Major religious-right group suggests protecting gays from violence would lead to legalized polygamy

[Bjorn Against]

The American Family Association has long been one of the most powerful and outspoken organizations representing the extreme religious right. Their website boasts that they have more than three million people registered as supporters, and their ties to the Republican Party are very close.

As I write this the top item on their web page tells a lot about their legislative priorities. Right now this influential heavily Republican organization is working to ensure that people kidnap, sexually abuse and commit acts of physical violence against gays don't face serious consequences.

Of course that is not what they want you to believe, so their action alert uses a number of strawmen to make you believe that they are just trying to protect "Christians". Instead of telling us what Sheila Jackson-Lee's bill H.R. 254 would actually do they strongly imply to us that the passage of the bill "opens the door" to the following:

Preaching that homosexuality is a sin from the pulpit will result in the preacher being charged with “hate speech.”

Churches will have their tax-exempt status revoked if they oppose homosexuality.

Homosexual marriage will be legalized and recognized in all states.

Polygamy will be legalized.

Landlords will be forced to rent to homosexuals.

Scouts, and all non-profit organizations, will be required to hire homosexuals as leaders.

Biblical language used to define homosexuality will be considered “hate speech.” City officials have already had a billboard removed in Long Island, NY, because it was classified as “hate speech.” The billboard read: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” (Leviticus 20:13)

Employees will not be allowed to say anything negative about homosexuality in their workplaces.

Classes promoting the homosexual lifestyle will be included in school curricula beginning with the lower grades.

Employers will be forced to hire homosexuals.

Adoption by homosexuals will be legalized in every state.

http://www3.capwiz.com/afanet/issues/alert/?alertid=9395716

The bill does not even come close to doing any of this however, what it would do is make it illegal to kidnap people and commit acts of violence against them just because they happened to be gay or from some other minority group. Here is the key text of the bill:

`(2)(A) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person--

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(I) death results from the acts committed in violation of this paragraph; or

`(II) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:h.r.254:

Read the rest of the bill and you will see that it really doesn't go beyond this. The bill simply makes it a crime to use explosive devices against minorities. It makes it a crime to kidnap them and sexually abuse them. It does not do a single one of the things that the American Family Association suggests it "opens the doors to".

Yes the American Family Association thinks that it is a "special right" to be protected from pipe bombs. They believe it is a "special right" to be able to walk down the street without being beaten, kidnapped, and left to hang on a barbed wire fence. They believe it is a "special right" to not be sexually abused. And they want to make sure that no one who they spread hateful attacks against daily have these "special rights".

I am tired of giving these groups a pass simply because they talk about "values" a lot, the American Family Association is a HATE GROUP. What else do you call a group that is constantly attacking a minority group and opposes legislation that would penalize people for murdering the members of that minority group? Yes they are a hate group, and the Republican Party has constantly supported this hate group.

[HockeyMom]

1. Gays HAVE families

The American Family Association does not represent MY family. I have a lesbian daughter. Do they want to see the fury of a MOTHER? They will. Just try it. I am sure many more mothers feel the same way.

[unpossibles]

2. God forbid someone takes their hate away

I mean, come on. They aren't allowed to hate the Catholics, blacks, Jews, Irish, Italians, and women anymore (even if they still do), so let's cut them some slack....

[jody]

3. Crimes enumerated in H.R. 254 can be prosecuted under existing law. What will be gained with

mandatory sentences?

[Bjorn Against]

5. read the bill, it does not call for mandatory sentences

What it does is it makes it a crime to commit violence against people solely because of their minority status. The reason they do this is that in the past the courts would often let people off easier for crimes against minorities than they would for crimes against white businessmen. Show me where the bill calls for mandatory sentences, it clearly does not.

[jody]

11. The bill says "any term of years or for life" so what is gained over current law"

`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both if--
`(i) death results from the acts committed in violation of this paragraph; or
`(ii) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2)(A) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the acts committed in violation of this paragraph; or
`(II) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

[Bjorn Against]

13. That is not a mandatory minimum....

If it were a mandatory minimum it would say something along the lines of a "minimum of ten years", instead it says "not more than 10 years" or "shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life" if it involves death or kidnapping. The language clearly gives judges some leeway, mandatory minimums don't. If you think this is a mandatory minimum, then you don't know what a mandatory minimum is.

[jody]

16. I ask again, what does the bill do that is not already covered by current laws? n/t

[Bjorn Against]

18. It protects gays who have been excluded by previous hate crimes legislation

Now I ask again, where does the bill call for mandatory sentencing?

[jody]

20. I see we disagree on the need for hate crime laws. Have a nice day. Goodbye.

[ThomCat]

23. Funny, it's always straight white men who object to hate crime

laws. And always with the same argument. "If it's already against the law then there's no need." Well, if the current laws aren't being enforced, and in fact the current laws aren't required to be enforced, then we do need laws that are written in such a way that they must be enforced.

You may think that unequal treatment before the law is all fine and good (just because the letter of the law technically allows for equal treatment even if it doesn't require it) but many of us see that hate crime laws fill a void that needs to be filled.

[provis99]

28. when did this become a "white guy bashing" thread?

Jeez, its crap like this that makes this white guy think Republican shrieks of "political correctness" are right. Thanks for trying to further push white guy liberals out of the party.

[jody]

29. As I understand hate-crime laws, prosecution must first prove that a crime has been committed and

then prove that hate was a contributing factor.

A jury must first determine whether a crime was or was not committed and second if committed then find that hate was or was not a contributing factor.

As I understand hate-crime laws, their purpose is to increase the sentence if a jury finds that hate was a contributing factor.

I have not seen a report showing the additional punishment given to convicted criminals for hate crimes versus non-hate crimes, e.g. sentence for murder versus sentence for hate-crime murder.

IMO most states and federal law have adequate sentencing guidelines for non-hate crimes so I fail to see what is gained by requiring a jury to argue over whether a particular crime was a hate crime after they've already found a defendant guilty of committing a crime. :shrug:

[jody]

32. H.R. 254 deals narrowly with bodily injury or attempted bodily injury. Those crimes can be

prosecuted with existing laws so it remains to be proven what social value is gained by demanding a jury find that hate was a contributing factor after the jury has first found a defendant guilty of committing a crime.

H.R. 254

QUOTE
(c)(1) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—

* * * * * * * * *
(2)(A) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person—
UNQUOTE

[kestrel91316]

24. I can think of a few forums where you might be happier. Why,

exactly, are you here?

[jody]

30. I'm perfectly happy on DU. Perhaps it's you who is unhappy. n/t

[ourbluenation]

4. these idiots are doing a good job at making themselves more and more irrelevant and useless

good for them.

[Initech]

6. I think churches should lose their tax exempt status if they preach homosexuality is a sin

[Bjorn Against]

9. I agree, I was just pointing out that is not what this bill does at all

This bill is purely about protecting minorities from acts of violence, it has nothing to do with anything that the AFA mentions in it's action alert.

[cali]

25. I have no objection to the legislation. I have a HUGE objection

to your suggestion that churches that preach that homosexuality is a sin should lose their tax-exempt status.

[Initech]

26. Uh... care to elaborate?

The reason I have a problem with churches preaching against things like homosexuality and abortion is that is playing politics, and I don't think churches should play politics. I do have a huge problem with that.

[cali]

27. Sure. I don't think that abortion and whether or not homosexuality

is a sin, is necessarily playing politics. And if it is, than so too is preaching against say, the Iraq war or any number of other things. It's way, way too intrusive to decide what is and isn't political within church doctrine. What isn't allowed is endorsement of candidates. But political speech within a church absolutely is NOT grounds for revoking tax-exempt status.

[sakabatou]

7. You want Teflon with that slope?

[ComerPerro]

8. in the Bible or not, anti gay shit like that IS hate speech

[Bjorn Against]

10. You are right it is hate speech

And the American Family Association is a hate group.

[muntrv]

12. Remember, AFA President Tony Perkins paid $3000 for David Duke's

kkk mailing list.

[meldroc]

14. Sieg Heil, here come the Christofascists...

Make sure we don't let little things like facts get in the way of their agenda. If they had their way, we'd be stoning adulterers in the streets and burning gays at the stake...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. I have to say, I don't approve of this bill.

It doesn't criminalise anything that isn't already illegal, and I don't think that kidnapping someone for money or sex, or killing them for insurance, should be a less serious crime than doing so because they're gay or disabled.

Also, unless I'm reading it wrong, it allows imprisonment for ten years for *any degree* of bodily injury, no matter how slight or what the circumstances were, if the court deems or declares that it deems that your motivation was that the target was in one of the protected categories. I don't trust the legal system not to abuse that.

[Bjorn Against]

17. Historically those who have targeted minorities have got off easier in court

No it is not any different to commit an act of violence against a minority than it is to commit an act of violence against anyone else, but if you look at the court system you will see that historically those who have attacked whites have received much more severe sentences than those who have attacked minorities. Hate crimes legislation is an attempt to bring some equality to the justice system, and the ten years for bodily harm thing means up to ten years at the judges discretion. It is unlikely a judge would impose the maximum penalty on someone who bruised somebody, but if someone chops off a persons fingers they deserve ten years.

[PA Democrat]

19. How can any sane person interpret their remarks as anything other than hate speech?

OMG. Just replace the word "gay" with "black" in their statements about landlords being forced to rent to gay people, and employers being forced hire gay people. How are their "concerns" any different than the hatred that fueled racism at the height of the civil rights movement?

They are a hate group pure and simple.

[many a good man]

21. What are the two fastest growing religions in America?

Mormonism and Islam.

What do both of these "religions" have in common?

Polygamy. That's right. If we legalize gay marriage the next step is the legalization of polygamy.
:wtf:

I kid you not. That was the spiel I heard from a freeper when I was working the polls in 2004 for Kerry. It nearly knocked me over!

I've since learned that this guy is far from a lone nut case: there are legions of nut cases like him out there. I tremble for my country....

[GreenZoneLT]

31. Mormons aren't polygamists

There's a small splinter sect of Mormons who still practice polygamy, but the mainstream LDS church got a new revelation (another copper etching in a hat from the Angel Moroni, I guess) in 1890, and hasn't sanctioned plural marriages since then (yeah, I know, the debate is complicated and ongoing among people who give a shit).

Actually, he's probably right that polygamy is likely to gain political support in the future, not that gay marriage would have much effect on that debate. It's been a common way of organizing human families throughout history, and it's common today in much of the world. I don't think it's going to catch on in the West, but who knows? As long as no one is coerced into a plural marriage, what difference does it make? The Bible sure as heck doesn't condemn it; it's full of plural marriages.

Now, where the freepers and their ilk get into wingnut territory is when they claim gay marriage will lead to the legalization of bestiality and necrophilia.

[Dracos]

22. How can these people

call themselves Christian and total ignore Christ's teachings Love thy neighbor as thy self,Do on to others as you would have them do on to you.