 |
VS. |  |
Posted on 12/09/2005 11:52:02 AM PST by areafiftyone
(CNSNews.com) - Republican U.S. Sen. George Allen will no longer support "hate crimes" legislation that includes "sexual orientation" as a protected status, even if the proposal is identical to a bill he voted for in 2004. The Virginia senator acknowledged Friday that such legislation could be used by federal courts to extend civil rights protections to homosexuals and to squelch free speech.
"Senator Allen is going to vote against adding 'sexual orientation' to federal 'hate crimes' laws," Mike Thomas, Allen's state director, told Cybercast News Service Friday.
Thomas said Allen has two serious concerns after monitoring how the federal courts have applied similar laws.
"The first is, he feels that those changes to hate crimes laws could have a chilling effect on First Amendment rights," Thomas said.
"Secondly - even though he doesn't feel that the legislation that was voted on in 2004, in and of itself, would elevate 'sexual orientation' to civil rights status - it's becoming clear that there are some courts that would use that as a building block toward civil rights status, which he is opposed to."
Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, shares Allen's concerns.
"These are the warnings that the pro-family groups ... have been making for years to politicians like George Allen," Glover told Cybercast News Service. "We're just happy that George Allen has seen it, now that it's actually coming to fruition, before it's too late."
Both Glover and Thomas referenced an October 2004 incident in Philadelphia where a group of Christians were arrested and each faced 47 years in jail for publicly reading Bible verses condemning homosexual behavior during the city's "Outfest," a "gay pride" celebration.
"He's seen religious liberties being threatened in Philadelphia," Glover said, "because of a 'hate crimes' law there that includes 'sexual orientation.'"
There are other cases as well, Thomas said. "There are indications that the courts are willing to use 'hate crimes' statutes to go after free speech and that is of great concern to Senator Allen," he said.
Glover had previously criticized Allen for what pro-family advocates saw as a reversal on this issue. As Cybercast News Service previously reported that Allen wrote supporters during his 2000 Senate campaign, telling them that he would "take no action that would have the effect of elevating sexual orientation to civil rights status including, but not limited to, adding sexual orientation to Federal Hate Crimes legislation or any other similar legislation."
Allen denied changing his position when he voted in favor of a 2004 bill that included "sexual orientation" as a protected class, because he believed, at that time, that the law would not provide civil rights protections to homosexuals. Thomas said it is now the potential effect of the legislation, not the senator's position that has changed.
It looks to me like he just became more aware of the true meaning and ramifications of the bill. He was then willing to change his vote to meet reality. Honestly, I do not think this is the same thing as Kerry at all. He voted for it when he viewed it as limited (he was lied to by the bill's proponents). It's too bad he fell for this legal loophole building block bill in the first place, but at least he has been willing to see the truth and change his vote accordingly. Good for him.
Bingo! This "hate crime" concept is foolish. I guess it is something to keep politicians and lawyers something to do.... pathetic.
He innocently thought the proponents were being honest, that the bill would simply beef up existing criminal law. Now, I think he shouldn't have voted to make it more of a crime to murder a homosexual but not, say, a child, a grandmother, etc... (All murder is hate. It sure isn't love.) So I disagree with his first premise. But at least when that premise proved to be false, he was willing to change his vote. That's good.
The way I always figured it is the general range of punishment is set by the action. The exact amount of punishment - within the law's range - should be set by a fair and impartial judge, who gets to judge just how malicious the perp's intent was. Hence the separate sentencing round in a trial.
Basically, by creating "hate-crime" laws, we take away this power away from the judge. Ironically, this is one of the powers the judiciary is supposed to have!
President Bush rightfully reversed himself on a 2000 campaign pledge to reduce atmospheric CO2 reduction, with the explanation that he had come to realize that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant. Like Allen, his original stance was wrong, but he was receptive to the actual truth of the situation.
Neither one of these guys is a walking encyclopedia, they rely on people like you and me to keep them honest. That is the Republic at its finest.
Glad to see other FReepers understand.
"Actually it was NOT a HOMOSEXUAL EVENT! It was a Journalist Event: Mr. Giuliani swept onstage in a huge, blond, bouffant wig and a bosomy gown for the finale of the "Inner Circle" dinner, a $400-a-plate, black-tie affair where the city's journalists satirize city, state and national politics." -- areafiftyone
Glad I don't have to put up with that sort of behavior from Sen. Allen.
"Actually it was NOT a HOMOSEXUAL EVENT! It was a Journalist Event: Mr. Giuliani swept onstage in a huge, blond, bouffant wig and a bosomy gown for the finale of the "Inner Circle" dinner, a $400-a-plate, black-tie affair where the city's journalists satirize city, state and national politics." -- areafiftyone
Glad I don't have to put up with that sort of behavior from Sen. Allen.
Well I can't argue with you on that. Personally I don't have anything against Allen and if he is the Republican nominee I will happily vote for him.
Any hate crimes legislation violates a number of Constitutional amendments as well as resembles the thought crimes that existed in Orwell's Oceania and many communist states. If it equates to anything thought equates to speech and is protected under the 1st Amendment. Any crime or tort committed during the speech should be addressed through the appropriate channels. How many extra death penalties or LWOP should James Byrd's murderers have been sentenced to?
Waiting for his apology for visiting with the ditch witch and suggesting that the President ought to have met with her.....again.
Actually that was ON ANOTHER POST FROM YESTERDAY! That was in answer to ZULU's Post saying Rudy dressed like that for a homosexual event when it wasn't it was a journalistic event.
LOL..I watched Warner on CSPIN. Talk about boring, boring, boring, mindless blather.
He had this deer caught in the headlights look like he was stunned.
I think Warner is going to be the Democrat's nominee! From what I have been reading they really like him. Even the ultra left!
Warner is less articulate than kerry. This is going to be fun!
Wow that is pretty pathetic! Another favorite is Clark - but he can easily be beaten.
|
VS. | |
Uh-huh.
So he's become "enlightened" on the issue?
Amazing how this occurs on eve of his intention to run for President.
Senator Allen, how about becoming "enlightened" about Cindy Sheehan, the Warner resolution and the McCain amendment?
Forget it. It's rapidly becoming clear to me this man thinks by polls. Most politicians do, but some are like the President and firmly believe and stand by positions and try to sway others to their beliefs. Others let polls dictate everything they will support.
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.