe that you think that you deserve special privileges not available to everyone else. The system is there, find a way to use it. That's my point.
Gloves off now... ;)

Oh, right... these are the same people who have had monopoly control over the government for the last six years, who consider any criticism of their blinders-on, small-minded, shriveled-hearted, egotistical, paranoid and power-mad reading of the gospels to be a "war on Christianity." Sure. That's exactly the sort of person we should suck up to so that maybe, someday, they'll condescend to treat us like something more than partial citizens.

Come on, simpleman. You know that the people who most vociferously oppose hate crime legislation will be angry no matter what we queers do. So I, as a happy, out gay man, have a choice. I can capitulate, avoiding any action or statement that might rub the self appointed arbiters of civil rights the wrong way, trying to "earn" their respect through "good behavior." It should be fairly obvious that will accomplish nothing -- and they will still not be satisfied. They will continue to be angry and continue to strip away more social and legal respect for the scorned and underprivileged, bit by bit. This is the way it's gone, at least since the Reagan years.

Or I can stand up for myself and say, "No, in good conscience I cannot go there." Sure, they might get angrier, but they would have been angry anyway. And I get to keep my self-respect, and if there are enough who do the same, it could halt or even reverse the slow slide into the fascistic power-mongering that has been seducing conservative Christianity for many decades now. So I choose my integrity.

I'm sorry, simpleman, but we're dealing with people who think that if I have the right to visit my partner of four and a half years in the hospital (without producing expensive legal documents that the hospital might ignore anyway), this constitutes a "special right." If they get angry about this, they have created that anger for themselves. I sympathize with the fact that they suffer because of it, but I am not the cause of that anger and I will not take responsibility for their decision to be angry.

This might sound heated, but actually I am quite calm about this. None of what I'm saying has to be confrontational. But there is a point where you have to breathe deeply, offer up a little prayer, plant your feet firmly on the earth, and respectfully refuse to submit to those who are not being reasonable. They might fly off in a rage, but our job is to stand quietly and firmly, without aggression, without adding fuel to the fire, and stay fully present with them until the rage passes. (This is the part we don't often have the chance to do, except virtually, from a distance.) That changes the relationship, and in that change, there is the potential to change the politics of it as well.


This actually isn't what I planned to post on this thread tonight, but it's getting late and I need some sleep. I'll follow up on the other point when I can. Good night!

James

[Simon]

Gloves off now... ;)

Oh, right... these are the same people who have had monopoly control over the government for the last six years, who consider any criticism of their blinders-on, small-minded, shriveled-hearted, egotistical, paranoid and power-mad reading of the gospels to be a "war on Christianity." Sure. That's exactly the sort of person we should suck up to so that maybe, someday, they'll condescend to treat us like something more than partial citizens.

Come on, simpleman. You know that the people who most vociferously oppose hate crime legislation will be angry no matter what we queers do. So I, as a happy, out gay man, have a choice. I can capitulate, avoiding any action or statement that might rub the self appointed arbiters of civil rights the wrong way, trying to "earn" their respect through "good behavior." It should be fairly obvious that will accomplish nothing -- and they will still not be satisfied. They will continue to be angry and continue to strip away more social and legal respect for the scorned and underprivileged, bit by bit. This is the way it's gone, at least since the Reagan years.

Or I can stand up for myself and say, "No, in good conscience I cannot go there." Sure, they might get angrier, but they would have been angry anyway. And I get to keep my self-respect, and if there are enough who do the same, it could halt or even reverse the slow slide into the fascistic power-mongering that has been seducing conservative Christianity for many decades now. So I choose my integrity.

I'm sorry, simpleman, but we're dealing with people who think that if I have the right to visit my partner of four and a half years in the hospital (without producing expensive legal documents that the hospital might ignore anyway), this constitutes a "special right." If they get angry about this, they have created that anger for themselves. I sympathize with the fact that they suffer because of it, but I am not the cause of that anger and I will not take responsibility for their decision to be angry.

This might sound heated, but actually I am quite calm about this. None of what I'm saying has to be confrontational. But there is a point where you have to breathe deeply, offer up a little prayer, plant your feet firmly on the earth, and respectfully refuse to submit to those who are not being reasonable. They might fly off in a rage, but our job is to stand quietly and firmly, without aggression, without adding fuel to the fire, and stay fully present with them until the rage passes. (This is the part we don't often have the chance to do, except virtually, from a distance.) That changes the relationship, and in that change, there is the potential to change the politics of it as well.


This actually isn't what I planned to post on this thread tonight, but it's getting late and I need some sleep. I'll follow up on the other point when I can. Good night!

James

James,

I think what Simpleman meant by angry people were actually gay bashers, who physically attack LGBT people, not Christians who believe that gays are seeking special rights. That was my impression.

Also, we need to remember that Hate Crimes bill deals with protecting gay people from murder, assault, and robbery, which happen because of their sexual orientation, not protecting their rights to visit their partners in hospitals. I fully understand that the latter issue is very important to you, but that's a different topic, so let's not get off tanget so easily.

Sleep well,

S.

[dewdrop_world]

James,

I think what Simpleman meant by angry people were actually gay bashers, who physically attack LGBT people, not Christians who believe that gays are seeking special rights. That was my impression.

I can see that... but you can't have it both ways. On the one hand, you or simpleman (don't remember which) argued that hate crime legislation is a bad idea because it is an ineffective deterrent -- because the angry people who would commit the attacks either don't know or don't care about the legislation enough for it to make a difference in their behavior. But now, they are supposed to know about it and think through it to the point that it makes them angrier?

To me, the argument is kind of like saying we shouldn't pass organized crime legislation because the local Mafia boss wouldn't like it much (and you know what happens when he gets mad... :eek: ).

Also, we need to remember that Hate Crimes bill deals with protecting gay people from murder, assault, and robbery, which happen because of their sexual orientation, not protecting their rights to visit their partners in hospitals. I fully understand that the latter issue is very important to you, but that's a different topic, so let's not get off tanget so easily.

Like you, I don't want this thread to go off topic into marriage rights. My point is that the high-profile figures who are the most vocal opponents of the bill do consider hate crime legislation to be one of those "special rights."

The propaganda against hate crime legislation comes from people who have made it a political goal to make sure that gays and lesbians have a restricted set of rights compared to heterosexuals -- which, of course, they call "equal rights." Hate crime legislation, to them, is a "special right" because a white man who gets assaulted doesn't have the option of calling it a hate crime. (This is factually incorrect because, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, there has been at least one case in the past of African-American men being charged with a hate crime for targeting a white person.)

Since simpleman brought up special rights, I thought it was worth clarifying exactly (part of) what that phrase means.

James

[antonyh]

If your definition of homophobe is someone who doesn't believe that homosexuality is right, then I guess I am. But I guess that means I'm an aduleraphobe, a divorceaphobe, and a pre-maritalsexaphobe, too. I have an adulterous and twice-divorced uncle, whom I still love. I have several (lots) of friends who have had pre-marital sex, but I still love all of them. I do know several gay people, one of which gave me a wonderful opportunity to live in Seattle six years ago, a time which I will always cherish in my life. I don't dislike her, or have preconceived notions about her character because she is gay. She is a sweet person with a good soul, and that's all that matters to me. All of you, I'm sure, are the same way, and that's all that matters between us.

Thank you for comparing our being to adultry, divorce and pre-marital sex. You forgot alcoholics.

Do you guys really want to continue to debate this man?

I really think your time is better spent writing letters to your Senator to see the Hate Crimes Bill passed.

[u-dog]

As someone who has just been mostly watching from the sidelines? this conversation was over DAYS AGO!

but having said that, Antony, I don't think Simpleman is our enemy. He's a decent guy. He just doesn't GET IT yet. But he's young and one day he is going to meet a GLBT person who will be able to articulate all this stuff, show him what the Bible REALLY says and he'll get it.

IT's probably time to disengage around this issue though since it is generating WAY more heat than light.

[antonyh]

As someone who has just been mostly watching from the sidelines? this conversation was over DAYS AGO!

but having said that, Antony, I don't think Simpleman is our enemy. He's a decent guy. He just doesn't GET IT yet. But he's young and one day he is going to meet a GLBT person who will be able to articulate all this stuff, show him what the Bible REALLY says and he'll get it.

IT's probably time to disengage around this issue though since it is generating WAY more heat than light.

Never said he was an enemy. I said, "Thank you for comparing our being to adultry, divorce and pre-marital sex. You forgot alcoholics."

Yes, it was over days ago...

Write to your Senator instead of wasting your time here.

[simpleman]

Thank you for comparing our being to adultry, divorce and pre-marital sex. You forgot alcoholics.

Do you guys really want to continue to debate this man?

I really think your time is better spent writing letters to your Senator to see the Hate Crimes Bill passed.

I guess the whole "all of you are sweet people with good hearts, and that's all that matters to me" just completely went in one eye and out the other? I meant that from the heart.

I know that you are really angry with me, but I think that the most important thing in society is to "agree to disagree". I'm more than willing to throw away arms on this argument, especially since everyone else is.

[Zerbie]

Hey Antony, for the record: my letters to my senators are long since written, proofread, and mailed. And emailed as well. I did that first, before starting my summer vacation with this engaging discussion. :D

Simple: Let's 'agree to disagree' then, at least for the time being. But before we all shut up on this over-long thread, I would like to ask you to consider that you HAVE compared gay people's mere *being* to irresponsible behavior. That is indeed insulting. To "get it," I guess you would have to stretch your imaginitive capacity to envision what it would be like if 70-90% of the culture felt it was completely reasonable and appropriate to "disagree" with your heterosexuality and compare it to "other sins" like drunk driving or even murder. You strike me as such a logician, that you haven't developed that kind of imagination. That's why I say I somewhat wish you could suddenly magically be gay for a year or two, and learn some lessons that way. Oh well, one can wish.

Now, I am officially DONE with this part of the discussion (since it seems agreed upon.)

Back to the original reason for the thread:

Contact your Senators, folks!!! Ask them to support the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Write a paper letter and outline one or two of the important points about WHY WE NEED the hate crimes bill. Then send them an email. AND make a phone call and leave a message with the staffer. It's lobby time!! :D :aparty: :weee:

[antonyh]

Hey Antony, for the record: my letters to my senators are long since written, proofread, and mailed. And emailed as well. I did that first, before starting my summer vacation with this engaging discussion. [/SIZE]

Well since you've written all your letters, debate away :D

[sjbouza]

I just received this reply from my state rep in Washington. The BASTARD!!!:eek:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding hate crime legislation.

I believe it is important to recognize that the federal government is not the first or primary line of defense to state and local crime problems. Traditionally, state governments have been tasked with responsibilities to investigate and prosecute crime given their clear role in the area of police powers.

I do not support legislation that federalizes crimes that should be prosecuted at the state and local level. In addition, I question the need to add a layer of bureaucracy to existing criminal law.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you.

Pete

He is a &%$*&#$@ anyway. GRRRRR I am not happy right now:mad: :mad: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BrentRichards]

I just received this reply from my state rep in Washington. The BASTARD!!!:eek:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding hate crime legislation.

I believe it is important to recognize that the federal government is not the first or primary line of defense to state and local crime problems. Traditionally, state governments have been tasked with responsibilities to investigate and prosecute crime given their clear role in the area of police powers.

I do not support legislation that federalizes crimes that should be prosecuted at the state and local level. In addition, I question the need to add a layer of bureaucracy to existing criminal law.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you.

Pete

He is a &%$*&#$@ anyway. GRRRRR I am not happy right now:mad: :mad: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You at least got a response from yours ... the staffer at my reps office refused to comment on how the Rep would be voting (he voted No, surprise, surprise)

Fortunately, our senators are much better, and more responsive. I believe both will be supporting the senate version.

[Zerbie]

Oh, is this a one-upmanship game about who got the worst response?

Well, I had a staffer on the phone engage me in a verbal skirmish trying to get me to say I support prosecuting Christians for free speech. (Well, that's what I thought he might be trying to do. . . )

I win the cookie. :cookie:
:rolleyes:

[sjbouza]

Oh, is this a one-upmanship game about who got the worst response?

Well, I had a staffer on the phone engage me in a verbal skirmish trying to get me to say I support prosecuting Christians for free speech. (Well, that's what I thought he might be trying to do. . . )

I win the cookie. :cookie:
:rolleyes:

Hey, I wanted the cookie...:hissy: :hissy: :hissy: :p

Yea, I read that in the other thread you had. That is just a load of crap. I cant believe that people will actually fall for that kind of stuff. Not saying you did Z and I am glad that you are searching for the legislation to check it out for yourself. However, the greatest majority would just take the persons word for it and go on their way. It just irks me to no end the length they will go to not to pass this legislation. LIES...LIES...LIES...LIES.

I have a question for people. The fundies as well as others, say they love us but hate the sin. Well, if they love then why must they lie so much? If you really had love for someone you wouldnt lie about them, would you? I dont see how you can in one breath say you love a person then turn around and spread lies and half truths about them. To me that sounds like pure hate, not love in any form that I am aware of. Just a thought.

[u-dog]

I think that the whole "Hate the Sin and love the sinner" is just something that they say to make themselves feel more comfortable with their hate. They are trying to convince themselves that they don't hate us even when they are trying to legislate us into oblivion.
:rolleyes:

[suzer1013]

U-dog -- I recently saw a good bumper sticker online:

Love the bigot; Hate the bigotry.

Susan :)

[Simon]

U-dog -- I recently saw a good bumper sticker online:

Love the bigot; Hate the bigotry.

Susan :)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[u-dog]

U-dog -- I recently saw a good bumper sticker online:

Love the bigot; Hate the bigotry.

Susan :)

:lol: :lol: I NEEEEEED IT !:lol: :lol:

[antonyh]

U-dog -- I recently saw a good bumper sticker online:

Love the bigot; Hate the bigotry.

Susan :)

Wow...i want it too

[dewdrop_world]

Well, I'm not quite content to let the debate end there. I raised some points that are not merely a rehash of things already discussed, which our visitors have so far ignored. Should I assume, then, that we all agree on my classification of hate crime as a form of terrorism?

I said a lot of things, but I'm interested in really only one of them. To sum it up briefly:

- Hate crimes share some common characteristics with terrorist violence. I could think of these off the top of my head, but there are probably more: arbitrary choice of victim, overpowering the victim (through numbers or excessive force, or both), and possibly the symbolic obliteration of the victim's identity through violence far out of proportion to the perceived offense.

- Hate crimes, like terrorism, are directed only incidentally at the physical victim. The real target is the class for which the victim is a convenient proxy, and the intended harm to the class is to install the fear that anyone might be next. (The same could be said about suicide bombers in the Middle East.)

(Incidentally, this short blurb (http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19930901-000014.html) from Psychology Today (admittedly not the most scholarly source, but not entirely worthless either) cites a study showing a high correlation between right-wing "supremacy" groups and the likelihood to commit hate crimes. I take that as indirect support of my argument, as supremacists are certainly not above using terrorist tactics to make a point.)

I bring up these observations in direct response to the argument that the crime in a hate crime is already criminal, so no further criminalization is necessary. What I'm saying is, if a bunch of thugs kill a lesbian on the street, screaming anti-gay insults, the murder is only part of the crime. Charging the perpetrators even with first degree murder does not do justice, because it ignores the larger part of the crime. We, as a civilized society, should find the remaining part utterly abhorrent, completely antithetical to democracy, and worthy of punishment on its own terms.

The hate crime deserves a different penalty from murder, because the crimes are not the same. Does not terrorism, in itself, deserve a penalty above and beyond murder alone?

James

[Emproph]

That was refreshing Susan. I want one of those stickers too! I couldn't find one on Google but did run across this interesting post (http://jintoku.blogspot.com/2007/05/enough-of-hate.html):

Without a word about hatred, Christ on the contrary tells us that we should love the sinner and forgive the sin.

[simpleman]

Well, I'm not quite content to let the debate end there. I raised some points that are not merely a rehash of things already discussed, which our visitors have so far ignored. Should I assume, then, that we all agree on my classification of hate crime as a form of terrorism?



Sure, if you want to call it a form of terrorism, go right ahead. It is not necessarily what most people would consider Terrorism (as in the war on) but I would say that it is terrorism. Either way, Terrorism (terrorism) is still a crime. Hate crimes, are by nature, still crimes. Timothy McVeigh committed a terrorist act in the Oklahoma City bombing, and he was charged and convicted under the criminal code on criminal counts we already have (including eight counts of first degree murder). It was considered a federal crime because it was a federal building that he bombed. Even though his crime was terrorist in nature, he was still able to be sentenced to death under the regular criminal code. The government didn't need a "Terror Crimes Act" in order to get an investigation, conviction, and execution. He killed nearly 200 people, but he was charged as if he killed eight, even though he could have been charged with killing one, and the end result would be the same. He would be executed no matter which road the prosecution took.



I said a lot of things, but I'm interested in really only one of them. To sum it up briefly:

- Hate crimes share some common characteristics with terrorist violence. I could think of these off the top of my head, but there are probably more: arbitrary choice of victim, overpowering the victim (through numbers or excessive force, or both), and possibly the symbolic obliteration of the victim's identity through violence far out of proportion to the perceived offense.



Sure. I agree with these sentiments. And so does the criminal code. A person guilty of such offenses can be prosecuted as such under current laws.



- Hate crimes, like terrorism, are directed only incidentally at the physical victim. The real target is the class for which the victim is a convenient proxy, and the intended harm to the class is to install the fear that anyone might be next. (The same could be said about suicide bombers in the Middle East.)



I agree. Timothy McVeigh's target was the United States Government, but by proxy he killed a bunch of low-level to mid-level government employees and a bunch of children. Again, he's been in the ground for six years.



(Incidentally, this short blurb (http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19930901-000014.html) from Psychology Today (admittedly not the most scholarly source, but not entirely worthless either) cites a study showing a high correlation between right-wing "supremacy" groups and the likelihood to commit hate crimes. I take that as indirect support of my argument, as supremacists are certainly not above using terrorist tactics to make a point.)



You can't prosecute anybody based on a correlation. You can, however, prosecute based on crimes that are committed, regardless of their genesis (hate, greed, envy, etc.).



I bring up these observations in direct response to the argument that the crime in a hate crime is already criminal, so no further criminalization is necessary. What I'm saying is, if a bunch of thugs kill a lesbian on the street, screaming anti-gay insults, the murder is only part of the crime. Charging the perpetrators even with first degree murder does not do justice, because it ignores the larger part of the crime. We, as a civilized society, should find the remaining part utterly abhorrent, completely antithetical to democracy, and worthy of punishment on its own terms.



Well, the murder is a murder. It is probably in the 1st degree. That can carry the death penalty, or life in prison. I suppose you want to tack on the two-weeks in jail for verbal harassment and maybe, just maybe simple assault? Because that's the only thing remotely illegal about screaming anti-gay insults. And then, after that, do you suggest a crime for hating gay people? That is completely unconstitutional. You can't make hating someone a crime, there's that whole pesky constitutional set of rights to freedom of speech, expression, and thought. This country is set up in a way that allows you to hate someone else. If you try to attack them because you hate them, you go to jail. But if you sit on your lawn and just hate someone's guts, that's constitutionally protected.





The hate crime deserves a different penalty from murder, because the crimes are not the same. Does not terrorism, in itself, deserve a penalty above and beyond murder alone?

James

This is absolutely absurd. What this says is that if I got murdered because someone wanted my money, I'm not as important as if you got murdered for being gay. You are saying that your killer deserves to be killed more than my killer because you are gay, and my killer just wanted my money. Timothy McVeigh was tried and convicted as a murderer, and so would my killer, and so would yours. It's unfair to say that one murder is worse than another. Murder by knife, murder by gun, murder by car, murder by baseball bat, murder by whatever is still murder, and it will still get the murderer executed, so why should murder because of hatred be more murder than murder because of greed?

My question, to you James, and to everyone else is this:

What more penalty do you want for hate criminals that having them killed?

Everyone always accuses me of not giving straight answers, so I'll do the same. Oh, and as a quick note, it's not because I don't want to answer or because I'm scared to answer, it is because I get distracted.

Now, for a quick note on the concept of "Loving the sinner, hating the sin".
I think it's unfair to say that someone who says that or believes in it is trying to make themselves feel better about their internal hate. People who believe homosexuality is wrong believe that it is wrong. It doesn't mean they hate you.

I don't know quite how to put this into words, but I don't think reconciliation between homosexuals and many of the Christian faith is possible without some compromise. I'll try and explain this as best I can, but it's probably going to come out wrong.

I, as a Christian, believe that homosexuality is wrong. That does not mean that I hate homosexuals, or want them to disappear, or want them dead, or want them to not get married, or live together, or have children, or anything else. I don't expect you to deny who you are or to deny your own beliefs, or deny your faith in God, nor would I deny any of these things to you.

The only thing that I, and many Christians like me (as in not radicals), ask is this: please don't try and force us to change our beliefs on homosexuality. Don't try and guilt us into believing that homosexuality is right, if we don't believe it. Don't disrespect or undermine our religious beliefs because they aren't the same as yours. My belief in God, and my personal faith is mine, so please don't call me a hate-monger, or a bigot, or any other nasty name because of my religious beliefs. Even though I've been dissenting to much of the things on this board, it does not mean that I hate. Hate is a very strong word, and I think many of you throw it around a little too haphazardly. It doesn't hurt my feelings or anything, I just want that to be a thought of consideration, particularly for many of you who are trying to sway the hearts of other Christians like me. When you condemn someone as full of hate, they are much less likely to be sympathetic to you. I know that I am much more sympathetic to someone who will respect my beliefs than to someone who dismisses me, unfairly, as hateful.

So, as you can see, that probably came out wrong, but there is really no other way to say it.

[Emproph]

I don't know quite how to put this into words, but I don't think reconciliation between homosexuals and many of the Christian faith is possible without some compromise. I'll try and explain this as best I can, but it's probably going to come out wrong.

I, as a Christian, believe that homosexuality is wrong. That does not mean that I hate homosexuals, or want them to disappear, or want them dead, or want them to not get married, or live together, or have children, or anything else. I don't expect you to deny who you are or to deny your own beliefs, or deny your faith in God, nor would I deny any of these things to you.

The only thing that I, and many Christians like me (as in not radicals), ask is this: please don't try and force us to change our beliefs on homosexuality. Don't try and guilt us into believing that homosexuality is right, if we don't believe it. Don't disrespect or undermine our religious beliefs because they aren't the same as yours. My belief in God, and my personal faith is mine, so please don't call me a hate-monger, or a bigot, or any other nasty name because of my religious beliefs. Even though I've been dissenting to much of the things on this board, it does not mean that I hate. Hate is a very strong word, and I think many of you throw it around a little too haphazardly. It doesn't hurt my feelings or anything, I just want that to be a thought of consideration, particularly for many of you who are trying to sway the hearts of other Christians like me. When you condemn someone as full of hate, they are much less likely to be sympathetic to you. I know that I am much more sympathetic to someone who will respect my beliefs than to someone who dismisses me, unfairly, as hateful.

So, as you can see, that probably came out wrong, but there is really no other way to say it.

THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO SAY IT. It can't NOT come out wrong. That's what I keep screaming about, just be honest. It's the only way I'm going to understand that you DON'T mean to be hateful.

Yes, you want to be tactful and sensitive, but there comes a time when you have to lay it on the line.

I've got plenty more to say on stuff, but I appreciate your persistence. I'll try and make more of an effort to be understanding. :award:

[Emproph]

My question, to you James, and to everyone else is this:

What more penalty do you want for hate criminals that having them killed?
Now oddly enough, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall having gotten an answer to this yet:


That one's for you too Simpleman. I'd appreciate it very much if you would answer that too please. The part asking whether we should also do away with all laws that measure the INTENT of crime? As you stated here:

Originally Posted by simpleman http://www.soulforce.org/forums/sfstyle/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=28600#post28600)
It's unfair to everyone else to say that only hate crimes warrant federal aid or a special set of legislation. Crime is crime, it is wrong, it is bad, it is illegal, no matter what the motivation is. Having a bill that says that one motivation makes one crime worse than another crime is unfair and arguably unconstitutional.That pretty much says to me that you would do away with all measurement of a crime's danger to society. Is this your arguement?

[Vegas Red]

I don't know quite how to put this into words, but I don't think reconciliation between homosexuals and many of the Christian faith is possible without some compromise. I'll try and explain this as best I can, but it's probably going to come out wrong.

Sorry, not going to happen simpleman. The only compromise most Christians agree to for homosexuals is, Repent and accept Christ as Lord and Savior. Most conservative Christians will not compromise when it comes to homosexuality. However, they seem to not have a problem compromising their beliefs when it comes to divorce and remarriage. Jesus himself called it adultry (only in cases of adultry is divorce permitted) but many Christians (conservatives too) have seemed to have forgotten that. If protecting marriage seems so important to these conservative christian evangelicals and fundies then why haven't they tried to legislate away divorce in all 50 states like they are trying to do with gay marriage? I would think divorce is the #1 culprit in the destruction of marriage and not granting gay people to marry.

The only thing that I, and many Christians like me (as in not radicals), ask is this: please don't try and force us to change our beliefs on homosexuality. Don't try and guilt us into believing that homosexuality is right, if we don't believe it. Don't disrespect or undermine our religious beliefs because they aren't the same as yours. My belief in God, and my personal faith is mine, so please don't call me a hate-monger, or a bigot, or any other nasty name because of my religious beliefs. Even though I've been dissenting to much of the things on this board, it does not mean that I hate. Hate is a very strong word, and I think many of you throw it around a little too haphazardly. It doesn't hurt my feelings or anything, I just want that to be a thought of consideration, particularly for many of you who are trying to sway the hearts of other Christians like me. When you condemn someone as full of hate, they are much less likely to be sympathetic to you. I know that I am much more sympathetic to someone who will respect my beliefs than to someone who dismisses me, unfairly, as hateful.


You have a right to your belief that homosexuality is wrong. I don't have a problem with that simpleman. Problem is other Christians unlike yourself demand that gay people repent of their sin and become heterosexuals. This has been stated over and over on sites like Focus on the Family, Americans for Truth, Concerned Women for America, and other sites with similar mindsets. They are arrogant in their demands. They claim moral superiority and don't have a problem flaunting it. Some are even Dominionists. The more I read about these folks the more I've come to realize they are organizations of hate and oppression, using the Bible as their sole source for their outcries. Again, not saying that you are simpleman.

Those that may believe that homosexuality is wrong personally but don't have the desire to dictate and force their moral beliefs on others through legislation are going to have to start speaking out against this hatred by their fellow Chrisitians. It makes all those that profess the name of Jesus to be hate mongers. Jesus isn't about hate. He's about acceptance and love. I don't know how many times when I hear the words evangelical or fundamentalist chrisitian I get a feeling of sickness over me. Sorry. I'm not the only one that feels this way. I've seen similar responses from other Christians and non-Christians. Its sad. Truly sad.


As for the Hate Crimes Bill, to those that are against adding sexual orientation and transgendered to the existing law, claiming it isn't necessary, then why don't we eliminate hate crime laws altogether? I would bet my life those Christians trying to put a stop at adding sexual orientation and transgenered to the hate crime law books would be singing a different tune if they knew religion was in any way going to be removed from the hate crimes laws.

[Emproph]

*sigh* Ok, I will. *sigh* Welcome to the court of truth. *sigh* What is it about the court of truth that gives you the impression that it belongs to me? *sigh*.......

So when you ask if I am a homophobe, or if I hate gay people, my answer is no.

Just for kicks, let's officially get it over with:
Simpleman, are you a homophobe?
Simpleman, do you hate gay people?

My mistake, you already answered that.
There's just no satisfaction quite like asking a question after it's been answered...:rolleyes: x 20

Now that that's out of my sytem..(just in case it ever comes up again)

~~
This is what I want to explore:
I didn't come here to win the argument, or burn anybody to the ground. I came here to learn, and I have learned much. I didn't come here to assume a cause, or to try and condemn one. I didn't come to, as Keltic said, undermine anyone's struggle, I just don't believe that using the government to change hearts is going to work

I think if you really put it all out on the table, you will see that hate crime is about the victims punishing the perpetrators. The perpetrators aren't going to read the laws and then change their minds or hearts. They might not even read the laws. The idea of criminal justice is to punish the objective and irrefutable. Adding such subjective measures to the courtroom, is a bad precedent.

So when you ask if I am a homophobe, or if I hate gay people, my answer is no.

Here’s what I see as a problem, excuse me please while I talk about you in the third person for a moment Simpleman.

It seems to me that Simpleman is arguing this on principle and philosophy if you will — and we’re letting him. We’re debating right back.

The debate is legitimate – in principle – there’s no doubt about that. The problem is that the debate itself is the hate crime – in principle.

But also in practice. The lies being told that surround the defeat of this law in particular are indicative of the corporate hate crimes committed against us every day.

NEW PHRASE: CORPORATE HATE CRIME.

That would be the organization of all those emails that go out EVERY-DAY that send out the WORST lies, and then instruct their recipients to spread those KNOWN-TO-BE-LIES-lies, to their church, family, and congress members, and to please make sure to send them :dollar: to combat “the greatest threat to 'natural' family.”

That’s you and me folks. Sitting here bitching about how best to show Simpleman the importance of hate crime legislation for LGBTQI Americans.

I’m not trying to play the patriotic card, but when I actually say and think of it in terms of "Americans," the whole idea of equality just pops out for me. It's not personal OR political at that point, it JUST IS.

If Simpleman truly understood what is being done to us INTENTIONALLY, Simpleman’s only response would be, “what can I do to help.”

It seems to me that Simpleman needs a lesson in the nature of politics today. And I guess I can come back to talking you now Simpleman. The deck is stacked for us already. The victims of Timothy McVey aren't the result of a calculated and conscious well funded campaign of hatred in the name of Christianity itself.

The ONLY reason It’s about our rights, is because they've decided that they WANT the right to take ours away. If you don't believe that, it can be proven, over and over and over again. READ THAT LAST SENTENCE AGAIN PLEASE.

Hate crimes? Could the irony BE any more palpable?

If you are not aware that James Dobson and ilk are full blooded-criminals, at least in the morally bankrupt department, then you have no business to even begin to argue your point. That come’s later. Looking at it now, this would also apply you your attitude about the ER protests. They’re the same thing, as much as you’ve learned, I don’t believe we’ve really shown you the horror part. To a certain extent, personally some have shared, and there is ample galore examples of actual hate crimes and discrimination of all kinds, but I don’t think you’ve seen the part about how so little of it was and is necessary.

The majority of it is by political design. A framework of lies was designed above and beyond the very Biblical teaching of the condemnation of homosexuality.

Are you under the impression that it’s just the simple Biblical condemnation of homosexuality that has lead to all this?

What would you think if you found out that all of the evil political ends that are attributed to the “homosexual agenda” are in actuality the very political goals of those who are making the charges?

It’s the political argument in support of this terrorism that is the real hate crime.

If the CA$H COW of THAT hate crime did not exist, hate crime legislation would not exist.

And money buys political power which buys a “Christian nation.”

This is about the DEFENSE of terrorism itself, literally in the name of JESUS, but for the SAKE of political power.

~~
We’ve proven this over and over again around here simpleman. Must we get James Dobson's use of Paul Cameron on your ass?

[antonyh]

The only thing that I, and many Christians like me (as in not radicals), ask is this: please don't try and force us to change our beliefs on homosexuality. Don't try and guilt us into believing that homosexuality is right, if we don't believe it. Don't disrespect or undermine our religious beliefs because they aren't the same as yours. My belief in God, and my personal faith is mine, so please don't call me a hate-monger, or a bigot, or any other nasty name because of my religious beliefs. Even though I've been dissenting to much of the things on this board, it does not mean that I hate. Hate is a very strong word, and I think many of you throw it around a little too haphazardly. It doesn't hurt my feelings or anything, I just want that to be a thought of consideration, particularly for many of you who are trying to sway the hearts of other Christians like me. When you condemn someone as full of hate, they are much less likely to be sympathetic to you. I know that I am much more sympathetic to someone who will respect my beliefs than to someone who dismisses me, unfairly, as hateful.


1) Religious Freedom is still in the constitution
2) The Hate Crimes Bill includes Religion as one of the classifications for protection
3) Soulforce is private property and if you express anti-LGBT speech, you will get verbal non-violent push back.

[dewdrop_world]

Just wanted to say a quick thanks to simpleman for his reply to me. I'm busy today and won't have time to reply very soon, but in the next couple of days, sure.

James

[dewdrop_world]

Re: Emproph's post, it is easy to imagine a neutral motivation for organizations that one is sympathetic to. A lot of Christians can't imagine that a Christian organization could be systematically dishonest and corrupt, and that they could exploit people's general ignorance of sexual orientation as a meal ticket. But, sad to say, it's true.

Most people aren't aware that the Moral Majority back in the 80s was a concoction of Republican strategists to re-consolidate power, with the help of church leaders just drooling at the chance to sit at the big boys' table. A shrewd name... what could be wrong with being moral, and being in the majority? But the organization was a front, and its misrepresentation of its true origin is only the first of its un-Christian activities undertaken in the name of Christ.

I have nothing against Christians. What I despise is that many people who call themselves Christians are Christians in name only.

James

[simpleman]

Here’s what I see as a problem, excuse me please while I talk about you in the third person for a moment Simpleman.

It seems to me that Simpleman is arguing this on principle and philosophy if you will — and we’re letting him. We’re debating right back.

The debate is legitimate – in principle – there’s no doubt about that. The problem is that the debate itself is the hate crime – in principle.

But also in practice. The lies being told that surround the defeat of this law in particular are indicative of the corporate hate crimes committed against us every day.

NEW PHRASE: CORPORATE HATE CRIME.

That would be the organization of all those emails that go out EVERY-DAY that send out the WORST lies, and then instruct their recipients to spread those KNOWN-TO-BE-LIES-lies, to their church, family, and congress members, and to please make sure to send them :dollar: to combat “the greatest threat to 'natural' family.”

That’s you and me folks. Sitting here bitching about how best to show Simpleman the importance of hate crime legislation for LGBTQI Americans.

I’m not trying to play the patriotic card, but when I actually say and think of it in terms of "Americans," the whole idea of equality just pops out for me. It's not personal OR political at that point, it JUST IS.

If Simpleman truly understood what is being done to us INTENTIONALLY, Simpleman’s only response would be, “what can I do to help.”

It seems to me that Simpleman needs a lesson in the nature of politics today. And I guess I can come back to talking you now Simpleman. The deck is stacked for us already. The victims of Timothy McVey aren't the result of a calculated and conscious well funded campaign of hatred in the name of Christianity itself.

The ONLY reason It’s about our rights, is because they've decided that they WANT the right to take ours away. If you don't believe that, it can be proven, over and over and over again. READ THAT LAST SENTENCE AGAIN PLEASE.

Hate crimes? Could the irony BE any more palpable?

If you are not aware that James Dobson and ilk are full blooded-criminals, at least in the morally bankrupt department, then you have no business to even begin to argue your point. That come’s later. Looking at it now, this would also apply you your attitude about the ER protests. They’re the same thing, as much as you’ve learned, I don’t believe we’ve really shown you the horror part. To a certain extent, personally some have shared, and there is ample galore examples of actual hate crimes and discrimination of all kinds, but I don’t think you’ve seen the part about how so little of it was and is necessary.

The majority of it is by political design. A framework of lies was designed above and beyond the very Biblical teaching of the condemnation of homosexuality.

Are you under the impression that it’s just the simple Biblical condemnation of homosexuality that has lead to all this?

What would you think if you found out that all of the evil political ends that are attributed to the “homosexual agenda” are in actuality the very political goals of those who are making the charges?

It’s the political argument in support of this terrorism that is the real hate crime.

If the CA$H COW of THAT hate crime did not exist, hate crime legislation would not exist.

And money buys political power which buys a “Christian nation.”

This is about the DEFENSE of terrorism itself, literally in the name of JESUS, but for the SAKE of political power.

~~
We’ve proven this over and over again around here simpleman. Must we get James Dobson's use of Paul Cameron on your ass?

Emproph, that was some good stuff. You are a straight-shootin' individual and I like that about you. I'm glad you aren't afraid to tell it like it is.

I'll do some straight-shooting, too. James Dobson and all of his buddies are private organizations who fund political candidates, politicians, so on so forth. They try to use the government to legislate their form of morality over the country, to build, a "Christian nation". I think that's wrong, and I think it misses the point of the Christian faith. I think that Jesus said, in so many words, "You guys aren't going to be able to convince everybody. Go places, and try, but sometimes it just won't work. You'll probably get chained up and beat, but I promise it's worth it." The principles that Jesus taught were not, "SAVE PEOPLE FROM HELL AT ALL COSTS." He knew that He was the only one who could actually save anybody. He just said to go teach about Him, and some people will listen and some people won't. That doesn't mean: go try to make laws out of all the moral values I've taught you. In fact, I think he ultimately ignored the government of His time, concerning himself, rather with the people. All he ever said was to pay your taxes, because people were bugging Him about what they were supposed to do about an oppressive government. He just said "give them their tax money, but give Me your heart. That's all I want".

But we all agree that all of these right-wing Christians kind of missed that point. They've missed out on the love and have boiled the faith down to rules and regulations. That misses the point of the Christian faith entirely. I guess I'm more a of a spiritualist in terms of Jesus, thinking that the personal relationship is above all. These people really think that the rules and regulations are what matter. It's pretty bogus.

But, again, we all already agree on all of that. But, just like I don't agree with them trying to force their morality through legislation, I don't feel like any of you should try to force your cause through legislation. But many of you feel like fighting fire with fire is the best way to go. I can't say I entirely disagree with you. The problem is, the only thing you can fight with legislation is legislation. You can't fight their rhetoric, you can't fight their e-mails to people who follow them, you can't fight their religious beliefs, as wrong as they may be, with legislation. This is why I believe the Hate Crimes Bill to be about hate not about crime. You want to try to launch a legislative attack on Christian Right interest groups. The problem is, your legislation hangs in a very tight Constitutional balance. Crimes are punished based on the crime committed.

The courts have not, traditionally, charged on the basis of subjective theories on the ramifications of a particular crime. (such as it's effect on society). Measuring a specific crime's effect on society is very subjective in nature. The courts are meant to punish the objective, and leave the subjective elsewhere (though I will concede that often the courts allow a significant amount of subjective testimony). Think about drunk driving cases. These people all have a right to a lawyer who is supposed to be focused on what is best for his client. Most people hate drunk drivers, so of course they are going to be considering the societal ramifications, but the court can only convict him of driving drunk, not for being a potential danger of doing it again. There isn't a crime called "Potential to Drive Drunk Again".

I owe you an answer about using intent to determine degree, etc. Intent and motivation are not the same thing. Intent measures how badly a person wanted to hurt his victim. Did he intend to kill? Or maim? Or to injure? Was it sexual in nature? Motivation refers to why he wanted to kill, maim, injure, etc. The courts often hear testimony and speculation on why people do what they do, but the charging and sentencing are usually based on the objective. The Brandon Teena killers were charged with murder and then sentenced, one of them to death, because of intent to kill, not because it was hate-motivated. McVeigh was executed because of his intent to kill, not for the reason that hates the government.

[tdogg]

God created me to be a homosexual woman. I was blessed with an undeniable attraction to women, not only in a sexual/physical way, but mentally and emotionally as well. I connect with women. Period.

I've tried to have those connections with men. Simply because all my life people I would classify as 'conservative Christians' (and they would agree) have shoved it down my throat that it's wrong, sinful and a ticket straight to hell. Guess what??? I finally decided to live my life as ME, the person I was created to be, and I was created to be with a woman as my life partner.

When I finally accepted myself and realized that I was not sinning or going straight to hell, guess what happened??? Wow, it felt like coming home. Like this was the most right thing that ever happened. Like DUH - finally feels right, everything makes sense, I'm where I am supposed to be. And guess what else? It's ok with God. Jesus approves. Most of my loving friends and family do as well (they were like DUH too - I seemed to be the last to figure it all out!).

So if my God tells me I'm ok, it's ok, and if my heart is in the right place, and all those emotions above are in place, who is ANYONE - human/person - to tell me it's a sin. I am a homosexual - gay - lesbian. It's not a state of mind, it's who I AM. For those who believe it's wrong, well you just don't believe in me.

You can agree with me or not agree with me. It's insignificant for the most part - I am who and what I am no matter who agrees or not.

However, for the purpose of the hate crime bill discussion, the problem is for those who profess not to believe in homosexuality, it's a sin to act on it, love the sinner hate the sin...etc, it truly does help to promote an atmosphere of hate in this world.

Murder is just murder? The reason why a hate crime murder is a bit scarier for some of us? It's easier to live with crime if we feel it is a random act, but for an act of violence to occur based on a particular trait, or state, or whatever, well, then it becames much more personal, and people are more prone to live in fear, in the closet, hide, not to trust anyone. If I think it's possible to be targeted because I'm gay (and it most definitely IS), it's going to be significantly more scary for me to live my life as a gay woman than if not.

I believe Zerbie or Pete said early, hate crimes more often than not involved horrible, torturous and indescrible acts above and beyond murder. If I had more time, I would find that post and put a link to it. It was a good one.

[BrentRichards]

U-dog -- I recently saw a good bumper sticker online:

Love the bigot; Hate the bigotry.

Susan :)

http://www.cafepress.com/buy/bigot/-/pv_design_details/pg_3/id_18033254/opt_/fpt_________F______P___b7_a2/c_368/

[Zerbie]

But, just like I don't agree with them trying to force their morality through legislation, I don't feel like any of you should try to force your cause through legislation. But many of you feel like fighting fire with fire is the best way to go. I can't say I entirely disagree with you. The problem is, the only thing you can fight with legislation is legislation. You can't fight their rhetoric, you can't fight their e-mails to people who follow them, you can't fight their religious beliefs, as wrong as they may be, with legislation. This is why I believe the Hate Crimes Bill to be about hate not about crime. You want to try to launch a legislative attack on Christian Right interest groups. The problem is, your legislation hangs in a very tight Constitutional balance. Crimes are punished based on the crime committed.



NO ONE here wants to launch " a legislative attack on" interest groups. What we want is to prosecute violent criminals who commit assault with knives, guns, baseball bats. . . .

The legislation is NOT an offensive step. It's about enforcing the law.

[dewdrop_world]

You want to try to launch a legislative attack on Christian Right interest groups.

Do you believe that these groups are truly Christian?

James

[Simon]

Do you believe that these groups are truly Christian?

James

James,

I don't think it is really the case to determine to what extent anybody is truly Christian, whether it's Focus on the Family, Westburo, GCN, whatever. None of us know for sure, what is the REAL Christian, since we are not God. Do you remember the No True Scotsman fallacy? The heart of the argument was that Soulforce is trying to launch the legislative attacks against organizations and people who disagree with them in general, and Religious Rights groups was used as an example, as being such. Honestly, this was the question I had about this organization.

Simon

[antonyh]

The heart of the argument was that Soulforce is trying to launch the legislative attacks against organizations and people who disagree with them in general, and Religious Rights groups was used as an example, as being such. Honestly, this was the question I had about this organization.

Simon

I read replies like this and I just scratch my head in disbelief. Gay men, Lesbians and Transgendered human beings are being murdered and not receiving the justice that is their birthright as people made in the image of God, and you're wondering if the Hate Crimes Bill is about launching an attack on conservative Christians.

One of the ten commandments is "Thou shall not murder". This is not just a command about taking life, but also a command about protecting life. If a Christian knows that any class of people are not equally protected by justice, it is imperative out of obedience to God to work for their protection.

As I write this, Chicago is embroiled in a police torture scandal. It now threatens to engulf the mayor. Here is this week's Chicago Reader and the archives:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/twentyquestions/
http://www.chicagoreader.com/policetorture/

LGBT people, like African Americans in the articles above, do not have access to equal justice in this country and that is why "sexual orientation" needs to be added to the Hate Crimes laws. Federal oversight by the Justice Department provides an added measure of protection. Everyone made in God's image needs the protection and safety of justice.

Simpleman and Simon, you both clearly identify as Christians. Your rhetoric on this thread does nothing but betray the love for justice that stands at the heart of Christianity and is the very heartbeat of God:

He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

Micah 6:8

[tdogg]

Do you believe that these groups are truly Christian?


I think many of these people hide behing the label "Christian" and use Bible-based theology and principals to further their cause, which on the surface certainly appears too often to be greed and wealth and power.

I'm sorry, but I have seen little love from most "Christian-called" organizations or leaders that have demonstrated anything I could label as love. Without love we have nothing, we are nothing, we do nothing.

[Simon]

I read replies like this and I just scratch my head in disbelief. Gay men, Lesbians and Transgendered human beings are being murdered and not receiving the justice that is their birthright as people made in the image of God, and you're wondering if the Hate Crimes Bill is about launching an attack on conservative Christians.

One of the ten commandments is "Thou shall not murder". This is not just a command about taking life, but also a command about protecting life. If a Christian knows that any class of people are not equally protected by justice, it is imperative out of obedience to God to work for their protection.

As I write this, Chicago is embroiled in a police torture scandal. It now threatens to engulf the mayor. Here is this week's Chicago Reader and the archives:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/twentyquestions/
http://www.chicagoreader.com/policetorture/

LGBT people, like African Americans in the articles above, do not have access to equal justice in this country and that is why "sexual orientation" needs to be added to the Hate Crimes laws. Federal oversight by the Justice Department provides an added measure of protection. Everyone made in God's image needs the protection and safety of justice.

Simpleman and Simon, you both clearly identify as Christians. Your rhetoric on this thread does nothing but betray the love for justice that stands at the heart of Christianity and is the very heartbeat of God:

He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

Micah 6:8

Antony,

Let's not get too religious, here. I was simply analyzing this Hate Crimes bill from historical legal perspective. There have been cases when its mere existence allowed people to use it as a slogan for attempting to press unwarranted charges, like it was with Khalid Muhammad and with Repent America. From what I studied, it is known for making a lot of noises and accusations that did not have any legal precedent. To put it simply, it was used for other purposes than it was originally intended for. Stemming from this, I find it impossible to assume that it wouldn't be misapplied, again. However, because I have a good faith in our Supreme Court, I'd still give this bill a benefit of a doubt. We wouldn't know how it really operates until it becomes discussed in the court. So, let's just wait and see.

BTW, does anybody have any idea on its latest status? Has it reached Bush's desk, yet? What's going on?

[u-dog]

I believe that it is still in Senate Judiciary Committee hearings before going to the floor. I could be wrong.

[antonyh]

Antony,

Let's not get too religious, here. I was simply analyzing this Hate Crimes bill from historical legal perspective. There have been cases when its mere existence allowed people to use it as a slogan for attempting to press unwarranted charges, like it was with Khalid Muhammad and with Repent America. From what I studied, it is known for making a lot of noises and accusations that did not have any legal precedent. To put it simply, it was used for other purposes than it was originally intended for. Stemming from this, I find it impossible to assume that it wouldn't be misapplied, again. However, because I have a good faith in our Supreme Court, I'd still give this bill a benefit of a doubt. We wouldn't know how it really operates until it becomes discussed in the court. So, let's just wait and see.

BTW, does anybody have any idea on its latest status? Has it reached Bush's desk, yet? What's going on?

This is a Religious organization and you are claiming to be Christians. I think discussing God's heart for justice and command to act justly is completely appropriate. Beyond being an excellent theological critique of your approach on this thread, it also provides an excellent theological background to understanding how unfaithful the Religious Right really is to the very heart of their faith.

If I recall, Dr. Martin Luther King was a religious man. His understanding of justice in his faith was part of the engine of his activism. I have no interest in seeing the Religious Right go to jail for their speech. I want to call them back to the greatness of their faith.

Have you read the Chicago police torture links above? Maybe if you soak in the stories for a while, you will see that justice is not objective, it needs checks and balances - especially when the second class citizens are involved.

[andrewlittle]

I find myself agreeing with so many people here, that it is hard to add to the conversation - it does make for a lot of interesting reading.

The problem, as I see it, is extremely complex - no matter how we might try to bring it down to simple philosophical ideals.

Simpleman, and I believe Simon, are social conservatives of, as Zerbie put it, the old ilk. I can really appreciate this because, at my core, so am I. There are a plethora of laws - federal, state and local - that are not enforced uniformly or equitably. I also, then, find it ludicrous in an idelogical sense to allow legislatures to chest-beat and pretend thaty are doing something about a problem when they pass yet another law that will be inequitably applied.

The idealist in me says, "strip down the legal codes to their barest essentials and enforce the damn laws that are left." The pragmatist in me says, "Yeah. Right. That'll happen. There's job security built in for legislators, lawyers and accountants in complicated, overlapping, sometimes contradictory laws and tax codes. So we have to build in various ways of enforcing laws."

The basic problem is that we don't live in a society as it "ought" to be - no matter what your social and political ideology may be - we live in a society that "is the way it is." Debating philosophical differences about what laws are appropriate or inappropriate is no different than trying to legislate morality with ever more complicated legal codes. It is just another form of chest-beating and deluding ourselves that we are actually changing things.

Change happens with action. It is true that "hate" shows intent, and that violent crime committed with pre-determined intent should be considered !st degree violent crime. The problem is that this does not happen consistently and that prosecution is dependent on the civil authorities holding the interests of the victim and society above their own ideology and bias. The bulk of this new bill is about opening avenues to pursue prosecution when the various levels of the justice system balks or fails.

Chraging someone with a federal crime after being acquitted of a state crime, or being released without prosecution, is not "double jeopardy" as the charges are not the same. Ideologically, I also wish that no form of federal civil rights law was necessary. Pragmatically, however, I acknowledge that we live in a society that is what it is - it isn't what it ought to be - and all too often the local and state legal processes break down and are inadequate. This isn't by design but by decision. Collusion exists - that is the ugly truth.

Because there is always the possibility that collusion exists, the system of government we have has been established to try to curtail its effects on people. Balance of power is the basic design, and balance of power is the effect of hate crime bills. If one system fails, then another is in place to try to correct the problem. This is just as valid for the tripartite legal structure - local, state, federal - as for the state or federal governments - executive, legistlative and judicial. These designs exist because society is not what it should be - and is highly unlikely to be at any forseeable time in the future. It is what it is, and balances of powers to try to see justice done are essential to the design - unfortunately this includes cvil rights and hate crime laws. Unfortunate because local and state legal structures are sometimes inadequate, immoral, and complicit in oppressing portions of society.

[Emproph]

The lies being told that surround the defeat of this law in particular are indicative of the corporate hate crimes committed against us every day.

NEW PHRASE: CORPORATE HATE CRIME.

That would be the organization of all those emails that go out EVERY-DAY that send out the WORST lies, and then instruct their recipients to spread those KNOWN-TO-BE-LIES-lies, to their church, family, and congress members, and to please make sure to send them :dollar: to combat "the greatest threat to 'natural' family."But, just like I don't agree with them trying to force their morality through legislation, I don't feel like any of you should try to force your cause through legislation. But many of you feel like fighting fire with fire is the best way to go. I can't say I entirely disagree with you. The problem is, the only thing you can fight with legislation is legislation. You can't fight their rhetoric, you can't fight their e-mails to people who follow them, you can't fight their religious beliefs, as wrong as they may be, with legislation. This is why I believe the Hate Crimes Bill to be about hate not about crime. You want to try to launch a legislative attack on Christian Right interest groups. The problem is, your legislation hangs in a very tight Constitutional balance. Crimes are punished based on the crime committed.

From above:
just like I don't agree with them trying to force their morality through legislation
Intentional lies = “their morality”

I don't feel like any of you should try to force your cause through legislation
We should all lie down and die.

But many of you feel like fighting fire with fire is the best way to go.
Victim = Oppressor

You can't fight their rhetoric, you can't fight their e-mails to people who follow them, you can't fight their religious beliefs, as wrong as they may be, with legislation.
Legally redefining America via constitutional amendments through the use of intentional lies is perfectly acceptable because it's "their morality."

This is why I believe the Hate Crimes Bill to be about hate not about crime.
Crime is not about crime (but only when it comes to you abominations of nature).

You want to try to launch a legislative attack on Christian Right interest groups.
Complaining about those who shit on us is an attack on those who shit on us.

The problem is, your legislation hangs in a very tight Constitutional balance.
Unlike "legitimate" hate crime legislation.

Crimes are punished based on the crime committed.
Kill = murder
manslaughter and negligent homicide = First degree murder

~~
That last part is called moral relativism, but clearly you're selective in your belief of that -- only when it comes to we "sinners," whom you "don't hate."

If you were against hate crime legislation altogether, you'd be arguing about this on the political blogs, not here.

If you actually think that you're being honest with us, then you're lying to yourself.

[Emproph]

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) (http://www.nbc15online.com/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=b4a4ab76-3793-440b-bb88-18c9ed479e97&rss=218) - The Alabama House voted Thursday not to consider a bill to add crimes against people because of their sexual orientation to the state's hate crimes law, despite an emotional plea from the Legislature's first and only openly gay lawmaker.

Less hate crime statistics = less hate crimes = less need for hate crime legislation.

[dewdrop_world]

Hi Simpleman,

You realize, don't you, that you are accepting the premises but denying the logical conclusion (without refuting the logic -- you're just missing the point)?

My analysis goes a bit further than just calling hate crimes a form of terrorism. Here's the real crux of my argument -- what distinguishes assault as an anti-gay hate crime from assault that is not a hate crime is not just that the perpetrator holds anti-gay views. That isn't what I'm saying at all. To me, the distinguishing factors are two:

- the perpetrator must make the bias a material part of the crime; and
- the purpose of bringing the bias into the crime is to terrorize other members of the same class.

Let me turn it around and make it something you might be able to sympathize with more. Suppose we have two people who hate Christianity, and both decide to bomb one church apiece, during Sunday services to maximize the body count. The first sets the bomb, triggers it, does the damage, but says nothing about his motivation or intention, and there is no indication of any desire to target another church. The second does exactly the same thing, with one addition -- he makes it known that the crime is about Christianity and that all Christian communities are at risk.

You might be surprised to learn that in my view, the first is not a hate crime while the second is. In the first case, with only a single data point, there is no way to know if the crime is a statement against all of Christianity or a personal vendetta against one community, or one member of the community (that is, the motivation could be entirely personal). While this kind of crime would be absolutely heinous, it would be incorrect to conclude that it's a hate crime on the basis of the event alone.

Be very clear about this point -- I would give an additional penalty to the second, but not the first. This is not penalizing the second on the basis of his beliefs -- because both have the same beliefs! It's penalizing the second for using the crime to make a statement that is intended to harm all Christians, not just the unlucky ones in that church.

If someone beats the crap out of me because I'm gay and he hates gay people, but he keeps his mouth shut about why he did it, believe it or not, I would not consider that a hate crime in terms of the law. But the same event accompanied by shouts of "fag, dirty, sick, homo," etc. becomes a hate crime because of the stated intent to target gay people in general.

By contrast, in a mugging (even a fatal mugging), the only class that's being targeted is "people who appear to have some money in their pocket."

So, if someone wants to commit a hate crime but avoid hate crime prosecution, they should just do the violence and nothing else. The fact that hate criminals are never content to leave it at harming one person proves my point -- the expression of hatred (through violence) is the defining factor.

You are saying that your killer deserves to be killed more than my killer because you are gay, and my killer just wanted my money.

No, you're not reading me correctly. My killer deserves harsher punishment because I am not the only victim -- the entire gay community is the victim. So, what you're saying is that the other victims of a hate crime do not deserve any consideration just because they weren't physically harmed... whereas in your case, the other victims... wait a minute, there aren't any other victims. Hmm.

This is where I'm puzzled. You acknowledge that the whole gay community is the victim of a hate crime, but then, in almost the next breath, you insist that it's only about the one person who suffered the physical violence.

You can't prosecute anybody based on a correlation. You can, however, prosecute based on crimes that are committed, regardless of their genesis (hate, greed, envy, etc.).

Where did I say I wanted to prosecute anybody based on a correlation? That's putting some words into my mouth... that point was talking about what the hate crime actually is, not about prosecution or sentencing. Was that somehow not clear?

What more penalty do you want for hate criminals that having them killed?

That, I don't know. I'm not a legislator. One problem in your question that is that you might be assuming all hate crimes are capital crimes. Not true.

I maintain, for reason stated above, that an assault whose purpose is to terrorize all gay people, all African-Americans, Jews, women, or (yes) white folks too is more damaging to society than an assault whose purpose is to steal money from an individual. Because the damage to society is greater, the punishment may likewise be greater.

So far you don't seem to be seeing the societal impact -- which isn't a refutation, just a narrow (and, I would say incomplete) perspective.

James

[simpleman]

From above:

Intentional lies = “their morality”


Is it intentional? Yes. Is it true? Maybe not. You must understand that they don't believe what they are saying is lying. If you take moral superiority over them and say "They are liars". Then they can say that you are a liar, too. Calling these people liars isn't quite fair. Misinformed, ignorant, etc. are fair game, but liars isn't fair, and I don't believe haters is either. Again, I think all of you like to throw around the word hate a little bit, but it's understandable. Anyway, I don't think Dobson and Co. sit around in a room talking about how much they hate gay people. They believe it is sinful, and they believe in stopping a sinful influence, and that's why they do what they do. My opinion, as I stated earlier, is that they keep it out of the courts and away from the legislature.


We should all lie down and die.


I don't think I ever said that. I said that using your own legally-protected rhetoric is fair. I didn't say disappear, I didn't say crawl back to where you came from, I just said that it doesn't belong in the legislature, any more than Dobson and Co. belong in the legislature.


Victim = Oppressor

I guess I should have said "fight possible future sought-after legislation with pre-emptive but not entirely effective current legislation" because that's what I meant. You intend to fight their possible future legislation against gays with your own legislation such that they cannot pass future legislation that might be used against gays. I wouldn't support that legislation, for the same reasons that I don't support yours. Both intend to force some set of beliefs on people.

through the use of intentional lies[/U] is perfectly acceptable because it's "their morality."

You gotta be kiddin' me! I never said that was acceptable! Where, in any of this, did I say that legislating morality was correct? Yes, it is "their morality", but no it does not belong in the Constitution. I don't know why you think that I support such amendments, because I've certainly never said it.


Crime is not about crime (but only when it comes to you abominations of nature).


I can't think of a clearer way to say this. CRIME IS CRIME. I have said that at least ten times. I said that the Hate Crimes Bill was about the Hate. Crimes are always crimes, and can always be prosecuted as such. I don't know what makes you think that I said that hate crimes are somehow not crimes. Hate crimes, are still crimes. The crime can be proven objectively in the courts, the hate is based on a subjective premise that is not so easy to prove or disprove.


Complaining about those who shit on us is an attack on those who shit on us.


Complaining is fine. Complain all you want to. Complaining and writing up a long piece of legislation against bigotry are two very different things. I can complain about whatever I want and that's constitutionally protected. So can you, go for it, complain to your heart's content. But leave what belongs out of the legislature out of the legislature.


Unlike "legitimate" hate crime legislation.

I think I already answered this question. I already said I don't care for any other kind of hate crime legislation, either. We just happen to be discussing this particular one, so that's the one I'm talking about. I don't like the other ones, either.


Kill = murder
manslaughter and negligent homicide = First degree murder

Kill doesn't always mean murder. If somebody is holding a gun to my head, and I pull my own out and shoot them, I'm not a murderer. It was self-defense. I killed the guy, but it wasn't murder. If manslaughter, negligent homicide, et al were 1st degree murder, then we wouldn't have such thing as manslaughter and negligent homicide.



~~
That last part is called moral relativism, but clearly you're selective in your belief of that -- only when it comes to we "sinners," whom you "don't hate."

If you were against hate crime legislation altogether, you'd be arguing about this on the political blogs, not here.

If you actually think that you're being honest with us, then you're lying to yourself.

You keep mixing and intertwining some transcendent moral code with the court of law. You, Emproph, seem to be sitting up on top of some high righteousness that allows you and only you to be right. Unfortunately for you, the courts don't always rule exactly as you would, if your opinions and beliefs were somehow absolute. The courts, and the legislature, and the government itself are meant to be objective entities with objective goals. You seem to want to mix in all sorts of subjective issues into this.

Finally, I don't know where to go for some sort of political blogging. I just know that I got on here when the ER was going on, and I've kind of stuck. I guess I'm only here because no one has told me to leave yet. Feel free to be the first. But, I don't have any problem thinking that I'm being honest with you. I'm being honest with you, and myself, and that's all I can really say about that. I can't prove anything, but neither can you, so I guess I'll just take my side on this one.

[dewdrop_world]

Is it intentional? Yes. Is it true? Maybe not. You must understand that they don't believe what they are saying is lying. If you take moral superiority over them and say "They are liars". Then they can say that you are a liar, too. Calling these people liars isn't quite fair. Misinformed, ignorant, etc. are fair game, but liars isn't fair, and I don't believe haters is either. Again, I think all of you like to throw around the word hate a little bit, but it's understandable. Anyway, I don't think Dobson and Co. sit around in a room talking about how much they hate gay people. They believe it is sinful, and they believe in stopping a sinful influence, and that's why they do what they do. My opinion, as I stated earlier, is that they keep it out of the courts and away from the legislature.

Have you read any of the material at http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com ? I think, if you really look at the way anti gay propaganda abuses statistics, you might understand better why the term "liar" is entering the discussion.

A few months ago, in Time magazine, Dobson quoted a couple of researchers (Carol Gilligan and Kyle Pruett) in support of his views against gay parenting. In response, both researchers made public complaints that their research does not reach the same conclusion as Dobson, and that in no way should their work be used to suggest that gay parents are bad parents. After Soulforce, among other groups, launched a petition to be delivered to Time to demand accountability for quotations such as this that misrepresent an author's work, Dobson's public response was something along the lines of, why are these militant gay activists picking on me?

You're right that Dobson didn't think he was lying. As far as he was concerned, the books he cited did include the sentences he reproduced verbatim in his article. (He said pretty much exactly that in his "defense.") For him, that's enough for his research to be "accurate," and if it's accurate, it must then be fair, right? And when the original authors stepped forward to point out that the quotations were taken out of context and that their research does not mean what Dobson made it sound like, anyone else in the world would have recognized their error and corrected it publicly. But not Dobson. Why?

In this instance, and in hundreds of others detailed on the aforementioned web site, there really are only a couple of likely explanations. Either Dobson read the articles but didn't understand what they meant (i.e., he's an idiot), or he understood them perfectly well and exploited them to say something contrary to what they really say. How, exactly, does the latter case not qualify as "lying"?

How, exactly, is it respectable to commit the sin of bearing false witness in an attempt to "stop a sinful influence"?

James

[Daniel]

Finally, I don't know where to go for some sort of political blogging. I just know that I got on here when the ER was going on, and I've kind of stuck. I guess I'm only here because no one has told me to leave yet. Feel free to be the first. But, I don't have any problem thinking that I'm being honest with you. I'm being honest with you, and myself, and that's all I can really say about that. I can't prove anything, but neither can you, so I guess I'll just take my side on this one.

You're stuck?

How about responding to James' post a page back (and the one on this page as well)? That might get you unstuck. For all your protestations about seeing thing logically, you have a funny way of avoiding things.

I guess there is some illogic in your logic after all?

[Simon]

Friends,

I don't understand: what does Dobson's use of other peoples' researches to promote his beliefs about family have to with the Hates Crimes Bill getting passed?

[keltic63]

Friends,

I don't understand: what does Dobson's use of other peoples' researches to promote his beliefs about family have to with the Hates Crimes Bill getting passed?


please re-read what has been posted. This moderator is becoming impatient with your feigned lack of understanding.

[simpleman]

you have a funny way of avoiding things.



Every time I log in, Daniel, I am faced with about twelve new questions from 2-3 different posts. I've tried to explain how, if I can't get to all of it, I'm not avoiding you, I just didn't have time to get it all in. I've tried to answer everyone's questions as thoroughly as possible. It's pretty low to keep on accusing me of avoiding things, just because I don't have two hours a day to devote to getting to everyone's questions. I have a life going on outside of the board, and though I try to answer everyone's questions, I can't get every one of them. So, now to answer some of James' questions from the post that you referenced, and his most recent one.


This is where I'm puzzled. You acknowledge that the whole gay community is the victim of a hate crime, but then, in almost the next breath, you insist that it's only about the one person who suffered the physical violence.


From a social perspective, the hate crime is about the whole gay community. One crime perpetrated against a gay person may be about punishing the entire gay population, or it may not, but for the sake of our discussion let's say it is. It's an awful thing, and the hateful person who committed the crime is accountable to the whole gay community in a social sense. But, from the legal perspective, the only objective part of the case is the crime committed. The extent to which the crime instills fear into the hearts of the rest of the gay community is entirely subjective, and has no place in the courts. The person who committed the assault can be put in jail for his criminal offenses, but his sentence should not be longer because of a subjective issue with his motivation. I know exactly why you compare this to a terrorist act, because the target is not the physical victim, but rather an idea or culture, and the violence is intended to punish that idea or culture. I believe that, but from a legal perspective, only the physical crime committed can and should be used for conviction and sentencing. This is not me insisting that every hate crime is an isolated incident, or not a hate crime, this is me saying that our legal system was designed in a way that gave the benefit of the doubt to the criminal. If that didn't happen, we might still be putting older women who live alone, or any woman that lost favor with a village, on trial for being a witch. In our legal system, we can't just say "oh, he hates gay people, that's why he did it. Lock him up for longer than you would for anyone else who committed the same crime, because his actions made the whole community suffer, not just the one person." All of that is very subjective. He committed a crime, and he can be sentenced for that crime, not the subjective effect of his crime on the greater community. I have already gone through the legal precedent for charging a terrorist no differently than you would a normal criminal.

Let's say, for example, Cho Seung-Hui did not kill himself, and he was in police custody right now. What he did, as he professed to NBC, was to punish all of those rich, popular kids on his campus. He ended up killing a dizzying array of different socio-economic groups and ethnicities. He wasn't after killing just those 32 specific people, he wanted to punish the lifestyle that he had decided was abominable. He has struck fear into the hearts of every college student on every campus, not to mention his own. A young man committed to play a sport at Virginia Tech has even backed out of his scholarship out of fear of this situation. But, were Cho Seung-Hui sitting in jail right now, his charges would look like this: 32 counts of first degree murder and who knows how many satellite charges, but it wouldn't matter because 32x1st degree will probably get you executed anyway. The courts can't bring in some sort of "effect of this crime on college student communities" because that's very subjective. No one can really calculate the impact of the crime on the campus communities across the nation. This is what I'm trying to say. Yes, I believe hate crimes exist, yes, I believe that they are similar in nature to terrorist attacks from an ideological perspective, but legally, they are all the same. From a criminal law perspective, all crimes must be treated, charged, convicted, and sentenced the same.

The same goes for crimes that are not capital crimes. Though it's much more rare, an assault on a person because the assailant hates an idea or culture should still only be tried for the crime he committed. He shouldn't be sentenced further just because it is believed that the entire community suffered. In a sense, every crime that is not against a specific person for a specific reason can mean fear for the whole community. For example, there has been a string of incidents in my community where a team of robbers has been busting car windows, so that when the person gets out to survey the damage, they rob him. When they busted my window, I didn't know this, but I instinctively slammed on the gas (I was at a stoplight) and got out of there. Others weren't so lucky. This type of incident is the same way, they don't care who they attack specifically, they just attack for the idea of getting money. This puts fear in everyone in the community, no matter how much money they have, because who knows who it might happen to next? But if these hooligans are ever caught, the only charges I could press would be vandalism, etc. Not a set of "shame on you for scaring everybody" charges. That's ridiculous.

Friends,
I don't understand: what does Dobson's use of other peoples' researches to promote his beliefs about family have to with the Hates Crimes Bill getting passed?
please re-read what has been posted. This moderator is becoming impatient with your feigned lack of understanding.

Hold on a minute there. His question is not "what does James Dobson have to do with hate crime" all of you seem to believe that his rhetoric is behind a lot of hate crime. He asked what it had to do with the bill. All of you keep harping on the fact that this bill does not impede freedom of speech. All Dobson does is use freedom of speech. He doesn't call for, condone, or perpetrate any physical violence or criminal activity against homosexuals. I thought this bill was about the crimes committed against gays because they are gay, and Dobson doesn't commit any crimes. Does this mean that all of you really want this bill because deep inside you know that it can be used to silence people like James Dobson? Because otherwise, why would you keep bringing him up? He has nothing to do with whether or not the bill gets passed. Also, if the bill is passed, and is utilized fairly, as all of you assume that it will, it cannot be used against James Dobson in any way, unless James Dobson commits a crime that is hate-motivated. I think that's what Simon was asking. Really Keltic, is it fair to say that he is "faking" his misunderstanding? That's pretty low, man.

[Zerbie]

Hold on a minute there. His question is not "what does James Dobson have to do with hate crime" all of you seem to believe that his rhetoric is behind a lot of hate crime. He asked what it had to do with the bill. All of you keep harping on the fact that this bill does not impede freedom of speech. All Dobson does is use freedom of speech. He doesn't call for, condone, or perpetrate any physical violence or criminal activity against homosexuals. I thought this bill was about the crimes committed against gays because they are gay, and Dobson doesn't commit any crimes. Does this mean that all of you really want this bill because deep inside you know that it can be used to silence people like James Dobson? Because otherwise, why would you keep bringing him up? He has nothing to do with whether or not the bill gets passed. Also, if the bill is passed, and is utilized fairly, as all of you assume that it will, it cannot be used against James Dobson in any way, unless James Dobson commits a crime that is hate-motivated. I think that's what Simon was asking. Really Keltic, is it fair to say that he is "faking" his misunderstanding? That's pretty low, man.

How dare you?


Pointing out the squashed little truth behind a barrage of lies, you call "harping?"

So you don't believe in hate crimes laws, period. We got that. Now WHO'S harping?

How many times do we have to repeat what the language of the legislation does and does not contain before you STOP PAINTING IT AS A MUZZLE ON FREE SPEECH!?

The U.S. is not going to direction of Sweden or Canada because freedom of speech is in the Constitution - and liberals/progressives/gays are NOT THE ONES ATTEMPING TO RE-WRITE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

I know you will correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the attempt to re-write our U.S. Constitution (to solidify second-class status for gays) one of Dobson's own aims? In any event, it is not Soulforce or gay activists who are trying to re-write the Constitution. The groups you are defending, otoh, I'm not so sure about them. So if you are concerned about freedom of speech overturning, you'd better run out and support the ACLU which exists to protect EXACTLY such constitutionally guaranteed rights.

NOW STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO EVERYONE ELSE'S MOUTH AND LUMPING EVERY MEMBER OF THIS FORUM TOGETHER AS A MONOLITHIC MASS MARCHING IN LOCK-STEP TO SILENCE CHRISTIANS. Most of these members are Christians themselves. How dare you persist with these ridiculous accusations?

Just drop it.

[keltic63]

Hold on a minute there. His question is not "what does James Dobson have to do with hate crime" all of you seem to believe that his rhetoric is behind a lot of hate crime. He asked what it had to do with the bill. All of you keep harping on the fact that this bill does not impede freedom of speech. All Dobson does is use freedom of speech. He doesn't call for, condone, or perpetrate any physical violence or criminal activity against homosexuals. I thought this bill was about the crimes committed against gays because they are gay, and Dobson doesn't commit any crimes. Does this mean that all of you really want this bill because deep inside you know that it can be used to silence people like James Dobson? Because otherwise, why would you keep bringing him up? He has nothing to do with whether or not the bill gets passed. Also, if the bill is passed, and is utilized fairly, as all of you assume that it will, it cannot be used against James Dobson in any way, unless James Dobson commits a crime that is hate-motivated. I think that's what Simon was asking. Really Keltic, is it fair to say that he is "faking" his misunderstanding? That's pretty low, man.

1. this was directed at Simon, not you. YOU however have skated very close to guideline violations.
2. It is a fair statement to make, considering that the conversation in this thread drifted to some religious organization's culpability in hate crimes against lgbt people in light of the propaganda that is used.
3. Dobson came up as an example of not only the propaganda, but how he twists or even lies about research.
4. proof was not only offered, but posted in this thread.
5. Simon attempted to redirect but stating that he did not understand what this had to do with the discussion, yet clearly, Simon has introduced that particular group to the conversation in post #151: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=28984&postcount=151
6. the ensuing discussion showed very clearly that Simon understood what was going on, and needed only to read your post: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=29177&postcount=161 and feigns ignorance here: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=29197&postcount=164

[Daniel]

Every time I log in, Daniel, I am faced with about twelve new questions from 2-3 different posts. I've tried to explain how, if I can't get to all of it, I'm not avoiding you, I just didn't have time to get it all in.

Oh....please.

If you really were going to deal with the question then why didn't you include some such in your post to emproph? But you didn't. It appears that you simply skipped over what you didn't like until you were goaded into it (this isn't the first time btw). At least that's how it appears from this end. And your statement is simply a rehash of everything you've said before.

Yeah...you may be outnubnumbered here. But guess how we feel in a ostensively straight world? (and I've said that before too.)

[tdogg]

Simpleman

In this thread, many of us have provided examples of how a crime is NOT just a crime. Hate crimes affect a community, intentionally invoke fear, take away a person's freedom to live their life. Random criminal acts are much easier to live with than an act based on hate and perpetuated on a person or persons because of a specific thing about that person or persons (or a group of persons with like-traits). Examples of this are provided through-out this particular thread.

You have also been provided specific examples of hate crimes and those they were perpetuated against. Numerous examples, and believe me, those given on this thread are ONLY A DROP IN THE BUCKET. Just a drop...

There are also many personal experiences through-out this thread and these forums. Real-life, real-time examples of emotional and physical suffering placed on people by those who feel we are somehow second-class, of low worth, not deserving of equality and the same rights and freedoms as others.

You, on the other hand, have not been able to provide me with any convincing examples of how passing this hate crimes bill would infringe on your constitutional right to free speech. To say that someone's life is less important than another's freedom to spew hate against that person is, well, indicating that person's life is not valuable. Human lives must be placed at a higher value than a person's ability to say what they want, when they want and where they want. We are talking LIVES here. Living things.

I suggest you re-read through these posts and try to see our side of this hate crimes bill. Is it possible? :confused:

[Zerbie]

Simpleman

In this thread, many of us have provided examples of how a crime is NOT just a crime. Hate crimes affect a community, intentionally invoke fear, take away a person's freedom to live their life. Random criminal acts are much easier to live with than an act based on hate and perpetuated on a person or persons because of a specific thing about that person or persons (or a group of persons with like-traits). Examples of this are provided through-out this particular thread.

You have also been provided specific examples of hate crimes and those they were perpetuated against. Numerous examples, and believe me, those given on this thread are ONLY A DROP IN THE BUCKET. Just a drop...

There are also many personal experiences through-out this thread and these forums. Real-life, real-time examples of emotional and physical suffering placed on people by those who feel we are somehow second-class, of low worth, not deserving of equality and the same rights and freedoms as others.

You, on the other hand, have not been able to provide me with any convincing examples of how passing this hate crimes bill would infringe on your constitutional right to free speech. To say that someone's life is less important than another's freedom to spew hate against that person is, well, indicating that person's life is not valuable. Human lives must be placed at a higher value than a person's ability to say what they want, when they want and where they want. We are talking LIVES here. Living things.

I suggest you re-read through these posts and try to see our side of this hate crimes bill. Is it possible? :confused:

Of course Simple is not citing examples of the bill actually restricting free speech, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T.

While I understand the principle outlined in your 4th paragraph, we need to clarify that nothing in the legislation currently under heated debate would actually limit free speech, including hate speech, in any way.

What concerns me is that Simon & Simple are placing a higher value on defending against NON-EXISTENT threats to free speech than on the lives of the weak and the marginalized. That is reprehensible.

[tdogg]

Of course Simple is not citing examples of the bill actually restricting free speech, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T.

While I understand the principle outlined in your 4th paragraph, we need to clarify that nothing in the legislation currently under heated debate would actually limit free speech, including hate speech, in any way.

What concerns me is that Simon & Simple are placing a higher value on defending against NON-EXISTENT threats to free speech than on the lives of the weak and the marginalized. That is reprehensible.

Agreed Zerbie. Even worse than if the threat were real. Which it is definitely not. Simon & Simple - stop listening to republican, conservative, fundamentalists, Christians who tell you this hate crimes bill will impose upon your right to free speech. IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. Please do the thinking and researching yourself, to come to the truth.

[antonyh]

Agreed Zerbie. Even worse than if the threat were real. Which it is definitely not. Simon & Simple - stop listening to republican, conservative, fundamentalists, Christians who tell you this hate crimes bill will impose upon your right to free speech. IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. Please do the thinking and researching yourself, to come to the truth.

I don't know what Simple and Simon are going on about. There is nothing in this bill that will interfere with free speech. This is just chatter from the extreme right to derail the bill. I think they are just afraid that the national spotlight will fall here:

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html

It is kind of embarrassing really.

[marutidas]

I know I haven't posted in a very long time, been busy working for the retail conglomerate Wal-Mart (graveyard shift). sooooo...zzzz...sleepy

*Deep Cleansing Breath*

*Exhale*

OK, were to start, this thread has already grown so big and so many point of view have been covered. Where to being. ahhh, I know

Namaste simple & simon

I know I am late to the party, but I already know what has been dicussed I have read many of your post and the post of my fellow soulforumites.

We keep coming back to the same point.
1. The hate crimes act will not inhibit free speech.
My prime example, the KKK and other supremeist groups can still make publicatcations and can still hold rallies and make all the hate speech they want, but do you know why you don't hear it, it is because most sane people find it offensive. Which is slowly but surely becoming the case with GLBT people. The newer generation that is coming up behind this one is more tolerant than the one before it. That does not mean that isn't going to be alot more before us, but it is a change in the right direction. More and more people are seein our humanity rather than just our sexuality.

2. Hate crime would become Federal cases and give local law enforcement more tools to investigate such crimes. I don't know about you but if I were killed in Stigler, OK pop. 3000, which happens to be in the middle of Bible Country, I seriously doubt my killers would have ever been caught, hypothetically speeking.

Tolerance and acceptance does not come from making laws, that is a given. Dialog is the only path to peace and reconciliation, and at least you've made the first step, but it looks like you got a long way to go. If we(meaning all of humanity) could just act like intellegent and polite human beings, we wouldn't be in this mess.

What this Law is about is bringing GLBT people closer to equality under the law.

~~~Maruti Das:flower:

[Zerbie]

Nicely put. MD.

But mainly - welcome back. :) :love: I was getting ready to post a "where is Maruti Das?" thread in general chat. :p

[simpleman]

For Daniel's sake, because he believes that I skirt issues until I am "goaded" into it, I am going to make a megapost that answers every question asked and addresses every issue raised since 12:50pm on Tuesday.

How dare you?


Pointing out the squashed little truth behind a barrage of lies, you call "harping?"



I've addressed how Dobson/ilk do not believe that they are lying. In other words, they are not consciously lying. You call them liars because you disagree with them. If you want to believe that it is some conspiracy based on hatred of who you are, then go ahead. The truth is that they believe homosexuality to be sinful, so they are speaking out against it. I wouldn't call it lying, but if you choose to, I can't stop you.


So you don't believe in hate crimes laws, period. We got that. Now WHO'S harping?

Sure, I'm harping, too. You are quibbling over semantics with me, just like in the above statement. I didn't think harping had such a negative connotation. It is what it is. Yes, I'm harping, guilty as charged.


How many times do we have to repeat what the language of the legislation does and does not contain before you STOP PAINTING IT AS A MUZZLE ON FREE SPEECH!?

The U.S. is not going to direction of Sweden or Canada because freedom of speech is in the Constitution - and liberals/progressives/gays are NOT THE ONES ATTEMPING TO RE-WRITE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.


I don't think I went quite that far. I don't think that it is some conspiracy to silence free speech. I believe that it is condemning certain individuals, such as James Dobson's, free speech. You want the bill to try and combat what you think is wrong about his rhetoric. I'm not saying that you will use it to silence him, when I asked if that was your true intention, it was a rhetorical question intended to challenge your true beliefs about this bill. What I gain from your answer is that your true reason for this bill runs much deeper than simply bringing justice to those accused of hate crimes. It runs into trying to lay condemnation on hateful thought as a whole, because it makes "hateful thoughts/speech" into a chargeable offense above and beyond a regular murder, assault, et al. I think that the precedent that creates is bad. I know that the bill doesn't say specifically that it is intended to silence free speech, but it is clear that the motivations for this bill are to condemn hateful speech/thought/rhetoric as it applies to homosexuals.


I know you will correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the attempt to re-write our U.S. Constitution (to solidify second-class status for gays) one of Dobson's own aims? In any event, it is not Soulforce or gay activists who are trying to re-write the Constitution. The groups you are defending, otoh, I'm not so sure about them. So if you are concerned about freedom of speech overturning, you'd better run out and support the ACLU which exists to protect EXACTLY such constitutionally guaranteed rights.

I said that was wrong. I'll even deliver a quote where I said that I didn't agree with that, either.


My opinion, as I stated earlier, is that they keep it out of the courts and away from the legislature.


NOW STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO EVERYONE ELSE'S MOUTH AND LUMPING EVERY MEMBER OF THIS FORUM TOGETHER AS A MONOLITHIC MASS MARCHING IN LOCK-STEP TO SILENCE CHRISTIANS. Most of these members are Christians themselves. How dare you persist with these ridiculous accusations?


I think you are overreacting a little bit here. But you, among others, always say "that's what it sounds like you are saying, simpleman." "Sounds like you believe this, simpleman". "It sounds like you are a bigot, simpleman." Well, that's what I was saying "Guys, it sounds like you really want this out of this bill." Obviously I don't believe that all of you have the same opinion. My apologies for this being misconstrued.


Just drop it.

If you want, I'll leave. Just say it, "I don't like your beliefs simpleman, I'm exhausted from hearing about it, please leave."


1. this was directed at Simon, not you. YOU however have skated very close to guideline violations.

I suppose disagreement is grounds for a guideline violation now? I have not said anything to anyone like some of the things that have been said to me. How many times, keltic, have you read posts that insult my intelligence, undermine my abilities to formulate my own opinion, or outright say that my opinion is laughable? Is saying that it is somewhat low to try and call out Simon, or me, or anyone else for "faking" a thought a violation? IMO that is pretty low. I don't know, I may be low, too, but I haven't accused any of you of faking your opinions, or faking your thoughts or ideas, or questions.


2. It is a fair statement to make, considering that the conversation in this thread drifted to some religious organization's culpability in hate crimes against lgbt people in light of the propaganda that is used.

But I suppose belittling someone's religious beliefs as mere "propaganda" is perfectly acceptable. It is not fair a. to hold James Dobson accountable for hate crime or b. to say that Simon is faking a misunderstanding. He's trying to ask questions and discuss with you, keltic, and you are taking out your anger at me on him. That isn't fair.


3. Dobson came up as an example of not only the propaganda, but how he twists or even lies about research.
4. proof was not only offered, but posted in this thread.
5. Simon attempted to redirect but stating that he did not understand what this had to do with the discussion, yet clearly, Simon has introduced that particular group to the conversation in post #151: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/show...&postcount=151
6. the ensuing discussion showed very clearly that Simon understood what was going on, and needed only to read your post: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/show...&postcount=161 and feigns ignorance here: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/show...&postcount=164

Everybody "twists" research. There are three types of lies, keltic, lies, d*** lies, and statistics. Your statistics, his statistics, my statistics, and Major League Baseball statistics. They all say something, but they never tell the whole story. The chosen mode of extrapolation is the attempt to tell the story. He extrapolates one way, while you would extrapolate another. I might say that a .319 batting average is pretty good, but you might say that the same player's 1 homer and 12 RBI isn't very good. Who's right? I don't know, but neither of us twisted the statistics, we just looked at the same player and came to a different conclusion. I'm not saying Dobson's story is right, and I DEFINITELY am not saying he has ANY grounds to force his beliefs into the constitution or any other legislation. I know everybody has anecdotes for why this bill is important, but I look at the same anecdote and see something different. I'm sorry, but that's a difference in opinion. We looked at the same story, and came to a different conclusion. It doesn't mean I'm evil or mean or hateful, it just means we think somewhat differently. I don't say that since you didn't come to my conclusion you are wrong, did I? I simply said that I see it differently. It's not fair to say that I am evil, mean, stupid, rude, wrong, or any other cutdown, just because I didn't see the story the same way you did.


Oh....please.

If you really were going to deal with the question then why didn't you include some such in your post to emproph? But you didn't. It appears that you simply skipped over what you didn't like until you were goaded into it (this isn't the first time btw). At least that's how it appears from this end. And your statement is simply a rehash of everything you've said before.

Yeah...you may be outnubnumbered here. But guess how we feel in a ostensively straight world? (and I've said that before too.)

That post was addressing emproph's questions. In addition, I think I made that post at about 3AM, it would have been 5AM or so if I had answered every one of those questions. I was tired, give me a break. I don't know why you can't understand that I am a human being, who gets tired, and has to eat, and promises friends that he will help them out with things, or that he will spend time with them during summer, or that he will help his family with something, too. I don't have unlimited time to write on this board. However, tonight, I am writing back to everyone here, leaving no stone unturned. If this does not convince you that I am not one to dodge questions, or avoid issues, or whatever it is you want to keep oh-pleasing me about, then I don't think anything will. Again, I apologize for not getting to everyone all at once in the past, but I am trying to tonight.

Furthermore, all this "it seems" and "it appears" stuff is making no sense to me. You can take whatever you want to from what I write, but I don't think that my writing somehow holds anything back. I am who I am, and I've been honest in everything that I write. If anything appears to be different than I have explicitly stated, then you are working really hard to read things into it. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. If it "appears" differently, then it is simply "appearing" how you want it to "appear".

Finally, I know I'm outnumbered. It doesn't really faze me. I won't cower away from what I believe because everybody at once disagrees with me, and I won't leave this engagement if people still want to engage me. If everyone is done engaging me, I really have nothing left I can say, but thanks for all of your time. As it stands, I'm outnumbered, but I'm fine with that. I knew that when I came in ;) .


In this thread, many of us have provided examples of how a crime is NOT just a crime. Hate crimes affect a community, intentionally invoke fear, take away a person's freedom to live their life. Random criminal acts are much easier to live with than an act based on hate and perpetuated on a person or persons because of a specific thing about that person or persons (or a group of persons with like-traits). Examples of this are provided through-out this particular thread.

Unless someone physically takes away your freedom, by force, you can't convict them of a crime. People can swing their fists all day, and that's their right, until it strikes someone's face, and then they have taken away freedom. If they strike one person's face, another not struck person can't bring charges against the striker, regardless of the effect of the first strike on the other person. Yes, it may make the other person fearful, but the courts of law have no place in deciding to what extent, and to what extent that person's fear should be used as a deciding factor in the striker's sentencing.


You have also been provided specific examples of hate crimes and those they were perpetuated against. Numerous examples, and believe me, those given on this thread are ONLY A DROP IN THE BUCKET. Just a drop...

There are also many personal experiences through-out this thread and these forums. Real-life, real-time examples of emotional and physical suffering placed on people by those who feel we are somehow second-class, of low worth, not deserving of equality and the same rights and freedoms as others.

I know hate crimes exist. I knew that before I even heard of soulforce or this board. I don't need 100 or 1000 or even 1,000,000 examples for proof that they exist, I already know, I promise. I know that people treat you like you are second class. I've said that that's wrong. I've also said that their work to force that concept into law is even more wrong. I don't know what else you want from me. I believe all that to be wrong, but I also believe they have the right to swing their fists about it. Only when they strike your face do I believe they should be punished. But I don't believe they should be punished more for the strike than another type of crime because of how their prior fist-swinging or their fellow fist-swingers intend to strike fear into your hearts. I believe that their fist-swinging is wrong, but I don't believe it should be legislated against, just like I don't believe that abortion is right, but I don't think it should be fiercely legislated against.


You, on the other hand, have not been able to provide me with any convincing examples of how passing this hate crimes bill would infringe on your constitutional right to free speech. To say that someone's life is less important than another's freedom to spew hate against that person is, well, indicating that person's life is not valuable. Human lives must be placed at a higher value than a person's ability to say what they want, when they want and where they want. We are talking LIVES here. Living things.

It wouldn't, directly. None of this is a direct or written infringement of free speech. I believe it to be a condemnation of certain types of speech, because it makes them a part of another crime, which, when you boil it down makes it essentially an satellite crime to another more serious crime. That means that hatred is now a satellite crime. Of course, if no physical violence is committed, it isn't a crime, but if physical violence is committed, it is a crime. That doesn't make a lot of sense. This bill implies and creates the precedent for criminalization of thought and speech, because it creates a federal crime for hatred coupled with a local crime of whatever kind of physical violence was committed. Of course you are free to disagree with me, but that is why I disagree with the legislation.

I suggest you re-read through these posts and try to see our side of this hate crimes bill. Is it possible?
I see your side, but I don't think it fits into American legal ideology. I know what you want, but you can't really have it under the way our legal system works. I see your side, I really do, but I just don't think it is legally applicable. Just like my side is that abortion is wrong, because it is the killing of a human life, but I don't think that I can or should be able to write legislation against it, because those are my beliefs, and I shouldn't force them on anyone through legislation.


Of course Simple is not citing examples of the bill actually restricting free speech, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T.

Explained above ("not directly, etc.")


While I understand the principle outlined in your 4th paragraph, we need to clarify that nothing in the legislation currently under heated debate would actually limit free speech, including hate speech, in any way.

It doesn't limit it per se, but it criminalizes it. It places a legal condemnation on speech, rhetoric, etc. that goes against what you believe.

What concerns me is that Simon & Simple are placing a higher value on defending against NON-EXISTENT threats to free speech than on the lives of the weak and the marginalized. That is reprehensible.

It is a threat to American legal precedent. It isn't just about free speech, or hate speech, it's about the way I believe that the legal system is supposed to work. The lives of everyone, not just the weak and marginalized are already protected under the current code. If you want pre-emptive force to keep yourself from being a victim, carry a gun, or learn judo, or get a X2 Taser, or something. There isn't a piece of paper that can magically protect people from hate criminals. The criminals can be prosecuted under current laws, but it won't be prevented simply because of extra punitive measures. People have been murdering for years, even in the face of the death penalty, so what makes you think that making hate crimes more illegal than regular crimes is actually going to make hate criminals stop committing hate crimes? Also, as I stated earlier, criminalizing hate is a bad precedent. I can't more clearly explain how this bill criminalizes legally-protected hatred. I guess this is a useless sentence, but I don't see how I'm reprehensible just because I don't believe in criminalizing thoughts or speech. (note: again, I know the bill doesn't say "This bill will criminalize hate." But that's how I believe the legislation will be utilized).


Agreed Zerbie. Even worse than if the threat were real. Which it is definitely not. Simon & Simple - stop listening to republican, conservative, fundamentalists, Christians who tell you this hate crimes bill will impose upon your right to free speech. IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. Please do the thinking and researching yourself, to come to the truth.

I don't listen to the Republican, conservative, fundamentalist, Christians. They don't tell me anything. In fact, I often get perturbed with their attempts to force their morality through legislation and constitutional amendments. Sometimes I listen to their pundits, and often I laugh at them, because they say ridiculous things like "if this man is elected, we will lose the country". As if the country belongs to them to begin with. That being said, I don't know why it's so difficult to think that I might apply this idea of mine to both sides, not just theirs. I don't think they belong in the legislature, and I don't believe that this does either. Furthermore, I do a lot of thinking for myself. I'm not just repeating someone else's work. I think you'll find that my reasons against this legislation are significantly different from James Dobson's, if you can look past the fact that we both are against the legislation long enough to discover why. Furthermore, I don't know why repeatedly insulting my intelligence is necessary. I don't insult anyone here's intelligence, in fact, I think I once said you are all very smart and thoughtful people.

don't know what Simple and Simon are going on about. There is nothing in this bill that will interfere with free speech. This is just chatter from the extreme right to derail the bill. I think they are just afraid that the national spotlight will fall here:

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html

It is kind of embarrassing really.

I played around on that site for a minute, and my thought is that simple word games don't really convince me of anything. Or calling the late Jerry Falwell Fairy Calwell is in any way respectable. Furthermore, replacing simply replacing "gays" with "jews, blacks, etc." Doesn't really make any better comment than just saying "what those guys say is pretty ridiculous". Also, no matter what you put in there, it's all Constitutionally-protected. People already say bad things about jews, blacks, arabs, mexicans, chinese people, etc. and it's all legally protected. I guarantee you none of the people who said things like that feel embarrassed of their beliefs.

Now, Daniel, I have another post coming, because all of it together was too long for one single post. According to the message I got, the limit is 20000 characters, and I managed to get 23,000+ into it. So not only is the answer to every single question a lot to write, it's too much for any one post anyway.

[simpleman]

Continued...


Namaste simple & simon

I know I am late to the party, but I already know what has been dicussed I have read many of your post and the post of my fellow soulforumites.

Welcome, and pull up a chair!


We keep coming back to the same point.
1. The hate crimes act will not inhibit free speech.
My prime example, the KKK and other supremeist groups can still make publicatcations and can still hold rallies and make all the hate speech they want, but do you know why you don't hear it, it is because most sane people find it offensive. Which is slowly but surely becoming the case with GLBT people. The newer generation that is coming up behind this one is more tolerant than the one before it. That does not mean that isn't going to be alot more before us, but it is a change in the right direction. More and more people are seein our humanity rather than just our sexuality.

It won't pre-emptively inhibit free speech, but it criminalizes it in the courts. It's like if a white person killed a black person, his ownership of such a pamphlet could be used against him, possibly unfairly. It would be a very subjective issue whether he did it out of hate, as the pamphlet might indicate, or for some other reason. Either way, murder is still murder, so the guy will spend a lot of time in jail, or end up getting the stick anyway. But, if he is convicted because of the pamphlet, it criminalizes, retroactively, the pamphlet itself. I think that's the aim of this bill, to try and condemn such speech and pamphletry.


2. Hate crime would become Federal cases and give local law enforcement more tools to investigate such crimes. I don't know about you but if I were killed in Stigler, OK pop. 3000, which happens to be in the middle of Bible Country, I seriously doubt my killers would have ever been caught, hypothetically speeking.

If this presupposes that the local law enforcement wouldn't have the resources to investigate a regular (if there is such a thing) murder, then that makes it unfair to the victims of a not-hate crime. It creates a precedent that says the victims of hate crimes are more important and have special rights that other victims don't get. That goes against the core of the legal system.


Tolerance and acceptance does not come from making laws, that is a given. Dialog is the only path to peace and reconciliation, and at least you've made the first step, but it looks like you got a long way to go. If we(meaning all of humanity) could just act like intellegent and polite human beings, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Agreed. I don't think my stances are intolerant or unaccepting. I don't think that gays are second-class, or deserve less, I just don't think that anyone deserves more than anyone else. Is it crazy to think that it's unfair for one set of victims to get special privileges?



What this Law is about is bringing GLBT people closer to equality under the law.


The only inequality facing gay people is the marriage/civil unions issue. Gays are already equal under assault/murder/any other crimes laws. I realize that the laws aren't exactly carried out as they should be, but it doesn't mean that gays aren't equal under the law.

Whew, I'm drained. It's now 3:20 a.m. I started this thing at roughly 1:15 a.m. Daniel, I hope that this megapost(s) will bring you to the realization that I am not avoiding anyone or anything. I have taken time, a LOT of time, to write this whole thing attempting to answer and address everything written since I last wrote, in order that you would see that I am not dodging anyone's questions. If this is not enough, please illuminate for me what I missed, and I will get on it at the next chance I get.

[dewdrop_world]

I've addressed how Dobson/ilk do not believe that they are lying. In other words, they are not consciously lying. You call them liars because you disagree with them. If you want to believe that it is some conspiracy based on hatred of who you are, then go ahead. The truth is that they believe homosexuality to be sinful, so they are speaking out against it. I wouldn't call it lying, but if you choose to, I can't stop you.

And we have addressed, repeatedly, how Dobson et al. do not MERELY state that homosexuality is sinful. If they stopped there, no problem, that's their opinion.

If in fact they just want to get across the belief about the morality of homosexuality, why do they go on to say things like... [see here (http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html)]

“It’s one thing to say, `We have rights to jobs...we have rights to be left alone in out little corner of the world to do our thing.’ It’s an entirely different thing to say, well, `We’re not only going to go into the schools and we’re going to take your children and your grandchildren
and turn them into homosexuals.’ Now that’s wrong.” - 700 Club, 9-17-92

"[Gays seek] to destroy all Christians."

"...one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the 'prophets' of a new sexual order." - "Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys," FRC publication, July 1999

"it is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males." - "Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys," FRC publication, July 1999, http://www.frc.org/misc/bl057.pdf [my note: Actually the estimate is more like 95% girls molested by adult - heterosexual - males. HOW CAN YOU CALL THIS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A LIE?]

"At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, Cameron announced to the attendees, 'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.' According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983." - Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995.

"33% [of gays surveyed] ingested feces via anal/oral contact"-Paul Cameron quoted at http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron2.html [my note: This is ANOTHER statistic that has been debunked at http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com (sorry if I got the link wrong before). In other words, another quantifiable LIE.]

I could go on, but you get the point.

I don't have a problem with them expressing their religious opinion. I have a problem with the lies they use to support their opinion.

I also have a problem with it when gay activists lie (which also happens sometimes).

James

[Daniel]

Now, Daniel, I have another post coming, because all of it together was too long for one single post. According to the message I got, the limit is 20000 characters, and I managed to get 23,000+ into it. So not only is the answer to every single question a lot to write, it's too much for any one post anyway.

Simpleman- thanks for your post. I get that you making an effort, but for the sake of discussions in the future, if it's 3 AM and you want to write a post and can't get to everyone's thoughts, here's what you do, you say "I'm sorry that I can't get to everyone's thoughts right now, but will get back to it what I have time". That's what more than a few people do here when they don't want to give an unfortunate impression.

And if you don't want to feel like there are too many posts to deal with, then you might consider keeping your involvement on this forum to one thread at a time.

It seems rather silly for you to complain about my prodding you to give answers when your own inaction has caused the situation. :rolleyes:


Agreed. I don't think my stances are intolerant or unaccepting. I don't think that gays are second-class, or deserve less, I just don't think that anyone deserves more than anyone else. Is it crazy to think that it's unfair for one set of victims to get special privileges?

But ya are Blanche ya are!

Sersiously, you may not think so, but your posts give a different impression. (You'll have to find the movie reference on your own - I ain't helping you with that one. )

Know why? You really don't get it.

What you don't understand, and aren't willing to accept is that GLBT persons DO NOT have equal rights. GLBT persons also experience a much greater level of assualt against them. Did you even take a look at the study posted here?

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=28735&postcount=88

Why? Because anti-gay views have everything to do with anti-gay violence. And the Hate Crimes bill, at least, deals with the violence.

You seem to have the view that everyone wants to shut people like you up, and you have also previously stated that we should give up trying to convince you that being gay isn't "wrong".

Well. The point of Soulforce- and most other gay friendly organizations- is not to limit speech- which has been pointed out ad nauseum here. I doubt that most American's- even gay American's- believe in curtailing speech. I don't. What we are are involved in, however, is securing equal rights, rights we do not currently share with you as a straight person. Soulforce, in particular, is committed to bringing to light the misinformation and just plain ignorance behind anti-gay sentiment, especially as concerned with the interpretation of the bible, which is the main scource from which all anti-gay prejudice proceeds. This prejudice is the leading factor in the effort to curtail any legislation which extends gay rights.

As you put it on page 7 of this thread.


I don't know quite how to put this into words, but I don't think reconciliation between homosexuals and many of the Christian faith is possible without some compromise. I'll try and explain this as best I can, but it's probably going to come out wrong.

I, as a Christian, believe that homosexuality is wrong. That does not mean that I hate homosexuals, or want them to disappear, or want them dead, or want them to not get married, or live together, or have children, or anything else. I don't expect you to deny who you are or to deny your own beliefs, or deny your faith in God, nor would I deny any of these things to you.

The only thing that I, and many Christians like me (as in not radicals), ask is this: please don't try and force us to change our beliefs on homosexuality. Don't try and guilt us into believing that homosexuality is right, if we don't believe it. Don't disrespect or undermine our religious beliefs because they aren't the same as yours.

Who, I want to ask, is going to compromise? And what is there to be compromised?

I'm not going to become any less gay. And I doubt that you are going to become any less Christian. That's not really the issue, unless, of course, you maintain that being a Christian is equivalent with being anti-gay- which- btw- you seem to do in the passage above.

What you haven't considered, or don't want to consider is that your premise, that homosexuality is wrong- is based on misinformation and ignorance.

That's what at issue.

Ok. Bottom line here.

If you don't want to address your understanding of gay people, fine. You don't have to do that. No one can force you too. If you don't want to look at the how your misunderstanding causes harm to those like me, fine. But the reality is that your view that homosexuality is "wrong", despite your claim that you don't want to "deny" gay people anything, is the very thing which leads to the denial of equal rights.

It's that simple simpleman.

Someone taught you to think this way. And that thinking is based on ignorance, lies and misinformation.

If you're not willing to even contemplate how this affects your views on the Hate Crimes Bill, if you aren't able to at least question your presumptions (and we've had ample practice in looking at ourselves-having made the journey from self-hate to acceptance), then I really don't see why you would want to continue your presence here.

You've made your point.

[Zerbie]

All I ask of you Simpleman is to stop telling me I am the opposite of myself, to stop telling people who have EXPLAINED their motivations to you, that their motivations are something that they are not.

The mere fact that you can believe it is possible would seem to suggest that you make this assumption because YOUR OWN motivations are less than above-board.

Do you truly have no idea how offensive you are? Telling me I want what I oppose, and oppose what I want?!

There is no way I could have been any clearer. You are either deliberately attempting to paint me out as my very opposite, or you are extremely, extremely confused.

I will never understand how speaking the truth could possibly "prove" a falsehood. I told you why I support the hate crimes legislation. You respond that my explanation proves my reasons are other?!?!?!? That is either a deliberate lie or it is insanity. So yes, I want you to drop it.

Nothing offends me more than lies. You have just lied TO me, ABOUT myself. There is nothing more offensive under the sun than behavior such as yours.

[Zerbie]

Fo


I've addressed how Dobson/ilk do not believe that they are lying. In other words, they are not consciously lying. You call them liars because you disagree with them. If you want to believe that it is some conspiracy based on hatred of who you are, then go ahead. The truth is that they believe homosexuality to be sinful, so they are speaking out against it. I wouldn't call it lying, but if you choose to, I can't stop you.

The lie I am referring to is the lie that the LLEHCPA has ANYTHING to do with criminalizing speech. That IS a lie. Someone made it up out of thin air. Maybe some, even many, of those repeating it trust what they were told by those who lied to them, in which case they are not liars, but innocents repeating a lie unknowingly. It's still a LIE.



I don't think I went quite that far. I don't think that it is some conspiracy to silence free speech. I believe that it is condemning certain individuals, such as James Dobson's, free speech. You want the bill to try and combat what you think is wrong about his rhetoric. I'm not saying that you will use it to silence him, when I asked if that was your true intention, it was a rhetorical question intended to challenge your true beliefs about this bill. What I gain from your answer is that your true reason for this bill runs much deeper than simply bringing justice to those accused of hate crimes. It runs into trying to lay condemnation on hateful thought as a whole, because it makes "hateful thoughts/speech" into a chargeable offense above and beyond a regular murder, assault, et al.

Then you need to go back and read the entire thread again.

I think that the precedent that creates is bad. I know that the bill doesn't say specifically that it is intended to silence free speech, but it is clear that the motivations for this bill are to condemn hateful speech/thought/rhetoric as it applies to homosexuals.

Clear? It's CLEAR?!?! How do yet get from NO SPEECH PROVISION WHATSOEVER to it's "clear" that there is one?! That is insanity.


y.

I have nothing left to say to you. My posts speak for themselves. The last couple of exchanges have degenerated, and there is nothing left to do but rant. So my responses to you, Simple, are over.

[Daniel]

Why Hate Crimes Laws are needed.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/05/051507ukcops.htm


(London) A study into the way police handle violent crimes against gays in the UK has found that investigations have been hampered by "institutional" homophobia.

The report was prepared at the request of the Metropolitan police and prepared by the force's Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Advisory Group.

It studied the murders of 10 gay men and transsexuals between 1990 and 2002.

The report says that the investigations were hampered by the personal prejudices of police officers, a reliance on gay stereotypes and a lack of substantive knowledge of the LGBT community.

[dewdrop_world]

And we have addressed, repeatedly, how Dobson et al. do not MERELY state that homosexuality is sinful. If they stopped there, no problem, that's their opinion.

If in fact they just want to get across the belief about the morality of homosexuality, why do they go on to say things like... [see here (http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html)]

Just as a quick point of clarification... I don't mean this as a rhetorical question. I really would like an answer. Why is the smear campaign necessary, if their main intent is to state an opinion about morality?

I don't mean that as "you must answer NOW," just whenever you get around to it, simpleman - no hurry.

James

[Emproph]

Suede - Beautiful Ones
AqaPl5M77gE
la ~ la lalala la la ~ la~la~la.....

[simpleman]

Zerbie-

I never said you had malicious intent. I don't think you do. I don't want you to fear my rhetorical intent as some kind of subversive plot to expose you or paint you or undermine your intelligence. It's not wrong to want people to believe that Dobson is wrong. He is wrong, so I don't blame you for wanting anything that might undercut him. All I'm saying is that, in addition to bringing gays to full equality (even though we disagree on the extent to which gays don't have rights), you want this bill to be a public expression of homosexuality as a recognized "group" within society. If there is a bill, on the books, that says "gays shall be recognized as an 'official' group in society" then the words and actions of the likes of Dobson/Robertson/etc. will be severely undermined. Their whole spiel is "gays are subhuman wretches upon society". Even though there is no law on the books that says gays are subhuman, you feel the need for there to be a law that says that gays are definitely not subhuman. I apologize for "lying to you about yourself" even though I still think that using "lying" is quite strong, because I still believe it to be true. I'm not trying to lie to you. If it comes out that I'm wrong, then you can call me a liar, but I don't think we'll know for a loooong time.

Daniel-

We could go on for the rest of our lives with this. "You just don't get it". "No, Daniel, you just don't get it". "No, simple, you just don't get it." The bottom line is that you look for the worst in these things. Instead of just living with me and the beliefs that I have, you absolutely have to turn it into a "this guy is hurting us" thing. I'm not hurting you. I have done nothing in my life to deny gays rights. I believe it's wrong, but I don't let that affect the way I vote, or the way I think about legislation. If a bill came out that said "Gays can have civil unions" I would not oppose it. I don't believe it's right, but from a legal perspective, I'm okay with it. My opinions on the subject, when kept away from the legal sphere, do you no harm, yet you continue to accuse that me having my opinion somehow infringes on your rights. Furthermore, you work so hard to read the worst connotations into every word I write and every move I make. If I don't answer every question it's "this guy is wrong so he is dodging questions". If I say "I believe homosexuality is wrong" it's "oh, well he must be vicariously at fault for hate crime because belief that homosexual activity is sin is the cause of hate crime itself." And finally, you ask me a "gloves-off" question in the same post as a hard-hitting question, and I choose to go "gloves-off" and then later try to twist it back against me in another post is, wow, I can't even describe how low that is. This very behavior and attitude is the reason that the whole "gay movement" can't win the compassionate conservative set over to your cause. It's because you won't let them live with their beliefs, but rather you have to try and guilt them into changing something about their moral fibers, citing only that they "don't get it". Continually trying to guilt-trip me into changing my beliefs 180 degrees on something just by saying that I don't get it really doesn't get anyone anywhere. But then again, my opinions and what not aren't welcome here anyway. I'm free to disengage.

dewdrop_world

I read that site. Those guys are wrong to say some of those things, and sometimes they are just plain wrong. However, there wasn't anything overtly violent in there. I mean, I guess I wasn't reading for violence, but it didn't seem like anything in there suggested or condoned violence against gays. It just said some pretty out-there stuff. Certainly this is not a reason for a full-out piece of legislation.

To anyone I missed and Daniel,

I'm sorry I didn't get to it. I probably won't. I'm leaving the country later today, and I will be gone for 12 days. You can choose to believe that story or not (Daniel). Upon my return, this thread will probably be dead anyway, so I guess I won't post on it.

Finally, if I don't ever return, thanks to all for an interesting and informative little while on this board. I'm glad I got the chance to talk about all this stuff with everybody. God bless everybody, and good night.

[NathanATX]

Zerbie-

I never said you had malicious intent. I don't think you do. I don't want you to fear my rhetorical intent as some kind of subversive plot to expose you or paint you or undermine your intelligence. It's not wrong to want people to believe that Dobson is wrong. He is wrong, so I don't blame you for wanting anything that might undercut him. All I'm saying is that, in addition to bringing gays to full equality (even though we disagree on the extent to which gays don't have rights), you want this bill to be a public expression of homosexuality as a recognized "group" within society. If there is a bill, on the books, that says "gays shall be recognized as an 'official' group in society" then the words and actions of the likes of Dobson/Robertson/etc. will be severely undermined. Their whole spiel is "gays are subhuman wretches upon society". Even though there is no law on the books that says gays are subhuman, you feel the need for there to be a law that says that gays are definitely not subhuman. I apologize for "lying to you about yourself" even though I still think that using "lying" is quite strong, because I still believe it to be true. I'm not trying to lie to you. If it comes out that I'm wrong, then you can call me a liar, but I don't think we'll know for a loooong time.

Daniel-

We could go on for the rest of our lives with this. "You just don't get it". "No, Daniel, you just don't get it". "No, simple, you just don't get it." The bottom line is that you look for the worst in these things. Instead of just living with me and the beliefs that I have, you absolutely have to turn it into a "this guy is hurting us" thing. I'm not hurting you. I have done nothing in my life to deny gays rights. I believe it's wrong, but I don't let that affect the way I vote, or the way I think about legislation. If a bill came out that said "Gays can have civil unions" I would not oppose it. I don't believe it's right, but from a legal perspective, I'm okay with it. My opinions on the subject, when kept away from the legal sphere, do you no harm, yet you continue to accuse that me having my opinion somehow infringes on your rights. Furthermore, you work so hard to read the worst connotations into every word I write and every move I make. If I don't answer every question it's "this guy is wrong so he is dodging questions". If I say "I believe homosexuality is wrong" it's "oh, well he must be vicariously at fault for hate crime because belief that homosexual activity is sin is the cause of hate crime itself." And finally, you ask me a "gloves-off" question in the same post as a hard-hitting question, and I choose to go "gloves-off" and then later try to twist it back against me in another post is, wow, I can't even describe how low that is. This very behavior and attitude is the reason that the whole "gay movement" can't win the compassionate conservative set over to your cause. It's because you won't let them live with their beliefs, but rather you have to try and guilt them into changing something about their moral fibers, citing only that they "don't get it". Continually trying to guilt-trip me into changing my beliefs 180 degrees on something just by saying that I don't get it really doesn't get anyone anywhere. But then again, my opinions and what not aren't welcome here anyway. I'm free to disengage.

dewdrop_world

I read that site. Those guys are wrong to say some of those things, and sometimes they are just plain wrong. However, there wasn't anything overtly violent in there. I mean, I guess I wasn't reading for violence, but it didn't seem like anything in there suggested or condoned violence against gays. It just said some pretty out-there stuff. Certainly this is not a reason for a full-out piece of legislation.

To anyone I missed and Daniel,

I'm sorry I didn't get to it. I probably won't. I'm leaving the country later today, and I will be gone for 12 days. You can choose to believe that story or not (Daniel). Upon my return, this thread will probably be dead anyway, so I guess I won't post on it.

Finally, if I don't ever return, thanks to all for an interesting and informative little while on this board. I'm glad I got the chance to talk about all this stuff with everybody. God bless everybody, and good night.

You wouldn't be intimately related to a Simon or Sammy, would you? Like in the same body, perhaps?

[Dash]

Let's let this thread die. :) Pleeeeeaase.:love:

Here...give me the spray Thread-O-cide...

Ssshhhhhtttttttt! Squirrrt...squirrrrttt....

:smashy:

:wave:

[Daniel]

Daniel-

We could go on for the rest of our lives with this. "You just don't get it". "No, Daniel, you just don't get it". "No, simple, you just don't get it." The bottom line is that you look for the worst in these things. Instead of just living with me and the beliefs that I have, you absolutely have to turn it into a "this guy is hurting us" thing. I'm not hurting you. I have done nothing in my life to deny gays rights. I believe it's wrong, but I don't let that affect the way I vote, or the way I think about legislation. If a bill came out that said "Gays can have civil unions" I would not oppose it. I don't believe it's right, but from a legal perspective, I'm okay with it. My opinions on the subject, when kept away from the legal sphere, do you no harm, yet you continue to accuse that me having my opinion somehow infringes on your rights.


Yep Simpleman,

You are free to disengage. And maybe it's time.

From my point of view, you've only had to say one thing to say here- which can be boiled down to this:

"I Simpleman- have the right as a citizen of these United States of America- under our constitution- to believe and think of you (insert name of any GLBT person) as a sinner who God condemns. You can't- and should not do- anything about this. It is my right to think as I do."

And you know what? You are right! No one can do anything about it except you.

(the first time I wrote except it came out accept...isn't that interesting?)

You've made a great effort, I can see that. And you've made it clear, repeatedly, that you mean GLBT persons no harm, and will not stand in the way of gay rights (I have doubts about that actually, but I digress).

Ah....but you will hold on to your little corner of hate, won't you? That's what it is you know. A little corner of hate. Want to know what it looks like in action? Just look at this thread.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=29562#post29562

Cooked up fresh this morning out of the ovens of ignorance and misinformation.

See the damage that it causes?

~

You worry so much that you are being guilted into something. But your actions speak for themselves: you cling to your 'belief' that gay people are sinful creatures condemned by God (let's not dance around this, Ok? Let's call it for what it is for a change) so strongly that you can't see things for what they are.

Hate blinds one real good.

As a case in point, your reply to Dewdrop reveals that you can't see what's before your eyes in the link provided. Those people are just saying 'pretty out there stuff'. Since you would never say anything like that, it doesn't matter. So you just batted his question away like a pesty fly.

And then we have this:

"I read that site. Those guys are wrong to say some of those things..

Some of those things?

Pray tell. Which of the things do you agree with? (I mean this rhetorically...no need to answer...I have a good imagination.)

I have no doubt that you are a good person. Or at least try to be. Really. I don't doubt that. But good and well-meaning people can belief things which are not true. And the belief that God condemns GLBT persons is simply not true. It's high time that you got off your duff and did the hard work of figuring out why you believe this (something tells me you probably have the big ol' ick factor thing going on- that and the clobber verses)- and why it is not true- instead of coming to forums like this to defend such thoughts. That kind of thinking will always be challenged here.

Always.

~

In deference to our resident poet, I will say no more......promise. And my fingers are not crossed behind my back.

God Bless You Simpleman.

[NathanATX]

I'm locking this thread for a 3-day cool down period.

[ladyinred]

Response to Dash by ignorant person,"You made a compelling case that you are in need of therapy or medication, you didn't make a case for a law to make you feel better about yourself." Dash, they do that on forums, these are many times overtly hostile people who don't care about your feelings and are just plain asinine. No logic , no reason , no dialogue only name calling and saying you need to "man up" that is so lame , (he probably isn't much of one from the way he sounds)
You cannot have a conversation with these people because they don't know how to have any meaningful dialogue, I personally think he could use the therapy not you, perhaps he has some real deep issues that are not related to you. Don't let such a small minded ,petty person undermine you or make you feel bad, HE has the problem not you. (Thank God Dash isn't a "man" like that guy, meanspirited) these people alot of times play their head games and try to make you out to be a "psychiatric case," and it is pretty common for them to do it, I've seen it too many times on forums when you don't agree with them.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with your statements, the other guy could learn some lessons on communicating and dialogue without being spiteful or hateful.

[Progo35]

YAY!! Way to go house!

[Progo35]

Who said THAT????

[Emproph]

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c321/sidona_the_minx/stats.jpg


Joe just posted this over at "replace the lies with truth (http://joebrummer.com/WordPress/?p=678)"

yjZuJQ6XPhI

Not that anyone should "follow" polls, but it certainly paints a different picture than the right-wing-nuts would have us believe.

[antonyh]

If you have not had a chance to write a letter, email or call your Senators about the Hate Crimes Bill, I encourage you to take action:

http://www.hatecrimesbill.org

I can assure you that the Religious Right is aggressively contacting their Senators. It seems that a new blog entry or Web site from the opposition goes up every day. This is holy war for them.

There have been a significant number of hate crimes since the Hate Crimes Bill passed the House. You can read about them at the site above as well.

[antonyh]

A new report released by the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School shows that crime rates against lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are comparable to other groups already covered by federal hate crime laws. The “Comparison of Hate Crime Rates across Protected and Unprotected Groups” shows that on average,

*13 in 100,000 gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals per year report being the victim of a hate crime
*compared to 8 in 100,000 African Americans
*compared to 12 in 100,000 Muslim-Americans
*compared to 15 in 100,000 Jewish-Americans

http://www.hatecrimesbill.org/2007/06/comparison_of_h.html

[antonyh]

The Southern Baptist Convention officially passed a resolution today opposing hate crimes legislation:

"All of the resolutions approved in the morning gained unanimous or nearly unanimous approval. In addition to the child abuse resolution, messengers approved statements:

...voicing opposition to hate crimes legislation that includes homosexuals and transgendered persons as protected classes and encouraging President Bush to veto any such bill that Congress passes."

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=25852

[Zerbie]

It amazes me that anyone can oppose this and still live with themselves. I still don't get it.

:confused:

Thank you SO much for taking up this cause, Antony. Bless you. :love::pray:

[antonyh]

It amazes me that anyone can oppose this and still live with themselves. I still don't get it.

:confused:

Thank you SO much for taking up this cause, Antony. Bless you. :love::pray:

I just don't get it either. Anyone with a basic understanding of their faith would know that all people are made in God's image and that God calls us to protect human life. It is so basic. How can Southern Baptists put their pursuit of the 'culture war' over such basic justice? If any issue shows the total moral, theological and spiritual bankruptcy of the Christian church, it is the hate crimes bill.

Thank you for all your hard work on the issue too. I believe that it will pass the Senate. I just hope and pray that President Bush will not veto it. It is hard for me to imagine that he would, but I'm trying to figure out if there is any political reason he might veto the legislation. The right is angry at him for the immigration bill so maybe vetoing this would throw them a bone.

[Zerbie]

I just don't get it either. Anyone with a basic understanding of their faith would know that all people are made in God's image and that God calls us to protect human life. It is so basic. How can Southern Baptists put their pursuit of the 'culture war' over such basic justice? If any issue shows the total moral, theological and spiritual bankruptcy of the Christian church, it is the hate crimes bill.

Thank you for all your hard work on the issue too. I believe that it will pass the Senate. I just hope and pray that President Bush will not veto it. It is hard for me to imagine that he would, but I'm trying to figure out if there is any political reason he might veto the legislation. The right is angry at him for the immigration bill so maybe vetoing this would throw them a bone.

Yes, and we have this abandonment of faith to thank for the fact that no one has been able to get me inside a church without paying me since I was about 10 or so. (Well, I went on purpose two times, each time to a gay-friendly church. . . but that's OT.)

As for Bush, my concern is that he may veto it out of his own ideological belief system. He doesn't show any sign of caring about opinion polls, he'll do what he wants to do. If he wants to veto it, he'll do so.

[BrentRichards]

... and yet they aren't advocating change to the existing hate crimes laws to remove themselves (religion) as a protected class ... what a surprise!

[antonyh]

Yes, and we have this abandonment of faith to thank for the fact that no one has been able to get me inside a church without paying me since I was about 10 or so. (Well, I went on purpose two times, each time to a gay-friendly church. . . but that's OT.)

As for Bush, my concern is that he may veto it out of his own ideological belief system. He doesn't show any sign of caring about opinion polls, he'll do what he wants to do. If he wants to veto it, he'll do so.

I hear you on the church thing. Wouldn't it be great if President Bush simply did the right thing.

[antonyh]

Minister Harry Jackson recalls being told about the black men who were lynched near his home in Florida in the 1950s and his family's flight to Ohio after a state trooper threatened his father at gunpoint for helping blacks register to vote.

"That was a real hate crime," Jackson says.

Crimes such as those spurred black ministers to join the civil rights movement of the '50s and '60s, which led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Today, Jackson, pastor of the Hope Christian Church in Lanham, Md., leads a movement against what gay activists say is their civil rights act: the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.

Jackson and more than 30 ministers say the law could prevent clergy from doing what their civil rights forebears did: preach against immoral acts. "We believe there is an anti-Christian muzzle-the-pastor kind of feeling behind this kind of law," Jackson says. "I need to be able to preach that adultery, fornication, straying from the way of the Lord is wrong."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-06-15-hate-crimes_N.htm


Wayne Besen takes this on here:
http://www.waynebesen.com/2007/06/rev-harry-jacksons-hate-speech.html