Comments on: Congress Votes On Hate Crimes Law

By: Black_Tiger

Black_Tiger — Sat, 02 May 2009 17:17:03 +0000

This is complete BS. I think hate crime bills only serve politicians and not the public. We have varying degrees of murder/manslaughter, why complicate matters anymore by trying to allocate further motive. All crimes involve a certain amount of malice; is killing a homosexual more important than killing a prostitute or anyone else. On another note, homosexuals have served at the highest levels in government, the military, business, entertainment for all time (e.g Buchanan, Hoover, Disney). Dont get it twisted, this is not a group of people that have been hunted down and lynched, denied opportunity and shackled and enslaved throughout history in any significant numbers. the reality is, you are ony homosexual if you tell someone, otherwise it's your f%*ing business and people leave you alone. It upsets me to see people elevate a glorified sexual fetish into a new “race” of people.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:36:26 +0000

Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…

…

By: BJ Bjornson

BJ Bjornson — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:36:51 +0000

In addition, it seems to me that most crimes are hate crimes. When a person attacks one man because he is and then attacks another man just because the attacker is a rotten person, does he make that second attack out of love ?

The difference is that one is a crime against an individual, whereas the other is targeted at an identifiable group. It follows much the same logic as terrorism, as in the attack is meant to send a message far beyond the person or persons directly affected by it.

By: shannonlee

shannonlee — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:18:45 +0000

We already differentiate crime by motive. This law isn't trying to outlaw thoughts. It basically says that we as a society deem these crimes to be more offensive, thus more punishable, because of their motive.

I think it is only fair that we protect gays in the same way we protect other minorities.

By: GeorgeSorwell

GeorgeSorwell — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:54:20 +0000

If anyone is interested, there is already a discussion on this topic going on at Kathy's post from yesterday about this.

By: elrod

elrod — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:22:39 +0000

I'm ambivalent about hate crimes too. But if we're going to have them based on race and religion and sex, we should definitely have them based on sexual orientation too. Either protect all classes in the hate crime category or none.

By: D. E.Rodriguez

D. E.Rodriguez — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:57:34 +0000

Reasoned post.

But, re:

"However I am also concerned about the idea of passing laws based upon what people think, even when those thoughts are offensive to most of us. I’m not paranoid or anything but once you outlaw one form of thinking then it becomes easier to outlaw other forms of thought."

And someone else claiming something about "thought crimes"

Of course, the thoughts are offensive, but the law doesn't punish the thoughts, it punishes the crime.

The law doesn't target people's "thinking," pure and simple.

Anyone who commits a heineous crime "thinks" about it, unless he or she is insane. Convicting and sentencing a murderer has nothing to do with his or her thoughts. The law punishes the crime, not the thought.

It is not about the thought, it is about the crime, made more heineous because it targets a group of people---just as genocide.

If some of these gay haters had the will, the means and the power, the individual hate crime could become genocide.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:17:38 +0000

The idea of thought crimes is a dangerous precident that the U.S. should do everything to avoid. It forces government officials into sounding like idiotic PC fools. In the DC area, four non-white gang members attacked a white couple out for a walk. The gang members killed the husband and chased down the wife and severely beat her. Yet, the Loundon County police were forced to go onto television and say that gangs were not involved and that it was not a hate crime before the gang members stole the husbands wallet.

If stealing a homosexuals money is not enough to keep a robbery from being a hate crime, then why is it when black gang members kill whites?

By: Kathryn

Kathryn — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:05:38 +0000

Thank you for this post, while I do not completely agree to it, it brings up some important arguments in an intelligent way. It is the complete opposite of the incredibly cruel old woman representative from North Carolina who took the floor to spread the right-wing nonsense that Matthew Sheppard was “merely a victim of robbery.” What is worse, Matthew Sheppard's mother was in the chamber to hear this dreck.
It is fine to oppose a hate crime bill but anyone who would do so because they believe that kind of morally disgusting rhetoric has some serious problems.