Please consider helping pass the Hate Crimes legislation

[kevinbgoode]

I received an email this afternoon from the Human Rights Campaign concerning the barrage of anti-gay mail being received by the Senate concerning the pending hate crimes legislation. The rhetoric of the wacky Right has attempted to completely mischaracterize the legislation, removing portions of it and whining to their sheeple that their "religious freedom" is in danger if this bill is passed.

Their leaders know this is not true. But their depiction should be a warning to all of us that their fear isn't the expression of disapproval of gay Americans - their fear is that they cannot escalate that disapproval into enraged violence. We've seen what the religious extremists did in Jerusalem and in Moscow - and how recently in Boston a few Russian visitors attempted to convince the Right that they need to promote bullying (as if they need anyone else to encourage what they've already been doing in this culture.)

HRC has posted a video commercial on youtube. The latest available polls of the American people indicate 2/3 of the population supports this legislation. We cannot afford to let the fear-and-smear minority of the Right manufacture the bulk of the messages our Senators receive from the public.

Please consider taking a few minutes to watch this video and follow the instructions to send a simple message to your Senators. If we want this nation to take a new direction, we must be willing to show Congress that we care about this legislation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOqlrHgrSgc

HRC should have a link to the text of the Matthew Shepard Act, including the wording which reiterates religious freedom. Don't let the Right sabotage another piece of legislation through another set of outrageous lies.

Thank you.

[MNDemNY]

1. Maybe we should think long and hard

before criminalizing thought.:shrug:

[Kingshakabobo]

4. Well then it's a good thing we are NOT criminalizing thought.

That's a silly right-wing talking point. I know it, most here on DU know it, the ACLU knows it.......why don't you? Where have you been?

No one is seeking to criminalize thought. Perhaps you can point to an example of how "thought", absent an actual crime, will be criminalized by hate crimes legislation. Is there any provision in the laws, that you can point to, that says merely "thought" alone constitutes a crime?

I submit to you that a MOTIVATION (that has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law) can, in some cases, call for stricter sentencing. Motive has never been required to convict, but when it CAN be proved it sometimes results in increased sentencing....See: murder for profit versus murder in the heat of passion.

[MNDemNY]

5. Motivation? bs There

are already laws relating to conspiracies, that require an act in furtherance. You can already by charged for civil rights violations. This is a very slippery slope, I understand the problem, but simply making prosecutions easier is not a good enough reason to criminalize thoughts, no matter how vile.

[dsc]

13. We punish motivation all the time in other contexts

Death penalty statutes have all kinds of motive based things. Kill for no motive, kill a witness to name two.

[MNDemNY]

15. Death penalty should go as well, Extra crime of

conspiracy to obstruct justice in your second example.

[MNDemNY]

34. Certainly these factors should

be taken in to account in sentencing, and judges should be given the latitude to do this. You see, we are not that far apart, we want the same thing, just a different mechanism to get there, without criminalizing thoughts and beliefs, no matter how vile.

[kevinbgoode]

84. How are the beliefs being criminalized?

If you believe you have the right to kill another citizen because he is gay and you do so, that belief should help protect your actions?

Then you are basically saying that criminals should receive reduced sentences because their "beliefs" dictated their right to kill someone who they were told was "immoral" simply because of his existence.

You consider anything else undue criminalization of those "beliefs." So you agree that a murder rap should be reduced to simple "manslaughter" if a defendant can assert his "deeply-held fundamentalist religious beliefs" as justification for the murder of a stranger whose only provocation was being perceived as a member of a group deemed "immoral." The judge should take that into consideration and protect that belief because anything else would be considered "criminalization" of that belief.

That is exactly how the system worked for decades. Murder became "manslaughter" because someone was protecting the "belief" they might get "hit on." Well, correction. . .usually only members of a certain minority group could get away with that "belief" protection.

But you are adamantly opposed to, say, a group of gay citizens having the right to randomly attack a straight white male because their beliefs (backed up by much more history) dictate he is a member of a group which attacks THEM without warning. The same equal treatment would assume that their beliefs, supported by scores of documented cases, would justify them receiving a reduced charge or sentence. Otherwise, aren't their 'beliefs" being criminalized?

[kevinbgoode]

22. Really...how many times have laws relating to conspiracies

been applied when an allegedly hetero white male whines that his murder charge be reduced to manslaughter because he killed a "faggot" whose existence meant he could hit on him? Is it not conspiracy to spend years cultivating a mindset in which certain people have the special right to destroy at will anyone they deem to be a threat simply because they exist?

You talk about a "slippery slope," as if American justice hadn't been on a slippery slope for decades when they would reduce the sentences of hetero males if they murdered an "immoral" person. . .whom, of course, the hetero males got to define as "immoral" according to themselves. Or the guys who got away with rape by claiming a woman asked for it because she had lipstick on and a dress? Or the ones who got away with blaming the black man for the crime he committed and that was all the white jury needed?

Whose thoughts and existence were imagined, criminalized and executed without even a simple hearing?

[MNDemNY]

38. Who is this "they" of which you speak?

[kevinbgoode]

75. THEY = judiciary. It is rather obvious in the sentence.

eom/

[Kingshakabobo]

27. Why do you bring up conspiracies?

Please don't muddy the waters by applying hypothetical crimes that may OR MAY NOT be punishable in a bashing/hate crime situation. IIRC, conspiracy requires more than one person........many hate crimes are committed by individuals.....but we need not go there.

You bring up violation of civil rights. Doesn't THAT require motivation or "thought crime" as you put it.

[MNDemNY]

29. No, the crime is the denial of civil rights.

[Kingshakabobo]

46. Please explain to me an example of "denying civil rights" in the commission of a violent crime.

Please, for this example, leave out the "under color of authority" provisions.

[MNDemNY]

54. Take for instance

the killing of the civil rights workers made infamous by "Mississippi Burning",Those perps were tried and convicted of violation of civil rights by a federal court when the state court would not convict (or indict) for murder.

[Kingshakabobo]

89. Why wouldn't that be simple murder? And do you think gay bashing should be a federal crime?

[MNDemNY]

7. What if some one commits a crime because they

hate people who drive fords, or people with red hair, My concern is were the line is drawn, and who draws it.

[Kingshakabobo]

23. Why don't we worry about fords and red hair when.......

......entire neighborhoods of red haired ford drivers start getting terrorized by assholes with baseball bats. Sorry, we are talking about real life crimes and situations. I have had friends victimized, I have been verbally harassed and I have had to ask that my boyfriend remove his rainbow flag from his car after he was chased by punks in another car.... because, unlike me, he probably wouldn't have it in him to run somebody the fuck over - if need be.

[kevinbgoode]

33. I'm with you on that one.

Maybe if we organized gangs of thugs and started terrorizing individual straight men screaming "fucking breeder" at them, they'd get the message.

I mean, WTF? Why should they feel any safer in this society than anyone else they've targeted over the years?

[MNDemNY]

40. "we" ?? "they" ?? Maybe you need to reflect a bit.

[kevinbgoode]

59. I've reflected more than long enough

And I've known victims of those crimes. People who were doing nothing more than walking down the damn street.

No civil rights violation charges filed, though. Intimidation is perfectly irrelevant when the right of the straight white male bully to act on thoughts of intimidation is of the highest concern for "protection."

The solution seems to be the institution of groups of gays who prey on individual straight white men and behave in the same manner. After all, it's just an assault - they were straight and a member of a group with a history of intimidation laws and behaviors and instigating fear in others. Maybe we can get it reduced to. . .say. . .self-defense. After all, their presence on the street is threatening. . .right? I mean, they were walking down the street and are a member of that minority group - isn't that enough reason?

I know very few women who will go out alone after dark. Care to explain how the judicial system allowed that to happen?

[MNDemNY]

61. I hope you are being sarcastic to

make a point, if not, how would you justify that?

[kevinbgoode]

69. "Straight panic"

Plain and simple. After all, hasn't the judicial system recognized "gay panic" as a legit defense before?

Why wouldn't someone take preventative measures to protect themselves from a member of a group known for a history of violent attacks? Are straight white men the only people in this country entitled to be treated as individuals? Why shouldn't they get a chance to be subjected to their own minority status?

Isn't that the same rationale introduced in courtrooms every time a gay man is beaten to death by a group of heterosupremacists? They were just protecting the golden peepee? And that defense would never be introduced if there wasn't a history of some success with it - it used to be universally successful. Maybe not always enough for an acquittal, but surely enough for a reduction of sentence and/or a reduction in the charge.

I've lived and watched that history. When a judge rules in our favor, he/she is labeled as "activist." When the perpetrator gets off with a reduced charge, the judge is considered "moral."

Well, a system set up like that should be able to use the same successful legal arguments if the target group is changed.

Talk about slippery slope - this country allowed the justice system to take that slope from the beginning. It's just those who were victimized were justified by claiming they weren't citizens or were less than moral citizens - always defined by those who had all the power. Now you advocate that we "understand and educate" those who beat us to death, and then understand that it might take decades to convince those stacked in our legal system that we are supposed to be protected by the Constitution, too. Bullshit.

That dominant group tossed that Constitution aside for the rest of us a long time ago, and they are whining every step of the way when we ask for the recognition and the protection of the laws which are our inherent right as Americans.

[Kingshakabobo]

43. That bullshit argument is cut from the same cloth as the anti-gay marriage argument.

You know, "why don't we allow box turtle marriage."

It seeks to dehumanize and belittle the very real problem of gay bashing.

[MNDemNY]

47. I don't follow your analogy.

[Kingshakabobo]

83. Your red haired ford driver scenario serves to dilute what's REALLY happening to GLBT people....

[kevinbgoode]

85. I noticed that too. . .

and I wonder why it seems so important for these people to do that?

[MNDemNY]

171. "these people"

You,sir are assuming my argument has anything to do with "gay rights" it does not. Simple put thoughts, beliefs and ideas must not be criminalize. period. never. Don't try to drag my argument into a place that it is not. I support gay rights, and have done so probably longer then you have been on this earth.
So don't attempt to make this a gay-straight thing. I understand(as much as one can) your anger and emotion on this issue, your just wrong.

[kevinbgoode]

60. Really? How many women do you know who move freely

in their neighborhoods and cities and in bars and restaurants and walk down the street alone after dark without anxiety?

Weren't they already dehumanized by the failure of our system to effectively prosecute those who prey on them?

[MNDemNY]

62. Then let's effectively prosecute the laws we already have.

I still don't get your analogy.

[MNDemNY]

64. Also, if that is your point, what makes you

think any new laws would be prosecuted effectively?

[kevinbgoode]

72. How many laws are prosecuted that are NOT on the books?

Hey...it all makes sense. Straight men have to protect their right to intimidate and persecute others just because an individual might be perceived to be a member of a group a straight man might not like. . .and the others are supposed to "understand" that the straight white male judicial system will prosecute those transgressions even when they have a checkered history of doing so...or even recognizing the full citizenship rights of the others.

Right.

[Kingshakabobo]

81. I'm agreeing with you. I was expanding on my original point. I should have been moore clear.

[kevinbgoode]

86. Sorry. . .

My bad.

I am just appalled at how ridiculous some of these arguments are on this issue.

[kevinbgoode]

30. What if they started beating up white males at random?

What if women started shooting every man who hit on them?

You are so concerned about drawing the line, but where was that concern when the line had been drawn that only the word of straight white men mattered as justice in a courtroom operated by a straight white man. Was that justice for all?

We pretend that we can run away from our history. You start showing statistics in which people are victimized directly by other citizens simply because they drive a Ford and yes, the problem should be addressed. Free thoughts do not entitle a person to engage in intimidation which can threaten the pursuit of life and liberty of others. These are not simply crimes of violence - they are crimes of intimidation executed because of perceived membership in a specific group.

And worse, the history of prosecution and sentencing in this country shows a marked difference in how those crimes were handled when members of those groups were involved. Kill a homo? Well, it's only just manslaughter cuz we white christian guys know they are repulsive and immoral. Then it isn't real murder but understandable manslaughter cuz the golden peepee felt threatened.

Where was the outrage about those cases for decades? It sure didn't come from people concerned about criminalizing "thought". . .in fact, the court system was nicely set up so that those "thoughts" were celebrated. You wanna defend the right to "have those thoughts?" Fine with me - but when you use those "thoughts" as an excuse for the crime and get away with it, then there is a problem.

No group of Americans should have to feel a greater fear in this country simply because of who they are. And for decades, one group has gotten away with using their ability to issue violence at will as intimidation. Why the hell can't a woman go out alone after dark for a simple walk around the block? Why do they have to be escorted to their cars at universities after an evening class? Because someone's "thoughts" identify them as easier prey and there is a much more checkered history of justice in handling those crimes.

[MNDemNY]

35. They could be charged with murder.

[kevinbgoode]

39. Nope. . .it would be reduced to manslaughter.

After all, all they have to cite is that they felt "threatened" by a member of a group with a history of unprovoked violence.

Isn't that the way straight white men were protected when they commit such crimes?

[MNDemNY]

41. Your use of "they" is quite alarming.

[kevinbgoode]

73. They is a plural reference to a "group"

Turn your alarm off.

[MNDemNY]

11. Easy, the "hate crime" is separate charge from the , and I hate

to use the phrase, UNDERLYING CRIME.

[CTD]

49. WRONG.

There are already laws against committing violence, destroying property or harassing people. When one introduces the motivation behind the violence, destruction or harassment into the crime itself, then you are criminalizing thought.

And that's a slippery slope I do not want to go down.

[dsc]

53. No you are treating different crimes differently

It is a fundamentally different crime for a person to attack a person for being gay and getting into a bar fight. The first should be punished much more harshly than the second.

[CTD]

55. No, actually it's not. Because we don't know what inspired the bar fight.

What if one guy picked a fight with another guy because he was Irish. Or a smoker. Or has a mustache. Or was bald.

Are those hate crimes? In each case we're talking about some trait beyond the victim's control and that someone else could have a negative bias towards.

Violence is almost always pointless. And initiated by ignorant people.

Making one case of assault worse than another based simply on the motivation for the assault is absurd. Especially if we all want to get to a world where being gay is no bigger of a deal than being Irish. Or bald.

[kevinbgoode]

71. What a bullshit argument.

Is there some reason why you have to reduce the humanity of gay citizens to the "they have to live with the reality of abuse because they choose to be gay" mentality?

What a load of crap. Violence might be pointless, but it happens - and it happens to the extreme. How many people are beaten to death or tortured because they are Irish in this country? Because they had a cigarette? Are you denying the reported hours of beatings in some cases where the corpse continued to be attacked and the only excuse was that the person was gay?

That isn't merely getting into a "bar fight" because someone is bald. And that isn't the way things happen in these cases.

I have news for you - one case of assault IS worse when the group of perpetrators continue butchering and torturing and battering and beating the body long after the man is DEAD. Or hang him on the damn fence post to die - ever hear of that happening to someone in this country because he lit a cigarette?

I wish to God I have never put this on the forum. I am sick and tired to being treated as if my life is less valuable throughout the entire history of this damn country and then have people like you trivialize that history as if you don't have any responsibility for that damn behavior.

Apparently, only those who are members of the persecuting group understand the concept of "justice"...and they need the freedom to continue that persecution.

[MNDemNY]

57. Agreed, but that is a function of sentencing.

[dsc]

63. I can't fathom you would prefer to have one judge make that decision

vs a jury. I would perfer having these as elements to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[MNDemNY]

66. Why would you think jury would do that

Would the jury be anything but what you call"they"? We still have some control, though be it convoluted,control over judgeships.

[dsc]

82. because no less than the Supreme Court has ruled about this

There it was in regards to sentencing guidelines but the idea is similar. Factors of sentencing usually are determined by a judge with no firm legal standards, vs elements of a crime which have to be beyond a reasonable doubt. I would prefer firm, certain standards.

[kevinbgoode]

56. But you didn't mind when it was perfectly fine for the dominant

group to commit violence, destruction, or harassment with lowered punishments because. . .well, they were the dominant group?

Sorry - we can't run away from our history - nor the fact that some American citizens are forced to live in more fear than others and have less trust in a justice system which victimized them as much as the perpetrators.

The history has been that sentences were REDUCED when crimes were committed against members of certain groups of citizens, particularly if the legal system would designate the victims as "immoral." This country's history is littered with those events and pretending that those crimes are still not incited by those who wish to intimidate others is denying reality.

When the "gay panic" defense is still being used in a murder, there is no justice. How many "straight panic" defenses have been used in court because a gang of gays beat the crap out of a straight white man simply because. . .he was a straight white man? Frankly, they'd be more justified using the "panic" defense, given the history. However, given the makeup of the judicial system, the life of a straight white male is always more valuable than the life of any other American citizen.

[MNDemNY]

58. That, true as it is, must be addressed through education, or it will not stick.

[kevinbgoode]

65. That "education" does not save someone's life or protect their rights now

And conservatives have no intention of being "educated." In fact, they prefer the laws be changed to reflect whatever definition of "morality" best protects their trespasses and crimes.

I'm not gonna sit around and wait for one of you to console me when another gay guy gets beaten to death by a little gang of heterosupremacist thugs whose church or talk radio lives are filled with vile hatred as you tell me "we'll have to educate them." Yes. . .poor them. Let's reduce their sentence because they were just following their 'deeply-held religious beliefs" and we can't expect those to be subjected to the same justice under the law.

If that education hasn't happened in the past 230 years, when the hell is it gonna happen? I mean, it's all in the Constitution, right? WTF has been the problem then?

Allowing the government to investigate crimes which were motivated by an irrational hatred of a person simply because of perceived membership in another group is much less chilling than permitting the renewal of special rights laws which historically have protected the rights of ONE minority to terrorize others with a minimum of punishment. That minimum of punishment was encouraged by the politicizing of our court system and stacking it with members of that same minority group which perpetuated the violence against others in this society.

[MNDemNY]

67. I still don't see how new laws, that even you question

whether they will or can be enforced will change that.

[kevinbgoode]

74. Right....let's just do nothing, shall we?

After all, a law on the books will never be as effective as NO protection.

[kevinbgoode]

123. and it ain't a new law.

it's an extension of a law already on the books.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Maybe you should think long and hard.

[MNDemNY]

10. ??? Go on......

[dsc]

12. are you against current hate crime statutes

which protect on the basis of religion, race, and gender? If not, why not? If so, what, if anything, have you done to eliminate those laws?

[MNDemNY]

14. Yes, criminalizing thoughts is wrong. I lobbied

my Reps when those came up as well, we SHOULD prosecute for civil rights violations when they occur, but let's not stay on that slippery slope.

[dsc]

19. a hate crime is a civil right violation

[MNDemNY]

20. Correct, that's why we don't need more legislation.

[dsc]

24. except gays aren't covered under those laws

there are no such things as gay civil rights laws at the federal laws.

[MNDemNY]

25. Those laws are unnecessary as well.

I am of the opinion that our constitution protects gays, et al. Enforce the laws and the constitution fairly.

[dsc]

28. Too bad most people don't think that

of for that matter that it took the passage of civil rights laws to extend the 14th to even those that everyone agrees it covers.

[MNDemNY]

31. What is to be gained by these laws?

You certainly don't think this would have a deterrent effect, do you? Even the death penalty has proven to have little or no deterrent factor.

[gollygee]

32. These laws have cut down on lynchings of African Americans

they've done some good. They could do good for the GLBT community as well.

[Solo_in_MD]

44. Lynchings stopped well before hate crime legistlation

[kevinbgoode]

77. But not incidents of being dragged behind a redneck pickup truck.

Shall we wait until no more groups of wacky straight men beat a gay guy for hours beyond death?

[Solo_in_MD]

92. Thats quite a flaming non-sequiter you have there

The prior post stated that hate crime laws reduced the number of lynchings of African-Americans, which is blatantly untrue.

The murderers of Matthew Sheppard were all punished severely without hate crime enhancements.

Hate crime enhancements are inconsistently and capriciously applied, and IMO are thought crimes. I prefer instead a straight criminal approach. Torture someone to death and you go to jail for life WOP/get executed. Hate or not, the sentence should be the same.

[kevinbgoode]

97. They have life imprisonment, and they have tried to get that changed already

They also agreed to never talk publicly about the crime, and broke that promise as well. Does Wyoming not have a death penalty? Would they have had to carve up his body first...and then hang him on the fencepost to get to death penalty status?

Hate crimes themselves are capriciously applied.

But the execution of the crime is usually not the same in hate situations. There is usually evidence of additional abuse of the body, often disfigurement. . .

And it's strange that you don't accept that, in the past, the sentences have NOT been the same. In fact, the hate crimes were often reduced in charges or sentences - all the perpetrator had to do was claim "gay panic" or invoke deeply-held beliefs about immorality. And if the judge believed those same things, voila. No outcry from the public. No whining about denial of justice among the rest of the community. It was okay because the victim was gay.

Now we know those crimes were historically treated differently, and now you claim they should be treated the same, even though the same motivation is being used today to commit the offenses. So it was perfectly okay, in the past, to reward those beliefs for perpetrated the crime, but not to appear to "punish" them now.

This ain't a judicial system that just started up a year ago. Is there some reason WHY there wasn't a "straight criminal approach" or that it was okay to view one citizen's life as beneath another, so the perpetrator had a defense? How do you explain this to the victims of the past now and to those who remember them? You want the community that was treated this way to say "gosh. . .we have every reason to trust your motivation to provide justice for all when you have no history of doing so?" And then listen to the conservatives claim that any judge who treats us as less than second-class citizens is "activist" and should be removed and any judge who treats us as second-class is "moral?"

This is just not a simple black-white issue. Ideally, you commit the crime - you do the time. But that hasn't exactly been the way things are done in this country. If everyone was treated the same, there wouldn't be hate crimes going one targeting any specific people simply for BEING a member of ANY group, would there? Instead, isn't it rather ironic that the only group that hasn't been targeted is the same group dictating the solution as "everyone is equal,...othewise, you are punishing our thoughts?"

Well, it sure was okay to accept those thoughts as a defense, wasn't it? And if we don't continue to accept those thoughts, aren't we "criminalizing" them? So basically, if the defendant uses the 'gay panic" defense, the judiciary should consider protecting those thoughts and consider those in sentencing. . .otherwise we "criminalize" those beliefs.

It has been the gay community which has stood up to the miscarriage of justice. And THEY are the victims of these crimes.

Let's say we get a bunch of churches together, and buy up some radio stations, and start broadcasting every day about how evil straight white men are and how vicious they are and immoral they are and how they are going to destroy America and MUST BE STOPPED. How many straight men should be beaten to death by gangs of members of other groups before we recognize something happening that isn't going on for most others?

I'm not saying I disagree with your idea completely. I'm just saying that hasn't been the way things are in this country, and you'd have a hard time convincing me to trust the same people who perpetrated the obscenity of justice in the past are going to make things all good 230 years later - like they just discovered the concept of equal justice for all. Especially when the conservatives don't want us recognized as even second-or third class Americans and were perfectly happy with the "immoral" argument used as a defense for murder.

[MNDemNY]

45. I think education has done more

to cut down those things then any deterrent factor of laws. The same could go a long way here.

[kevinbgoode]

78. Well, let's just all wait until you educate the offending minority

which controls all of the institutions, about respecting other citizens.

[dsc]

37. among other things it would send a message

that killing gays is wrong.

[Solo_in_MD]

48. How would that be a different message

than murder is wrong?

[kevinbgoode]

79. How many white men are murdered because they are white men?

What are those statistics in relation to all of the other minority groups in this country? Why are theirs so much lower?

[Solo_in_MD]

90. There are no accurate statistics on hate crimes

since there is not an ccepted standard for them.

One of the issues I have with hate crime legislation is the capriciousness with which it is applied.

[kevinbgoode]

99. Isn't a hate crime itself rather capriciously applied?

Unless you are a member of the group which doesn't have to think about such things (as a victim), isn't it rather capricious that other Americans have to, especially when we've had a long history to "educate" and correct that problem?

The statistics available are reliable enough, though for the gay community they are generally still underreported. That is because those who are victimized live in fear of raising their exposure even more by reporting an act of violence - and then worry about being attacked again.

It's sorta like the way a woman used to be afraid to report a rape. Now why would a woman ever be afraid of reporting a crime? Because the system used to be exclusively stacked against her...and there were few safe places and little protection from the crime happening again.

It amazes me that you would be so concerned with the potential capriciousness of the application of a law (thought you cite no examples). . .and yet seem rather unconcerned about the way in which hate crimes intimidate entire groups of American citizens in a rather arbitrary and capricious manner.

Your concerns do not change the history of our judicial system, nor the way in which laws did not protect citizens of this country. But yet you expect these people to trust a system which has already treated them as lesser citizens to correct itself AND prevent the victimization of further citizens without any laws? So we should just continue honoring the deeply-held beliefs of those who think my people should be attacked at will and intimidated at random. And if they do so, they can even use those beliefs to protect themselves in court....you know, like they used to. . .back when we wouldn't dare "criminalize" the thoughts of the "moral" perpetrator, but would use the perceived "immoral" thoughts of the VICTIM as evidence to REDUCE the charge or the sentence of the perpetrator.

But heck, that wasn't capricious in nature at all. If we just continue to do that, we'll protect the right of those who want to murder the gay community in the same manner we always treated them - as more understandable criminals who don't deserve to be treated as murderers because, to do so, would use the law capriciously and criminalize their deeply-held beliefs.

[MNDemNY]

52. If someone needs to hear that

message, no law will send it.

[kevinbgoode]

87. Nor will any pretense of education while hundreds of

additional victims are stalked and assaulted and killed in this country...

[kevinbgoode]

88. What specifically is going to be lost? The gay panic defense?

Whose "thoughts" does this legislation threaten. . .and how?

[MNDemNY]

172. "gay panic defense" IS bullshit. But how does this

do anything to that?

[kevinbgoode]

36. Really?

The minute that is applied to gays, the Constitution will be amended by the Right. We've already seen that happen in a bunch of states - and people happily voted to do so. . .

Like the Right says, the Constitution only protects straight white men and those who had it amended to be protected. That is, in their words, what the Founders intended.

[MNDemNY]

50. Then the fight should be taken there.

Really, I'm with you, just not with "hate crime" laws. Peace.

[kevinbgoode]

93. Let's tell the thousands of future victims that maybe someday

we'll get the Constitution recognized. And that we're sorry that they were sacrificial lambs to protect the "beliefs" of those who were taught to kill them because they merely existed. Then we'll tell them we're sorry that we couldn't protect THEIR beliefs as Americans because the "beliefs' of the perpetrators were always much more important.

The hate crime laws already exist. Perhaps your points would be more understandable if you expanded them to include examples of how they have been applied in the past to OTHER groups or why it is adamantly important to exclude US NOW but not repeal the existing law. Have you used any examples where the law has been effective or ineffective? Where it has chilled free speech? Or is it only a threat now that they want to add sexual orientation?

[MNDemNY]

26. On a side note...

I will proudly match my gay rights support with any one. But, this has nothing to do with that.

[kevinbgoode]

76. You sure seem real trusting of the status quo

And I'm sure there's a good reason for that.

[MNDemNY]

16. And also, I don't think those laws protect anything.

[Solo_in_MD]

42. Concur

[cgrindley]

109. Yep

hate crime laws are unnecessary and a needless infringement into freedom of thought

[kevinbgoode]

115. What kind of "freedom of thought?"

I'm quite interested in this right to murder someone based on deeply-held beliefs that they should be murdered simply because they exist.

I'll bet you like that freedom of thought being used as a murder defense, too.

[cgrindley]

120. That's just ridiculous

Explain to me how a position that argues against the criminalization of motive is somehow equivalent to arguing that we should have the right to murder people.

I think perhaps that some people on this board are confusing establishing a motive for murder as part of a murder trial with some half assed and patently stupid idea that the motive itself should be a crime.

All of these idiotic hate crime laws should be repealed.

[kevinbgoode]

128. How, exactly, is the motive criminalized?

And the argument that the right to murder has been used successfully in American courts as a defense. What do you think the "gay panic" defense is all about? It is the establishment that it was morally justified to commit a murder because the perpetrator perceived that someone might "hit on him."

Now how does that translate to the "motive" being criminalized at the time the crime is committed? Well, if someone is with his buds and they wanna go out and "kill a fag" cuz they are "disgusting and immoral and God said they are going to hell," that was considered an acceptable motive. Oh, there was punishment - but the MOTIVE was rewarded with reduced sentences or charges.

How could that have possibly happened in our justice system?

So tell us exactly how your thoughts will be "criminalized" by adding sexual orientation to existing laws. And give us some specific examples of how these laws have been used to "criminalize" the thoughts of others in the other protected categories. And then, please do explain that these laws were never necessary because the people running the judicial system always treated every citizen as equal and those on the victim end of these crimes should have every confidence that the same system will protect us equally today.

[cgrindley]

133. Ummm... my thoughts won't be criminalized

as I'm not planning to murder anyone, gay or straight.

Let me state again that the existing hate crime laws should all be repealed. No new ones should be created.

And yes, that gay panic crap bugs me just as much as the mis-andrist pre-emptive murder of an "abusive" spouse defence, but those are matters that should have been appealed and dealt with properly by the courts.

I guess I do have a question for you... Do you have a problem with diminished responsibility or temporary insanity defences, as technically speaking, that's what the gay panic defence is. Or perhaps you don't consider homophobia to be a proper phobia but a voluntary state of intense dislike or disgust?

[kevinbgoode]

150. Yes I do. Because I have not seen anything which indicates

that "gay panic" is an uncontrollable or even natural reaction, rather than a taught one. Since that defense has been exclusively used by heterosexual males, I suspect it is much less about insanity and much more about how heterosexual men are not very disciplined about sexuality at all - and are socially encouraged to think about and consider sexuality in every person they encounter and more often judge them on their sexual value. That isn't exactly a normal state for many other people and not exclusive for heterosexual men, either. But it is much more common in that group - common enough that they consider it "natural."

That isn't temporary insanity. Their willingness to murder someone else for an alleged proposition isn't logical to begin with - if women were socialized in the same manner, a lot of straight men wouldn't make it out of a bar alive.

It is a bogus defense on many levels. It is hard for me to believe that a man who is taught to consider each human in a sexual manner is suddenly "insane" when faced with one who is gay. I suppose I could believe there could be a natural feeling of intense dislike, but everyone has feelings of dislike and manage them without violence. But in matters of sexuality, most men are taught that expressing their approval/dislike is perfectly fine and have little social reinforcment for controlling that expression. But if they are adults, that IS their responsibility - in their conduct with ANYONE.

Homophobia is almost certainly taught. A child has no fear of gay people - that anxiety only appears during puberty and then is reinforced by society and/or a wingnut church, or in the most unfortunate state, a very negative or exploitative experience.

Most homophobes I have met only express their disgust when fantasizing or imagining certain physical acts between people. They are certainly capable of not letting their minds go there - in fact I have yet to find a "religious" belief (beyond the Religious Right) which believes everyone has the right to imagine the sexual activities of their neighbors. That comes from their own mind, and sometimes through the teachings of others who promote hatred for profit. Most certainly that is exploited by certain elements of the Right, who then pretend they have no responsibility. As for the individual, he most certainly knows where he lets his mind go - and usually whether it is supported by any fact.

As for "diminished responsibility" that is just as insulting a defense. An adult is an adult. . .and in matters of sexuality, an adult who freely talks about and expresses his attractions has little ground claiming he can't handle others expressing them in the same manner.

[cgrindley]

170. I can totally respect your views and for the most part agree

I too believe that homophobia is not an actual phobia, nor do I believe that it is based on fear, but instead is a learned hatred. Religion, obviously, bears much responsibility for this hatred, but it should also be conceded that the intimate nature of other people's sex lives (although none of anyone's business) are, nevertheless, matters which many people prefer to remain private (both Hetero and Homo). I, for example, phoned the police on my neighbors having sex in their car which was parked on the street. They were straight and that sort of behavior is not acceptable in public.

As far as diminished responsbility goes, that's just legal jargon for "the insanity defence". And it is a valuable and long-standing defence in certain cases.

But we can't have it both ways. Either homophobia is a real fear of homosexuals and the diminished responsibility defence applies, or homophobia is not a phobia or a fear at all, but merely a learned hatred of homosexuals, and is therefore not subject to the diminished responsibility defence.

If it is an actual phobia, then, likewise, the hate crime law would make no sense. Or perhaps about the same amount of sense as calling schizophrenia or some other mental illness or defect a hate crime.

Now, if it is a hatred of homosexuals, why should homophobia be subject to special treatment as a hate crime vs any other motive for committing a crime? Certainly, homophobia should establish pre-meditation in the event of murder, but I don't think that it should constitute a separate crime. Killing for money. Killing for "looking at someone". Killing for any reason... all equally wrong.

Neither would a hate crime law deter any neo-Nazi thug from gay bashing.

The only benefit I could see with expanding hate crime laws to cover sexual orientation would be to silence X'ians. I am willing to support the measure if this is its intended result.

[MNDemNY]

173. YES

[gollygee]

2. K&R

the rhetoric is indeed getting everywhere.

[ronhardy]

3. The Right-Wing Hates Gays

The right-wingers hate gays....just ask former Republican insider David Brock.

He was a Republican insider until they found out he was gay.

[MNDemNY]

17. I don't doubt that, but what does that have to do with this?

[kevinbgoode]

91. That's right. . .and we have to protect the Right's entitlement to hate

even when they translate that into criminal action. . .and then we have to consider their "beliefs" in understanding their motivation to commit that action - and if necessary, reduce their sentences so as not to "criminalize" their beliefs.

The victim, on the other hand, gets no hearing nor any protection of his/her beliefs. The perpetrator was allowed to criminalize the victim, dictate the judgement and commit the act. The perpetrator's beliefs only matter if used as a defense - and then they must be considered as part of that defense because otherwise the court is "criminalizing" them and the law is "punishing" them for their beliefs.

This, of course, is only allowed when the victims are of the approved targeted groups.

[porphyrian]

6. We need to fix our justice system, not simply create bandaid laws.

And hate crime laws are bandaids. They don't address the inequality of our judicial system, they make it worse. What we need is a system that will first prevent crime (punishment doesn't prevent crime), then treat ALL people equally with regards to trial and punishment. Right now, the system is demonstrably biased against non-whites, the poor and homosexuals (if not others). Let's actually fix this, not create more segregation and different treatment with regards to the law.

[MNDemNY]

9. Right on.

[kevinbgoode]

51. One constitutional amendment

There shall be no special rights or special treatment afforded any straight white male simply because of that identity.

[porphyrian]

94. Almost.

There shall be no special rights or treatment afforded any citizen over any other citizen with regards to the law.

We can't be treated equally if we keep making laws defining us as separate groups. Come on, you know that.

[kevinbgoode]

100. We've tried that route in this country, and it hasn't worked.

Conservatives love to throw around the word "moral" to explain why some citizens must be treated differently.

It needs to expressly address the minority group which holds the power and has been responsible for the misapplication of the law. Merely saying "citizen" means nothing, since some groups don't believe others are citizens no matter what the law says. And they demand their "thoughts" be protected and considered when they commit a crime, and our courts have often complied with that notion.

[porphyrian]

117. We tried energy conservation, too. Should we not bother with it now?

Creating more laws will not make those responsible for the "misapplication of the law" suddenly apply it correctly. That is why, as I've repeatedly said, the entire justice system needs to be fixed. Another law is just another for them to ignore or abuse, and it makes people who aren't directly affected by it think that the problem is solved.

[kevinbgoode]

122. And doing NOTHING will not change the misapplication of the laws either.

And it is the GAY community which has had to endure the fear, the intimidation, and the threats.

Lemme know when someone is murdered because they advocate energy conservation.

I don't view the loss of lives in my community by brutal and horrific beatings and murder as something trivial.

One thing creating more laws CAN do is offer more language to ENFORCE them. But this isn't a NEW LAW - it is an EXTENSION of an EXISTING law. So don't you think you should be railing about how this law hasn't worked with the groups now covered? Or is it only important now that we are about to be added?

[porphyrian]

137. I haven't suggested doing "NOTHING" yet. YOU are the one who keeps saying that.

And if you think this is my railing, you haven't read half of my shit.

What you are describing is terrorism, and there is already a law against that. Use it.

Sorry, no, that's metaphor abuse and irrelevant.

I don't view the loss of lives by brutal and horrific beatings and murder as trivial either. I just don't specify that they come from my community.

No amount of language will change how laws are enforced, if at all. That's an entirely different part of the justice system and an entirely different part of the problem. What's important to me is that we actually fix the problems with our system rather than obscure them with bad ideas and temporary fixes.

[kevinbgoode]

151. Terrorism was suggested in a Florida court case by the prosecutor

a couple of years ago. The judge refused to apply those regulations because, according to the law, only FOREIGN perpetrators can be considered "terrorists." Americans cannot be charged with it.

This was a case of a man whose personally selected religious beliefs led him to start casing abortion clinics and gay bars in Florida for bombings.

He couldn't be tried as a "terrorist" because he was an American citizen.

[MNDemNY]

174. The op seems blinded by rage. May he heal.

[Toasterlad]

95. Hi, Year 3052! This is 2007! Can We Talk?

It sure is great that you finally got everyone all nice and civilized and respecting each other and stuff, and nobody robbing or stealing or killing anybody else for any reason at all! That fixing the system thing really worked out great! I was just wondering if you had any tips on what we could do, like, NOW? Cause people are, like, DYING.

Including sexual orientation in the laws that ALREADY EXIST tells people that it's not okay to kill gay people because they're gay. I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but there are lots of folks out there who DON'T KNOW THAT.

[porphyrian]

96. Current laws aren't working so you think making more will?

Would you like a clue with your snark?

[Toasterlad]

98. Got One, Thanks! Here's One for You:

Bringing the gay community under the same protective umbrella that covers other minorites JUST TO SHOW THEY'RE EQUAL is just as important a reason for this legislation as any deterrent value, if not more so. But if it's a question of "laws which don't work" or no laws at all, I'll take the law, thanks. At least that way, they'll be precedent for an appeal when my small-minded, holy-roller local judge lets the guys who crippled my friend off with a warning.

[kevinbgoode]

106. Apparently not to them. . .adding gay people is an outrage

to these people - though they don't seem to be using examples involving other groups who are already covered.

[porphyrian]

110. No, you didn't get it.

Laws that create redundant punishment and reinforce our differences will not prevent judges like the one you cite, nor is pointing out our differences necessary in laws that apply to all citizens. I didn't say we should have no laws or broken laws, I said we need to fix the entire broken system, which includes laws, but not exclusively, and passing hate crime laws won't fix the problem. You are obviously passionate about the issue for at least one stated reason, but don't let vengeance cloud your judgment. If you want to stop hate crimes, minds need to be changed and the judicial system overhauled. That can't be accomplished by simply adding punishment for already-defined crimes.

[kevinbgoode]

119. When you get around to using the laws to protect all citizens,

then you can repeal these.

But don't tell my people to keep dying while their perpetrators face people like Roy Moore to sympathetically embrace their "thoughts" in defense of murdering the "immoral."

This "education" stuff sounds like a nice cop-out. How many more victims should be sacrificed while you try to figure out some way to make sure a nutcase doesn't listen to Michael Savage and decide to get his posse and go out and beat to death another "faggot?"

What I see here is much more compassion for the thugs than the victims. Their "thoughts and beliefs" are so important that, in the past, we let them get AWAY with the act - cuz the gays were immoral creatures who didn't deserve to live. Aren't those nice judicial decisions to read?

So let's make sure we protect those criminals cuz their rights are more important than the victims. And maybe someday we'll get rid of just enough of the perpetrators from sitting on the judiciary to figure out what we've done - if the Right allows the country to ever have a conscience. In the meantime, the victims will add on up every year and nothing will be done cuz it's just a little low priority - nothing like the need to replace those activist judges who had the audacity to say gays have a right to let their partners make a damn health decision.

yes. .. let's just wait. It is SOOOO very important to protect the "thoughts" of people who stalk us every day and it isn't important at all to consider the thoughts of the victims who did nothing but walk down the goddamn street. After all, they are "immoral" and that changes EVERYTHING. We'll have to punish the criminal..but...well, it's not such a bad thing to rid the community of one of those awful people.

Yea- we know how that story goes in this country.

[porphyrian]

127. When did I tell "your people" to keep dying, or anything else for that matter?

Reactionary much? I'm trying to help all of us, not just you, but including you.

Hate crime laws will not stop hate crimes. They won't change the minds of those who commit them, and they won't prevent hate crimes from being unfairly ruled over by bigoted judges. What they will do is distract many people into thinking the problem is solved when it isn't, which makes the problem worse. That's the cop-out.

You keep using the actions of judges to justify passing this law. That is a problem with judges, not laws. If you're going to pass more laws, why not pass one ensuring fair judges? At least you'd be addressing the problem directly.

I don't really know who you're ranting about, but it isn't me.

[kevinbgoode]

132. Do you have something to support that contention?

I read the same old arguments. It is "criminalizing thought" but no examples of how that has happened with the other groups.

Then it won't stop hate crimes, so we should just shut up and not have any extra tools at all.

Then the old "my life is worth just as much as yours" argument - which would be nice, except that isn't the way our legal system worked in terms of protecting gay citizens over the past few decades. Our lives were considered LESS than yours. And, I might add, for decades the only people speaking up about it were the gays.

Yes, the judges are a problem. And yes, the laws have been a problem.

This isn't a NEW law - it is an extension of an EXISTING law. It amazes me that the Religious Right is more protected than the gay community. . .and not one word on this thread about that reality.

[porphyrian]

142. OK, when you want to stop distorting what I've said, maybe we'll talk.

I am not the people you are railing against.

[Toasterlad]

121. Couldn't Hurt

I am passionate about adding sexual orientation to existing hate crime legislation because I'm passionate about EQUALITY. This legislation is most important to me because it represents another validation of gay people as respected members of our society, WORTHY of protection. I'm far more concerned about that then I am about any deterrent value this may or may not have.

However, the reason that hate crime legislation is needed is because a hate crime is not an attack on an individual, it is an attack on a community, and therefore needs to be held to a different standard. People who argue that hate crimes "punish thought" are being willfully obtuse at best, and blatantly stupid at worst. Think whatever you want; no one's stopping you. Hell, SAY whatever you want; you've got that right, too. But if you HURT someone because of what you THINK, then you're going to be punished for what you DID...and if you HURT someone because they're GAY, what you DID was assault and intimidate the entire gay community.

And for the record, I'm not speaking out of vengeance: my "crippled friend" was only an illustration of a point. I'm lucky enough to be physically intimidating to the point where cowardly gay-bashers tend to leave me alone, and fortunate enough to live in a fairly open-minded Philly suburb, so that there aren't many cowardly gay-bashers anyway. However, as I said in my first post to this thread, I HAVE been told "you're in the wrong bar" (by a WOMAN, who KNEW I wouldn't clock her like she deserved), and I have friends who've been chased by rednecks and badly scared. If you're a gay man who socializes with other gay men, you know many victims. Some have more visible scars than others.

[porphyrian]

131. How can you be more equal than "all citizens?"

There's nothing open to debate if a law includes everybody. Citizenship is explicitly defined.

You can't hurt someone because of what you think, you have to act on it to do so. Laws that apply to criminal actions are pretty much already on the books. However, you have a valid point about an attack that's perpetrated on an individual to assault and intimidate an entire community, and there's already a law against that - it's called terrorism. How ironic would it be to turn the "Patriot Act" against the bigots?

[Toasterlad]

143. Hate to Cut Things Short

But I have to go to bed. I'll leave you with this: if gay-bashers were tried with the same enthusiasm as terrorists in this country, I'd be perfectly content to throw hate crimes out the window. Sadly, gay-bashers are NOT tried as terrorists. And because there's currently no hate crime legislation protecting gay people, they're not tried as hate criminals either. They're tried as people-bashers, which, on the face of it, sounds nifty, except that all the other gays in the community feel that much less safe when they go out, because they know they're a TARGET, and nothing much will happen to their potential attacker (depending on the severity of the assault, of course) than maybe some community service and some probation time.

The last word is yours, my friend. But don't tell Atman...he seems like the jealous type.

[kevinbgoode]

165. "All citizens" doesn't include the ones who one group claims is

"immoral." Hence, the kinds of rhetoric from the Right about why the government MUST discriminate and how the "Founders" never intended for any laws to include rights for the homosexuals. An amendment saying "all the citizens" sounds real nice, until you realize that it gets circumventing any time someone wants to say that certain groups aren't allowed to be "citizens" or are "restricted citizens" so they are excepted from the constitutional protections.

You can't turn the Patriot Act against an American who terrorizes other groups of Americans. One prosecutor tried to use terrorism, but the judge immediately tossed that charge out on the ground that only "foreigners" can be considered "terrorists" or attacks that originate from foreign soil. Isn't that special? Right wing extremists wanted to make sure their actions were protected from that classification here at home.

[kevinbgoode]

144. I suspect some of the passion on the other side is

the outrage over acknowledging that we are full citizens of this country. I haven't seen one concrete example of their outrage over this law in its use to protect religion, for example. . .only repeated rightwing talking points about "criminalizing thought." Apparently thought is only "criminalized" when straight men might face additional punishment for targeting gays - and that is apparently reprehensible.

Then there are the idealists who say that everyone should just be treated equally - except they don't want to admit that hasn't been the case. When they do, they want to blame the judges and claim another "law"...apparently even an EXTENSION of an existing law. . .won't do anything to guide judges. The "everyone should be treated the same" sounds soooo nice...until you read the history. And then you see that they don't care when that hasn't been the case and haven't done anything about that not being the case. So the only solution they offer is that we should just endure and trust the system which has too often failed.

Now they don't seem too concerned about being accused of having "criminalized thoughts" about the Religious Right, for example. . .or about the Jews. But they are adamantly concerned about "criminalized thoughts" when it comes to prosecutions for bashing gays. If I didn't know better, I'd wonder if this was more about protecting the right to intimidate others rather than any concern about protecting the victims.

In other words, our lives are worth sacrificing if it protects their perception of "freedom of speech." So they worry about being criminalized for screaming "fuc*ing faggot" or "all fags will die" as they beat a stranger to death on the street more than protecting the thoughts of the victim, which apparently don't matter. And that, to them, is the same kind of crime as someone getting mad at an individual and killing them. There is no difference. When the crimes hit the news, there isn't a chilling effect or intimidation effect which ripples through the gay community, right? It's the same thing as. . .well, if someone murders his girlfriend in a spat, that means every woman in the neighborhood must be afraid the guy will get her next...
They claim it's all the same. And that even if the speech is intimidation, the victimized group must endure intimidation in order to protect the "freedom of speech" of the group perpetuating the intimidation.

In fact, that freedom must be allowed to be expressed in court. . .especially if it presents a "moral" reason for the murder of the person from an "immoral" group. And, lest we "criminalize" the thoughts of the perpetrator, those thoughts must be considered by the judge in possibly lightening the sentence or the charge. . .just like it's been done in the past.

Now some of them will say that they believe everyone should be treated exactly the same. Except it has never really worked that way, but they'll overlook that reality and we should just figure out some way, as a small minority, to get the judiciary changed rather than seek legislation protecting our right to live. Of course they believe a murderer should be punished. . .but, given the history in which some murderers of gay people have received reduced sentences and charges because...well, the gay people are "immoral" and therefore not quite as human as other people, they'll overlook that in order to ensure the perpetrators "freedom of speech and thoughts" are protected as motive. Just as in the past, they'll offer no outcry or outrage at those reduced sentences. They'll just say we are treated exactly like everyone else and every American has all the same rights - on paper.

Of course, we learned long ago that the only time we had all of the same rights was when we pretended to be heterosexual. Then it was like a brand-new world.

[kevinbgoode]

105. And why aren't those current laws working?

This should be good . . .

[porphyrian]

114. That wasn't my assertion, it the person I was responding to who said that.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm really not that crazy or entertaining. However, the reason laws don't work is that they aren't enforced fairly or equally or that they were created for political expediency. That's likely why we have so many stupid laws - if they were applied fairly and equally, citizen outrage would get bad laws changed or abolished.

[kevinbgoode]

103. hahaha...but...but we have to protect their right to BELIEVE

they should kill us. . .and then act upon it. And we should understand that if that happens, it's no different than some loon shooting people at random, even if they beat our bodies to a pulp and then disfigure them later, screaming epithets all along the way. See....Hitler's roundup of the Jews was the same thing as. . .well, exterminating a criminal for stealing bread.

You see, justice depends on us accepting responsibility for being targets because we are gay. . .if we aren't willing to accept that, it isn't fair to "criminalize" the "beliefs" of those who kill us at random because we are gay. We are just supposed to accept that as part of the territory - but not to worry - they believe very strongly that criminals should be brought to justice.

Now that would be the same justice they've used all along...for decades...with deep and reverent respect for the defense with those "deeply-held beliefs" that immoral people must be killed. And if their lawyer is savvy, he'll get them to trial before a Roy Moore type, who will rage against the deceased victim and reduce the charges and sentencing of the perpetrator because he did a "moral" service to the community. . .and then no one will be guilty of "criminalizing the beliefs and thoughts" of the criminal.

Of course, the victim gets no hearing about his/her "beliefs or thoughts," even if the last thing he/she heard was a ranting display of epithets so vile and disgusting that they echoed in terror through the last thoughts of his brain. Now even though he/she was just walking down the street mindin' his/her own business when the attack occurred.

So the argument is that we cannot "criminalize" the beliefs of "criminals" who might have a reasonable excuse for committing the crime - you know, like God told them to - but we'll make sure they are punished, with complete respect to their "thoughts and beliefs" - no matter how vile they are. They might get punished less...than other murders, like in the past. . .well, just because they are, after all, deeply held beliefs and doing anything differently would be "criminalizing" their thoughts.

[Atman]

154. STILL, you're problem is with the JUSTICE SYSTEM, not the laws as written.

That post spells it out all too clearly. You keep coming back to the same issue, and I don't even think you realize it.

You rail on and on about the judges ignoring the laws, or lawyers going before "Roy Moore types." That is the point, 100%. If they can ignore the law NOW because they're bigoted assholes, why will ANOTHER law make them suddenly compassionate? Why aren't you fighting for equal justice for ALL? Why are you fighting for some sort of equity in sentencing for ALL?

You refuse to answer that. You just keep coming back to dark history and bigoted judges. But your solution doesn't seem to be to call for equity in sentencing, instead you favor a law which provides extra resources for the investigation and prosecution of one particular segment of society and you insist on calling this "equality." But it's not a gay/straight issue.

We are seeing the same things playing out with Paris Hilton and Scooter Libby. The laws are/were specific in BOTH their cases, but judges and lawyers intervened (or want to). That is an unfortunate truth in our society. You're quite naive if you think yet another silly law is going to change any of that.

Re-read your post. You only go on about the sorry-ass judges and attorneys and the court system...so therefore, give them a new law to ignore. Good strategy.

.

[dsc]

18. Another video link warning graphic language and very moving

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVV0OAj9rkg&NR=1

[terrya]

21. Just in case anyone needs a reminder why hate crimes legislation should be passed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1147510&mesg_id=1147510

I've contacted my Senators about supporting this important piece of legislation.

[MNDemNY]

68. I hate to run, but I've got things to do.

Feel free to message me if you'd like further discussion. Thank you for your civility, and peace be with you.

[Toasterlad]

70. If You're Against This Legislation, You're Against Equal Rights for Gays. PERIOD.

We are not talking about creating NEW legislation. We are talking about EXPANDING EXISTING LEGISLATION TO COVER THE FEW MINORITIES NOT CURRENTLY COVERED. Whether you are in favor of hate crime legislation or not is irrelevant. It already exists. Your choice NOW is, should the gay community be afforded the same protections as the black community? The Jewish community? If not, why not?

I understand the reasons why people would be opposed to hate crime legislation. I BELIEVE I understand those reasons far better than the people who hold them understand why the legislation is necessary. And I'd venture to say that if you don't understand that an attack made against a gay man SOLELY BECAUSE HE IS GAY is an attack against the entire gay community, then you are almost certainly a member of the privileged majority, and sadly lacking in empathy. You've never been told, as I have, "You're in the wrong bar." You've never had to sprint to your car, as friends of mine have, to escape the rednecks who might - or might not - be chasing you "just for fun." You've never had to stop and think before putting a bumper sticker on your car: "Will this get me killed one day?"

If NOTHING else, this legislation says to the nation something that has yet to be said on any kind of federal level: "Gay men and women are a valued part of our country, worthy of the same dignity and respect that all other citizens are entitled to".

If you don't support this legislation, you'll have a tough time convincing anyone that you believe the above is true.

[kevinbgoode]

80. Exactly.

There is something rather interesting about the appearance of such adamant opposition when it comes to covering us.

[Atman]

102. Sure is.

Very interesting indeed.

.

[Atman]

101. BULL FUCKING SHIT

I am 100% FOR full rights for EVERYONE. NO SPECIAL CLASSIFICATIONS.

Got that? NO SPECIAL CLASSIFICATIONS OF PEOPLE. My family would be just as upset to find me tied to a fence and whipped to death as a gay man's family would be. Why should the crime be considered WORSE if I'm gay than if I'm not? I don't get it.

"Hate crimes" laws are total bullshit. There are already laws on the books covering virtually every possible circumstance of humans killing other humans. My sexuality should have absolutely NO BEARING on how I am treated by the courts. Period.

.

[Toasterlad]

104. That's For Sure

"My family would be just as upset to find me tied to a fence and whipped to death as a gay man's family would be. Why should the crime be considered WORSE if I'm gay than if I'm not? I don't get it."

Lucky for you and your family, you're NOT GONNA BE tied to a fence and whipped to death, since you're apparently not gay, black, Jewish...in short, a TARGET.

You're damn right, you don't get it. And you should get down on your knees every night and thank your GOD you don't get it.

[Atman]

107. How do you know I'm not gay, black or Jewish?

And why does it matter? If I'm a white straight christian, it's okay if I'm tied to a fence and beaten to death?

Gotcha. All men are NOT created equal, apparently. My bad.

.

[Toasterlad]

111. Oh, My Sweet Lamb

If you're a white, straight christian, it's FAR more likely that you'll be doing the tying and the beating...and the killing...than vice versa.

All men are DEFINITELY created equal. Sadly, all victims AREN'T.

[Atman]

112. Oh. I get it. So, you HATE white male Christians because they beat gays?

So then...as a white male (sorry, not Christian) I demand protection. You know, just the same protection gays want under the law. Do you have a problem with ALL American citizens being treated equally in the eyes of the law?

Just curious. You sure seem to HATE white male Christians.

.

[Toasterlad]

125. I Don't Hate Groups. I Hate Individuals. And Carrot Cake.

It's not hatred to point out facts. You seem to be looking for a fight; I'm not interested in a fight. I'm interested in, as you put it, being treated like everybody else. Specifically, I'm interested in NOT being tied to a fence and beaten to death, which we both seem to agree is bad. And as a gay man, it's more likely to happen to me than it is to you. So, I'd like it written down somewhere that it's not okay to kill gay men. I'm pretty sure that's not unreasonable.

[Atman]

130. It's not okay to kill ANY men. That's not unreasonable. And it's already LAW!

What am I missing here?

You think you're more likely to be tied to a fence and beaten because you're gay. Maybe that's so, but I haven't seen the research on that. What are the statistics for straight men/gay men and fence beatings? So, if for some bizarre reason it happens to ME, you don't think the offender should be punished as harshly, because I'm not gay?????

Is that what you're saying? I hope you'll clarify for me, because your particular brand of "equality" is confusing to this not gay man.

.

[kevinbgoode]

168. Maybe that's so?

You really are reaching for straws here.

And, of course, you already know if a gang of lesbians beat you nearly to death and tied you up to a fencepost to die, you'd be protected under the same extension of the law.

Sounds kinda. . .equal. Imagine that.

[kevinbgoode]

167. You already have that special protection. It's in the law now.

And that little privilege has been used as an excuse to intimidate those who aren't protected.

[kevinbgoode]

113. When you start being targeted simply because you are a man

or a white man, or a straight white man. . .and NOT for anything you've ever been or done other than that perception...come back and talk to us.

Well, apparently the courts don't agree that your sexuality should have no BEARING on how you are treated...because ours has been treated differently for decades - and conservatives continue to demand we be treated differently. And when there is a history of cases in which STRAIGHT men receive reduced sentences or charges BECAUSE they killed an "immoral" gay man, it's rather hard to come here and tell me that there should be "no bearing" on how you are treated. It ain't the reality.

Would your family think you were tied to the fence and whipped to death because you were straight? Or because you were a man? And would that make a difference to other men, or other straight people?
Would other straight people suddenly become more concerned that they would be next? Please tell me what social references you have in your experience that would lend itself to understanding how you would be targeted for no other reason than being perceived as a member of a community someone didn't like.

Think long and hard again.

I like the idealism, but this country has had 230 years to implement it. And during that time, it has been under the control of people who haven't done that.

[Atman]

124. You can make the same argument about ANY "class" of people.

I am an artist, and worked in the women's fashion industry for years. As such, most of my friends are/were gay, and quite honestly, half my friends and even family have assumed I'm gay.

My cousin was one of the first gay "marriages" in Massachusetts. Not that that will mean anything to you. You've obviously made up your mind, that "equality" isn't really the issue. You don't believe in full equality for all. You want to be special. I don't care if you're clubbed over the head with a frozen cat by a guy dressed in a penquin suit just because he hates meat eaters...if you're beaten to death, you're beaten to death.

Why aren't you lobbying for equal protections for ALL? Why aren't you lobbying for laws that simply demand equity in sentencing? You're not doing that, though. It seems to me that to you, only gay men are "special" enough to get their own law, because you've been sooooo ostracized for so long. That's not how we write laws. A law stating that beating another human to death is a crime punishable by (X) pretty much covers it all. If you have a problem with some judge who doesn't apply the law equally to all people, take it up with the bar association, because that judge clearly isn't upholding his duty, is he?

But you're not doing that. You're not asking for "equality." Not at all. Not until you say that ALL men and women should be equally protected under the law.

.

[kevinbgoode]

166. I think I'm perfectly capable of expressing myself, thank you.

So let's just ignore the snarky remarks and cut to the chase. How much do you know about the history of application of laws to the gay population in this country? Did that knowledge come through the association with other gays, or through the perception of yourself as gay by casual observers? Or have you done some deep study into the application of laws to this population over the years?

And here you are, a member of the minority whose representatives govern a disproportionate amount of the positions in this country, the very minority which has struggled for 230 years to understand the concept of "equality." It's nice that your cousin is happily gay and married, even if it is in the only state that recognizes him as "equal" enough to do such a basic social act. And your credentials indicate that you've been mistaken for being gay, which means you could be considered "guilty" by association or presumption.

Yet your understanding of "equality" is that for some reason we can't expect this country to quite know how to embrace the concept very easily, so certain groups must accept their responsibility to be victimized in order to preserve the beliefs of those who need to intimidate them. .so anyone pushing for faster relief is asking for "special rights." Not that the minority in control of everything has ever had any "special rights" - including the "special right" to persecute or intimidate others. But we know we don't have any of that nonsense in our history.

And excuse me, what exactly is your definition of "equal protections for ALL?" Is there somewhere that we don't already have that written, yet seem to have some problem with the application? How is that possible, especially among those who are responsible for doing just that for 230 years and who have had the power, passed the laws, stacked the judiciary? Could it be that they only believed THEY were the ones entitled to equal protection and, consequently, also endowed with the right to intimidate others?

What exactly is the fear you have about including sexual orientation into the EXISTING law that you don't seem to have about protecting the Religious Right? Or are we supposed to pretend that no group is ever targeted in this society, so if we just claim everyone will be treated equally our system, which has failed to do so for over 200 years, will magically deliver?

You apparently think the misapplication of laws is just an occasional goof involving a single judge here and there over the years. But for many years, it was considered universal policy based on the interpretation of LAW which was written and adjudicated by members of the only minority group which had any power in this country. You want that same group to be trusted with concepts of "equality" now? And who do you think has fought and marched and lobbied and watched people suffer through the years to demand equal justice?

Don't tell me about asking for "equality." How many letters have you written when a murderer had a sentence reduced to "manslaughter" because he could claim a gay man propositioned him and we must understand the fragile, constitutionally protected elements of straight male free speech and insecurity? Do you think that only happened in one isolated incident? Do you think there weren't (and still are) members of the judiciary who view gay citizens as "immoral" and reference that in their judgements? And you don't think we complain about that?

It's all nice and warm and fuzzy that you wanna pretend that everyone gets treated the same. That's the way it was SUPPOSED to be. . .but not the way it was - or IS. That way you can claim that people are treated like individuals and crimes are committed against individuals in this country, and never against entire groups. Intimidating entire groups is unacceptable to you..good...except you want to pretend that doesn't really happen. And those incidents must be treated as if they are isolated, unrelated individual situations in which the entire groups aren't really being targeted...just random individuals. So they aren't REALLY acts of intimidation. . .why, just random attacks on an individual, even when the perpetrator tells them that being gay is why they are being killed. There aren't any acts of intimidation - why painting "Die Fags" is just a random act of criminal behavior against an individual who might get killed later by the same people who painted that sign. And we all know that a man who kills his girlfriend, for example, always paints "die straights" so every straight person knows it was just an individual attack, but we need to be equal here, so both are just an individual "incident" and there is no such thing as a hate crime directed against any group of citizens because we have always protected every citizen as equal members of this country and yep, we give you our word we are gonna keep doing the same thing.

So, how equal is it that certain groups of citizens in this country are singled out as individual targets by complete strangers for no other reason than their perceived membership in the hated group and others aren't? You want everyone to be treated like an individual, but to do that you insist on ignoring crimes designed to intimidate an entire group of citizens. In other words, you want to pretend that the act of violence, despite the accompanying evidence that it was an act of intimidation against a group, must be treated exclusively as an individual incident, and the community being intimidated is being irrational and demanding special rights for reacting to those acts and that evidence. In other words, we must overly protect those who believe in violence - because the victim's community needs to understand that they must sacrifice lives to protect the freedom of others to express hate and translate it into action against them.

And you'll assure them that you support prosecution to the greatest extent of the law,because everyone is EQUAL, but then the intimidated community has to understand that the crime isn't as serious as...for example...one committed against a random STRAIGHT person, because the perpetrator can just claim it is their deeply-held, protected belief to destroy an "immoral" person. Then you'll explain, just like in the decades of the past where this happened repeatedly, that it's really equal because the criminal is still being punished, but the member of the community attacked wasn't "moral" and so his citizenship wasn't really "equal," and shouldn't expect to be considered the same as the "moral" people, the community wasn't being intimidated beyond what they should naturally expect for being "immoral" in the eyes of some others, and the criminal got at least some kind of reduced sentence because the attack really WAS wrong. There - justice is served.

So tell me how the freedom of expression and the thoughts of the victim were protected? How his "equality" was preserved as his character and his identity and his existence are trashed in the courtroom in the same manner as his life was trashed on the street? And justice served because we embraced the undying right of a homophobe to express his disgust by reducing his sentence or modifying the charge? How do you think crimes of this nature against groups of people gained any level of acceptance anyway? Or that the "gay panic" defense could even exist in the first place?

It's all well and good (and I agree) to expect that no matter who the victim is or the circumstance, the sentence should be the same. But that would mean we have used that as the basis of our justice system, and that is simply a lie. We haven't. Why do you think conservatives use the word "morality" so often to justify censorship or removal of the rights of others? Because they believe in equality and justice? You can't deny them that defense as justification for an attack - if you do, you are "criminalizing their beliefs and thoughts." And so in serving the interest of free expression for straight white men only, the cycle of injustice will continue and everyone will pretend that everyone is "equal" but the gays deserve being targeted by those who are taught they are "immoral" because that is the responsibility the gays must face for "choosing" their "lifestyle." But we'll prosecute if they are attacked - with all due respect for the attackers freedom of expression in launching the attack, of course - and we'll claim it is just an individual crime and that "Die Fags" sign painted on the wall doesn't mean a thing. Maybe even give them a lesser sentence, cuz we know the act was wrong, but we can't "criminalize" deeply-held thoughts and "beliefs" - especially if we still want to treat the victims as criminals themselves for existing and then remind them of how lucky they are that we even "let" them have any rights.

Oh, the perpetrators will say they were overreacting...or that they were wrong in committing the crime. But they had good reason and those thoughts are as important a defense as they were as expressed "free speech" as they lashed out against the "fags" while launching their attack in the first place. Of course, the expressions and the rage and the use of epithets and threats aren't really "hate speech" anyway - cuz there isn't any sort of history where those words have been commonly used to intimidate or to accompany violence directed toward that community. But the community will continue being intimidated, people will continue to claim that "everyone is treated equally" and the gays have no reason to believe a random act of individual violence accompanied by slurs and epithets means anything but a typical day with a targeted, individual crime that has absolutely nothing to do with the community.

This is why, of course, there really is no such thing as a hate crime against a group, right? Because everyone in this equal society is free of intimidation by those who preach everyday that they are a threat to the family, to America, and to freedom.

You call that equality? I call it history.

So before you start telling me about not wanting "equality" -why don't you carefully explain how the people who have been very slowly doling out the "equality" cards to INTIMIDATED GROUPS over the last two centuries seem to continue having so much trouble making it equality for ALL.

[Atman]

118. Now that I've let it go for a couple of posts...

I've written about his before, and I don't expect anything will change with this post, but this "hate crimes" bullshit really puts my wife's panties in a wad. Really...they're bunching up as I write this.

Okay, so despite the bad attempt at levity, I'm totally serious about this point. We, as democrats, have always been about equal rights for all. But I don't see what is EQUAL about making special classes of citizens who get extra protections under the law.

This is the part where you "hate crimes" people scream "EXTRA PROTECTION! Being treated like everyone else is EXTRA PROTECTION?" That's the usual response, anyone. To which I say YES, enacting special laws saying it is somehow worse -- in the eyes of the law -- to beat a gay man to death than it is to beat a straight woman to death is just WRONG, and flies in the face of everything "equality" is all about.

What happens if/when all citizens are finally granted recognition and allowed to marry, and afforded every legal right as every other citizen...will you then call for the repeal of the hate crimes bill? What makes your life or death more special than mine? Why should YOUR life or death be afforded special status under the law? You just want to define yet another level of "difference" between us all. I say bullshit.

Equal rights for ALL.

.

[Kingshakabobo]

126. But the proposed laws DON'T create a special class of citizen.

If someone beats YOU to a bloody pulp for your PERCEIVED sexuality YOU would have the same "protection" under these laws. These laws protect everyone.

ETA: None of the laws I've seen specifically mention gay. So will it make you feel better if gangs of gay thugs start beating straight men? Then you will have your equal protection.

Your only gripe is that gays will most likely receive a bigger benefit BECAUSE they are more likely to be the victim......and THAT you apparently can't get past.

[Atman]

129. That is total nonsense.

Absolute fucking nonsense. Yeah...I'm sooooooooooooo bummed that beaten, bloody gays might be treated better than me.

Are you DAFT?

You don't seem to get that SPECIAL laws for certain classifications of citizen means that none of us are EQUAL under the eyes of the law. Those poor gays, some people really don't like 'em. We better make a special class of crime for them. That's EQUAL? What part of "equal" don't you get? You want equality in everything, and I support you 100% in that endeavor. But you lose me when I am suddenly excluded from your brand of equality. Hell, if I'm ever beaten outside the ATM, I'll be sure to tell the cops that the muggers called me "queer" and "faggot" as they beat me...that way I'll get better treatment by the courts. That's okay, right? Or are you offended by that, at the idea of a semi-straight white guy honing in on your special status?

An easier, more equitable solution? Make EVERYONE equal under the law. Gay men included. Then there's no question.

.

[Toasterlad]

134. Sexual Orientation Covers Heterosexuality, Too.

If you're out walking in West Hollywood one night, and you pass some queens who are enraged by your blatant heterosity, and they come at you and SCRATCH YOU SILLY JUST FOR BEING STRAIGHT, you'd be as protected under the same hate laws as any abused homo in the country. You can't get any more equal than that. Three snaps for equality, brothers and sisters!

Edited for poor gay grammar.

[Atman]

136. If you're out walking in West Hollywood and ANYONE scratches you silly...

...there are already laws against that.

Aren't there?

.

[Kingshakabobo]

138. Please address the point of your erroneous assertion of some "super gay-citizen"

One bullshit talking point at a time please.

[Atman]

140. No can do.

I don't have a clue what the hell you're talking about.

.

[Kingshakabobo]

147. The other poster pointed out, by example, your misconception that straight people wouldn't...

......be protected under the laws.

You seem to want to gloss over that point. You are wrong.

You want to shift the goal posts to resources. Fine. But in the name of intellectual honesty you really should concede the fact that you are wrong about the law itself.

[Atman]

149. Just the opposite...in the name of intellectual honesty, I am 100% right about the law.

If I'm not, prove me wrong. It's in the legislation. MORE RESOURCES devoted to investigation and prosecution of crimes against gays. Why MORE and not just the same? I thought it was about equality?

Oops. It's not, apparently. It sounds like you want it to be more about reparations.

Fine, if that's your goal. But at least be honest about it, and quit accusing me of "moving the goalpost" simply for pointing out the facts of the legislation.

.

[Atman]

141. BTW, is your world populated only by 97 pound twinks?

I know more than a few bears who could kick my ass big-time, and not even have to tie me to a fence to do it. So tell me, if the bears get caught beating me to death, does THAT constitute a hate crime? Because it doesn't sound like it judging from the rest of your posts. Gay men, you seem to think, are all timid little girly-men incapable of defending themselves. Quite a stereotype you have going on there!

.

[Kingshakabobo]

146. WTF are you talking about? And WTF does that have to do with protection under the law?

This isn't the wild west or some macho bullshit freeper chuck norris jack off session. We are discussing the law so get a grip.

[Atman]

152. So then, answer my question.

Why do "gays" need special protection? Are you saying all "gays" are as exactly the same as all "straights?" Are you claiming a 97 pound twink is LESS likely or MORE likely to get that whoopin' than a 230 lb bear?

Is it your contention that everyone is the same? Should you law only apply to femmy twinks, since big burly bears can take care of themselves?

Just asking. Seems these are legitimate questions in the context of your argument, that gays as a lot are poor defenseless creatures needing special protection from big mean straight guys. As I stated in another post, I know some gay men who could kick my ass from here to Sunday. Do they need this same "hate crimes" law applied them?

Again...just asking.

.

[Kingshakabobo]

156. I never said any such thing and this line of discussion is bizarre.

"Is it your contention that everyone is the same?"

Yes, under the law. As much as you hate to admit it. The law doesn't distinguish if some freeper asshole bashes a bear's head in with a baseball bat .....versus a twink's head. Although the actual success, or lack there of, of the attempted assault on your 230 pound bear might dictate the level of charges, I don't think it should be any less illegal to assault a bear versus a twink.

Again, you want to shift the goal posts to the "need" for this legislation. If your contention is that there ISN'T a problem with hate crimes in gay neighborhoods then I'll let you put that out here for all to see..........I won't argue with you....I'll let you hang your own self with that bullshit.

[Atman]

157. AS MUCH AS I HATE TO ADMIT IT?! That's ALL I've been saying!

And that's ALL you've been denying...that EVERYONE IS THE SAME UNDER THE LAW!

You're up too late. Get some rest. You're delirious.

.

[Kingshakabobo]

160. Ha! Nice try. Under the hate crimes laws too.

[Atman]

163. Okay, you've officially lost me.

:crazy:

.

[Kingshakabobo]

135. Beside your name calling, can you address the point that the laws don't ....

.....specify sexuality(also, gender or color)?

And yes, YOU would have protection IF you could PROVE your mugging was a crime based on your perceived sexuality.......proof is the important part. (These laws will naturally have a higher hurdle to cross when it comes to proof.....but that's beside the point)

You can jump up and down and name call - your wife can ge her panties in a twist - but one thing is true and you can's honestly say otherwise:

The proposed laws don't create a different class of citizen because they don't specify sexuality - gay or straight.

[Atman]

139. Name calling?

And, no, I CAN honestly say otherwise: the proposed laws create a special class of citizen, and if you've read the legislation instead of just trumpeting it, you'd see that it allots MORE RESOURCES (money and manpower) to the investigation and prosecution of crimes against gays than it does for the exact same crime perpetrated against non-gays. You want to believe it's not creating special classes of people, go on and believe that.

Then tell me where the hell I called anyone names in this thread.

.

[Kingshakabobo]

145. LOL. Maybe they should take an equal amount of the money spent on anti-gay crime and burn it?

Will that make you feel better? It's about dollars and cents now? You are shifting the goal post.

The law itself doesn't create a "special legal class" now does it? Your beef is with resources.

edit to add: Yes, "are you daft" is name calling.

[Atman]

148. Jesus H. Christ!

"Are you daft" was a question, albeit rhetorical; it is becoming painfully obvious you ARE.

Now YOU want to move the goalpost by saying that my explaining why this law IS different is somehow just to make me feel better? WTF, man? I simply pointed out that there IS a difference spelled out in this law! You want to belittle it, but would you feel it's okay for the court to allot MORE RESOURCES to investigating crimes against red-haired gay men than blond gay men? Why not? Does that sound arbitrary and unfair to you? Gosh, to me too!

Despite your paranoia, I didn't call anyone names, but I'm feeling like it about now. You seem to be filled with hate, and maybe you have a reason to be. But you are utterly clueless, it seems, about what I'm saying. You don't realize what a friend you have in me. As I stated, in case you missed the point of it, I am an artist (in a big metro area, no less!) with a background in women's fashion. I'm not entirely straight myself. I'm 100% behind the demand for equal rights for all, including the elimination of the phony "marriage" issue for gay men and women; marriage is a church issue, not a state issue, and all citizens should be allowed to marry anyone they want to marry ('cept maybe their own brother or sister, I suppose), in the eyes of their church. If they're not religious, then they should be able to sign up at the courthouse like everyone else and get married.

You are trying your damnedest to make me out to be your enemy, but you're sorely mistaken.

I just don't like foisting yet more unworkable laws onto a system that refuses to bother to enforce the laws already on the books.

Laws which, btw, protect each of us, regardless of our sexuality.


.

[Kingshakabobo]

153. Sorry. Like the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion....

......but not your own set of facts.

You don't like hate crimes legislation? Fine. Don't like it. But if you state your reason for not liking the laws as 'creating a special class of citizen under the law' don't expect to not be called on that bullshit because it's a lie. A lie bought and paid for by the right-wing think tanks, fundie christians and republican assholes. A lie you have apparently swallowed.

I know who you are. I've seen you around and I like a lot of what you write. I've even helped you out, in a small way via PM, in some fight you had with 'that other site.'

[Atman]

155. You're just full of shit now, King.

If you've "seen me around," then you know how off-base you are to say I'm parroting right-wing talking points. I'm the last person on this board who you'll ever find parroting right-wing talking points.

It's funny how your sub line claims I'm entitled to my own opinion, but then in the text you claim my opinion is just bought and paid for by the right wing and the fundies.

Did it ever occur to you that I believe what I believe because of my background, my belief system, my friends, my passion for fairness, etc etc etc? Of course not. That would mess up everything for you, wouldn't it.

You want to claim you "know" me, yet you apparently want to toss all that out the window and call me a flaming fundy just because we don't agree on this particular issue. Wow. Freakin' wow.

Good night. Peace.

.

[Kingshakabobo]

158. Spare me the feigned indignation.

Saying you swallowed a lie is far different from calling you a flaming fundie....and you know it. I went out of my way to say as much. Don't try that bullshit on for size with me.

You have YET to show how the LAW creates a special class UNDER THE LAW but you won't admit it.

[Atman]

162. No, you have just refused to acknowledge that I showed you.

Identical crime committed against two males, one straight, one gay.

Listen/read closely because this is the part you keep missing...

This hate crime bill provides additional resources in the form of money and manpower for the investigation and prosecution of crimes against gays.

You want to ignore that point and call it "shifting the goal post," but it is no such thing. Just the facts.

So you tell MY family that MY death isn't worth the same amount of money and manpower to investigate as YOUR death. How do you think they'll feel? How is that equitable? You don't see how that creates a specific class under the law? Hell, special allotments of resources are provided for the crime against YOU that are not available to investigate the crime against ME! How is that fair and equal, and NOT indicative of special class status?!

Again, if you want to call for reparations for years of bigotry, be honest enough to do so. But don't you dare call me a fundy parrot and ignore my posts just to score points. I'd expect you to be bigger than that.

.

[Kingshakabobo]

164. I didn't call you a fundie parrot. Stop waisting my time with that bullshit.

But I'm tempted to call you a Heritage Foundation parrot with your allocation of resources non-sense. When it comes to violent crimes I would hope we, as a society, can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Don't worry, when you get murdered by some gay guys for wearing awful clothes and ugly shoes, I'll personally see to it you get all the resources you have coming. We'll cut back on jaywalking and sidewalk spitting convictions for a month to MAKE SURE you get yours..............(that's a lame attempt at humor)

Good night Sir.

[kevinbgoode]

169. Uh....you have to be kidding.

Now you are going to whine that if the government allocates more resources to investigate a higher number of crimes directed against a certain class or group of people, it creates a permanent special status? Wouldn't resources allocated depend on the number of crimes and the pattern?. So actually, it's the group perpetuating the crimes which gets the real special status. . . again. Gee, I wonder who that is? More resources and manpower to investigate their actions, not the victims.

Well, seein' as though you are a straight dude, and a member of the minority which has always had special rights and special status, there's an easy way around that issue. Tell your fellow minority members who specialize in crimes of intimidation against groups which do not have equal rights to stop. No crimes, nothing to investigate.

[EFerrari]

108. Kick

[GeneCosta]

116. Hate crimes are the equivalent to community terrorism

They're violent acts done to intimidate a community. We already prosecute on intent. It's the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder.

Anyone can commit a hate crime, and anyone can be the victim of hate crimes.

[peacebaby3]

159. As someone who works in the criminal justice field, I am completely opposed

to all "hate crime" legislation. If you had asked me 10 years ago, I would have told you that I supported it, but after working in the legal field, I have completely changed my mind.

Sorry, but I can't ask for legislation I oppose 100% to be expanded.

[Kingshakabobo]

161. Do you want to post a reason or should we guess? n/t