Posted on 06/16/2004 4:55:05 AM PDT by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Senate on Tuesday voted to expand "hate crimes" legislation to cover crimes that target people because of their sexual orientation, gender, or disability.The measure, an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2005 Defense authorization bill, was co-sponsored by Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). It passed on a vote of 65-33, with all Democrats and 18 Republicans voting in favor of it.
Liberal groups praised the vote, while conservatives criticized it.
Concerned Women for America, a conservative public policy organization, warned that the amendment lays the groundwork for the persecution of Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims and others who oppose homosexuality on religious grounds.
"Using similar laws, the mere criticism of homosexuality is considered a 'hate crime' in Sweden and Canada," said Robert Knight, director of CWA's Culture and Family Institute.
"The idea of a 'hate crime' is completely contrary to the American principles of free speech and equal protection under the law. Any senator who voted for this is setting up our children and grandchildren for persecution as activist courts rule that biblical morality is 'bigotry.'
CWA says hate crimes laws aren't about justice; "they are about favoritism and special rights."
As an example, CWA said under the amendment passed Tuesday, the penalty for mugging a homosexual would be greater than that for mugging someone's grandmother. "Under a hate crimes law, someone who mugs your grandmother will not be prosecuted as vigorously as someone who commits the same crime against a homosexual. This says to criminals: 'Mug Grandma; It's less risky,'" CWA said.
Homosexual advocacy groups praised the vote, however:
The National Stonewall Democrats, which describes itself as the "only national organization of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Democrats," applauded those lawmakers who "rejected the divisive politics of the Republican leadership."
The Stonewall Democrats said the federal government must prosecute bias-motivated crimes based on sexual orientation the same way it prosecutes bias-motivated crimes based on religion, race and other characteristics.
"The legislation voted on today by the U.S. Senate would ensure that these crimes are prosecuted by the federal government with equity," the Stonewall Democrats said in a press release.
The bill passed on Tuesday would allow the federal government to provide state and local law enforcement agencies with same resources used in the prosecution of other bias-motivated crimes.
Since being introduced in 1997, hate crimes legislation has gained "significant support" in the United States Senate, the Stonewall Democrats said. The group noted that three Republicans - Robert Bennett of Utah, Ben Campbell of Colorado and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire - voted for the measure on Tuesday, after voting against similar legislation in 2000.
But as pleased as they are, the National Stonewall Democrats believe the measure passed on Tuesday doesn't go far enough because it fails to explicitly address bias-motivated crimes that target transgender individuals.
The Human Rights Campaign praised the Senate for taking an "important step toward giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate and prosecute hate crimes."
According to HRC President Cheryl Jacques, "Hate crimes are perpetrated by criminals trying to divide Americans," and she said such "heinous crimes" must be "fully prosecuted."
Jacques also expressed concern that some lawmakers may have voted for the hate crimes amendment as a way of "inoculating" themselves against a future vote in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. It won't work, Jacques warned.
According to the Human Rights Campaign, sexual orientation bias represents the third highest category of reported hate crimes, based on the most recent FBI statistics.
"Law enforcement organizations are urging passage of this bill and today the Senate delivered again," said Jacques.
Concerned Women for America also noticed that the "Senate delivered again," and the group is not happy about it.
"This is more proof that while being Republican led, the Senate is not a conservative body. We will rely on the House leadership to keep this harmful language from reaching the President's desk, and we will encourage our members to look at their senators' votes on this bill as they consider who they will support and oppose in November."
Liberal groups are urging lawmakers to retain the amendment when the Defense authorization bill is reconciled in a conference committee. Conservative groups are urging lawmakers to strip the amendment from the final Defense authorization bill.
On two previous occasions, a similar measure has been removed from the final bill.
So of course this won't include "hate crimes" against conservatives, heteros or men?
So if a woman shoots a man is it a hate crime? Isn't everything a hate crime?
Dems are worried about the Patriot act, The patriot act is small potatoes compared to this hate crime legislation.
So, Mr. Hate himself is sponsoring further "hate crime" legislation. How "ironic".
The Bible will be band soon. I saw this coming.
And a little more of freedom was chipped away ...
How about musliims who preach everything from hate to death towards non-muslims.
Oh brother. Rather than a constitutional amendment protecting the sanctity of marriage (whatever that means), we need to adjust lawmakers' time in session so they don't have time to submit bills like this. Make the Senate and House positions pay $0/year and the session only 7 days.
It is one thing to hate someone, it is an entirely different thing to disagree with someone, even to vehemently disagree with someone. In fact, hating someone should be LEGAL.
Think about it. Two neighbors who have been fighting over the exact location of a fenceline for the last 10 years. They HATE each other with a passion. Should one of them be arrested for simply hating his neighbor??? I guess if one of them is a homo, the other guy should now be arrested?
Now what if the homo decides to toss a rock at his neighbor.. the one he *hates* because they disagree about the location of the fence. Is *that* a hate crime?
What if the straight neighbor tosses a rock back? I guess that now *that* would be a hate crime.
The Republicans that voted for this should be impeached.
Careful, you may have just committed a hate crime!
I am becoming increasingly disenfranchised. This may effect my voting this November.
They are also about bludgeoning your opposition into silence.
Yes, his speech goes "beyond the limits of public discussion"., according to the current Authorities Supreme.
Does anybody know where the House stands on this ? Hopefully this is one of those "feel good" votes that looks good to certain groups in election years but quickly gets stripped in conference.
How exactly do you tell if someone is gay? If someone does something to me I don't like, I just paint myself gay and sue them?
What has happened to the great civil rights movement? I don't see the word except in "All men are created equal."
Next on the liberal liberty robbing agenda - thought crime.
Congress should be paid living expenses only and all other forms of direct and indirect compensation is illegal. The problem is Teddy is getting fat serving, serving should be a sacrifice. Teddy is serving himself, not his constituents.
"the Bible will soon be band?"
Is it still ok in our country to read from Romans Chapter 1?
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Any and all "hate crimes bills" are an attempt in thought control. For example, a white on black murder more than likely will be classified as a "hate crime". However a white on white or a black on black murder would not be called a "hate crime". Which murder is worse? Shouldn't all murders be prosecuted to the fullest extent once guilt has been determined by a jury of 12 peers, ending with the murderer being put to death, regardless of the emotions and political ideology of the murderer taken in to account?
We are traveling down a very slippery slope here. Not only in relation to the affect such "hate crimes" law have on things such as the Bill of Rights, but how we view crimes. The taking of a life is a hateful, heinous crime no matter whose life was taken and for what reasons. We as a society should avoid these types of stereotypes, but we are running harder and harder after them. We wonder why racism and other forms of prejuidice exists, these hate crimes laws are the very reason!!!! As a law enforcement officer, I disgree totally and completely with these "hate crimes laws"
and the sentiments they are creating. A murder is a murder, regardless of who was killed and why that person was killed. What are we as a society going to do to a person who has committed a so called "hate crime"? Put them to death twice? I am afraid what is going to happen here, is only those crimes classified as "hate crime" will have the possibility to get the death penalty or the harshest punishment allowed by law, while those who kill for the joy of it will only get a few years in prison. I would not be surprised to see the day come, when any garden variety crime will be viewed as no big deal, but now look out if the crime can be called a "hate crime". We should not be setting up favoritisms in our society. This attitude is one day going to come back and bite us hard.
In closing, "hate crimes" laws are having the reverse affect on society they are intended to have. Instead of protecting and valuing ALL life as we should, we are devaluing one group's life while putting another group's life on a pedestal and held in highest regard to be protected. Our government is endorsing and increasing hate generated toward minority groups because of this new "enlightened" mind set.
Dang.. you're a cop? No offense, but Why? Anybody that can put thought together this well should have aimed higher.
Then again, it's reassuring to know we have LEOs that have this quality of thinking/critical skills.
In any case, well said.. VERY well said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.