Skip to comments.
Sen. Allen: 'Hate Crimes' Support Breaks No Promise
CNS ^
| 10/6/05
Posted on 10/06/2005 6:25:23 AM PDT by areafiftyone
(CNSNews.com) - Virginia Republican Sen. George Allen, considered by political insiders to be a contender for the party's 2008 presidential nomination, is being accused of breaking a campaign promise with his support of pro-homosexual federal "hate crimes" legislation. Allen denies that he broke any promise.
The criticism comes from Joe Glover, president of the Virginia-based Family Policy Network (FPN) and involves an Oct. 27, 2000, letter that Allen wrote to a constituent.
The recipient of that letter was acting as a liaison between Allen - at the time a candidate for the Senate - and pro-family leaders who were concerned about Allen's position on granting legal recognition or special privileges to homosexuals.
"As we discussed, if I am elected to the Senate, I will take no action that would have the effect of elevating sexual orientation to civil rights status," Allen wrote, "including, but not limited to, adding sexual orientation to Federal Hate Crimes legislation or any other similar legislation."
Glover is accusing Allen of violating that pledge when the freshman senator voted to support the addition of "sexual orientation" as a protected category under the federal "hate crimes" law in 2004. The amendment did not become law, but the House recently passed a similar proposal. Glover is rallying conservatives to discourage Allen from supporting the current measure in an upcoming vote.
"If pro-family leaders talking to him privately can't trust George Allen to follow through with a promise," Glover told Cybercast News Service, "hopefully enough conversation with Virginians who feel strongly about this issue can make that difference."
But Allen insists he has broken no promise.
"When I ran for the U.S. Senate in 2000, I stated numerous times that I would support adding 'sexual orientation' to the category of 'hate crimes,' unless the legislation raised 'sexual orientation' to the level of a civil right, which I could not support," Allen said. He explained that the 2004 amendment was "different from earlier proposals," and "(did) not elevate 'sexual orientation' to civil rights status."
Glover argues that Allen's promise to "take no action that would have the effect of ... adding sexual orientation to Federal Hate Crimes legislation or any other similar legislation," in the 2000 letter negates those arguments.
"This isn't about what we're saying our position is," Glover said. "It's about what George Allen assured pro-family leaders, was his position."
Glover claims it was Allen, not the pro-family groups, who first used the language regarding "elevating 'sexual orientation' to civil rights status," during their discussions.
"He made it extremely clear that any type of legislation similar to what he was looking at in 2000 ... would have the effect, in his own words, of elevating 'sexual orientation' to civil rights status," Glover continued. "And he promised not to do it."
John Reid, communications director for Allen, called the disagreement "a misunderstanding of what the letter says and what the senator said over and over again in the campaign.
"We understand the sensitivity that others are expressing on this," Reid continued, "but the main point of Senator Allen's support for this legislation is to get criminals off the street and that needs to be the paramount concern here."
Glover scoffed at that claim.
"I know that he'd like to come up with some way to wiggle out of this," Glover said of Allen. "But the fact of the matter is he left himself no room to wiggle from it with this letter."
On Sept. 14, the House passed The Children's Safety Act of 2005 (H.R. 3132), which added gender, "sexual orientation," "gender identity" and disability to the list of motivations for criminal offenses which could trigger federal involvement in a state prosecution.
Critics charge that, in addition to providing legal recognition of individuals because they engage in homosexual behavior, the proposal could quash criticism of homosexuality by religious leaders.
TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 109th; allen2008; georgeallen; homosexualagenda; hr3132; president2008; thoughtpolice
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101 next last
To: Corin Stormhands
I applaud Allen and Talent for reintroducing the line item veto.
61
posted on
10/06/2005 8:03:53 AM PDT
by
Gipper08
(Mike Pence in 2008)
To: ElPatriota
Last time I heard he was ready to talk to Mrs. Sheehan... I wonder what he wanted to talk to her about?... hmmm.... You need to keep up with the news. Read here.
62
posted on
10/06/2005 8:05:22 AM PDT
by
Corin Stormhands
(You are stuck on stupid, I’m not going to answer that question ~ General Honore)
To: Corin Stormhands
....As for the Cindy Sheehan comment, he did not say the President should have met with her again. He did say that he would have met with her before she began her media circus, but not after.....I happily stand corrected! althoug on second thought, isn't that what GWB did? He met with her... before joining the circus?
.. But no matter I am just glad he is not becoming a McCain.
And thank you for the information! there is no way I could keep up with everything that is going on, since I can not trust the MSM my sources are very limited and that is why I come to FR
63
posted on
10/06/2005 8:28:23 AM PDT
by
ElPatriota
(Let's not forget, we are all still friends despite our differences)
To: ElPatriota
Yes, the President met with her last year (I believe).
And I think Allen's statement may have been before that was widely known.
64
posted on
10/06/2005 8:29:44 AM PDT
by
Corin Stormhands
(You are stuck on stupid, I’m not going to answer that question ~ General Honore)
To: areafiftyone
The effort to create a "Hate Crime" law is directed toward one object: to give government police state authority over every human action of every citizen.
George Orwell's book "1984" nightmare has become a reality when BigGov can say: "We are going to deprive you of your freedom and liberty because we know what you were thinking."
We know this is true because hate is an emotion, it is not quantifiable, nor can hate be measured as to degree of motivation for an act. No one can look into the human mind and tell what the emotion of the moment is or was.
Such a law can have only one purpose and that is to give government the justification to do anything to anyone under the guise that the person committed a "Hate" crime.
Hate is a legitimate human emotion without which man could not survive.
We come nearer to the police state where what is not compulsory is prohibited.
To: areafiftyone
The effort to create a "Hate Crime" law is directed toward one object: to give government police state authority over every human action of every citizen.
George Orwell's book "1984" nightmare has become a reality when BigGov can say: "We are going to deprive you of your freedom and liberty because we know what you were thinking."
We know this is true because hate is an emotion, it is not quantifiable, nor can hate be measured as to degree of motivation for an act. No one can look into the human mind and tell what the emotion of the moment is or was.
Such a law can have only one purpose and that is to give government the justification to do anything to anyone under the guise that the person committed a "Hate" crime.
Hate is a legitimate human emotion without which man could not survive.
We come nearer to the police state where what is not compulsory is prohibited.
To: areafiftyone
The effort to create a "Hate Crime" law is directed toward one object: to give government police state authority over every human action of every citizen.
George Orwell's book "1984" nightmare has become a reality when BigGov can say: "We are going to deprive you of your freedom and liberty because we know what you were thinking."
We know this is true because hate is an emotion, it is not quantifiable, nor can hate be measured as to degree of motivation for an act. No one can look into the human mind and tell what the emotion of the moment is or was.
Such a law can have only one purpose and that is to give government the justification to do anything to anyone under the guise that the person committed a "Hate" crime.
Hate is a legitimate human emotion without which man could not survive.
We come nearer to the police state where what is not compulsory is prohibited.
To: areafiftyone
The effort to create a "Hate Crime" law is directed toward one object: to give government police state authority over every human action of every citizen.
George Orwell's book "1984" nightmare has become a reality when BigGov can say: "We are going to deprive you of your freedom and liberty because we know what you were thinking."
We know this is true because hate is an emotion, it is not quantifiable, nor can hate be measured as to degree of motivation for an act. No one can look into the human mind and tell what the emotion of the moment is or was.
Such a law can have only one purpose and that is to give government the justification to do anything to anyone under the guise that the person committed a "Hate" crime.
Hate is a legitimate human emotion without which man could not survive.
We come nearer to the police state where what is not compulsory is prohibited.
To: EdReform; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; I_Love_My_Husband; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Any elected official who votes to include "sexual orientation" as a protected class under a so-called hate crimes bill is no conservative. Or any special group. Then entire concept of "hate crimes" is non-conservative and repellent. It means some groups of humans are more worthy than others.
In any trial, it's obvious that if the crime is particularly cruel, or the victim helpless, that will be taken into consideration at the time of sentencing, or should be. The is absolutely no reason to mandate special groups as worthy of sacred status as victims, it is an odious concept. And to include homosexuals is the heighth of insult to everyone.
Freepmail me AND DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off this pinglist.
69
posted on
10/06/2005 8:43:29 AM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
To: areafiftyone
Where are all the "Allen/Rice 2008" pimps now?
Senators have never won a presidency since JFK, and even he didn't really win thanks to election fraud.
To: R.W.Ratikal
Your statements are absolutely correct.
71
posted on
10/06/2005 8:45:02 AM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
To: Baynative
This legislation is intendened to LEGISLATE BY FORCE OF LAW the assumption that homosexuals are "born."
This will be pointed to be used to break down other institutions.
If anything hate crime laws mean you are prohibited from saying "right and wrong".
To: areafiftyone
Virginia Republican Sen. George Allen, considered by political insiders to be a contender for the party's 2008 presidential nomination
Not after this.
73
posted on
10/06/2005 8:46:29 AM PDT
by
trubluolyguy
(I am conservative. That is NOT the same thing as Republican. Don't place party over principle.)
To: AliVeritas
74
posted on
10/06/2005 8:48:07 AM PDT
by
del4hope
(Tom Delay - HAMMER like you have never Hammered before - God's speed to you)
To: Jim_Curtis
I dislike excessively long red lights and poorly timed yellow lights. If I accidentally ran one, would that be considered a hate moving violation?
To: OldFriend
Mr. Wannabe jumped out against the President on Meiers, and now he's breaking his campaign promises too.
I have issues with Allen on the hate crimes idiocy but on the nomination of Meiers come on, you can't disagree with the President anymore? GWB is always right?
I don't think so.
76
posted on
10/06/2005 8:49:42 AM PDT
by
trubluolyguy
(I am conservative. That is NOT the same thing as Republican. Don't place party over principle.)
To: areafiftyone
Allen is displaying really bad judgement here. Incrementalism sets in and the next thing you know, pastors, imams, rabbis - you name it - can't speak out against homosexuality.
Elevating sexual orientation to the level of race or gender, for any reason, is a recipe for disaster.
To: areafiftyone
Dear Mr. Allen,
Thanks for letting us know.
Save your money and skip your trip to Iowa.
Sincerely,
Granny
78
posted on
10/06/2005 8:53:43 AM PDT
by
Iowa Granny
(I am not the sharpest pin in the cushion but I can draw blood.)
To: ManHunter
You're probably right on at least two of the three. I'd like to see an election where I didn't have to hold my nose to vote.
For once
79
posted on
10/06/2005 8:55:06 AM PDT
by
trubluolyguy
(I am conservative. That is NOT the same thing as Republican. Don't place party over principle.)
To: Gipper08
What you neglect to mention is the fact he ran off for the Q&A session and his praise of the house leadership. I believe in the leadership of this Congress, men and women of integrity and principle who work every day to bring the ideals of our founders into the well of the Peoples House. Right....
80
posted on
10/06/2005 8:55:57 AM PDT
by
SDGOP
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson