U.S. House backs hate crime measure protecting gays

WASHINGTON, Sept 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday unexpectedly backed a measure to expand federal hate crime protection to gay people, a measure that House conservatives had blocked for years.

The Senate has passed similar legislation, which also expanded protections for the disabled, several times in recent years but House conservatives had argued that these cases should be dealt with on a local or state level without additional federal intervention.

This time the hate crime measure was attached to a bipartisan bill known as the Children's Safety Act aimed at tightening reporting requirements for child sex offenders. Companion legislation has not yet moved through the Senate, so the ultimate fate of the gay protection provision is uncertain.

The size and scope of government has dramatically increased as has government spending. Nothing is being done about illegal immigration. Republicans are appointing maybes to replace originalists on the Supreme Court. And, now this.

What exactly have conservatives gained by electing Republicans and not holding them accountable for 10 years?

If someone can be convicted of "intent to kill," how can that be done without motive?

Because they are convicted based upon the actions they took, not their thoughts.

Despite the often ridiculous response here regarding this bill, it is not simply about homosexuals. The problem with this law is that it attempts to ascribe motives based on what the prosecution believes are the suspect's thoughts. This level of subjectivity allows too much arbitrariness into the law, which is an age old recipe for tyranny.

An example would be if you had to shoot an attacker or intruder, and they were one of the perceived "oppressed" classes, you would run the risk of being prosecuted under a law like this. Regardless that you were the intended victim, laws like this can be used by agenda driven prosecutors to 'show that you did not really need to shoot the other person, but did it because you hate all ___________s (fill in the blank).

Don't think I'm exaggerating. I've sat in (divorce) court and had a judge decide I had ill motives, without a shred of evidence to support her decision, and significant evidence that in fact the opposite was true. Why? I was a white male in divorce court, bastion of the feminist agenda. The law courts of full of agenda driven prosecutors and judges and all they need is an arbitrary law like this to unleash their prejudices.

[Hi Sandy! If you flag, please make sure I'm on your list. Thanks.]

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.