Congress to extend hate crime law to cover gays

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2009 8:48 PM GMT
    An AP story via MSNBC. But as you read it, this is just in the House so far, as a bill amendment. Look for the Republicans to try to derail it somehow.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33228688/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Oct 08, 2009 9:01 PM GMT
    I'll believe it when I see it...
  • Aquanerd

    Posts: 845

    Oct 08, 2009 10:21 PM GMT
    How is killing some one for money any better or worse than killing someone because they are gay? When was the last Love Crime committed? I'm sorry if the question offends anyone, but as someone that celebrates all humans as individuals, I have never understood this concept. The killers of Matthew Shepard should have been executed the same way the killed Matthew, regardless of whether they didn't like the fact that he was gay, or they just wanted his cool Diamond encrusted Bam Bam Jewelry.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2009 10:40 PM GMT
    The nature of hate crimes is that they target members of a group and are such that they are meant to intimidate that group based solely on the defining characteristics of that group. When someone gets beaten up or murdered because they're black or jewish or hispanic or muslim or christian or gay, is that not an attack on a group per se and not the individual victim? I believe it is and is different than a crime of opportunity or a crime done for other reasons. Having hate crime laws tells the citizenry that nobody is allowed to intimidate a group that they don't like.
  • Aquanerd

    Posts: 845

    Oct 08, 2009 10:42 PM GMT
    McGay saidThe nature of hate crimes is that they target members of a group and are such that they are meant to intimidate that group based solely on the defining characteristics of that group. When someone gets beaten up or murdered because they're black or jewish or hispanic or muslim or christian or gay, is that not an attack on a group per se and not the individual victim? I believe it is and is different than a crime of opportunity or a crime done for other reasons. Having hate crime laws tells the citizenry that nobody is allowed to intimidate a group that they don't like.


    So when the elderly are after to go out at night because they fear the threat of being mugged and or killed for their Social Security Check, is that I hate crime?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2009 10:44 PM GMT
    The elderly are victims of crimes of opportunity. The message is not that the elderly should not exist whereas ethnic, religious or sexual groups are sent that message.

    Incidentally, are you drunk or do you just have a hard time forming a sentence? That's not a slam, I'm just surprised by the quality of your wording.
  • Aquanerd

    Posts: 845

    Oct 08, 2009 10:48 PM GMT
    McGay saidThe elderly are victims of crimes of opportunity. The message is not that the elderly should not exist whereas ethnic, religious or sexual groups are sent that message.

    Incidentally, are you drunk or do you just have a hard time forming a sentence? That's not a slam, I'm just surprised by the quality of your wording.


    Dyslexic and distracted. But thank.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2009 10:50 PM GMT
    OK, sorry about that. You did pretty good, considering.
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Oct 08, 2009 10:59 PM GMT
    McGay saidThe nature of hate crimes is that they target members of a group and are such that they are meant to intimidate that group based solely on the defining characteristics of that group. When someone gets beaten up or murdered because they're black or jewish or hispanic or muslim or christian or gay, is that not an attack on a group per se and not the individual victim? I believe it is and is different than a crime of opportunity or a crime done for other reasons. Having hate crime laws tells the citizenry that nobody is allowed to intimidate a group that they don't like.


    I wholeheartedly agree. Hate crimes laws are essential to tell bigots and haters it is never ok to intimidate a group just because you don't agree with their views or are prejudiced against them for any reason. It's no surprise that republicans only oppose hate crimes laws against groups such as gays that they themselves hate and are bigoted toward.
  • Aquanerd

    Posts: 845

    Oct 08, 2009 11:02 PM GMT
    McGay saidOK, sorry about that. You did pretty good, considering.


    No prob, I never take offense at anything that is written on an internet post. Which is a good thing considering my stance on many topics.

    Back to the topic. I've never looked at someone other than an as an individual, and never been threatened, by an act on another person. I have gotten angry, and confrontational when I thought someone was being bulled regardless of race, age, sex, disability, or sexual orientation. I get that from my dad. He was raised by a redneck sheriffs deputy that knew right from wrong. He was killed by a "hit and run" on a country road in the 1940's after stopping a "cross burning" in rural South Carolina. My Grandmother never would look at the Sheriff in the eye after that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2009 11:04 PM GMT
    I'm with Aquanerd on this.

    Also, I don't think his posts in this thread deserve to be criticized for poor writing. Given the general level of writing in these forums, I'd say that his writing is probably a bit above average. (Yes, I know that comes off as damning with faint praise.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2009 12:06 AM GMT
    You mean gays aren't covered by the hate crime laws over there? icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2009 12:11 AM GMT
    One advantage to a federal hate crimes law as that local law enforcement will be able to take advantage of federal support & funding. The trial of Matthew Shepard's murderers took up an enormous portion of Wyoming's law enforcement budget and, I believe, resulted in their having to reduce their police force. Such help will mean that hate crimes can really be investigated in less affluent communities.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2009 12:19 AM GMT
    Congress has been struggling with this bill for a while now. The bone of contention is extending it to cover gender expression. But, even with that contentious bit, five Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill back in April. So, I wouldn't expect this new version to be a squeaker. And in case anyone is wondering, Obama said he would sign it.

    If you have a problem with hate crime laws, fine. But we already have them on the books to cover race, religion, and sex. To not cover sexual orientation and gender expression is discriminatory. We are a targeted group and we are just as worthy of protection.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2009 12:44 AM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidCongress has been struggling with this bill for a while now. The bone of contention is extending it to cover gender expression.

    If you have a problem with hate crime laws, fine. But we already have them on the books to cover race, religion, and sex. To not cover sexual orientation and gender expression is discriminatory. We are a targeted group and we are just as worthy of protection.


    I agree that if we have hate-crime laws, they should include sexual orientation (and perceived sexual orientation). I'm just not a fan of the concept of hate-crime laws, something that's been debated here a great deal in the past.

    I can see why people support them, the intention behind them is good, but I think they're a somewhat misguided solution to what is, admittedly, a real problem.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2009 2:58 AM GMT
    Good. I hope it goes through. Also with employment protection and DADT. They all go together.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2009 3:23 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa saidAn AP story via MSNBC. But as you read it, this is just in the House so far, as a bill amendment. Look for the Republicans to try to derail it somehow.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33228688/ns/politics-capitol_hill/


    I don't understand hate crime legislation. A crime's a crime.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2009 3:24 AM GMT
    Police dogs are under the full protection of the law just like human police officers. If you kill a police dog, you will be punished just as if you killed a human police officer. Think about that for a minute.. No, really - think about that.

    If we as Americans have no problem with offering members of a different species more protection than most humans receive, why on earth would we cringe at the thought of legally protecting gay human beings who have been harassed and singled out as targets for violence?

    It's a strange thought - but let it run through your mind. There are dogs out there - yes dogs, that are more fully protected under the law than you are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2009 4:06 AM GMT
    hockeynick79 saidPolice dogs are under the full protection of the law just like human police officers. If you kill a police dog, you will be punished just as if you killed a human police officer. Think about that for a minute.. No, really - think about that.

    If we as Americans have no problem with offering members of a different species more protection than most humans receive, why on earth would we cringe at the thought of legally protecting gay human beings who have been harassed and singled out as targets for violence?

    It's a strange thought - but let it run through your mind. There are dogs out there - yes dogs, that are more fully protected under the law than you are.


    But the killing of police officers shouldn't carry a greater penalty than the killing of other people. As the old saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

    It's funny that you bring that up because that's the comparison I often use when the subject of hate-crime laws comes up, except my conclusion is different than yours.

    Still, as I posted earlier, I do feel that if there are going to be these kinds of laws, then sexual orientation should be included.