An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Google Voice With Your Existing Number

A Snapshot of the Health Care Debate »

Why Is The Government Still Ashamed ?

Posted by PATRICK EDABURN in Politics, Society.
Oct 27th, 2009 | Comments

Congress has passed and the President will sign a new hate crimes law named after Matthew Shepard. The law would broaden current laws to include attacks based on a victim’s sexual orientation, gender identity or mental or physical disability.

Current laws already allow federal jurisdiction over crimes based on race, color, religion or national origin. The bill would also lift a requirement that a victim had to be attacked while engaged in a federally protected activity, like attending school, for it to be a federal hate crime.

As I have previously written, I must admit to having mixed views on these kind of laws whether at the state or federal level. I would hope that my past postings make it clear I am a strong support of gay rights and find any form of prejudice (be it based on any of the above critera or any other) to be disgusting.

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.

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

Admittedly this law only extends federal jurisdiction to such crimes, and that means this is probably more of a procedural thing. My guess would be that if you want to you could pretty much get federal jurisdiction on almost any crime if you work at it.

On one level this is being seen as a great stand for gay rights, and I understand the desire of the adminstration to do something for a strong base of support. But I’m not sure this is really that much. From time to time I’ve gone to the West Wing for quotes and this is another good case.

In one episode they were passing hate crimes legislation in what was basically a tv version of the Matthew Shepard story. There was concern that the father of the victim might not be comfortable with his son having been gay so CJ goes to talk to him.

I think his response sums up my views on the topic.

“The hate crimes bill is fine. Who gives a damn? It’s fine. I don’t care. If you ask me, we shouldn’t be making laws against what’s in a person’s head but who gives a damn? I don’t understand how this President, who I voted for, I don’t understand how he can take such a completely weak-*** position on gay rights.

Gays in the military, same-sex marriage, gay adoption, boards of education – where the hell is he? I want to know what qualities necessary to being a parent this President feels my son lacked? I want to know from this President, who has served not one day in Vietnam – I had two tours in Vietnam. I want to know what qualities necessary to being a soldier this President feels my son lacked? Lady, I’m not embarrassed my son was gay. My government is.”

Like the father in that scene, I’m agnostic on this new law. I probably would have opposed it just on the grounds of not passing laws on what people think but I have no major issue with it. What I do have a major issue with is the lack of real work towards government discrimination towards gays.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

AustinRoth

Besides my oft stated concerns over even the concept of protected class laws, there is another issue the changes in this bill now raise - increased chances of double jeopardy prosecutions.

Hate Crimes, Thought Crimes, Double Jeopardy

Federal Hate Crimes Bill Will Erode Civil Liberties and Protections Against Double Jeopardy

The really scary part is that Congressman and others are actually saying that it should have been used in the Duke 'rape' case - you know, the one where no rape actually occurred, the 'victim' lied and made it all up, the accused were actually innocent, and the prosecutor was disbarred over his illegal actions.

Silhouette

*puts on flack jacket*

I think it's really all about the "gay" community using attacks on people to further their agenda of being legally recognized as a "minority group". They aren't. Sexual orientation is not something obvious to the eye. It isn't genetic and doesn't attach itself to any certain "giveaway" physical features. It shouldn't spawn an attack if the person is just walking down the street. Why would it?

Once they get laws passed making it a hate crime to "attack gays" [as a RECOGNIZABLE MINORITY GROUP] then the doors will naturally be blown wide open for them to be married and their deviance be mainstreamed. I think people who are attracted to the same gender sexually need to understand what it is that makes them that way before they want society as a whole to buy their tweak hook line and sinker, sight unseen.

We understand so much about human sociology through the study of anthropology and other animal groups. Why not take a lesson from the AI people who already know how sexual orientation is gotten? It's learned. And once learned is fixated. Hence the mistake in thinking it's some intrinsic thing you are born with. It becomes reflexive from associative conditioning and "feels" from that point on, "inborn". But it isn't..

And because it isn't, it's a set of behaviors, not a minority qualifier.

Anyone getting attacked will have their attackers prosecuted. What more are "gays' asking for? That's a question that needs to be asked from all angles.

tidbits

The author's best point is that all violent crime is, at some level, a hate crime, regardless of the cultural subset to which the victim belongs. Prosecute all violent crime vigorously, do not discriminate by victim as to which violent crimes are vigorously prosecuted.

We can prosecute and punish violent crime without diminishing freedom of thought and speech, even ugly and disagreeable thought and speech.

roro80

I think all here know I support this sort of legislation, and I was extremely happy to see this law had passed a few days ago. Too many friends who have been bashed not to see this as a win. I did, however, absolutely love the comment by MS's dad. If you allow gay people to be out and have the civil liberties of everyone else, protection from violence won't be as difficult.

"It shouldn't spawn an attack if the person is just walking down the street."

Shouldn't, but does. Over and over and over again, for no other reason than that they are gay.

"Why would it?"

Because some people are *sshole homobigots. Some of those *sshole homobigots are also violent jerks.

"Once they get laws passed making it a hate crime to "attack gays""

The hate crime laws aren't against attacking gays, it's against attacking someone *for being* gay.

"I think people who are attracted to the same gender sexually need to understand what it is that makes them that way before they want society as a whole to buy their tweak hook line and sinker, sight unseen."

What the hell does this even mean? Why in the world would YOU know "what it is that makes them that way" better than they do? (Please don't answer that question if you're going to talk about cows and monkeys and "kids are smart" or something.) They're not asking that you accept them, they are merely asking for their constitutionally protected rights. "Sight unseen"? Huh???

Silhouette

"It shouldn't spawn an attack if the person is just walking down the street."

Shouldn't, but does. Over and over and over again, for no other reason than that they are gay"~roro
*****
I'm not following you. How can the attacker tell if the person has sex with the same gender? Do these types of people have shark fins coming out of their backs or perhaps a prehensile tail? Maybe they have two noses or purple skin with pink polka dots?

Homosexuals come in every race, creed, size and shape. Learning to prefer sex with the same gender and then becoming fixated in that preference has no external markers. Homosexuals have stolen the rainbow as their symbol, ironically because the rainbow used to be used to show diversity.

So how is it, specifically, that the attackers know the peson they're attacking is gay? If they've known that person long enough to find out personal details that they prefer gay sex behind closed doors, then stalking laws might make a more vigorous prosecution.

I'd like to know really which external marker indicates someone is homosexual?

jchem

Sil: "So how is it, specifically, that the attackers know the peson they're attacking is gay?"

Sil, I'm not sure if you're purposefully trying to sound dense, but you're sure coming off that way. If witnesses and victims report hearing a bunch of slurs while the attack was taking place, it doesn't take a genius to figure out why the person was attacked. These attacks aren't random.

And I know you have been beating the "learned behavior, fixated, deviants, the gays are recruiting our children" nonsense ever since I can remember ever discussing this issue with you. Apparently, you think the APA are just a bunch of crazies beholden to the "gay agenda", as you have never responded to any of the numerous links I've supplied to you.

I'd like to know really which external marker indicates someone is homosexual?

Perhaps you could then tell us which external marker indicates someone is heterosexual?

roro: They're not asking that you accept them, they are merely asking for their constitutionally protected rights.

Well said roro.

roro80

"How can the attacker tell if the person has sex with the same gender?"

That's the "actual or perceived" part of the law, Sil. And, as jchem points out, you are most certainly being dense. I don't know, maybe all those jerks who come into my neighborhood on Pride day just to kick the snot out of people out there having a good time in a pink shirt don't actually "know" that their victims are gay. Maybe, just like straight people, gay people like to hold the hand of the one they love in public. Maybe the fact that the number one cause of death for trans people is murder is just a big coincidence. Maybe there are some people who don't spend their time trying to hide who they are, so they don't care if people know they are gay, and then they get targeted for it. Maybe when a man rapes a lesbian to try and "straighten her out", he's really just seeing purple spots and fins on her back. Or maybe you need to think about what you say before you say it.

DLS

" I am also concerned about the idea of passing laws based upon what people think"

You should be, for that is the essence of what is being sought, as well as that it is politically selective.

DLS

"The really scary part is that Congressman and others are actually saying that it should have been used in the Duke 'rape' case"

Scary and abhorrent to better people, but not surprising, given the politics and the nature of the proponents.

tidbits

"Scary and abhorrent to better people, but not surprising, given the politics and the nature of the proponents." - DLS

Just who are the "better people"? Names or finite description please.

If you're calling me one of the "better people" as opposed to one of the "not better people" because I happen to agree with your position on this one issue, it will be necessary for me to reconsider my position lest I be associated with such an arrogant and classist calculation.

Please assure me that you continue to consider me one of low IQ mob of rabble.

Thank you.

z of c

DLS

"Just who are the 'better people'? Names or finite description[,] please."

Examples are those of us who recoil at the concept of criminalization of thought, criminalization that is also selectively applied (based on far-left activist politics).

All vicious crimes are "hate crimes" -- all forms of viciousness, not merely those which are political objects (and used as political weapons).

blog comments powered by Disqus