Senate Passes Gay Hate Bill

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/06/061504hateBill.htm

The US Senate Tuesday passed legislation adding gay and trans people to the groups protected against hate crimes.

The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act passed 65 to 33 on a bipartisan vote. It was moved as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill.

The measure adds "real or perceived sexual orientation, gender and disability" to federal hate crime laws, thus allowing the federal government the ability to provide assistance for the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes based on these categories.


whoo hoo!!!!

[wryter2000]

1. Good news!

Your headline makes it sound like the passed a bill backing hatred of gays, though.

[davidinalameda]

3. it's not my headline

[Eloriel]

29. That's what I was afraid of too, wryter

And yes, we know LBN headlines aren't up to the poster. :-)

GREAT news!!

[zanana]

2. Thank God.

Where does it go from there?

[Cambist]

4. WOW

I can't believe it. Doesn't make sense though. Why pass that and in the same breath make it illegal to get married? Oh well, I'm just glad they did the right thing on that.

[Warpy]

5. Nice for gays and transsexuals.

I wonder how long it will take for the biggest group of hate crime victims to be added: WOMEN.

[Doctor Smith]

41. And then we can add men, and everyone will be protected.

[jdj]

44. you need to make a date with some crime statistics.

[Doctor Smith]

45. I'm not sure what you mean.

Are you suggesting that men are less likely to be victims of crime than wsomen?

[jdj]

50. less likely to be victims BECAUSE they are male? yes,

absolutely.

Men, white men any way, are not an oppressed minority. The discussion on how to keep men from killing each other, both on an individual basis, like murder, and on an organized level, like in wars and conscription, is a whole other thread. I really don't understand why there is not more discussion about this, because the way that men use each other, especially for warfare, is really tragic. I mean people discuss it in a vague, "give peace a chance" kind of way, but not in the way of "what gives you the right to think you can use my body for warfare" kind of way. I mean look what we went through with the whole Iraq patriobot thing, if you dare protest about sending soldiers (one of whom is my best friend) off to a war, there is a sonic social curtain that comes down on you like a hailstorm. I mean, there's Smedley Butler and the soldiers for the truth guy, and Kerry, who were soldiers themselves, and the poet who wrote "Dulce et decorum est" (names are escaping me) but the only civilian publicly addressing this that made a dent on culture that I can remember Joan Baez' ex-husband, whose name I also can't remember, who gave that speech about how the life of a man is that man's, and how he sent his draft cards back. It's mass murder met with a male code of silence, and I don'quite understand why men don't organize themselves as a separate group apart from peace protests, and break the taboo and talk about this.

[Doctor Smith]

89. I didn't really understand your reply, but men are more likely

to be victims of violent crime than women. They are 3 times more likely to be the victims of murder.

Here are the FBI's crime statistics if you would like to read them:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/pdf/2sectiontwo.pdf

[NewJerseyDem]

84. Gender is included

As I understand it, the amendment applies to sexual orientation, gender and disabilites.

[Bluebear]

6. Voting no....NOTE McCain next time he is touted as VP

Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nickles (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)

[Robbien]

7. I do not see Zell Miller's name on the list

Is he out sick today?

[Bluebear]

9. Zell voted Yes. Go figure.

[jdj]

39. He probably thought the vote was on whether or not they hate gays

[ncrainbowgrrl]

51. An audible gasp could be heard from the chamber after Zell spoke...

I was listening to C-SPAN 2 streaming internet coverage of the vote, trying to guess which way each senator would vote in the two seconds between the time that their names were mentioned and the sound of their voice...

At first, I wasn't sure that he had said "Aye," until I heard the sound of others not quite expecting Zell to vote that way.... Then, I wondered how Zell found a conscience all of a sudden... (Not complaining! Keep it up, Senator Miller)

[ncrainbowgrrl]

52. dupe.

my internet connection's going in and out

[David__77]

35. I was wondering the same thing.

I guess he's only a "moderately-conservative" Republican, or whatever he is.

[Mikimouse]

8. Strictly speaking as a Texan...

I'm SO fucking proud to be a Texan right now! <sarcasm off>
Thank you very much John Cornball and Kaye Bailey 'if it wasn't for the republican party, idiots like me would never have been allowed in politics' Hutchison. Fuck you very much!

[dedhed]

12. What a horrible roll-call...

... it's like "Who's Who In Hell."

Wouldn't you just love to hear what I'm sure they think are their perfectly rational explanations for voting "no"?!?

:bounce:

[2Design]

49. wonder what else was tacked onto the bill......

like the jobs bill....and them tacking on that churches can engage in political stuff....

[Hawkeye-X]

21. I see Allard voted no.

Worthless pile of scum that I didn't vote for...

[laylah]

48. That former veterinarian

needs to operate on himself...loser!

Jenn

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

22. That's about as "bipartisan" as Ann Coulter. (nt)

[JohnLocke]

30. The yes votes were nopartasian.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

87. The Yes republican votes, with the exception of

gay republicans, were cast out of fear. What if their precious guppie contigent decides to vote Democratic in November?

[mike1963]

32. Well at least there are no (D-xx)s on the 'no' list...

:eyes:

[LizW]

40. Both Alabama Senators on the "no" list

I guess Shelby and Sessions have forgotten about Billy Jack Gaither.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/billyjack/

[TeeYiYi]

59. Hatch is such a jackass. ...n/t

TYY

[crossroads]

62. I see that, yet not unexpected that he would vote lockstep...

Not a surprise to me at all...
:shrug:

[HuckleB]

10. I wonder if I am the only pro-gay marriage, pro-gay civil rights laws...

poster to find the whole "thought crime" basis for "hate crimes" a bit scary as a societal construct.

[Political_Junkie]

11. No your not,

it ain't perfect, but it's a start. Sometimes people have to be forced by laws that point out specifically that something is wrong.

[HuckleB]

14. Sorry, I don't follow your logic.

Are we not doing enough as a society to make it clear that things like vandalism and assault are wrong?

[Political_Junkie]

18. I think to most people, yes.

It's obvious that vandalism and assault are wrong, but some people don't see it as wrong if the victims are part of a group that they hate.
Look at the civil rights movement, it wouldn't have gotten nearly so far, if it didn't have the backing of federal laws.

[HuckleB]

23. And how is this going to change their minds?

If they assault someone, they're still committing a crime, as it is. Adding a thought component to the crime isn't going to change anyone's minds. It's a lot like saying you're going to force people into accepting democracy. It just ain't going to happen that way. Education and conversation are the only thing that will change their minds. Putting "thought crimes" on the books only serves to deplete what makes this country great, if you ask me.

[Political_Junkie]

34. I already said I agreed with you.

But it seems to me, that some people have to be taken into the future kicking and screaming. It's not right that we should have to point out to people that beating the piss out of someone just because they are gay is wrong, but unfortunately, some people don't believe the way that we do.
I don't think that we should have federal laws on this, but the states weren't working fast enough at solving the problem, IMO.
And how else could we deal with this sort of thing?

[polmaven]

42. Committing a crime against someone

for the sole reason of being homosexual is not simple "vandalism or assault". It is a form of terrorism meant to intimidate an entire group of people. It should be treated more harshly since it is more heinous.

[jdj]

43. any lawyers out there? I just remembered the "homosexual

advance defense", I heard a woman talking about this on television, but she's a Canadian lawyer, so I don't know if it's a U.S. law or not, but there's actually a law on the books that says that that is a viable defense, so you can assault or kill a gay person and use this as a defense and get off scot free. All you have to do is say "he (or she?) made a pass at me", and your actions are seen as justified.

[HuckleB]

74. Find me a case where this actually occurred.

Or call this an Old Wive's Tale, which is what it is.

[jdj]

80. Old wives did not discuss homosexuality, I'm sure.

Thanks for the chuckle.

[HuckleB]

82. So you'd rather make things up than actually discuss the issue.

Now that's funny.

[Peregrine]

13. No you're not

I have always felt that hate crime laws were constitutionally questionable.

[dedhed]

15. It's a scary world in which we live...

... when we have to create legislation to force us to be nice to each other. I doubt any of us will live to see the day when it's not necessary... but I hope my daughter does.

:bounce:

[HuckleB]

16. How is this forcing anyone to be nice to anyone else?

How is it doing anything at all?

[dedhed]

26. It's an incentive...

This is true... it doesn't technically force anyone to do anything except think.

Its an incentive for bigots to rethink doing something stupid, not because its just plain wrong, but before they commit a federal crime. And its an incentive for local-yocal law enforcement to take investigation of such crimes more seriously.

Am I being too optimistic?

:bounce:

[HuckleB]

28. An incentive?

You mean like the death penalty?

Yeah, that works so very well.

[Robbien]

17. It bothers me also, but

hate crimes have no other basis on which to prosecute except for thought.

[HuckleB]

19. How is that?

If you assault someone or vandalize property, those are crimes already on the books. This only adds a "thought component" to crimes already listed.

[Burma Jones]

31. That bothers me too

I believe in punishing crime. I also believe in taking into account the criminal's motives in sentencing, so, that is where I would take the hate into account. I don't believe in making someone's thoughts a separate crime from the crime he/she committed. Many progressives are against mandatory sentencing, I think hate crime legislation is a version of mandatory sentencing.

THAT having been said, there is a school of thought that says the legal code exists partially to push a certain moral standard. This is one reason why suicide is illegal. So, hate crime legislation may be seen as the society condemning a particular attitude. Personally, I'm not in favor of the law trying to hold the society to some sort of moral standard. I want the law to protect people from undue coercion. The laws against undue coercion already exist without the hate crime addition, to me, this should be sufficient.

[DavidMS]

86. I certanly see the moral standard point...

at the same time I don't like the idea of figureing out what the intent of the crime was.

That said, I still like the idea but would perfer it in the form of a criminal association law to punish gay-bashing hoodlums.

I am conflicted but generaly support laws to protect minorities (ethnic, religious, sexual) from harassment and discrimination.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

24. Excuse me, wasn't motivation for a crime always a factor in sentencing?

This looks to me like the acknowledging of new motivations as aggravating, no more no less.

[HuckleB]

27. Perhaps. Was it enshrined in law like this?

And were those "motivations" actually more around looking at the spectrum of "self-defense"? The whole story of the crime, rather than this sort of random thought disposition?

[donco6]

25. It's somewhat alarming to me, too.

I need to read up some more on the arguments for/against hate crimes laws. It just seems to be a pretty hard case to prove.

"So, why'd you throw that rock out of the car? Was it because you hate gay people and you perceived the person you were aiming at was gay?"

"Nah, he was just there. <snicker>"

[lumpy]

36. Sometimes you have to lead

those horse(esasses) to water and force them to drink.

[orthogonal]

37. You're not the only -- I agree

Hate crime legislation criminalizes thought, and is therefore inconsistent with liberty.

and I say that as someone strongly for gay marriage and the rights of Aays to otherwise fully be citizens.

[jdj]

38. Thought crime?

I don't care what anyone thinks. How they manifest their thoughts is a different story.

I think it is important that this law exists, it acknowledges and separates the secular gov't of the U.S. from the other gov't in this country, otherwise known as religion, and takes a strong stand in opposition to what most major religions proscribe for gays, which is execution and damnation. I'm not here to debate constitutionality, although I believe some folks think they have a right to interfere with my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness because of what their bible (leviticus, corinthians, etc) proscribes for me and which they hold above the constitution.

Many empires have had to deal with the spector of a church and it's priests vying with gov't for power; the Magi, and the Amun (sp?) priests of Egypt come to mind, and it seems it is always a very slippery slope. Arguments like those here don't acknowledge the clerical shadow gov't and it's influence on the populace, and to pretend these don't exist or don't matter is disingenuous. Concerning minorities and hate crime law, my boss told me just the other day that she felt justified in feeling superior to members of interracial couples because "the bible says you should stick to your own race." Notice she did not say " the constitution says...". It's easy to see how someone even less stable could take it upon themselves to carry out leviticus in the name of their God. One white supremacy group, The Phineas Brotherhood, takes it's name from a tale in the old testament about a man named Phineas who murdered an interracial couple.

Especially in a puritanical nation such as this one, some things need to be s-p-e-l-l-e-d o-u-t for morons such as these.

[HuckleB]

72. And we already have laws dealing with how they manifest thoughts.

So why this unnecessary legislation?

Or shall we follow Canada down the road of possibly prohibiting simple speech via this sort of legislation? Would you find that OK, too?

http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/mcknight/mcknight1.html

[jdj]

78. Obviously, I don't think it is unnecessary.

When have we ever "followed Canada" in anything except hockey? Canadians are far too sophisticated to appeal to the average Murikan.

I'm not particularly interested in pretending to debate about laws intended to prevent crimes against minorities and gays. I believe they are just and necessary. You don't. My reason have to do with the realities of religious influence, slavery, working class resentment of the economic threat minorities pose,etc, etc. I've read your posts here, but you aren't making an argument, you are just expressing an opinion, over and over. It reminds me of my high school physics teacher saying you can't do any real physics problems because you can't account for all the variables in reality, you have to first eliminate friction etc. I see you have eliminated all the variables, and are looking at it as "all things being equal". Well they aren't equal, which thirty-five years of walking around gay has taught me well.

[HuckleB]

81. How is this going to prevent any crime.

It's time to stop saying that this will do something, and show how it will do it. I have yet to see a serious, studied, logical argument for these types of laws. They are simply feel-good non-solutions, that divert us from expending our energies on more useful tasks. None of the stuff you list even allows for logic. You're just spinning off stuff from the top of your head. Calm down and work to find real solutions. This is just pretty wrapping paper that goes against much of what we say we want this country to stand for in terms of free speech. It's supposed to stop something ugly, but it's got nothing inherently built in to actually accomplish anything but give people a big high when it's passed.

[jdj]

85. Do you realize how insulting you are?

Do you mean to sound this condescending and nasty?

I quote:

"None of the stuff you list even allows for logic. You're just spinning off stuff from the top of your head. Calm down and work to find real solutions."

Wow. And you actually want a response to that.

[HuckleB]

90. The pot calling the kettle black.

You really need to check a mirror, pal. I responded in kind to your condescension. God forbid that anyone give you a taste of your own medicine.

[Just Me]

20. It's about time.

Stop the Hate!

[displacedtexan]

33. Great news!

It's about time!

[kerrycrat2k4]

53. I agree

Next time some drunk rednecks decide to beat an innocent homosexual to within an inch of his life, maybe they'll remember that its a hate crime and reconsider

[slutticus]

46. Excellent!!!! n/t

[laylah]

47. Awesome! n/t

[TexasMexican]

54. I'm against hate crimes laws.

In our society we should punish people for thier crimes, not for thier thoughts.

[jdj]

57. Name one person jailed for a thought. One.n/t

[TexasMexican]

60. I never claimed anyone was jailed for a thought....

I said I think we should punish people for thier crimes, not for thier thoughts.

With hate crimes laws the felon will be punished for thier crime and they will be punished again for the thoughts that lead them to commit the crime.

[jdj]

64. Poor, poor little felon.

I have never heard of any sentence that was given for thinking. The punishment is for action. And as far as the thought that led to the action, the law does provide for the difference in crimes committed in self-defense vs. cold-blooded murder, or even insanity. But all these crimes have something in common, and that is manifestation of intent. So am I supposed to feel sorry for someone who committed pre-meditated murder because they got a harsher sentence than someone who killed in self-defense? As per this example, one should be able to see that thoughts related to the crime matter one helluvalot in the eyes of the law.

[TexasMexican]

67. killing someone in self defense should not be a crime.

With that out of the way, if someone killed my loved one I wouldnt care if they did it for money, because they hate my race, or because they are crazy, I would want them to get the death penalty.

Lets have a different example though. Lets say someone is assaulted by another person, and its pretty bad and they give the guy who commited the assault whatever sentance.

Now lets says a black guy is assaulted by a skinhead. Lets just for the sake of argument say that the skinhead didnt beat the black guy that bad, he just wanted to "scare" him for whatever. The skinhead is arrested and convicted, because the skinhead was motivated by racial hatred, and because he wanted to intimidate the black community he is given a far harsher sentance than the guy in the first example despite the fact that the victim is in better shape than the victim in the first example.

Yeah I suppose my exmaples arent that great and I dont really know what goes in sentancing for assaults, but in my mind and with how messed up our legal system is I could imagine something like this happening.

[jdj]

71. You want me to feel sorry for a skinhead?

I find your terminology "intimidate the black community" very interesting. Someone in an above post called hate crimes terrorism, which you also seem to be implying as well. I had not taken into consideration the impact on the surrounding community, but maybe the law is doing this, and maybe that is the reason for the special designation. I remember the impact the dragging death of James Byrd had on the whole nation, and that in itself justifies the designation of "hate crime" and the harsher sentence, if indeed one is given. This is domestic terrorism, and how someone could argue unconstitutionality of laws like this is beyond me.

[Just Me]

58. In a way, I understand,...but,..."targeting" a "unique" person carries,...

,...a "hatred",...I think.

Whaddaya' think?

Killing or abusing a human being because they are "different", in my mind, carries at minimum hatred (since hatred does not necessarily produce violence).

Please further explain your position with a knowing that an individual is targeted because of his/her "difference". Do you belive an act to be equal to a random killing? If so, why?

[TexasMexican]

61. but we are all unique, just like everyone else...

Yeah I suppose killing someone because you hate them carries more hatred than killing someone just because you like killing people, or killing someone because you want thier money.

That being said, I dont think the hatred matters.

If a loved one of mine was killed I dont think I'd be too concerned that the person who killed them hated them, I would be concerned that the person who killed them, killed them.

In such a case I would have extreme hatred for the person who killed my loved one. Lets say I killed that person would I now too face additional time for commiting a hate crime?

[FizzFuzz]

76. I would think that a ruling such as this provides for more

certain and severe punishment? I gotta admit I know nothing about law, so I'm just thinking out loud, but hate would represent a sort of premeditation that should push the crime into a category that is looked at as more heinous. ? I think.

Anyway, I am just happy to see all actions that push against the fundaMENTAList haters. And I want to second an earlier post too, that women are the victims of hate crimes all the damn time, just because they are women.

[gator_in_Ontario]

63. And hate crime legislation punishes

thoughts how???

[TexasMexican]

65. perhaps you should read post 60.

[jdj]

66. I guess thoughts should be a protected group, since

they are being unjustly tried and convicted. Just like homosexuals, their very existence is a crime.

Or something.

[TexasMexican]

68. well they say that two wrongs dont make a right.

althought I dont particularily buy into that argument but there it is.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

75. Where's the bigotry?

Your post is far more bigoted. You called this guy a bigot without the slightest evidence to that end. How ridiculous can you be?

[TankLV]

77. These posters only show up to defend similar positions.

I am simply responding to his history of posting.

So calling someone on his bigotry is being bigoted.

Nice logic.

Try again.

[HuckleB]

79. You called him bigoted based on an assumption you can't make.

Yeah, that's bigotry. You don't know why he believes as he does. You just chose to call him a bigot because he does believe as he does. And that belief indicates no bigotry whatsoever. Therefore your assumption that he is a bigot can only be noted as bigotry. You labeled him without cause, without reason, without actually having a clue about him. That's bigotry, my friend.

It's time to come down from your adrenaline high and think about the issues. Try discussing for once.

[bear425]

55. kick

Some good news for a change!

[Tight_rope]

56. Kick!

[TexasMexican]

69. So what is the House version of this bill?

does anyone know what HR number of the house version is, and when it will come to vote and whatever?

[NewJerseyDem]

83. The vote was an amendment to the DOD authorization bill

The House won't have a vote because the republicans are in control and won't let it come up. However, there is a bill proposed by John Conyers of Michigan that has 175 cosponsors including something like 12 republicans. It is H.R. 4204 and is called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2004.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.04204:

EDIT: Also, the provision on hate crimes is likely to be stripped out of the final bill after negotiations with the House. However, Gordon Smith has said that he had received assurances from Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner that he would attempt to keep the provision, which also extends hate crimes to offense based on gender or disabilities, in the final bill.

[Northwind]

70. Good news

However, the arguments about thought crime are pathetically disingenuous at best and outright dishonest at worst.

Thought is always taken into account in criminal justice. Murder is often prosecuted or defended based on intent or premeditation. How is that any different from hate crime laws? Answer: It isn't. Why we do things is as important as what we do. I suppose the knee-jerk high school debate club rand-oid asshat crowd would prefer we not look at motive or intent in anyway, so that we punish the lynching of a civil rights worker the same we we punish a woman that gets fed up with the mysogonist beating her, and kills him in self-defense. After all, a killing is a killing, right?

[missedherniceguy]

88. No thanks to Kerry

Why can't he even make an important vote? Should he retire from the Senate now?