Redstate

Just know that Proposal 2 in Michigan was widely criticized by both state parties, and that it was the people, not a particular party, that were responsible for its success.

That being said, hate crimes legislation has to be one of the most frightening concepts in the legal system, one that is rife with the possibility for abuse, uneven implementation, and the capacity to unravel a lot of 14th Amendment equal protection jurisprudence. Just on principle, the term "hate crime" causes me to cringe, mainly due to the fact that few policy constructs (other than affirmative action) do more to annihilate the view that "all men are created equal" than it does. Hopefully we'll see this not have to make it to Bush's desk, as I'd rather not have to risk relying on a veto or a SCOTUS decision to scuttle this bill.

"At the end of the day, I seek to be a strident and articulate force on the side of self-determination. Ultimately, the pursuit of freedom ought to remain our paramount ambition. Without liberty, ideology rings sickeningly hollow."

"The pain inflicted by your country's indifference is tenfold that inflicted by your ruthless captors."

Rep Sam Johnson on the House floor commenting on his experience as a Vietnam POW

Agree with your assessment...

The Matthew Shepard case is used by lefties to support their case that a "hate crimes" bill is needed to protect sexually confused individuals.

However, they used an incorrect motivation of why the crime was committed to advance their cause. I believe I read that the case actually wasn't a hate crime but an armed robbery and burglary that went wrong.

The homosexual crowd seems to be inventing more and more hate crimes incidents in order to advance the legislation but all of their examples prove to be false.

Alright. Why don't we take some confessions as evidence?

Died:
Robert Binenfeld
Location: Monroe, New York
Cause of Death: Strangled by Jason Bardsley
Date of Death: December 21, 2004
Bienfeld was a former doctor who practiced medicine for 26 years. On the 21st of December, Jason Bardsley showed up at Bienfeld's home, where a cross-dressed Bienfeld, according to Bardsley, performed oral sex on the man, then revealed his genitalia. Bardsley has pled guilty to strangling Bienfeld, citing a "transgender panic"-style defense, and is awaiting sentencing.

Died:
Ronnie Paris, Jr.
Location: Tampa, Florida
Cause of Death: Beaten to death by his father, Ronnie Paris, Sr.
Date of Death: January 28, 2005
Paris, a three year old, died from swelling on both sides of the brain caused by his father, Ronnie Paris, Sr. Paris Jr. had been slapped against the head numerous times, until the child went into a coma. The father did not want to 'raise a sissy,' as the child had seemingly not been masculine enough for the father.

Died:
Kasha Blue, aka Antonio Wright, aka Sydney
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Cause of Death: Stabbed
Date of Death: June 18, 2005
Kasha Blue was a hairstylist who lived as a woman and spent years working at a salon. Kasha Blue was heading to her car after getting off work at a nearby salon shortly after 9 p.m., when Michael Major allegedly heckled Antonio Wright about his partner. Words ensued, and Major pulled a knife, stabbing Kasha Blue in the chest. After the stabbing, Major was heard to say, “I got faggot blood on me” before running down an alley.

In August Estanislao Martinez received only four years for the 2004 murder of Joel Robles. He stabbed her 20 times. He claimed he “suffered gay panic” when he found out Robles was transgender. As Charlotte Jenks, Executive Director of the Central California Pride Network said, “"If I just stole money from you, I'd serve more time than this person did for stabbing someone 20 times.” He got away with murder. The court excused the taking of a human life because the victim was trans.

You only know who the MSM says died. Look around you, talk to people -- you may not know who the killers or the dead really are.

you want to provide a link showing where these people were NOT convicted because of the absence of "hate crimes" laws?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Sorry.

I was responding to the idea that "all of these crimes are false".

Until prejudice is removed from the minds of jurors and judges, I think murderers will still recieve less punishment than they deserve.

Today, in response to this diary, I have read some rumors that a few deaths were caused by police (I happened to be looking at the Transgender Day of Awareness page). -if- you credit them, there might be a reason to believe that the hate crime law might help.
You needn't credit them with much -- just the suspicion that the police don't care could be enough to prevent a witness from coming forward.

a strawman of your own creation because the post you respond to doesn't say or imply "all of these crimes are false".

He says, and I'll agree to a great extent, that "hate crimes" are post facto inventions by advocacy groups.

Every crime you listed is more than adequately covered by existing statutes that protect all of us.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

"but all of their examples prove to be false."

Would you say that confessions are "post facto" inventions?

--if you are, I guess you've the right.

or "many".

I'll concede the point.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

So I guess if any of these people were killed for their wallets, it would be "better", right?

Let me put it this way, if somebody tortures and kills a friend of yours because he's an Eagles fan, would it hurt less because he wasn't killed because he was gay?

Try to understand something here; murder or assault does not suddenly become any more or less horrendous because of the race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc. of the victim or that of the perpetrator.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

If the perpetrator is a 12 year old on a motorcycle with a machine gun, that makes it more horrendous for me.

I don't know about you... ;-)

Yeah, points ta you.

You're so clever and smart! You sure stuck it to us Repugs with your amazing "logic"! After all, we're the dumb folks who believe in God!

But seriously, what's it with you and kids?

And being that you're advocating legislation setting punishments for murder/assault to be higher or lower in severity depending on the race, sex, sexuality, etc. of the victim versus the perpetrator, how does this apply?

Please enlighten me with your "logic" ...

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Thanks for responding.

All of us, regardless of party or ideology, want to deter crimes against young women, old men, African Americas, homosexuals, pregnant women, veterans and everyone else. What we don’t believe in is dehumanizing people by segregating them into different groups while ignoring them as individual human beings.

Run like Reagan!

The reality is that hate crimes against a class of people terrorize the entire group--unlike crimes without special bias...in this case, just as in the past with black Americans, a class of people that is historically unsure the local law enforcement will actively prosecute these crimes.

It is impossible to deny, for example, that local law enforcement has at times treated both black Americans and gay Americans with unfair bias. It is impossible to deny that both black Americans and gay Americans have historically walked the streets of American cities with a remarkably "special" right to be despised by their fellow Americans and an unfortunately "special" right to feel less safe than their white, heterosexual brothers and sisters.

This bill should be supported by all.

that federal Civil Rights law covers the action/inaction of police and that there is no evidence that a class of people is "terrorized" because people who commit crimes against them aren't subject to some super special law.

This is simply identity politics of the lowest order.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

When I was in high school in rural Oklahoma, a classmate of mine proudly told everyone how he had "decked" an underclassman because he had supposedly winked at him.

What do you think that said to my young, hidden gay heart? No one was going to take seriously the violence that was done to the younger kid--who may not have even been gay. People are proud of this kind of thing. But I knew how careful I had to be, and how dangerous and unsafe my classmate was to me.

It is the same everywhere today. It is disingenous for politicians to deny that gay folk the streets with a different kind of fear, which is directly instilled by bias crimes and the difficulty of prosecuting them.

There is nothing "low" about this legislation, but yes, "low" politics is active in regard to this issue. Very much so.

don't much care about your gay heart or any other gay body part.

Your lack of self esteem and unreasoning fear doesn't mean that anyone should care much less pass a law to make you feel better.

News flash, Sparky, if anyone had hit you the assault and battery laws on the books cover it nicely.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

But that is exactly why this legislation is needed. You have proved it. People don't care.

A moment ago you argued that there was no evidence that a class of people is terrified by bias crime. When I showed you how it works in daily life, your response is merely to reinforce how little regard society has for the safety of some people. What happened to there is no evidence that bias crime terrorizes people?

what you showed me was that you are a wuss who can't walk without jumping at loud noises. You made a compelling case that you are in need of therapy or medication, you didn't make a case for a law to make you feel better about yourself.

There is a statistical axiom: the plural of anecdote is not data. Your story is completely covered by this time tested principle.

My response was not about how little society cares about a class of people (one does not usually constitute a class) but to tell you to man up and stop sniveling.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I think you have gone completely off topic and into personal attacks.

That's okay. I'm not as wounded as you think I am. I was just trying to show you how things work from a perspective with which you might be unfamiliar.

I'm happy to have been of assistance

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

May I have another?

;-)

It's not unreasoning fear when you know people who have been kidnapped.

It's not unreasoning fear when people throw slurs at people becaue of their presumed "whatever".

Yes, I removed any Jewish items from me before venturing into the Arabic Quarter in Jerusalem.

It's called being practical.

And it is practical fear.

It seems to have escaped your attention that we aren't talking about Jerusalem.

Kidnapping is illegal. Has been for a while.

Slurs, other than the "fighting words" exception, are speech. Outside the fascist confines of some of our finest universities punishing speech has been illegal for some centuries.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

So do you buy that it could -- just possibly -- be fear with a good reason?

Not oversensitivity?

Everyone, remember that simple assault covers reasonable threat of bodily harm, even if it's only words.

being scared because someone else said they were/did punch a third party for winking at them (sexual harassment for sure and deserving of being punched out in my book regardless of gender) is the mark of either a wuss or someone who wants desperately to make a sexual overture to someone and is afraid of a righteous thumping.

I realize the definition of assault but 1) we're not talking about assault and 2) if we were the existing law covers it.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

You repeatedly prove the need for this legislation as you blame the victims of bias crime. When society is blaming the victim they are not prosecuting the criminal.

He's a wuss
He had it coming
He harrassed me
He got himself a righteous thumping [I love that one...a sacred act of violence couldn't be wrong]
He deserved to be punched out
He needs to 'man up' and stop sniveling
No one has to wear high heels
Bad things happen to people who make bad choices

Society successfully blames gay victims for the many bias crimes that are perpetrated against them. Hate crime legislation is partly about helping people see that nothing the victim did or "is" justifies the violence against them. As you repeatedly show throughout this thread, you share this bias against gay people who are the victims of criminal acts.

Basically..."they deserve what they get."

No one will prosecute bias crimes effectively while these sentiments succeed in society.

Assuming for a moment the story is even true, he wasn't frightened because of an actual act. He was frightened by words. So shouldn't we be making the words themselves illegal? Why does it need to be accompanied by any actual physical violence?

If we are going to punish someone for their thoughts and statements, lets do it right.

It's just too bad the technology doesn't exist yet to read people's thoughts, or we could lock people up before they even "frighten" somebody with their words. Maybe someday. Won't that be a beautiful day.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

We don't punish thought crimes for the same reason we don't assault others or condone assault for non-violent behavior (non-violent behavior like flirting for example...or wearing high heels).

This legislation does not criminalize thoughts or speech. See Benthamite's post above:

"A pastor could not be prosecuted for saying that homosexuality is a deadly sin - unless of course he followed up his words with a bullet. Fear of future legislation that does restrict speech is a rather week argument"

...The Congressman's reply:

"Fair post"

The legislation does NOT criminalize thoughts or speech.

That's the whole idea of hate crime legislation. If you kill a guy to steal his wallet you get 15 years. If you kill a guy because he's of a different race you get 25 years. You just were sentenced to an additional 10 years in prison solely because of your beliefs. I have a real problem with punishing someone an extra 10 years because of their beliefs... whatever those beliefs happen to be.

And you didn't answer the question, anyway. The high school hypothetical that we were supposed to get all teary eyed and weepy over didn't involve a crime of any kind. So what does it have to do with hate crime legislation? If our goal it to prevent groups from being "terrorized," then why don't we ban the speech (and the thought, once that becomes practical) itself? The violent acts are already prohibited.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

You are saying that the words in this legislation spell out punishment for thoughts and words? I have understood that was specifically not the case. If I am wrong, please show me the offending passage. Otherwise, still a red herring. I do not yield that point.

I'm sorry my answer to your question was not satisfactory. In fact however, I did try to specifically address it.

The high school situation was A) not hypothetical...it's history; B) not intended make you weep, but intended to show you, who are not gay, what it is like to hear people crow over the violence done in the name of hatred for gays; C) it involved an account of assault, which though perhaps not an adult crime, would have resulted in punishment if it had been proven before school administrators...

...because the violent act is not acceptable in our society. America treasures the right of free speech, but we draw the line at the violent act.

That is the answer to all your questions. Speech is not criminalized because we value free speech...we allow people to hate, but we do not allow them to kill or wound. When gays can clearly see that they are being killed and beaten AND the law is not serving them equally because society generally thinks gays deserve what they get, we need hate crime legislation. We need the hate crime legislation because even though murder, assualt and other violence is covered under the law...too many people clearly believe that when it is done against gays it isn't really such a crime. It's not only those who commit the crimes that think this, but also those who wink at the crimes, and those who are supposed to be protecting against the crimes, and those who are supposed to be prosecuting the crimes.

It already serves many groups well...including Christians and people of all faiths. Let it serve gays also.

You are saying that the words in this legislation spell out punishment for thoughts and words? I have understood that was specifically not the case. If I am wrong, please show me the offending passage. Otherwise, still a red herring. I do not yield that point.

Straw man argument.

But that said, what is the practical effect of this law?

[a] Murderer A kills a man and witnesses hear him shout as he delivers the killing blow; "Give me your money!"
[b] Murderer B kills a man and witnesses hear him shout as he delivers the killing blow; "Die f****t die!"

Hate Crimes laws say that what B did is deserving of more punishment that what A did, rather than leaving it up to the jury and the judge. How is that not punishing motives (i.e.thoughts) instead of the action?

In fact, what makes you think someone who is ready to kill, even though knowing that what he is doing is already against the law and worthy of capital punishment, would suddenly take notice of yet another law saying the exact same thing?

It already serves many groups well...including Christians and people of all faiths. Let it serve gays also.

False. There are no laws on the books that make it more of a crime to kill someone because of his faith as opposed to his wallet.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Ugh! Sometimes the commenting structure at Redstate is functionally counterproductive. Who wants to read text one word at a time?

:-)

I provide my reference below-thread.

I can see a rationale for punishing people differently based on their beliefs:

Some people may be easier to reform than others.

If someone was stealing because they were starving, only to get food, that person is considerably easier to stop from stealing (by say giving them a job), than the person who steals because it is "fun".

And, i'd have to say that our justice system backs me on this one.

This, of course, implies that there are laws written in the books that authorize judges to demand from a thief what his views on theft are and then prescribe punishments based on those beliefs.

In other words, you're talking out your rear end.

And, i'd have to say that our justice system backs me on this one.

C'mon, this is really pathetic ... you can do better than this. Believe that you can present a convincing argument and you can do it. Just try.

;-)

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Make words that threaten physical violence illegal.

Now stop chasing after unicorns and get back onto the topic.

You repeatedly prove the need for this legislation as you blame the victims of bias crime. When society is blaming the victim they are not prosecuting the criminal.

One does not follow from the other. Indeed, speaking as a former defense lawyer, I've watched clients go to prison (with real bars and everything!) while everyone involved thought the victim had brought the crime on him or herself.

He's a wuss
He had it coming
He harrassed me
He got himself a righteous thumping [I love that one...a sacred act of violence couldn't be wrong]
He deserved to be punched out
He needs to 'man up' and stop sniveling
No one has to wear high heels
Bad things happen to people who make bad choices

(1) Is not a justification, and was not offered as one. (2) Ditto. (3) Is potentially a perfectly valid defense at law or before jury. (4) You impute too much to a choice of words. Grow up. (5) Some men, straight and gay, do indeed deserve to be punched out. I have been in enough bar fights to attest to this. (6) Is true, all too often. (7) No one is required to wear high heels. If you think you may have to defend yourself before the law comes to your rescue, wear flats. Take some damned responsibility for yourself. (8) This is demonstrably true. We call it "the use of common sense." I don't go walking through Southeast DC with a shirt on taking shots at poor black people because if I'm determined not to be aware of my environment and exercise common sense, on my own head be it.

Society successfully blames gay victims for the many bias crimes that are perpetrated against them.

Yes, remember when they had that "Thank God the Dumb F** Is Dead" rally in Wyoming in 1999? No? Oh.

Hate crime legislation is partly about helping people see that nothing the victim did or "is" justifies the violence against them. As you repeatedly show throughout this thread, you share this bias against gay people who are the victims of criminal acts.

Hate crime legislation is a way to punish people for what they think. If they do a bad thing, they should suffer. If they think or say a bad thing while they do it, that makes the violence no demonstrably worse.

By the way, cut the personal shots. If you feel it's necessary to tell a man what he thinks, be enough of a man to back it up.

Basically..."they deserve what they get."

No one will prosecute bias crimes effectively while these sentiments succeed in society.

Be sure to tune up that violin. Concert time approaches.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

There was no personal shot from me. His own words reveal his thoughts far better than I could. I merely repeated them back.

You continue to blame the victim.

This is why we need this legislation so very badly. I know you don't see it. I understand you are terrified of losing your right to think or speak, but this legislation will affect you in no way at all. In fact, since I know none of you here would ever consider physically hurting a gay man or lesbian, this legislation will affect no one at Redstate.

Please don't oppose this law. It will do good for those it is intended and do no harm to you.

All you've advanced are heartfelt, superficially irrational, assertions that this law is so badly needed. You've proffered no data in support of this; but given your posting history, it's unreasonable to expect that of you.

One thing I can, and will, demand, however, is that you don't call your fellow commenters, or the moderators, names. Your next time is your last on this board.

I understand you are terrified of losing your right to think or speak, but this legislation will affect you in no way at all. In fact, since I know none of you here would ever consider physically hurting a gay man or lesbian, this legislation will affect no one at Redstate.

Don't insult me or anyone else here. The "danger" is not that we'll lose our ability to speak or think from this law, but rather, that the "danger" is down the line. Laws like this seek to deter not violence, for there are plenty of laws to deter that; they seek to force people to think and act a certain way. Otherwise, you'd simply seek to enforce existing laws against battery, murder, and so on.

But you don't. You don't care, as much, that a man is beat to death, so much as you care why. I don't care why. Unless that beating was in self-defense, the beater should see either prison or the end of his life. I can't know all the reasons why he did it, and it doesn't make a damned bit of difference if self-defense wasn't involved.

You are -- I know you don't see it, but you're part of the problem -- part of a causal chain that subjects priests, pastors, preachers, rabbis, parents, and everyday men and women to criminal and civil sanctions for teaching that a homosexual man is intrinsically disordered. (For does that not incite violence and blaming the victim for the violence?)

Your own words reveal that you would change men's minds, at the price of the law.

I'll fight you to my dying breath.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I don't know what name I used against another. I humbly apologize. Please show me.

It is my practice to treat others with respect and reason. I do confess that in passionate disagreement with ideas I am just as capable of doing violence by namecalling.

Even if you only perceived me to be namecalling, I apologize. Not because I fear being banned, but because I fear being one who would simple taunt by namecalling.

Peace.

Well then...my apology still stands and I welcome your correction if you feel it is just. As for other points in your post...

You are -- I know you don't see it, but you're part of the problem -- part of a causal chain that subjects priests, pastors, preachers, rabbis, parents, and everyday men and women to criminal and civil sanctions for teaching that a homosexual man is intrinsically disordered.

No such problem exists; for if it did Fred Phelps would not be free to speak his hate against all Americans. Pastors, Rabbis, parents, nor any others are presently subjected to any criminal or civil sanctions for simply teaching such things.

I can't be part of a problem that does not exist.

Beyond that, isn't there something wrong with basing this politics on mere fear of some vague imagined law in the future, when we KNOW that our gay neighbors (like 'em or not) are presently being shot, beaten, tied to fences, dragged behind pickups, lynched and otherwise molested by those who hate them?

Whose afraid of a law that is not, nor may ever be?

But let's be honest...people oppose hate crime laws--specifically hate crime laws that include sexual orientation--because they desire to make very sure...

...not just that they may voice their criticism of gays and lesbians (which they'll probably always be free to do regardless of this law--and I support that!!!)

...but also that homosexuality will always be viewed as sin by society (that may change, whatever laws are passed).

In the meantime, you are quite wrong, I care very much that men are beat to death, and I care that the law does not stand up for everyone equally. You cannot put thoughts in my head either.

Women are raped at rates far outsizing anything about which gay men should worry. Women are stalked and hunted for the same reason, at similarly disproportionate rates. Women suffer domestic abuse well outside of what gay men experience in their worst nightmares.

Why not hate crimes for them? Just the fact of being a woman -- a fact more immediately apparent than being gay -- subjects them to more abuse than gay men have ever experienced.

I know. It must be because people who oppose hate crime laws--specifically hate crime laws that are specifically aimed at the sex of the target--because they desire to make very sure...

...but also that being a woman will always be viewed as sin by society (that may change, whatever laws are passed).

I hope you catch the drift. I doubt it, but there it is.

Beyond that, isn't there something wrong with basing this politics on mere fear of some vague imagined law in the future, when we KNOW that our gay neighbors (like 'em or not) are presently being shot, beaten, tied to fences, dragged behind pickups, lynched and otherwise molested by those who hate them?

No. Because we have laws that handle all of these things. Adding more laws, but specializing them so, can only be an attempt to criminalize thought.

No such problem exists; for if it did Fred Phelps would not be free to speak his hate against all Americans. Pastors, Rabbis, parents, nor any others are presently subjected to any criminal or civil sanctions for simply teaching such things.

Presently.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

than women.

Every single year.

Go home, and talk about something you know about.

I don't remember the sociological terms for homosexual rape by straight men -- but it happens a lot more than you suppose.

Have you asked how many of our sailors and spacemen have "gay sex" each year?

Sorry I don't believe such claims on just a bold faced assertion. Please provide something to back this claim up. A link to FBI stats or some such would be good.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape

And yes, more women are raped than men, per year. The sheer number of incidents means than more rapes occur against men than women.

I can't be part of a problem that does not exist.

No ... it's just that you're so invested in your self-righteous moral crusade that you refuse to see.

But let's be honest; people oppose hate crime laws - specifically hate crime laws that include sexual orientation - because they desire to make very sure - not just that they may voice their criticism of gays and lesbians (which they'll probably always be free to do regardless of this law - and I support that!!!) - but also that homosexuality will always be viewed as sin by society (that may change, whatever laws are passed).

The concept of irony must really escape you if you cannot see the glaring contradiction in you writing the calumnious nonsense I quoted above and this sentence in the same comment;

You cannot put thoughts in my head either.

That said, let me once again try to point out to you why most conservatives oppose Hate Crimes Laws, (and not just those affecting gays) ... and it has nothing to do with some secret conspiracy. It's simple: Equality Before The Law.

I care that the law does not stand up for everyone equally.

I reject this premise. Prove it.

And for all that you're shrieking about gays somehow being specially attacked - an transparent attempt to win an argument on pulling at the heart strings instead of logic - the plural of anecdote is not data and there is absolutely no proof that when murderers of gay people are caught and convicted they were given lighter sentences than any other subset of murderers.

And that is as it should be. A man who bludgeons a gay person to death for his wallet is no better than a man who bludgeons a gay person because he's gay. All life is precious. One should not be punished any more or less than the other.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Hunting down a man in a dress...

Is still hunting down a man. There have been ample examples of bias in sentencing and prosecution upthread (and if there aren't enough for ya, please use google).

I don't give a flying pig if you teach that gay is immoral. But i will give you a pig, if you think that gay is more immoral than murder or rape.

And a godfearing gay Christian, is still godfearing and Christian.

You're neither literate enough, smart enough, nor telepathic enough to know what I believe and what I don't.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

;-)

You as second person plural and generic, sucker.

... useless, senseless and completely unrelated comment.

... if you think that gay is more immoral than murder or rape.

Who said anything comparing murder/rape with homosexuality? Do you really need to keep on beating up defenseless straw men to make you feel you're making a point?

You're beginning to flail about like a fish out of water - we're not exactly the stereotype you expected, are we?

And a godfearing [adulterous] Christian, is still godfearing and Christian.

The above is a thought experiment for you. But nonetheless, your last sentence is yet another unrelated argument.

Nobody is arguing theology, so bringing it up shows that you're desperate. Contrary to Kossack belief, we here at Redstate are capable of comprehending arguments with and without the word Christian in them.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

>Who said anything comparing murder/rape with homosexuality?

Maybe some of those desert dwelling Arab Semites... ya know... the ones that said "Homosexuals should be stoned to death."

>Do
>you really need to keep on beating up defenseless straw men to >make you feel you're making a point?

I'd say the bible has plenty of defenders. Not that i'm one of them.

>You're beginning to flail about like a fish out of water - >we're not exactly the stereotype you expected, are we?

you're pretty much what I was expecting.

> And a godfearing [adulterous] Christian, is still >godfearing and Christian.

And... now you've got me thinking about the difference between "anti-idolworshiping" laws
"anti-breaking the society/dying" laws (incest, adultery, eating pigs)
and
"general good" laws (don't cut down fruit trees).

Happy now?

in the US. What has that to do with Arabs in the desert?

Again, existing laws cover assault and murder. Adding special protected classes implies that a crime against them is worse that a crime against someone who is not a member of that class (and YES I think an assault against a child is worse than an assault against an adult in case you start that line again).

Please explain why an assault against someone in a dress is worse than an assault against someone not in a dress.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

>[Talking about] the US. What has that to do with Arabs in the desert?

"Society has the morals that it can afford." -- Niven

Many of our laws and customs are based on societies that could afford much less morality. Why do you think that every other law in the bible leads to death?

Maybe some of those desert dwelling Arab Semites... ya know... the ones that said "Homosexuals should be stoned to death."

So first of all, you want Hate Crimes Laws because crimes against children are more heavily punished. Now you want it because in Arab countries, homosexuals are stoned to death ...

Wow ...

That said, the rest is still all ineffectual flailing.

You are aware, of course, that you've not actually advanced a single coherent argument for your cause, right?

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Hate crime laws are a way of dividing us into two classes unequal under the law, just as slaves had lesser rights. The Democrats reward their constitutent groups such as women, gays, and racial minorities by passing laws saying that crimes against them matter more than crimes against others. Unequal justice under law.

It is setting up a system like the one that caught Don Imus, where rap groups can say certain words every day, but as soon as Imus did, he was fired, because of his race.

a crime against you?

Why is an assualt against you more serious because you identify yourself as "gay" than against me when I identify myself as "human"?

Why is unequal protection under the law such a good thing?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I already addressed this in my post below. If police are ignoring crime then we should investigate the police. It makes no sense, however, to add addition penalties to laws already on the books. If someone is not deterred from murder by the death penalty how is hate crime legislation going to deterred them any more?

I hardly think the concerns about religious freedom are overblown.

In England, it is now Illegal for Catholic schools to teach that homosexuality is a sin, and makes other restrictions on religious freedom and conscience.

And in Oregon, there is a bill that may make it illegal for churches to refuse to hire practicing homosexuals.

It started with Political Correctness,

"Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

...Is the doctrine that everything has two sides, and that everything can be argued.

Because evolution ain't a fact, ya know?

Some things are black and white -- we all know that.

Sadly, I think we've often forgotten which things are, and which things aren't.

We already know you are not very bright, but at least try to be sane.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Let's just remove all the
child abuse laws

elderly abuse laws

domestic violence laws

shall we?

Sure sucks when we're taking -your- protection away, don't it?

--Last I checked, more women committed crimes of domestic violence than men.

identifies themselves as a "human" is any less grevious than and assualy against a person who identifies themselves as "gay"?

In what way is unequal protection under the law a good thing?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

So you do want to get rid of child abuse laws? Or of the laws against having sex with the retarded?

I'm not sure I have a position, just yet, on whether all "specific" laws should be done away with.

But I am interested to hear what others have to say, about the logical conclusions.

But I am interested to hear what others have to say, about the logical conclusions.

"Logical conclusion" implies that there is a logic to what you're saying. Unfortunately for you, there is none.

That is, of course, unless you actually believe there is some equivalence between homosexuals, children and the retarded.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

They're all special treatment rules.

As are the ones for the mentally ill and the disabled.

Isn't it kinda ridiculous that you're advocating extra punishment for someone who inflicts harm on a gay person because well, we do it for children, and why should they have all the fun?

You actually cannot distinguish between a five year old child and a fully grown adult who just happens to be gay?

That's interesting ... to say the least.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Child abuse and similar laws are special cases of special protection for otherwise defenseless people. Yes, children have special protection against actions that aren't criminal if committed against an adult. Assault is still assault however, though a judge could and should take the age of the victim into account when sentencing. You might try to claim this is unequal protection, but ALL people are entitled to the same protection when they are children.

I wasn't aware that it was illegal for retarded people to have sex.

But how is an assault against an adult who proclaims themselves to be "human" any less agregious than an assault against an adult who proclaims themselves to be "gay"?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Eugenics in the USA
That's why it's often illegal for retarded people to have sex.

I'll conceed that children should be a special case (even if I don't agree with the age of eighteen).

Juries seem to have found that murdering someone who is "human" is more punishable than murdering someone who is "gay".
Sorry to use your language.

About 50% of murderers get either life in prison or the death sentence. Yet, for premediated killing of someone who was gay, a jury sentenced a man to four years in prison.

you must be sane to post on Redstate,

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

the guy obviously wasn't convicted of "premeditated killing" because the penalty for that is not 4 years anywhere.

Got a citation for that 50% number because the median federal sentences for murder is 17 years and in Oregon it is 10.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I'm not the jury.

BTW, thanks for the link! Seems that substantially less than half of murderers get life in prison.

forms asking my race. It's how I classify myself. Sorry if it offends you.

Again, how is an assault against someone who classifies themself as "gay" and more or less terrible than a similar assault against someone who classifies themself as "human"?

I would like to know your basis for justifying unequal protection under the law.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

... he resents the fact that an assault on a child is usually punished far more severely than an assault on a gay person. He seems to think it's unfair.

Why should those damn children have all the fun?

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Discussing bigotry and hatred is not advocating unequal protection under the law.

If the choice was between legalizing retarded sex and unequal punishment for name-your-favorite-minority -- I think I know which one I would choose.

Again, i'm just thinking here...

That law provides for unequal protection under the law. And you still haven't answered the question. Is a crime against someone who identifies themself as "gay" any more or less terrible than a similar person who identifies themself only as "human"? If there is a difference, why?

Frankly, I don't get how "legalizing retarded sex and unequal punishment for name-your-favorite-minority" are linked. But which would you choose (just curious)?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

was to consider him either sane or to consider his comments as worthy of reply.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

saying or will snap and get himself banned.

I really would like a hate crime legislation supporter to answer my question though. I really want to know why getting hit with a bat is worse if you're gay than if you're not.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

You're saying that something must be worse, to enact legislation to cover it... That handily defeats the Three strikes and you're out law, doesn't it? (if you aren't in favor of that, i apologize).

Facts on the ground say that gay/trans people who are hurt cannot adequately defend against the "panic defense" -- a defense no one would dream of using if beating up a straight person.

What if someone, while feeling you up, discovered that you had a dick under that dress? And in some sort of strange "panic", hurt, maimed, or killed you?

Would anyone care?

Watch "Paris is Burning".

Again, why is an assault against someone beaten up for false advertising worse than an assault against someone beaten up to provide entertainment for the local gang members?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

for retarded people to have sex? And please cite the specific law as well (a current law, I'm not interested in something that was the law 100 years ago.)

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

In Glen Ridge, New Jersey a criminal prosection of four members of a high school football team for sexual assault upon a 17-year-old, mildly mentally retarded student. The thesis of the prosecution is that the victim, who has an I.Q. of 64, did not have the ability to consent although she voluntarily participated in the sexual activity. Much of the evidence the prosecution has introduced in this case is designed to demonstrate the victim's strong desire to please others and to comply with their wishes even to the extent of permitting degrading sexual acts to be performed on her; in short, the prosecution contends, she was unable to say "no."

This is getting charged with aggravated sexual assault.

And from what I know of medical ethics, this prosecution is severly superceding the "informed consent" medical practitioners use.

I'll try to remember to look up some more in my medical ethics book...

Googling brought up an interesting sidenote:
http://www.dupageco.org/sheriff/Offender/sex%20offenses.htm

Child pornography laws cover retarded people.

As near as I can tell, the law you pointed to does not make it illegal for retarded people to have sex. It is illegal for people to sexually assualt a retarded (or any other) person. The specific case you mention may or may not be a case of sexual assault. I assume the courts will decide.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

You've just been placed under the ambit of a rule that we reserve for very special posters - namely, those who make crazy assertions without a shred of proof on a serial basis. And also are snarky about it. So now you get to cite every assertion with a *link* to a reliable source.

Your first violation of this directive will be your last.

Thanks in advance,
Mgmt.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

What's your point? Or are you just regurgitating talking points that you've somehow convinced yourself reveal you to be morally superior?

Most of what I see here is just self-love. There's no logic or any semblance of rational thought in any of your comments on this thread.

C'mon, you can do better than this!

Has Olbermann's talkingpoint vending machine broken down?

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

not just mobying: Society has recognized the diminished capacity of the very young and very old and enacted safeguards for them. DV laws are mostly just a feel-good sham to placate the feminazis, but in their usual form reflect a societal belief that a woman has less physical capacity to defend herself than does a man. So, is it your contention by analogizing gay men to these protected classes that gay men do not have the same capacity to defend themselves as heterosexual men?

In a saner world before the modern mommy and the nanny state set out to remove all risk and extirpate all things resembling manliness from male existence, males learned at a very early age how to deal with physical conflict; your well-being and maybe even your life depended on it. I've always been thin and I learned at a very early age that I could not win a fair fight with my bigger, stronger peers, so I resolved that they would never get a fair fight; they might be bigger, but I was smarter and meaner.

In Vino Veritas

I think i'd have to say that anyone in high heels has less capacity to defend himself.

result in bad things happening. No one has to wear high heels.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

And I thought this was referring to local police complaining that they didn't like the idea of a law intended to prevent crimes, perhaps because it might put them out of work?

And Rightly So!

That was Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 245: Federally Protected Activities... Sorry. Left that out.

For your convenience, the text of Wisconsin v. Mitchell may be found here:

Wisconsin v. Mitchell @ FindLaw

Wisconsin v. Mitchell @ Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute

A few pertinent portions from the decision:

While it is equally true that a sentencing judge may not take into consideration a defendant's abstract beliefs, however obnoxious to most people, the Constitution does not erect a per se barrier to the [508 U.S. 476, 477] admission of evidence concerning one's beliefs and associations at sentencing simply because they are protected by the First Amendment. Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159 ; Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 (plurality opinion).

Moreover, the State's desire to redress what it sees as the greater individual and societal harm inflicted by bias-inspired conduct provides an adequate explanation for the provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. Pp. 485-488.

Because the statute has no "chilling effect" on free speech, it is not unconstitutionally overbroad. The prospect of a citizen suppressing his bigoted beliefs for fear that evidence of those beliefs will be introduced against him at trial if he commits a serious offense against person or property is too speculative a hypothesis to support this claim. Moreover, the First Amendment permits the admission of previous declarations or statements to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent, subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like. Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 . Pp. 488-490.

I just realized that I replied to the wrong post. This should be upthread.

Have you folks ever considered vBulletin Software for your site? It has a lot of nice quoting features, as well as the options of editing your posts with annotations as to why they were edited and when.