George Bush Doesn't Care About Gay People.

[Art Sandusky 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/03/hat...bill/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House has threatened to veto a bill passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday that expands hate-crime laws to include attacks based on sexual orientation or gender.

 

Under current law, hate crimes are subject to federal prosecution only if the acts of violence are motivated by race, religion, color or national origin. Federal prosecutors get involved only if the victim is engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting or participating in interstate commerce.

 

The White House says there is no need for the expanded bill because state and local laws already cover the crimes it addresses, and there is no need for federal enforcement.

 

In addition to allowing greater leeway for federal law enforcement authorities to investigate hate crimes, the House bill -- which was passed on a 237-180 vote --provides $10 million over the next two years to aid local prosecutions.

 

A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate, but no date has been set for a vote.

 

Addressing freedom of speech

Critics of the bill say it would have a chilling effect on clergy who preach against homosexual behavior.

 

"We believe that this legislation will criminalize our freedom of speech and our ability to preach the gospel," said Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Lanham, Maryland.

 

Supporters disagree. The bill, they say, applies only to violent crime and, in fact, specifically addresses freedom-of-speech issues.

 

"Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution," the bill says.

 

House representatives got into a heated exchange Thursday as they debated the bill.

 

"They [hate crimes] are more serious than a normal assault because they target not just an individual, but an entire group," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York.

 

Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Florida, said it is unfair to single out specific groups for protection under the law.

 

"What it does is to say that the dignity, the property, the life of one person gets more protection than another American. That's just wrong," he said.

 

Both sides cited the case of Matthew Shepard of Wyoming, whose brutal 1998 murder was linked to his sexual orientation.

 

"Matthew's death generated international outrage by exposing the violent nature of hate crimes," said Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, the only openly lesbian member of the House of Representatives.

 

But Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, argued that Shepard's killers got harsh sentences without hate-crimes provisions.

 

"Those perpetrators that did that horrible act -- both got life sentences under regular murder laws," he said.

 

If President Bush vetoes the bill, it would mark the third veto of his presidency. His second came Tuesday, when he vetoed a $124 billion war spending bill that included a deadline for U.S. troops to pull out of Iraq.

I'm surprised the defense isn't "of course it's a hate crime! You must really hate a guy to beat his ass or kill him!"

[Guest Vitamin X]

This veto is fucking retarded.

[NoCalMike 0]

Wow, that Dubya guy sure is a uniter....

[foleyfanforever88 0]

Violence against gays shouldn't be a hate crime. Most people don't hate gay people because they ARE gay, but because they ACT gay. I hate straight people who act gay as much as I hate gay people who act gay. So if I were to ever beat the shit out of a gay guy, it wouldn't be a "hate crime", the way hate crime is defined.

[snuffbox 0]

Pathetic.

[Guest Richard McBeef]

I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation in general, so I guess that makes me a toadie with Down's syndrome; I'm going to go post in another thread now.

[Ripper 0]

If you are going to have hate crime legislation, then this veto is stupid.

[snuffbox 0]

You're ACTING gay, Czech. Foleyfanforever has to beat the shit out of you now.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

What's fucked up is that the Bush administration has supported hate crime legislation, just not for gays.

[Ripper 0]

Don't want to take away all of the pointless hate filled peoples fun.

 

"Now we can't just go around and jump the blacks, mexicans or jews because we might get extra time. But them gays are still fair game. So lets go find some white, atheist gays!!!"

 

I don't personally see the problem with hate crime legistlation. I do think that beating up a guy because you got in a argument with him is not the same as beating up a guy because you wanted to beat up someone of that race. Motive of crime is used in all crime to determine the punishment, so I don't undestand why crime because of race, sex, religion, nationality or sexual orientation should be excluded from that.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I hate hate-crime legislation.

[Guest Richard McBeef]

Because that means the punishment for committing the same crime against someone who can't easily be pigeonholed into a traditionally persecuted minority is less severe.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

What if someone is half-white and half-something else? Does that mean the penalty is only 50% higher than it would be if they were all-minority? What if I'm white and a group of black people assault me? Am I also covered by hate crime legislation?

 

Enough with this white guilt B.S. This is the 21st century, not the 1960s.

[Hasbeen1 0]

Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Florida, said it is unfair to single out specific groups for protection under the law.

 

"What it does is to say that the dignity, the property, the life of one person gets more protection than another American. That's just wrong," he said.

 

Everyone should read that part again.

 

Both sides cited the case of Matthew Shepard of Wyoming, whose brutal 1998 murder was linked to his sexual orientation.

 

"Matthew's death generated international outrage by exposing the violent nature of hate crimes," said Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, the only openly lesbian member of the House of Representatives.

 

But Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, argued that Shepard's killers got harsh sentences without hate-crimes provisions.

 

"Those perpetrators that did that horrible act -- both got life sentences under regular murder laws," he said.

 

And that. They actually should have gotten worse. Prosecute to the full extent of the law regardless of the victim, and you'll have less to worry about when it comes to such offenses.

[EricMM 0]

There are other hate crimes than murder...

 

As Ripper said, it speaks to the possibility of a repeat offense.

[Ripper 0]

I haven't seen any argument in here that would make going against hate crime legislation make sense.

 

And its not only minorities anyway and you know full well it isn't. Say a black guy pulls a white guy out of his car at a stop light and beats him up because "He felt like beating up a white boy". Are you saying that he is the same time of criminal as one that beats up a white guy because he cut him off in traffic? Same crime, pulling someone from their car and beating them. One of them has anger issues, one has a far more dangerous underlying problem.

 

Hitting a guy and robbing him for money, that assault and robbery. Hitting a guy and beating him up because you felt like beating up some mexicans. Same crime on the surface, but the reasoning is completely different.

 

For Invader's retarded "What if they are HALF OF SOMETHING" crap, if of people jump a guy or girl because they are not pure whatever, hell yes it is a bigger crime.

 

Murder is murder. There isn't much more you can do there. But say if someone spray paints "Polk High Rules" on my house, i feel they should get alesser penalty than the ones that spray "Leave now nigger". Taking the entire story of the crime into account, I would like to ask how can you not say crimes based on race, religion ect. don't hold a deeper and more serious threat than those that are simply crimes?

 

I mean seriously, commit a crime, get one sentence, commit the same crime with a knife on you and you are going to get another. That is how the law works. You can't pick and choose when to simplify it.

 

Most people seem to get their idea of how Hate crime legislation works from a episode of South Park. There has to be alot more to it than being of different races to constitute a hate crime.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

And that. They actually should have gotten worse. Prosecute to the full extent of the law regardless of the victim, and you'll have less to worry about when it comes to such offenses.

 

I agree with this. I think that basically if someone commits a serious crime, the question should be "Can we justify executing this person?" and if not, then the punishment should be as severe as possible.

[snuffbox 0]

Enough with this white guilt B.S. This is the 21st century, not the 1960s.

 

This is the kind of stuff that puts you in the gimmick territory.

[Ripper 0]

So no looking at the circumstances at all?

 

 

Like wife catches husband molesting child and shoots him in the head should get the same as gangbanger that wanted to prove that he is hard and shoots innocent person walking by in the head?

 

I know those are extremes, but that is also reality where the same crime but you have to look t the reasonings behind both. There are shades of gray. Lots of them.

[Slayer 0]

There isn't much more you can do there. But say if someone spray paints "Polk High Rules" on my house, i feel they should get alesser penalty than the ones that spray "Leave now nigger".

"Small Booties Rule"

[Dobbs 3K 0]

No, the woman who kills the child molestor should get a medal.

[Ripper 0]

There isn't much more you can do there. But say if someone spray paints "Polk High Rules" on my house, i feel they should get alesser penalty than the ones that spray "Leave now nigger".

"Small Booties Rule"

 

 

Thems fightin words

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Enough with this white guilt B.S. This is the 21st century, not the 1960s.

 

This is the kind of stuff that puts you in the gimmick territory.

 

Why, because you disagree with me? I'm not going to sugarcoat my opinions just because they're not P.C.

[Ripper 0]

No, the woman who kills the child molestor should get a medal.

 

 

I think that basically if someone commits a serious crime, the question should be "Can we justify executing this person?" and if not, then the punishment should be as severe as possible.

 

Can't have it both ways. the woman shooting the perv didn't handle it in a lawful way. The Lawful way is to call the proper authorities and let them handle it. There for she committed murder. Just like the gangbanger. But by judging the circumstances I think you would be hard pressed to say she deserves the same sentence.

 

My point, commiting the same crime doesn't necessarily mean it deserves the same punishment. Committing the same crime under the same circumstances means same punishment. Hate Crime legislation is dividing the different circumstances.

[Ripper 0]

Enough with this white guilt B.S. This is the 21st century, not the 1960s.

 

This is the kind of stuff that puts you in the gimmick territory.

 

Why, because you disagree with me? I'm not going to sugarcoat my opinions just because they're not P.C.

 

 

Your constant whining about the struggles of being a persecuted white man in todays society is what puts you in gimmick territory.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I don't whine about it. I'm not going to apologize for being white, either, though.

[Ripper 0]

I don't whine about it. I'm not going to apologize for being white, either, though.

 

'Pologize....

[Dobbs 3K 0]

LOL

 

Ok, I'll apologize, but only to the elected president of black people.

[justsoyouknow 0]

Jesse Jackson is not the emperor of black people.

[Guest Richard McBeef]

Say a black guy pulls a white guy out of his car at a stop light and beats him up because "He felt like beating up a white boy". Are you saying that he is the same time of criminal as one that beats up a white guy because he cut him off in traffic? Same crime, pulling someone from their car and beating them. One of them has anger issues, one has a far more dangerous underlying problem.

"Far more dangerous," as if yanking the driver of a car out to kick his ass is some innocuous boys-will-be-boys scrap? I'm just as worried about the guy who acts on his road rage in that fashion as the crazy racist guy. I think both should be punished equally.