Posted on 06/18/2004 6:28:44 AM PDT by missyme
Many conservatives say an amendment passed by the U.S. Senate this week which makes homosexuality a special class under the "hate crimes" law really doesn't make any sense.
In a 65-33 vote on Tuesday, the Senate added the amendment to the $447 billion defense authorization bill for next year. The measure would add three new categories of protected groups -- sexual orientation, gender, and disabilities -- to the civil-rights-era law on hate crimes.
"I cannot think of a more decent and Christian thing to do," Smith told the Washington Post in reference to the amendment's passage.
"When people are being stoned in the public square, we ought to come to their rescue." The Oregon lawmaker supports a ban on same-sex message, but told the press he thought it was important for the Senate to act against hate before dealing with the marriage issue.
According to press reports, the Senate is expected to act on the Federal Marriage Amendment on or about July 15.
But Republican Senator Sam Brownback, who voted against the amendment, does not believe the legislation is necessary. "Crimes against another person are crimes of hate, regardless of who the individual is," the lawmaker from Kansas says, adding that the new law would just make more work for those prosecuting the crimes.
"Some may say this is an additional tool, but it's an additional burden [to prosecutors] to prove mental intent of what ... the perpetrator intends to do."
Conservatives feel the whole premise of hate crimes is contrary to free speech in the U.S. One of those is Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families, who says the Senate's action promotes discrimination.
"It gets the government in the business of trying to determine what a criminal is thinking when he commits a crime and whether he was motivated by hate," Bauer says. "Crime is crime -- and whether somebody is assaulting an 80-year-old grandmother or a 20-year-old gay man, the penalty ought to be severe in both cases."
Bauer contends the Senate was attacking a "straw man" when it stuck the amendment to the defense spending bill. "There are many laws on the books, all of which are enforced, to stop crimes of violence against any American regardless of their party affiliation, their sexual habits, their religion, or any other extraneous factor," he says.
Bauer says singling out specific punishments for crimes against certain groups is not compatible with equal justice for all.
Another pro-family advocate describes the amendment as a "blueprint for tyranny." Andrea Lafferty of Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) contends the legislation -- which she believes is backed by homosexual activists as a way of gaining special legal protections under federal law as a minority -- is designed to silence all opposition to the homosexual political agenda.
Her organization has been a long-time opponent of Kennedy's hate crime bill because it criminalizes a person's thoughts.
"Under hate crime legislation, it is likely that a sexual sadist who rapes a women would get a lesser sentence than a hate monger who beats up a homosexual," she says. "Where is the justice in that? Both are criminal acts and both are hateful. One shouldn't be treated differently than another."
Lafferty says TVC will be contacting churches nationwide, encouraging them to fight against what she describes as an "unneeded and dangerous threat" to freedom of religion and speech.
Traditional Values Coalition has published a list of the roll call vote on the amendment, which indicates Republican senators such as Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Virginia's George Allen and John Warner, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania supported its passage.
""When people are being stoned in the public square, we ought to come to their rescue."
I didn't see anything in this article about protecting marijuana smokers...
LOL! I don't think people that are stoned are looking for the government to rescue them..
Gee, the gay agenda is getting smarter. This is being snuck through under the radar. This issue needs more daylight, so the House will have the balls and motivation to kill this in conference before it goes to Bush's desk. Bush will have little choice but to sign a Defense Authorization Bill. It must be defeated by the House. I can't believe the 15 RINO's in the Senate went along with this. OK, maybe I do believe it.
Then to give extra legal protection to people who commit a specific time of sin? I am scratching my head trying to figure out the logic here.
time = type......
Homosexual Agenda Ping - Some Fallout From the Sickening Senators' Adding That POS to the Defense Spending Bill.
Smith nauseates me more and more. He should rip the "R" from his name and marry Ted Kennedy and be honest about their relationship.
What the heck is this "stoning in the public square"? Isn't that what they do in Saudi Arabia? I've never heard of anyone being stoned in the US, discounting libertarians and potheads.
Really, though - these RINOS are too freaking much. RECALL!!! (Can Senators be recalled?)
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
PS - Hate crimes is just Thought Crimes very thinly disguised. It means the wellbeing of a homosexual is more important than my old grandmother's, were she still alive. And I find that highly offensive.
DO we have "Public Squares" where people risk being Stoned? where did they come up with that? Do they know where they live? maybe they were confused and thought they were talking about Riyadh..
He's trying to be sly. Wouldn't that make the Defense of Marriage Act a hate crime and thus illegal ??
We do...it's called the police you schmuck!
I can't believe there ARE 15 RINOs in the Senate. George Allen> What the heck is going on?
Wow. Since it's apparently not illegal to stone gays right now, we'd better stone as many as we can before they pass this legislation. [/sarcasm]
I just was "talking" about this on another thread. If enough conservatives stand up, speak out, and take action, who knows what may happen? I also don't discount acts of God, one way or another.
It's going to have to turn one way or another. This insanity can't keep going. We either have some kind of awakening to truth, or my old tagline.
"no moral absolutes = absolute chaos, then totalitarianism, then absolute hell on earth."
They'll ban the Bible next.
"Under hate crime legislation, it is likely that a sexual sadist who rapes a women would get a lesser sentence than a hate monger who beats up a homosexual," she says. "Where is the justice in that? Both are criminal acts and both are hateful. One shouldn't be treated differently than another."
____________________________________________________________
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 prejudice exists, these hate crimes laws are the very reason!!!! As a law enforcement officer, I disagree totally and completely with these "hate crime 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.
Does anyone have a link to the vote count on this?
Letter to the Editors, Washington Times, circa fall, 1998:
In the waning hours of the 105th Congress, quiet efforts to pass controversial legislation are under way.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act... cites violence based on sexual orientation as a Hate Crime.
Hate Crimes have commonly been racially motivated. Only in Canada has sexual orientation been included in anti-hate and human rights legislation. The Canadian law does not focus exclusively on physical violence-- it includes all forms of communication as well.
...As a Canadian living in the United States, I fear for your freedom, mainly because you take it for granted.
If my words were published in a Canadian newspaper... I would be charged with inciting hate under the criminal code.
Freedom of speech no longer exists in Canada-- I could not state that AIDS is largely found within the homosexual community, nor quote statistics to back up my assertion.
My opinion would make me a criminal. Since "tolerance" has been redefined... only Political Correctness is tolerated...
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act is a signifigant foot in the door for homosexual rights lobbyists-- it validates the entire... movement as an endangered group in need of special legislative protection.
Violence against any person is already illegal, no matter what the motive.
I find it offensive that violence is noteworthy only when the victim ( is)... a member of some political action group.
Susan Mayhew
Herndon, Virginia
The above is copied from a letter I saved, ellipsis indicate copy left out for brevity & clarity. Except for that, it is verbatim.
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.