Matthew Shepherd Hate Crime Bill passed the senate

[Zerbie]

The hate crimes bill passed the senate today.

No comments yet?

[mjules]

What?? My news alerts haven't sent me anything! Do you have any links?

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

The hate crimes bill passed the senate today.

No comments yet?

woohoo!! what was the margin? any surprise votes?

[tdogg]

Yes, I read the alert this morning!!! It's great news! And it passed by a fairly good margin (39 to 60 I think).

So, now that Bush has vowed to veto it, are there any ideas on what we might do to TRY and change that? Is it a lost cause or should we proceed to do SOMETHING?

Luckily I live in a state that has reasonable US Reps and Senators.

[scrupulous_stoic]

I am writing a letter to Rod Parsley, who apparently is adament about how this bill will "cause the creation of a thought police."

Odd, I know.


I am glad, though, the bill passed.

[Zerbie]

RE: the President, I think that it is likely a lost cause but that it would be good to "do something" anyway. Old-fashioned blast of phone calls to the White House, maybe? Petitions?

The cries of 'thought police' about this legislation really irk me. The people doing that complaining really need to read the legislation. This is a GOOD bill. I've never supported a hate crimes bill before because I was concerned about spill-over into "hate speech" territory, but this bill specifically protects freedom of speech and association - which is why I personally got on board with the citizen lobbying and the phone calls. It protects our freedoms while also protecting the LGBT and other communities from hate violence by expanding the possibilities for investigation and prosecution. At the same time, it sends the crucial message that hate violence against such communities will no longer be tolerated - a message that needs to be sent.

[antonyh]

What a great day...we're so close to victory. I'm still plugging away at http://www.hatecrimesbill.org when I'm not slaving away at work.

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by scrupulous_stoic

I am writing a letter to Rod Parsley, who apparently is adament about how this bill will "cause the creation of a thought police."

Odd, I know.


I am glad, though, the bill passed.

Normally I wouldn't discourage anyone, but contacting Rod Parsley is not really a good idea. I know him from my years in Columbus - his World Harvest Church is in a suburb - and he is only about preaching a prosperity gospel. His message requires any number of less-than-human groups by which to spread his message of exclusivism and hate - and GLBT are at the top of the list. Women are also right up there, but that wouldn't be your concern.

If you show up on his radar screen, you run the risk of personally coming under attack - and I mean that to be sound as threatening as it seems. His reputation is one of being a pitbull when anyone crosses or disagrees with him or his "ministry" - all the while smiling that sickeningly sweet, used-car-salesman grin.

Rod Parsley is an advocate of thought police, actually - but those who would outlaw anything except thought that agrees with him. He actually "labored for two straight years" to "translate" scripture into the Breakthrough Reformation Bible - correcting the mistakes made by translators throughout the ages. He is his own idol, and does not tolerate interference from anyone.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by u-dog

woohoo!! what was the margin? any surprise votes?

Apparently Larry Craig voted against it (or maybe that's NOT surprising).

From Good As You, this guy's a frikkin riot. Every day, every post.

Well, we'll all have to stay tuned to see if the president wants to be remembered as someone who forfeited his opportunity to be a civil rights proponent, or if he wants to be remembered as someone who REALLY, REALLY forfeited his opportunity to be a civil rights proponent.

[efs5r]

From Schmitz Blitz

Senator Craig has apparently voted against the Kennedy hate crimes amendment, which would add gays to the federal hate crime statute.

If he voted against gays, he can’t possibly be gay, right?

Let’s see if the court reviewing his bathroom sex sting case buys it.

UPDATE: the hate crimes measure passed the Senate this morning by a vote of 60-39.

[Progo35]

Whew!!!! Hate crimes bill passed!!!!

[SomervilleGuy]

That darn Senator Craig is really the poster child for Denial, with a capital D - right up there with Ted Haggerty. I feel bad for them in a way, because they have a lot to lose by coming out. But yet, really, they have a lmore to gain too, most notably their own self respect, the respect of some of their constituency, and a clean conscience for once! But coming out when you are married and have a family is tough. So we should pray that they encounter good therapists that would help them come out.

But that Rod Parsley: "all the while smiling that sickeningly sweet, used-car-salesman grin." That was really priceless!! And he does it, all while he stabs the GLBT community in the back. When I saw his emails coming to my inbox, courtesy of my mom (thanks a lot, Mom!) I promptly flagged it as Junk Mail and checked "Block Sender". ANd that was that....

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by tdogg

So, now that Bush has vowed to veto it, are there any ideas on what we might do to TRY and change that? Is it a lost cause or should we proceed to do SOMETHING?
:

From what I read, the Democrats are using a bit of strategy by tucking this legislation in with a huge war spending bill. If the president veto's one, he veto's the other too.

Sounds like a game of chicken.

I expect he will shoot himself in the foot on principle.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by tdogg

Yes, I read the alert this morning!!! It's great news! And it passed by a fairly good margin (39 to 60 I think).

So, now that Bush has vowed to veto it, are there any ideas on what we might do to TRY and change that? Is it a lost cause or should we proceed to do SOMETHING?

Luckily I live in a state that has reasonable US Reps and Senators.

What is curious about the veto threat is that it is worded in a way that gives President Bush an out:

"If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend he veto the bill."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legisl...r1592sap-h.pdf

As Daniel mentioned above, the Bill is attached to the defense bill so it will be hard for him to really veto it.

I remain optimistic (or naive) (or in intentional denial)

p.s. An team of legal scholars wrote a rebuttal to the White House's SAP above which claims that hate crime legislation is unconstitutional. If you're having trouble sleeping, here is the rebuttal:
http://www.acsblog.org/criminal-law-...imes-bill.html

[Daniel]

Came home after work to catch Real Time With Bill Maher (HBO). The program....

9/28/07

Tonight on Real Time with Bill Maher, Bill will be interviewing award-winning filmmaker Ken Burns about his new PBS documentary The War and CNBC news Anchor Maria Bartiromo will discuss the economy. On the panel will be Georgetown professor and author Michael Eric Dyson, former editor of the New York Post and New York Daily News Pete Hamill, and Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL).

What was interesting (I tuned in late) was that Bill didn't quite get why we need Hate Crimes legistlation (!?!?!?!?). However, Micheal Eric Dyson and Rahm Emanuel hammered the idea home- repeatedly. Dyson made the point (his is black) that Hate Crimes legsislation is needed as was Civil Rights legislation; the Consitution in both cases not adequately protecting minorities. Emanuel reiterated that people still think it's ok to commit a crime against a gay person, and do so with impunity.

Then they went on the other things.

Kinda burned me up. Here is Maher, who has made a point of -seemingly- being for gay rights. He's always making jokes about how Republicans are hypocrites etc. Why doesn't he get it?

He thinks that the 'law' as it exists should apply to everyone. That would be fine in a perfect world. But it doesn't.

Fear and Hate exists. You'd think he would know this after being thrown off the air after 9/11.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Came home after work to catch Real Time With Bill Maher (HBO). The program....



What was interesting (I tuned in late) was that Bill didn't quite get why we need Hate Crimes legistlation (!?!?!?!?). However, Micheal Eric Dyson and Rahm Emanuel hammered the idea home- repeatedly. Dyson made the point (his is black) that Hate Crimes legsislation is needed as was Civil Rights legislation; the Consitution in both cases not adequately protecting minorities. Emanuel reiterated that people still think it's ok to commit a crime against a gay person, and do so with impunity.

Then they went on the other things.

Kinda burned me up. Here is Maher, who has made a point of -seemingly- being for gay rights. He's always making jokes about how Republicans are hypocrites etc. Why doesn't he get it?

He thinks that the 'law' as it exists should apply to everyone. That would be fine in a perfect world. But it doesn't.

Fear and Hate exists. You'd think he would know this after being thrown off the air after 9/11.

A lot of people don't understand why we need additional penalties for crime motivated by bias. I think a lot of that stems from the fact that they don't understand the special impact on the victims of bias crime and the community with the same quality of being. I think that is why Fredrick M. Lawrence's testimony before the House is so critical. He deals with this and provides the rationale for these additional penalties.

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdf...ence070417.pdf

I just wonder if Bill, et. al. have actually taken the time to read this kind of document and to think about it.

[antiochian]

Perhaps some of us need to start writing letters to Mr. Bush. I know the addy is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., D.C., not sure what the rest is. Of course, I doubt that the president really takes the time or has the time to read all of his mail, but writing is better than doing nothing.

Thank goodness for the M.S.A. passing!! What a comfort to Matt's poor parents, and an encouragement to GLBTQ Americans.

[Dumbledore]

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/t...?blog_id=15272

[tdogg]

I was wondering if combining it with DOD would backfire. Seems either way, it's destined to lose this time. It really needs to be a stand alone issue. I have to admire those who are standing on their principals regarding the war even if it means the hate crimes bill doesn't pass this time.

Does anyone know if this gets vetoed, how soon this could get pushed again? As the house and senate both approved, perhaps this is something we definitely want to get through for the new administration.

[Dumbledore]

Originally Posted by tdogg

I was wondering if combining it with DOD would backfire. Seems either way, it's destined to lose this time. It really needs to be a stand alone issue. I have to admire those who are standing on their principals regarding the war even if it means the hate crimes bill doesn't pass this time.

Does anyone know if this gets vetoed, how soon this could get pushed again? As the house and senate both approved, perhaps this is something we definitely want to get through for the new administration.

Yeah it may backfire in a big way. There is a related story. The radical right group Repent America just got a higher court in PA to repeal the expansion of their hate crimes bill that included sexual orientation and gender identity.

Commonwealth Court’s 5-1 ruling handed a victory to a conservative Christian group called Repent America who filed a lawsuit in 2005 challenging the amendment of the state hate-crimes law in 2002.

Repent America founder and leader Michael Marcavage and others affiliated with the group argued that the amendment was passed unconstitutionally because it was inserted into legislation that was originally a bill concerning agricultural vandalism and crop destruction.

Judge James Gardner Colins wrote in the majority opinion that the final legislation bore no resemblance to the original bill by the time it was passed and signed into law by then-Gov. Mark Schweiker.

“We emphasize that no matter how salutary the purpose of a bill may be, it still must comport with constitutionally mandated requirements for passage,” Colins wrote.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3665

This maneuver with the federal hate crimes bill may be bad long term strategy.