GOP Hysterical Over Hate Crimes Bill Because It Would Protect Gay People
GOP Hysterical Over Hate Crimes Bill Because It Would Protect Gay People
The House is scheduled to vote today on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The bill, also called the Matthew Shepard Act, would “permit greater federal involvement in investigating hate crimes and expand the federal definition of such crimes to include those motivated by gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.” Yesterday, President Obama urged Congress “to act on this important civil rights issue,” and pass the bill. Indeed, in 2007, the most recent year for which statics are available, there were 7,621 single-bias hate crimes that involved 8,999 offenses, more than 50 percent of which were racially-motivated.
The right wing, unsurprisingly, is up in arms over extending protection to victims of anti-gay crimes. Led by Rep. Steve King (R-IA), House Republicans took to the floor last night to warn that the bill would impose “tyranny,” create a “Big Brother” government, and end religious freedom:
REP MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN): I feel that this hate crime legislation could be considered the very definition of tyranny.
REP. GRESHMAN BARRET (R-SC): This bill would inhibit religious freedom in our society — a scary thought.
REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): You think a pregnant mother does not deserve the protection of a homosexual? You think a military member doesn’t deserve the protection of a transvestite?
REP. STEVE KING (R-IA): I, Mr. Speaker, oppose and I defy the logic of the people that would advocate for such legislation the very idea we could divine what goes on in the heads of people when they commit crimes.
Watch a compilation:
Hate crimes laws go after violent crimes, not thoughts. In fact, the law specifically stipulates that “evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.”
Apparently unbeknownst to House Republicans, a federal hate crimes law already exists: Passed in 1968, it allowed federal investigation and prosecution of hate crimes based on race, religion, and national origin. The new law would simply add sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected groups, and allow local governments to get needed resources from the federal government for investigations and prosecutions. The need for such parity was made starkly clear more than a decade ago, in 1998, during the investigations of two different murders:
The Laramie, Wyoming Sheriff’s Office had to furlough five deputies in order to cover the more than $150,000 that it cost to investigate Matthew Shepard’s murder. Yet when Jasper, Texas investigated the lynching of James Byrd, Jr., it received $284,000 in federal funds because Byrd’s murder was motivated by race, rather than sexual orientation.
Since then, members of Congress have sought to pass an expanded hate crimes law. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed both houses in 2007, but was stripped from a larger bill after President Bush vowed to veto it.
More than thirty states already have hate crime legislation that includes anti-gay crimes — and in none of those states has notorious gay hater Fred Phelps been arrested for his speech. It’s clear what the GOP is really concerned about is any perceived infringement on their right to discriminate against gay people.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
There are no words to describe how appalled I am by this childish behavior.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:08 pmYou fear the most that what you are…..
April 29th, 2009 at 4:08 pm…wtf…
April 29th, 2009 at 4:08 pmWhy do the Rethuglic party hate-mongers oppose the hate crimes bill?
Ohhhh, Darrryyyllll. Please help us out on this one.
very snarky today
April 29th, 2009 at 4:14 pmREP. GRESHMAN BARRET (R-SC): This bill would inhibit religious freedom in our society — a scary thought.
Nominated for the Dumas award today.
Which religion promotes hate crimes?
Oh, right.
Xiofascists for X.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:14 pmUncle Ho ~ Either I’ve been very absent or very lucky, but I haven’t spied ruptured darlyy for quite a spell…
April 29th, 2009 at 4:14 pmThis is what infuriates me. The circumstances and motivations behind a murder aren’t all that important to me. Every police department should have adequate resources to investigate ALL the murders in their jurisdiction.
While what happened to Byrd and Shepard was horrific, the law should not treat other murders as less important because they weren’t motivated by ‘hate’.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:15 pmLet them keep it up. Pretty soon they’ll be left fielding David Duke for president.
Dead or dying, the GOP is thrashing about like a fish on a dock.
Also, does Michelle Bachmann have brain death flu? I have never seen a bigger moron in my life.
-G
April 29th, 2009 at 4:16 pmRight wing extremist took exception to the DHS report warning police agencies of a threat coming out of hateful right wing extremists because right wing extremists are hateful threats to other human beings. Look at the actions of these hateful, wingnuts and you should understand why they are considered a threat.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:16 pmI oppose it on the grounds that murder is murder and should be prosecuted and investigated with equal measure in all cases.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:17 pmThe hatred of the Christian reichwing has no bounds.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:18 pmREP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): You think a pregnant mother does not deserve the protection of a homosexual? You think a military member doesn’t deserve the protection of a transvestite?
what the hell does this even mean???
April 29th, 2009 at 4:19 pmDebating the bill on the House floor today, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) called Matthew Shepherd’s murder “a hoax” and denied that it was a hate crime.
I apologize to my fellow progressives here as an NC resident. We have a long way to go to exorcise the legacy of Jesse Helms. This woman does not speak for us all, and I’m glad that Obama won this state. That and we elected a pretty progressive governor and senator.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:19 pmStill, we have a way to go…
I apologize in advance…
April 29th, 2009 at 4:19 pmHOW THE FCK DO THESE BIGOTS GET ELECTED!!!
AND UNDER THE FALSE PRETENSE OF BEING A (C)HRISTIAN???
Do Republicans really want to fight for the right to commit hate crimes? This is looking real bad for them.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:21 pmWell if you Hate gay peole and you murder a gay person be he or she is gay, then it’s a hate crime “deebaser”. Pretty simple I think. Just like KKK hanging people because of the color of their skin, it murder for sure but motivated by hate. Not a hard concept to grasp.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:22 pmUnfortunately, our GOP friends cannot articulate such a position and must fall back on what they know: buzzwords, fear and false dichotomies.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:23 pmSpattering invective. Absolutely shocking.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:26 pmSo. . . if I understand the thread here. . . the American Taliban believes its members’ right to freely exercise their religion is violated if they are not allowed to beat gays to death? Am I close here?
And by the way, if King does not believe we should try to “divine what goes on in the heads of people when they commit crimes” he better start working on legislation to scrub every specific intent crime off the books (so much for terrorism prosecutions).
April 29th, 2009 at 4:27 pmREP. GRESHMAN BARRET (R-SC): This bill would inhibit religious freedom in our society — a scary thought.
How so exactly?? By not being able to spew hatred from the pulpit???
Isn’t this kind of stuff that the Taliban and their ilk do???
April 29th, 2009 at 4:27 pmHate crimes are an assault on an individual and an assault on society. Bonus points for the assault on society.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:28 pm“Someone may hold some very hateful beliefs…But we’re America, shouldnt they be allowed to HOLD those beliefs?
Sure, Ms “Pro-America/Anti-America”. A person can hold as many racist beliefs as they want. As many anti-government beliefs as they want. As many homophobic beliefs as they want. As many atheological beliefs as they want. But its when they chose to act on those in a crass, careless, and dangerous way that makes it wrong and Anti-American.
Its funny how people like Bachmann like to say we progressives and the left seem to sympathize with terrorists rather than the troops as far as torture/interrogations go. But from these statements, it seems they sympathize with the people who commit these crimes rather than the victims. To hell with them even if they die.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:29 pmAnother day, another ten yards dug on the republican electoral hole. At this rate, they’ll be punching through the mantle soon.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:33 pmNo one has suggested it’s a difficult concept. I just disagree that some jerk hanging me for some non-racially motivated reason is any less reprehensible than some dingleberry hanging someone for a racialy motivated reason.
In both cases I would love for the police to have the resources to track the person/people responsible and remove them from society.
If you get rid of “hate crime” legislation entirely EVERYONE receives equal protection under the law.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:35 pmThe bigotry of this party is just getting out of control. These people are disgusting. I’m at a loss for words…
April 29th, 2009 at 4:37 pmAll criminal acts are an assault on society. That’s why criminal cases are generally “The People of _______ vs. Mr. Dbag”
April 29th, 2009 at 4:37 pmdeebaser Says:
——————————————————————————–
Uncle Ho Says:
Why do the Rethuglic party hate-mongers oppose the hate crimes bill?
I oppose it on the grounds that murder is murder and should be prosecuted and investigated with equal measure in all cases.
I completely agree. Why should murder be charged differently if the victim is gay, black or any other distinction and they were killed because of that distinction? The penalty for pre-meditated murder should be the same regardless of these factors. I don’t see how hate crimes can be considered constitutional.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:38 pmI really hope brothafreakshow doesn’t have any unintelligable pretend opinion on the subject but I bet bit does… Where is old bit?
April 29th, 2009 at 4:39 pmAll criminal acts are an assault on society.
Baloney.
How is the comsumption of marijuana an assault on society?
Think before you type.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:40 pm@6 deebaser
Yes, i concur.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:40 pmMake that consumption.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:40 pm@31 barfly
Yes, i concur.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:42 pmNot really. There are different degress of murder. Not all murders are equal in nature and motive. Crimes of passion are prosecuted differently than plots to murder and contract killings. Have you ever heard of 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder? It doesn’t seem you have.
Hate crime legislation prevents the defending attorney from claiming it’s a crime of passion (a lesser sentence)…even when the passion is pure, evil, hatred for the person being murdered.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:43 pmMaybe teh gays are a red herring, and the GOP is really trying to clear the ground so they can get back to lynching.
.
deebaser Says:
While what happened to Byrd and Shepard was horrific, the law should not treat other murders as less important because they weren’t motivated by ‘hate’.
The difference is that with “normal” murders, the motivation varies by the individual. When you’ve got a group advocating motives for murder, that’s both more of a serious problem, and can become more difficult to prosecute, as fellow bigots stick together. It’s similar to having increased powers to investigate organized crime, or serial killers. There’s a causal connection between the crimes. They aren’t random. Dealing with that causal connection takes extra effort.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:44 pmBachmann doesn’t comprehend the English language. She said this law would inhibit freedom of speech. Uh no, Michelle no it doesn’t. They can spout their speech all they want they just can’t murder people because of it. Geez, and this bimbo got a law degree from Oral Roberts.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:45 pmOMG, I breezed through the post too quickly. I almost missed my daily ration of Bachmann crazies!
Tyranny: arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
I don’t know what sort of logic sudoku you have to play to get this bill to = tyranny, but thank you Michelle Bachmann, as always, you deliver “teh lulz”.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:45 pmOur history has shown the same arugment when Christian Leaders used to bible to defend continuing slavery. When the Civil Rights Bill was passed the same Christian Bible supporters used the fact we’d all go to hell if Black/Minorities got equal rights. Now it seems the Christian Republicans have brushed off some old language to do the same today as they deny Gay’s their equal rights. Now please don’t repeat anything Bachmann says she’s so far out of your mine there’s no turning back.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:46 pmREP. GRESHMAN BARRET (R-SC): This bill would inhibit religious freedom in our society — a scary thought.
No, you Repub homophobe, it won’t. Unless, of course, you think religious freedom allows you to beat up & kill gay people, which you, Greashman Barret, apparently do.
Virginia Foxx (R-NC) called Matthew Shepherd’s murder “a hoax” and denied that it was a hate crime.
A hoax? What a horrendous insult to that young man’s family. Their child was murdered in a horrendous way because he was gay, and as if that isn’t bad enough, this ridiculous excuse for a human being named Virginia Foxx says it was a hoax? Foxx, evidently a stupid homophobe, has absolutely no ability to accept facts, or even look them up. These Repubs are such despicable humans that it’s almost unbelievable they could spew this hate.
Repubs always think they are more privileged than anyone else. Jesus must be shocked at such behavior.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:47 pmREP. GRESHMAN BARRET (R-SC): This bill would inhibit religious freedom in our society — a scary thought.
What religious freedom? To beat the hell out of “teh gays” until they die?
Or are we talking about protesting funerals of fallen soldiers?
Or murdered gays?
With signs that say “He/she is in HELL”?
Just what kind of FCKING FREEDOM are you spouting ABOUT???
April 29th, 2009 at 4:48 pmAnd the GOP wonders why they’re not popular.
Those quotes are some of the most asinine things I’ve ever read.
Michelle Bachmann is the poster child for voting Democratic.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:49 pmAre we really supposed to be suprised by this?
April 29th, 2009 at 4:49 pmCorrect me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that “hate crime” legislation contains nothing in it that says people cannot oppose homosexuality for religious, moral, or any other reasons. It doesn’t even say you can’t be a bigot.
It DOES say you can’t commit acts of violence against other people because of their race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender, or other factors of what they are.
Do these Republicans truly want their right to commit acts of violence against other people to be protected? I’m a Christian, and there’s absolutely nothing about my religion that condones that kind of behavior. So I’m at a loss at how this legislation would “inhibit” anybody’s “religious freedom”.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:50 pmpaleolib: I had the same thought:
“Examples of specific-intent crimes are solicitation, attempt, conspiracy, first-degree premeditated murder, assault, Larceny, robbery, burglary, forgery, false pretense, and Embezzlement.” (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/criminal+law)
I may have more to say about this later, but in the meantime, I’m waiting for King to introduce his bill repealing the federal versions of all these crimes.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:52 pmbarfly says(@4:40 pm):
Does that mean my bongs are roach clips are “assault weapons”?
April 29th, 2009 at 4:53 pm“REP. GRESHMAN BARRET (R-SC): This bill would inhibit religious freedom in our society — a scary thought.”
Have you ever read any reports in the soon-to-be-obsolescent newspapers or on the internet or even on the TeeVee of anyone even questioning the shenanigans of any in the pulpit? It;s just not permitted or discussed.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:56 pmooops; I guess I should have asked deebaser ’bout my bongs & roach clips.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:57 pmThere is a historic background for prosecuting hate crimes as a federal offense. Murder is almost always a state, not federal crime. Congress began passing civil rights legislation criminalizing certain discriminatory conduct only when it became clear that certain states (*cough* Mississippi) would not prosecute under state law. This is why most of the successful prosecutions that resulted when civil rights workers started turning up dead were federal, not state prosecutions. Like it or not, these statutes are what prevent bigoted sheriffs and county prosecutors and judges from ignoring crimes committed against whatever class of people they don’t like.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:57 pmREP MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN): I feel that this hate crime legislation could be considered the very definition of tyranny.
_____________________________________________________________
Michelle, you think everything the Democrats do should be “considered the very definition of tyranny”. But don’t you see that all you’re doing with this constant whine is cheapening the term?
You might want to look up the ACTUAL definition of “tyranny” sometime. Here — I’ll even help you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny
Let’s see what we have here — “arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority”. Oh yes, and “oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler”.
Do you really want to stick with “tyranny”? Do you really feel you’re a victim of tyranny if you aren’t allowed to beat up or kill people because they’re not just like you? Do you really want to play it this way?
April 29th, 2009 at 4:58 pmWhen I think of all the gay brothers and sisters who fought for our country, this bigotry makes my gorge rise.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:59 pmFor those of you who are writing that all violent crimes should be treated the same way– you need to reread this:
The Laramie, Wyoming Sheriff’s Office had to furlough five deputies in order to cover the more than $150,000 that it cost to investigate Matthew Shepard’s murder. Yet when Jasper, Texas investigated the lynching of James Byrd, Jr., it received $284,000 in federal funds because Byrd’s murder was motivated by race, rather than sexual orientation.
Hate crimes against gay people continue to be treated less seriously — witness the comment by Virginia Foxx saying that Matthew Shepherd’s murder because he was gay is a “hoax”. I’m sure we’ll never hear her call the murder of a straight white woman “a hoax”. And why are violent crimes against gay people treated less seriously? Because hateful people like all the Repubs quoted in this article continue to treat gays as lesser individuals with fewer rights than the privileged Repubs they see themselves to be. Disgusting.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:01 pmmisscoleoptramolly says:
As for Bachman’s whine, are you sure it’s not wine?
Seriously, I think she has DTs.
Time for me to make like a banana and split.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:01 pmIt seems as though the GOP will be their own political undoing, as they continue to paint themselves into an ideological electoral corner by further becoming the party of only white, corporatist, fear-mongerers who offer no alternative solutions to any of the problems facing our country.
I truly would be surprised if they are not extinct in ten years time due to the rise of an alternative, and less rigid, conservative movement that could be far more inclusive.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:03 pmI find “hate crime” to be a very difficult issue to define. After all, isn’t the willing intent to kill someone in itself motivated by the hatred towards another individual?
However, I can see that, for something to be considered a hate crime, that hatred has to expand to the mere association of the victim to that of a larger group.
Was the Matthew Shepherd murder a hate crime? Judging by the evidence, absolutely.
However, as a justice-driven American, I want to see the full extent of the law thrown at any of those people who have been proven guilty of murder. If that murderer has shown motivation, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that hate of a larger group of people, whether it be majority or minority, was the fuel for his or her act, then that extent of the penalty must reflect that added motivation.
That being said, I can’t tell what side of the fence I am on with this bill. I want equal rights for those killed due to their sexuality, but I want the rights to apply to anyone who was killed because of the hatred of their affiliation.
However, I certainly would not stand against the bill for the reasons given by these narrow-minded congressmen and congresswomen. Injecting these ridiculous arguments into the law will only swing the vote against them.
Oh, and Rep. Bachmann, just because this is America, that doesn’t give people the right to hold hateful beliefs if it leads to them killing those they hate. What a sickening thing for you to say.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:08 pmYes, you are probably right. At first, I thought Rep. Barret (R-SC) was sticking up for the right of Satanists to perform human sacrifices.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:10 pmTell Virginia Foxx what you think:
WASHINGTON, D.C.
1230 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2071
Fax: (202) 225-2995
CLEMMONS, N.C.
6000 Meadowbrook Mall, Suite 3
Clemmons, NC 27012
Phone: (336) 778-0211
Fax: (336) 778-2290
BOONE, N.C.
240 Hwy 105 Extension, Suite 200
Boone, NC 28607
Phone: (828) 265-0240
Fax: (828) 265-0390
Don’t forget, a written letter carries more weight than a fax.
Be polite, we don’t need the bad reputation they would like to pin on us.
I can’t understand how she could possibly say such a thing, I hope that Matthew Shepards’ family demands an apology from the worthless excuse for a politician.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:10 pmFcuk the Republican Scum Sucking Bigots…
…with “teh gay”.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:10 pmMinnesota recently passed a anti-bullying bill for schools. The Republicans stated similar objections to the homosexual protections. There are archived audio and video clips of the debate. Start here:
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=Senate&f=SF0971&ssn=0&y=2009
Really ridiculous stuff.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:11 pmYet somehow that didn’t stop the DA that prosecuted the murder of Matthew Shepard from securing a 1st degree murder conviction.
Err… Im not familiar with any federal hate crime legislation that limits the defense, it only increases the penalties.
If you could provide a single item of caselaw in the past 20 years where the defense SUCCESSFULLY argued that the defendant couldn’t control himself by the mere presense of ‘a gay’ I’ll gladly cede the point that you are truly a legal scholor, until then, don’t presume what other posters know or do not know about the law.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:12 pmThe reason for hate crimes legislation is exactly the same as that for the Voting Rights Act.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:13 pmdeebaser Says:
I oppose it on the grounds that murder is murder and should be prosecuted and investigated with equal measure in all cases.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
____________
So by that logic, burning a cross on someone’s front lawn or spray-painting swastikas in a synagogue is just trespassing or vandalism. Why should anyone care about it as anything other than a minor nuisance, right?
The logic prosecuting hate-crimes with a stricter standard of justice is that they are especially heinous crimes that target not just one individual, such as a mugging or a crime of passion, but that target a larger group.
It’s nice to say “everyone in society should have equal protection under the law,” but a prerequisite for that ideal is that society must treat all its members equally first. If African-Americans or gays or Jews or Hispanics are being disproportionately targeted as victims of crime, the justice system must disproportionately enforce the law in order to prevent this crime.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:16 pmSooo, religious freedom = beating up, maiming, torturing, and/or murdering teh gays — just because they are teh gay — and then getting to pretend they’re just a murderer, not a racist, hate-mongering murderer.
I get it now.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:17 pmThe Repubs are afraid they won’t be able to hate as much as they like to.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:21 pmI guess that means that if I were a murderer, and really really wanted to kill a Fundie Christian — just because I really really hate Fundie Christians — then no Fundie Christians would get their panties in a twist about my killing a Fundie Christain, and they wouldn’t be anymore fearful of someone like me, because I’m just an ordinary murderer.
Just like if I killed a gay person, because they were gay.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:21 pmWow! Bachmannwatch.com got some good material today. Wow!
April 29th, 2009 at 5:22 pmPurple State Says:
I find “hate crime” to be a very difficult issue to define. After all, isn’t the willing intent to kill someone in itself motivated by the hatred towards another individual?
Because there’s a slight difference between the willing intent to kill one individual versus the willing intent to kill any individual. “I’m gonna kill John Doe for his money”, versus “I’m gonna kill that gay person walking there just because he is gay”.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:30 pmAs a, sometimes, proud Minnesotan; I sincerely wish Crazy Shelly would STFU for at least a day.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:33 pmI understand your point, but I disagree with it.
Burning a cross on someone’s lawn is at least 3 felonies and one or two misdemeanors. (Arson, Coercion, criminal mischief, and tresspassing). If you eschew hate crime legislation completely and simply use “He burned a goddamn cross on that guys lawn for chrissakes” as an aggravating factor, you can dole out some serious jail time.
Racist grafitti is a little harder to throw the book at the jerk, but Criminal mischief applies and is a felony in NY at least (max sentence >= 1 year prison).
I respect your POV, but I think the judicial tools are available to deal with the scumbags in society without creating additional protected class legislation.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:34 pmOmg thank you. This is totally bookmarked!
April 29th, 2009 at 5:36 pmRepublicans are getting smaller and smaller in America’s rearview mirror.
bye bye.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:42 pmbatshit crazy bachmann,
April 29th, 2009 at 5:57 pmyou have the right to hold any belief you want. that right ends when you try to take a bat to my skull, skank.
Crime 1: A man gets in a bar fight and shoots a kills someone.
Crime 2: A man stands outside a gay bar, grabs the first man to exit, shoots him dead, and hangs a sign around the dead man’s neck saying “The only good fag is a dead fag.”
In crime 1 there is one victim – the individual shot. In crime 2 the individual shot is a representative victim. This is a form of terrorism against the whole gay community. Call it terrorism or call it a hate crime, either way I think it deserves federal attention and investigation. The possibility of there being an organized group behind this and/or this being part of a serial killing spree is high.
April 29th, 2009 at 6:06 pmI must have slipped off the track back on turn 9. Are these people really saying that adding a federal aspect to these crimes is denying their religious freedom?
Somehow someone thinks they have some kind of right to commit crimes?
Thank you George and Dick and all your other twisted friends.
April 29th, 2009 at 6:12 pmIt used to be when they exaggerated the effects of a “values” issue, I’d be seriously concerned that they’d get away with it, since they had so many times before. But this time, all I’m seeing is them unwittingly putting themselves on the side of killing homosexuals. The old tactics are backfiring horribly these days, but they just keep on pulling the trigger.
.
Perry logan Says:
When I think of all the gay brothers and sisters who fought for our country, this bigotry makes my gorge rise.
Oh, they’re unwelcome in the military still.
.
Purple State Says:
That being said, I can’t tell what side of the fence I am on with this bill. I want equal rights for those killed due to their sexuality, but I want the rights to apply to anyone who was killed because of the hatred of their affiliation.
That’s the point behind this bill, at least to the extent that we have defined “protected classes” at present. Don’t let the R’s fool you into thinking this bill is just about teh gays. That’s just what they picked out of it.
.
shoeless Says:
The reason for hate crimes legislation is exactly the same as that for the Voting Rights Act.
R’s are against that too.
.
Zooey Says:
Sooo, religious freedom = beating up, maiming, torturing, and/or murdering teh gays…
I’m curious to know what Bachmann’s religion is.
April 29th, 2009 at 6:15 pmdeebaser Says:
Burning a cross on someone’s lawn is at least 3 felonies and one or two misdemeanors. (Arson, Coercion, criminal mischief, and tresspassing). If you eschew hate crime legislation completely and simply use “He burned a goddamn cross on that guys lawn for chrissakes” as an aggravating factor, you can dole out some serious jail time.
Not so much. The KKK used to be able to rely on being able to have an effect disproportionate to the sentences incurred, until hate crime legislation showed up. It worked.
We have extra enforcement and penalties for serial killers. We have extra enforcement and penalties for organized crime. We have extra enforcement and penalties for hate crimes. In all three cases, those crimes need extra (federal) attention not because the victims are more important than other victims, but because the causes of violence are causing more violence.
You need further discouragement to violence when you live in a society (or subset thereof) where violence against a particular group is encouraged.
April 29th, 2009 at 6:19 pmIt’s funny how any time hate speech or hate crimes legislation comes up, Republicans go insane and worry about thought crimes, etc. Isn’t that just them admitting they are full of hate? If they weren’t having all those hateful feelings and thoughts, why should they be so scared?
If they don’t HATE gays, then why the hell would they care so much about gays having equal rights?
April 29th, 2009 at 6:25 pmI can’t imagine the freakout they’ll have when they realize gender is also protected. That homophobia of theirs is deeply rooted in misogynistic bigotry.
April 29th, 2009 at 6:28 pmHooray for it’s passage! Bachmann is going to be gone in the next election, there’s enough opposition against her for that right now.
April 29th, 2009 at 6:33 pmI love how the definition of “religious freedom” for these bastards is the right to commit hate crimes against minorities. They are truly beautiful people. Remember, hate is not a family value.
April 29th, 2009 at 6:34 pmIts not like anyone is declaring ‘war on gay bashers’ for performing acts of violence against American citizens. /snark
April 29th, 2009 at 6:40 pmWouldn’t a Hate Crimes Bill shut down Fox News? Just a thought.
April 29th, 2009 at 6:44 pmRep. Foxx is a real class act. The guy is dead, his community and family agree he was killed for being gay. But Rep. Foxx makes excuses for that type of brutality!
And next she’ll lecture on morals!
April 29th, 2009 at 6:47 pm______
Rosencrantz Says:
It’s funny how any time hate speech or hate crimes legislation comes up, Republicans go insane and worry about thought crimes, etc. Isn’t that just them admitting they are full of hate? If they weren’t having all those hateful feelings and thoughts, why should they be so scared?
Perhaps because of the people who will be deciding if a thought is hateful? For example, people like you who assume that if one opposes homosexuality, one must necessarily hate homosexuals.
If they don’t HATE gays, then why the hell would they care so much about gays having equal rights?
Because they don’t believe that a basic structure of society has to be changed to please a small group of people, especially when those people can receive all the rights they claim to want without changing that basic societal
April 29th, 2009 at 7:12 pmstructure. ;)
Listen to these people. It is impossible for them to change. I hope they continue as is. Because it makes clear every day, just why and how they lost. They are in disarray not only because they lost. But because they continue to think, say and do the things that made them lose.
They haven’t a clue. When they catch on, they will change their rhetoric to get re-elected. And then to no one’s surprise they will go back to the same old ways again. Look at the things the party and Bush said to get elected. Then they went forth with the unstated objective. To take as much as they could. From as many as possible, for as few of them as they could. All the power and money to friends.
Let them in again, and we will be back where we started. WE NEED A THIRD PARTY NOW. LET’S WORK FOR THAT.
April 29th, 2009 at 7:15 pmDebating the bill on the House floor today, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) called Matthew Shepherd’s murder “a hoax” and denied that it was a hate crime
What a horrible thing to say! I wonder if she’d say that in front of Matthew Shepherd’s family? The GOP has become the most loathsome group of scoundrels. No wonder there are so many wingnuts.
April 29th, 2009 at 7:18 pmVirginia Foxx is a huge embarassment as a member of Congress. She often speaks before the House, so she must be some kind of leader in the repub party. Wow! Steve King, Virginia Foxx, Patrick McHenry. Unbelievably awful.
April 29th, 2009 at 7:21 pmupright left Says:
Perhaps because of the people who will be deciding if a thought is hateful? For example, people like you who assume that if one opposes homosexuality, one must necessarily hate homosexuals.
If I “oppose” a characteristic of your existence, then regardless of how calm I am about it, I’m attempting to surpress your rights. For example, if I say I oppose left-handedness, and use that as an excuse to deny rights to left-handed people, then they’d be in their rights to say I’m practicing hate against them.
.
upright left Says:
Because they don’t believe that a basic structure of society has to be changed to please a small group of people, especially when those people can receive all the rights they claim to want without changing that basic societal
structure. ;)
Nobody’s talking about “changing the basic structure of society,” just prioritizing law enforcement and prosecution in certain cases.
Speaking of “changing the basic structor of society,” it’s the “anti-gay” people who keep saying that the rest of us have to pretend there’s no such thing as homosexuality so that they can keep their children ignorant of the fact that it exists. They’re the ones asking society to bend over backwards to please them, not us.
.
curious Says:
Let them in again, and we will be back where we started. WE NEED A THIRD PARTY NOW. LET’S WORK FOR THAT.
They’re going to fragment at least four ways in the next few years. Whichever party other than Dems that remains (and which is not crazy) will probably grow to replace them. It’s possible that there might be a neck-and-neck for second place for a while, which would give a third party a chance, but they wouldn’t be able to get anything done unless they merged with #2.
April 29th, 2009 at 7:24 pmupright left Says: My brain just farts while my mouth shits and my fingers have diarrhea.
April 29th, 2009 at 7:48 pm______
ElBruce Says:
If I “oppose” a characteristic of your existence, then regardless of how calm I am about it, I’m attempting to surpress your rights. For example, if I say I oppose left-handedness, and use that as an excuse to deny rights to left-handed people, then they’d be in their rights to say I’m practicing hate against them.
You aren’t “practicing hate” against someone unless you hate them.
Nobody’s talking about “changing the basic structure of society,” just prioritizing law enforcement and prosecution in certain cases.
Speaking of “changing the basic structor of society,” it’s the “anti-gay” people who keep saying that the rest of us have to pretend there’s no such thing as homosexuality so that they can keep their children ignorant of the fact that it exists. They’re the ones asking society to bend over backwards to please them, not us.
My comment was in reference to the more general question that was posted about why someone would oppose “rights” for homosexuals unless one hates homosexuals. Those seeking to allow gay marriage are attempting to change the basic societal structure of marriage.
I don’t know of anyone who wants to pretend that homosexuality doesn’t exist. There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect children from something that you believe is immoral until they are old enough to understand it.
April 29th, 2009 at 7:53 pm_____
Tweedster Says:
upright left Says: My brain just farts while my mouth shits and my fingers have diarrhea.
April 29th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
______
You disapproved of the comment? ;)
April 29th, 2009 at 7:57 pmupright left Says:
You disapproved of the comment? ;)
April 29th, 2009 at 8:04 pmWhich one? You ramble along incoherently. Too many words, too many contradictions. Reread yourself sometime.
Does anyone remember Rep. Larry Craig [men's airport latrine seeking gay sex] – he was Republican. Does this mean they HATED Larry Craig [he must be a closet gay man] since they thought he was one of them despite his marriage being nothing more than a sham? Does this mean that if they found GAY Larry Craig murdered, they would NOT want his death investigated as a HATE crime? Or did they believe his trumped up story of ‘not being guilty’ because he ‘made’ his wife stand beside him while he denied guilt in his press conference so he could look like a ’straight’ married man?
However, if it was Rep Barney Frank, we can bet the Republicans would NOT see it as a HATE crime if he was found murdered because he is a Democrat.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:06 pmThe Obama Budget passed House and Senate! Yeah!
April 29th, 2009 at 8:07 pmAnd what the hell was Rep. Gohmert talking about? This is just nonsense wingnuttery.
REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): You think a pregnant mother does not deserve the protection of a homosexual? You think a military member doesn’t deserve the protection of a transvestite?
April 29th, 2009 at 8:10 pmIn the military, we were required to take written tests regularly, to demonstrate that we understood military regulations and our jobs. I would like to see Congress tested regularly. Those who fail, which would likely be most of them, would have to take hit the books to prepare for the next test.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:28 pmREP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): You think a pregnant mother does not deserve the protection of a homosexual? You think a military member doesn’t deserve the protection of a transvestite?
If there was a significant section of the population saying that pregnant women and/or military members were sinful, horrible, subhuman, soulless and/or undeserving of basic consideration then they probably should be covered by hate crimes laws.
.
upright left Says:
You aren’t “practicing hate” against someone unless you hate them.
Not at all. I can believe that a certain segment needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth without being particularly emotional about it at all. Nothing personal, it just happens to be the case that the existence of left-handed people is standing in the way of a future social utopia.
.
upright left Says:
Those seeking to allow gay marriage are attempting to change the basic societal structure of marriage.
People who believe in legal divorce are supporting a change to the structure of marriage. The most traditional definition of marriage involves permanence. By your argument, anyone in a second (third, fourth, etc) marriage is asking society to condone an adulterous lifestyle choice.
.
upright left Says:
There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect children from something that you believe is immoral until they are old enough to understand it.
Protecting them? Trust me, children are well old enough to understand intolerance.
It would be one thing if a school class discussed homosexuality and when the kid got home the parents said “at our church, we believe that’s a sin, so don’t be gay.” Fine. Ridiculous, but fine. It’s quite another thing for the parent to demand the curriculum avoid any and all information that homosexuals exist.
.
MadasHelinVA Says:
Does this mean that if they found GAY Larry Craig murdered, they would NOT want his death investigated as a HATE crime?
I’m sure they wouldn’t. They could quite reasonably argue that such a murder should be investigated as a regular crime. My rebuttal to that argument I gave earlier, a couple of times.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:29 pmThanks for the explanations of the law. I think my hatred towards the actual interpretation from the Republican representatives clouded my thinking. Not through the “brainwash” method, but more through the “vomit-in-mouth” way of thinking.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:50 pmuprightleft Says: Are you a confused troll?
April 29th, 2009 at 9:36 pm______
Tweedster Says:
upright left Says:
You disapproved of the comment? ;)
“Which one? Too many words…”
April 29th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Taxed your brain to read that many? Sorry, bud. ;)
April 29th, 2009 at 9:39 pmI’m still trying to figure out why anyone would be against “hate crime” legislation unless they intend to commit a “hate crime”. It makes no more sense than fighting “for Jesus”.
April 29th, 2009 at 9:46 pmOMG – that loathesome vile ugly b!tch – as if that hateful spew weren’t already bad enough, she said that with Matthew Shepard’s MOTHER in the vistor’s gallery.
Keep it up, you stupid and ugly Repukes. Just keep it up – one of these days, you might find *yourselves* victims of HATE CRIMES.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:30 pmI’m fed up with the Federal government meddling in the rights of individuals and imposing their view of ethics on the rest of us. What happened to freedom of expression?
It’s getting to the point where you can’t even go out and have yourself a good lynching anymore!
April 29th, 2009 at 10:33 pmlabman57 Says:
I’m fed up with the Federal government meddling in the rights of individuals and imposing their view of ethics on the rest of us. What happened to freedom of expression?
In celebration of this principle that you and I seem to agree on, I’m going to hunt you down and kill you. Hope the liberals don’t stop me! WOO!
April 29th, 2009 at 11:00 pm______
ElBruce Says:
Not at all. I can believe that a certain segment needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth without being particularly emotional about it at all. Nothing personal, it just happens to be the case that the existence of left-handed people is standing in the way of a future social utopia.
And you are within your rights to believe that as long as you don’t actually hurt anyone. Similarly, while I believe that homosexuality is wrong, I also believe that it’s wrong to hurt or hate someone because he is homosexual.
People who believe in legal divorce are supporting a change to the structure of marriage. The most traditional definition of marriage involves permanence. By your argument, anyone in a second (third, fourth, etc) marriage is asking society to condone an adulterous lifestyle choice.
Correct. Do you often use one wrong to excuse
another?
Protecting them? Trust me, children are well old enough to understand intolerance.
Intolerance? Yes, and they should be taught that it’s wrong. It’s also good to teach children to avoid
immorality.
It would be one thing if a school class discussed homosexuality and when the kid got home the parents said “at our church, we believe that’s a sin, so don’t be gay.” Fine. Ridiculous, but fine. It’s quite another thing for the parent to demand the curriculum avoid any and all information that homosexuals exist.
Or, schools could refrain from teaching about homosexuality since children will be just fine without it. When kids get home, the few parents who choose to can teach their kids about homosexuality. Foolish, but fine. It’s quite another to advocate inserting something totally unnecessary into the curriculum. ;)
April 29th, 2009 at 11:24 pmSome folks just don’t get my sarcastic, satirical sense of humor. (Sigh…)
April 29th, 2009 at 11:28 pm_____
republicans hate facts Says:
upright left Says:
Taxed your brain to read that many? Sorry, bud. ;)
Taxed your brain to read a logical argument? Sorry, TARD. ;)
April 29th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
______
Hopium boy, how are you this fine evening? I always read logical arguments. Occasionally, I read yours as well. ;)
April 29th, 2009 at 11:32 pmI think Mary Jo Kilroy should wait for the opportunity to force Ms. Foxx to answer for her comments on the house floor the next time she is speaking. It would be interesting to see how Foxx would respond to the tactics of her own leadership.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:51 pmThe GOP has long been, and continues to be the party of moral self-righteousness and exclusion to those whose religion, ethnicity, or lifestyle differs from its own.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:01 amUntil it can get its priorities straight and sever ideological ties with the extreme social conservative minority, it will continue to decline in significance, wallowing in the cesspool of bigotry and alienation.
______
republicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
upright left Says:
Hopium boy, how are you this fine evening? I always read logical arguments. Occasionally, I read yours as well. ;)
There’s no *EVIDENCE* that you *READ* or *UNDERSTAND* any of them Teabagistan MORON. ;)
April 29th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
______
Of course, time is much to valuable to waste on your comments too often. One of your own put it quite nicely:
MizzJ, rhf has always been a nutcase. He’s just always been on our side, so he was tolerable. Now he’s a Clinton ass sucker, and he can’t contain himself against the “hopium” smokers. What an idiot.
;)
April 30th, 2009 at 12:02 am______
republicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
Hey downright tarded, only 21% of Americans still have NO SHAME and call themselves REPUBLICANS! You should be SO PROUD for helping to DESTROY the GOP! I know we couldn’t have done it WITHOUT “USEFUL IDIOTS” like YOURSELF with all of your GAY BASHING, RELIGIOUS ZEALOTRY and IDIOCY!!
Thanks CHIMP!! ROTFL!
April 30th, 2009 at 12:10 am
______
Yeah, I’d be feeling bad right about now if I was a Repub. But I’m not a Repub, so I’m feeling pretty fantastic. After all, my candidate won. I’m really sorry your candidate didn’t make it, but she got a very cool consolation prize. And even though your side calls you a “nutcase” and a “Clinton ass sucker,” they’ve accepted you back into the fold for now so you just put it right out of your little mind. ;)
April 30th, 2009 at 12:20 am______
republicans hate facts Says:
upright left Says:
And even though your side calls you a “nutcase” and a “Clinton ass sucker,” they’ve accepted you back into the fold for now so you just put it right out of your little mind. ;)
Well I’m sure *SOME* of them do… Others *agree* with me and some even *LIKE* me… However *EVERYONE* on MY SIDE considers YOU to be a F**KKKING HOMOPHOBIC LOSER… I speak my MIND, and unlike the *CONS* that YOU BELONG TO they APPRECIATE THAT *EVENTUALLY* even when they don’t AGREE with it. Your side is SO *INCAPABLE* of that you get a Specter *LEAVING* the party…
WOW, s*cks EVEN MORE to be YOU! ;)
April 30th, 2009 at 12:42 am
______
Yeah, this one likes you as well.
“Speaking of RHF (aka VVGFU, btruthful),
You do know he(?) is just spouting $hit to get a response.
I’ve learned long ago to ignore him(?) with his improper profanities and childish ridicules of the mentally challenged.
Just not worth the effort to debate/discuss, but it is humorous to watch his meltdown every time Zooey posts.”
It’s a good thing the only thing you all have ever disagreed about is Obama. It’s great that you came around, though.
I voted for Obama, but I know how much trouble you have with that whole concept of voting for the candidate rather than the party, so I understand your confusion. Don’t you trouble yourself about it, bud.
And isn’t it great that Spector switched parties? Perhaps if he’s joined by a few more, they can bring the Democratic party back toward the center a little, where it was before so many of us found ourselves unable to support it anymore because it became the party of anything goes.
You have yourself a great evening now, bud, and just forget all about that whole “nutcase” thing. ;)
April 30th, 2009 at 1:06 am.
G(no)P
… No Rights!
… No Plan!
… No Budget!
… No Support!
… No Hope!
… No Vision!
… No, NO, NO!!!
.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:09 amshe is from a southern state cut her some slack.
look at the folks that represent those states.
they take more from the federal budget then they put in.
we should have let them have their own country.
united states is too big too govern.
these folks take pride in raising their children to fight in our wars for profits.
even call their kids heros.
just like the germans did when hitler invaded poland and france.
until we americans look into a mirror and see our imperialism nothing much will change in america.
we must drain the swamp and she needs to be the first to go.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:35 amupright left Says:
And isn’t it great that Spector switched parties? Perhaps if he’s joined by a few more, they can bring the Democratic party back toward the center a little, where it was before so many of us found ourselves unable to support it anymore because it became the party of anything goes.
Beats the hell out of waiting for Republicans to provide reasonable opposition.
Seriously, “blue dog” Dems are the only effective brake we have on out-of-control spending right now.
.
researcher Says:
she is from a southern state cut her some slack.
Bachmann? She’s from Minnesota. That’s about as opposite of “Southern” as it gets.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:33 amEvery time I see Bachmann, Boehner, Sanford, Perry,Palin, Cantor et al speak, I always ask myself, “why did they forget to wear their white hoodies’?”
Bachmann is what you would call having extreme ‘northern milita’ views.
Speaking with some of my friends a couple of weeks ago who live in Bachmann’s district, “they all want her to go away and most don’t share her views.”
to ElBruce I think he was talking about Virgina Foxx.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:53 amThanks SitesSesli Sohbet
April 30th, 2009 at 8:21 amSesli Chat
SesliSohbet
SesliChat
They’re pissing in the wind. As a result they smell like piss.
April 30th, 2009 at 8:46 amMore punitive legislation for the peasants I see.
Just make sure your are a rich, multi-national, investment class elitist before you beat up that gay guy and you should be fine.
April 30th, 2009 at 8:59 amLet me make sure I have this correct. If two people get into an altercation, and the gay guy beats the crap out of the heterosexual, the gay guy just committed a hate crime?
April 30th, 2009 at 9:00 amRep.Foxx should resign from office for misleading facts and telling lies, as old as this case is the two men responsible for this crime admitted they new the young man was gay and pretended they were gay to lure him out and beat and do this despicable act.Rep. Foxx is a typical Reich wing lunatic that has no heart and no soul, her arguments are as wrong and she knows it.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:18 amThis is an example of what is left of the GOP. This woman along with Michele Bachmann are dispicable human beings. The GOP is dying and they think they need to revert to their core valures, hate, greed, deceit, torture.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:27 amWhat a bunch of hate-filled hypocrites. It never ceases to amaze me what the Grand Old Perverts are capable of these days.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:34 am135 Rodeskawler Says:
If you can show that the gay guy beat the crap out of the heterosexual because he was heterosexual, then yes, the gay guy committed a hate crime.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:40 amRodeskawler Says:
Let me make sure I have this correct. If two people get into an altercation, and the gay guy beats the crap out of the heterosexual, the gay guy just committed a hate crime?
No, stupid person. Read again.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:44 amThis is one of the most offensive debates I’ve ever seen take place in Congress. Chris Matthews did a good segment on it last night. You can watch it here:
April 30th, 2009 at 11:44 amhttp://www.gotchamediablog.com/2009/04/chris-matthews-takes-on-virginia-foxx.html
So when are we going to hear “Death to the infidels” from the likes of Foxx and Bachmann? I now can deeply understand how the peaceful people of Islam must feel when their right wing spew out their hateful and dispicable remarks.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:02 pmI personally don’t agree with hate crime laws. I think every crime against another individual, regardless of sexual preference, race, or creed, is rooted in hate. Hate crimes do nothing more than divide us further as it gives special considerations to certain groups. We’re all Americans and we’re all human. The same laws should apply to us all.
P.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert: “You think……….that……the particular….child….{I’m screwed}…”
April 30th, 2009 at 5:22 pmsigh…
IF your religion ‘hates’ on the basis of gender/orientation and actively encourages the ‘faithful’ to discriminate/hate on that basis, then it’s time for some ‘tyrannical’ RE-orientation by BIG government because you are just as much a twisted ‘fu*ck as your favorite international punching bags (the Islamo-Facsists).
The reason there needs to be a NATIONAL (Big Brother) entity is that without them/US, you regional fear/hate mongers would STILL be denying black/white marriages and using slaves for your labor in your ‘fuc*ked up’ white power backwaters.
NewsFlash ReThugs: the US is getting younger and browner and more tolerant (except for theo-thugs like you) every day. YOUR time is near over. YOU are in danger of becoming that VERY obvious ‘nail’ that stands out, it might just be time to moderate/sit down and shut the fuc*k up, or… not.
Either way works for me. It’s easier to keep an eye on you when you’re ’squeaking’.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:46 amDon’t be so GAY!
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:05 pm