White House Issues Veto Threat Against Gay Hate Bill

[Rick336]

White House Issues Veto Threat Against Gay Hate Bill
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 3, 2007 - 11:00 am ET

(Washington) Just hours before the House votes on the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act the White House issued a statement saying that if the bill passes the House and Senate and goes to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto it.

A statement from the Executive Office of the President said: "The Administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion, or national origin.

"However, the Administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable."

The White House statement said that state and local criminal laws already provide penalties for the crimes defined by the bill and "there has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement."

On the issue of constitutionality the White House statement said terms of the bill could be enforced only "if done in the implementation of a power granted to the Federal government, such as the power to protect Federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce, or to enforce equal protection of the laws. [The legislation] is not by its terms limited to the exercise of such a power, and it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal grounds exist to uphold this provision."

The statement comes on the heels of intense lobbying by social conservatives for Bush to issue statement condemning; the bill.

The American Family Association sent an alert to thousands of its members calling on them to email and phone the White House to call for a veto. (story)

"The Hate Crimes Act criminalizes a vast array of state and local acts and threatens religious leaders with criminal prosecution for their thoughts, beliefs, and statements," AFA claims - something supporters of the bill and LGBT civil rights groups dispute.

Concerned Women for America also is calling for a veto.

In a letter to the President the group says "there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals or cross-dressers do not receive equal protection under the law."

Meanwhile, Judy Shepard, the mother of Matthew, was on Capitol Hill Thursday lobbying for support of the bill.

The Shepard Act, also called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, would allow the Department of Justice to assist local authorities in investigating and prosecuting cases in which violence occurs against people based on their sexuality.

Federal hate crime legislation already covers people on the basis of race and religion.

FBI statistics show that one in six hate crimes is motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation.

The hate crime bill passed the House in the last Congress but was dropped in the then Republican-controlled Senate last year.

Although the bill has bi-partisan support, with Democrats now in control of both houses in Congress it is seen as having a better chance of passage, but it is believed there is not enough support to override a veto.

The legislation has the support of LGBT civil rights groups and has been endorsed by more than 210 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations, including: the National Sheriffs' Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.

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


Contact the White House:
202-456-1111 Ask President Bush to support this bill.

Here's the link to the White House web site:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

[scorpiogirl]

That sums up how I feel, but I guess none of us should be too surprised by this. Bush and the Extreme Conservative Right go hand in hand.

[Zerbie]

O quelle surprise.

The language used opposing this bill makes me feel angry - how anyone could so blatantly lie is beyond me.

Anyway, I expected this conversation from the White House. Wouldn't it be lovely if we could override a veto?

Where does anyone get off saying the protections are NOT needed? Then roll 'em back on the basis of race, religion, national origin, and color. Seriously folks, either we all have the same protections or we don't. And unless religious leaders are beating gays with baseball bats in their pulpits, and stabbing gay folk to death is a "state act" these folks are fabricating opposition out of thin air.

Oh and I was gonna say: Scorp', nice to see you around again!

[tdogg]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Anyway, I expected this conversation from the White House. Wouldn't it be lovely if we could override a veto?

Z, how would that be done? We apparently have a few weeks to get busy. It's going to take calls, letters, emails, all of the aforementioned. Also, encouraging others to get involved. Everyone, on the mark - get set - go straight to those in power at the white house!

Any other suggestions? Maybe dig up any and all examples we can of hate crimes against GLBT? Include that in our communications?

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

The language used opposing this bill makes me feel angry - how anyone could so blatantly lie is beyond me.

I'm angry too. If the bill is vetoed, I hope there's a protest rally planned in DC because I want to be there.

Rick

[u-dog]

If this bill passes and is signed into law? it goes a long way toward establishing Class status for sexual minorities. If that happens then a lot of other legal dominoes could begin to topple too. It is REALLY important to the Theocrats that they NOT lose on this one.

[Zerbie]

Thanks for clarifying the point so finely Udog. That made it clearer in my mind. Of course, I was looking at the practical implications of having federal protections in place, not at the bill as a toppling of a theocratic agenda. It could be seen that way.

Who knows what the number requirement is to override a presidential veto?
Why not go for it? Lobby time!

Seriously, ask everyone you know to contact Congress and express support for this legislation. We ALL need to email, call, AND send old fashioned paper letters.

[u-dog]

it requires two-thirds in the House I think. both chambers? or just the house? I don't know.

[BrentRichards]

Two thirds in each house ... that would be 290 votes in the house (it got only 237 today), 67 in the Senate.

[Rick336]

Here's what Dobson says about the Hate Crimes Bill.

From Yahoo News:


Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, warned that the true intent of the bill was "to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality." If you read the Bible in a certain way, he told his broadcast listeners, "you may be guilty of committing a 'thought crime.'"


Rick

[BrentRichards]

Fearmongering jackass. Shouldn't he be citing George Orwell? Please.

[BrentRichards]

And, Rick, do you still believe donkeys can't talk?

[u-dog]

He is not ONLY a fearmongering Jackass.

He is also a LYING SACK OF SH** !!! You CANNOT tell me that he doesnt KNOW that that statement is total nonsense. He knows it is not true but he says it anyway. DOESN"T IT SAY "NO LYING" in the BIble SOMEPLACE? Isn't that like Commandment number 9?

CAN YOU SAY: Hypocrit? (can I spell it?)

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by BrentRichards

And, Rick, do you still believe donkeys can't talk?

Dobson has made me a believer!!

Rick

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by Rick336

Dobson has made me a believer!!

Rick

See? He's good, huh? He'll be happy to know he increased your faith [smirk]

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

O quelle surprise.

The language used opposing this bill makes me feel angry - how anyone could so blatantly lie is beyond me.

Anyway, I expected this conversation from the White House. Wouldn't it be lovely if we could override a veto?

Where does anyone get off saying the protections are NOT needed? Then roll 'em back on the basis of race, religion, national origin, and color. Seriously folks, either we all have the same protections or we don't. And unless religious leaders are beating gays with baseball bats in their pulpits, and stabbing gay folk to death is a "state act" these folks are fabricating opposition out of thin air.

Oh and I was gonna say: Scorp', nice to see you around again!

Originally Posted by Rick336

I'm angry too. If the bill is vetoed, I hope there's a protest rally planned in DC because I want to be there.

Rick

Hi Zerbie and Rick,

I understand how you feel, but the problem with not passing the bill lies with the way how our Constitution is written. It is true that our laws are not based on people's feelings, at all. The arguement that no groups need specific protection, comes from the 14th Amendment. Here is the quote from it:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

According to this section, all American citizens must be protected from murder, assault, vandalizm, or anthying violent that deprives people from life, liberty, and property. The 14th Amendment being the law, applies protection to all people regardless of who you are, whether White, Black, Asian, straight, gay, bi, man, woman, elderly, etc. That's why I don't see anything deceitful in saying because we have 14th Amendment, it would not need the Hate Crime Law. On the other hand, I know that various crimes, due to their severity have types of degrees, like 1st degree murder, 2nd degree assault, and so forth. I was wondering what if we just make all hate crimes a 1st degree? What would be so wrong with that? Also, I heard that Northeastern states and California already have hate crime laws, where sexual orientation is mentioned, are there any other states?

Blessings,

Simon

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Simon

Hi Zerbie and Rick,

I understand how you feel, but the problem with not passing the bill lies with the way how our Constitution is written. It is true that our laws are not based on people's feelings, at all. The arguement that no groups need specific protection, comes from the 14th Amendment. Here is the quote from it:



According to this section, all American citizens must be protected from murder, assault, vandalizm, or anthying violent that deprives people from life, liberty, and property. The 14th Amendment being the law, applies protection to all people regardless of who you are, whether White, Black, Asian, straight, gay, bi, man, woman, elderly, etc. That's why I don't see anything deceitful in saying because we have 14th Amendment, it would not need the Hate Crime Law. On the other hand, I know that various crimes, due to their severity have types of degrees, like 1st degree murder, 2nd degree assault, and so forth. I was wondering what if we just make all hate crimes a 1st degree? What would be so wrong with that? Also, I heard that Northeastern states and California already have hate crime laws, where sexual orientation is mentioned, are there any other states?

Blessings,

Simon

Welcome Simon.

Actually, what you've posted above suggests exactly WHY WE NEED federal hate crimes legislation: to ensure that ALL American citizens in fact ARE protected according to the above. Hate crimes legislation is not proposed in order to make a particular group feel "special." It's proposed as a solution to the problem of apathetic law enforcement NOT investigating or prosecuting violent crime, specifically because the victim belongs to a marginalized group. Local law enforcement still, too often, looks the other way when crime is committed against gay persons. Federal hate crime legislation will give the federal justice dept the power to take over when local law enforcement cannot, or will not, do its job. It's sheerly a practical step.

If you don't know that law enforcement turns a blind eye to certain populations (like gay people) then no, it is not deceitful to not see why the legislation is needed. That's just innocent and uninformed. What IS deceitful is intentionally LYING about the content and purpose of the law, to make a law that would protect the innocent and see justice done SEEM LIKE it would actually persecute the innocent. That is beyond deceitful. That is evil.

No where did I say that we should legislate feelings, btw. I simply mentioned that, as a caring neighbor, and citizen of these United States, I feel angry when those who know better go out of the way to blatantly lie, just so that a marginalized group of people cannot receive equal justice or protection under our government (because the reality is that the rights of LGBT persons are NOT protected or enforced. Ergo, hate crimes legislation is a provision to allow that they will be).