Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Hate crimes bill to become law
The White House has announced that President Obama on Wednesday will sign into law the defense spending bill that contains sweeping new hate crimes legislation.
Obama will sign into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 Wednesday afternoon. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Members of Congress, and others will join him.
Then later that day Obama will host a reception to commemorate the enactment of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
This act, named after a gay teenager and a black man who were both murdered, makes it a federal crime to discriminate based on sexual orientation, disability or gender.
Controversy erupted when this hate crimes act became tied to the $680 billion defense spending bill.
Tony Perkins, with the Family Research Council, said it forced lawmakers to choose between supporting the nation’s troops or their belief that the hate crimes act could interfere with the freedom of one’s religious beliefs:
“This hate crimes provision is part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality. Expanding hate crimes puts America in lock step with the stated agenda of homosexual activists who will turn next to the so-called Employment Non-discrimination Act, followed by the repeal of the ban on homosexuality in the military and then the Defense of Marriage Act.”
back to top228 Comments to “Hate crimes bill to become law”
Well here we go, our nation is falling deeper and deeper into sin.
Report comment to moderator
The hate crimes legislation allocates $5 million per year to the Justice Department to provide assistance to local communities in investigating such crimes, a process that can sometimes strain local police resources. It allows the Justice Department to assist in the inquiry and prosecution of such crimes if requested by local authorities.
“The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread and interstate in nature as to warrant federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes,” the measure says.
Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said that the Federal Bureau of Investigation recorded reports of more than 77,000 hate crimes from 1998 through 2007 and that crimes based on sexual orientation were on an upward trend.
“The hate-crimes act will hopefully deter people from being targeted for violent attacks because of the color of their skin or their religion, their disability, their gender, or their sexual orientation, regardless of where the crime takes place,” he said.</i?
It's very simple. When you plan on murdering and assaulting gay people in the mname of Christ, clear out your hard drive and keep your mouth shut. This way you can have the charges dropped to road rage or simple manslaughter.
What's that? You have no plans to assault or kill any gay people, and don't encourage others to do so?
Then this bill won't affect you, at all.
I do note that the people who are complaining about inclusion of gays did not object when religion was included.
Report comment to moderator
It’s God’s will, brother.
Report comment to moderator
The hate crimes legislation allocates $5 million per year to the Justice Department to provide assistance to local communities in investigating such crimes, a process that can sometimes strain local police resources. It allows the Justice Department to assist in the inquiry and prosecution of such crimes if requested by local authorities.
“The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread and interstate in nature as to warrant federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes,” the measure says.
Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said that the Federal Bureau of Investigation recorded reports of more than 77,000 hate crimes from 1998 through 2007 and that crimes based on sexual orientation were on an upward trend.
“The hate-crimes act will hopefully deter people from being targeted for violent attacks because of the color of their skin or their religion, their disability, their gender, or their sexual orientation, regardless of where the crime takes place,” he said.
Report comment to moderator
“The hate-crimes act will hopefully deter people from being targeted for violent attacks because of the color of their skin or their religion, their disability, their gender, or their sexual orientation, regardless of where the crime takes place,” he said.
This is pure fantasy. People who engage in violent attacks on anyone, I submit, rarely stop to consult the statute books to determine whether it’s legal. Please.
Report comment to moderator
So, when you’re planning to kill or assault gay people for Christ, have the good sense to clean out your hard drive, and keep your mouth shut about Jesus. Also, when preaching that gay people are godless sodomites who deserve death, make it clear that the paving stones and Molotovs used should be fingerprint-resistant.
What? You wouldn’t do kill or assault gay people and wouldn’t encourage others to do that?
Well, then, the statute has no effect on you at all and never will.
Also – why no objections to including religion in the earlier version of the bill?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – should preaching aginst the sin of sex out side of marriage be part of the hate crime?
Report comment to moderator
calling people who gay to repent per God’s Word is wrong and should be part of the hate crime law?
Report comment to moderator
To Pastor Roy: only if the preaching incites violence against gay people or others perceived to have thusly sinned.
And to the author of the post who lied thusly: This act, named after a gay teenager and a black man who were both murdered, makes it a federal crime to discriminate based on sexual orientation, disability or gender.
Blatant, patent falsehood, indicating gross dishonesty or a failure to read the bill. That’s NOT what it does.
It does what the quoted material in my post at # 3 says it does.
Report comment to moderator
“The hate crimes legislation allocates $5 million per year to the Justice Department to provide assistance to local communities in investigating such crimes, a process that can sometimes strain local police resources. It allows the Justice Department to assist in the inquiry and prosecution of such crimes if requested by local authorities.”
You’re right, it will be a needless, unnecessary strain on law enforcment to have to prove additional elements on top of what’s already a crime. Instead of investigating and prosecuting assault qua assault, or murder qua murder, they’ll be chasing proof of the perpetrators thoughts beforehand. For what?
Report comment to moderator
A more concise explanation:
What the Hate Crimes Bill Is:
•Current federal hate crime law, passed by Congress is 1968, allows federal investigation and prosecution of hate crimes based on race, religion, and national origin.
•Makes money and resources available for local communities when a hate crime has been committed.
•Allows federal authorities to assist in investigations if needed.
•It also makes grants available to state and local communities to combat violent crimes committed by juveniles, train law enforcement officers, or to assist in state and local investigations and prosecutions of bias motivated crimes.
What the Hate Crimes Bill is Not:
•It is not about increasing jail time or sentencing for perpetrators.
•Does not give funding to prevent hate crimes.
Report comment to moderator
“To Pastor Roy: only if the preaching incites violence against gay people or others perceived to have thusly sinned.”
Therein lies the problem. If a preacher simply preaches a biblical message, and a hearer assaults or murders a homosexual–and says “the sermon made me do it”–how’s the preacher supposed to defend himself from a hate crimes charge?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 10.27.09 AT 2:23 PM
To Pastor Roy: only if the preaching incites violence against gay people or others perceived to have thusly sinned.
-
so called the gay life a sinful life is not hate?
Report comment to moderator
RKG 10.27.09 AT 2:27 PM
“To Pastor Roy: only if the preaching incites violence against gay people or others perceived to have thusly sinned.”
Therein lies the problem. If a preacher simply preaches a biblical message, and a hearer assaults or murders a homosexual–and says “the sermon made me do it”–how’s the preacher supposed to defend himself from a hate crimes charge?
–
An if someone in the GLBT Community feel that it is hate, they can ask the police to look into it.
Report comment to moderator
We’ve had this conversation so many times already, and none of you has ever offered a substantive reason not to prosecute terrorism or marshaled a fear mongering line compelling enough to scare anyone who reads the explicit speech protections in the bill!
There is no reason to not be derisive toward people who celebrate gay bashings. And brass tax, what this bill represents is fewer gay bashings!
So rather than have ANOTHER meaningless conversation, I’m just going to say…
Yay, for us. You lost, because you have a disgusting record of failure. We win this one! And rather then try to change you mind with reasonable argument you won’t read or understand, I’m just going to relish in the frustration of your bigotry!
Report comment to moderator
Not everything is a federal crime, nor should it be. This is a waste of resources and a consolidation of power on the federal level.
Report comment to moderator
Question: Is it legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians?
Is it legal to fire someone for being gay or lesbian? Can you be kicked out of a restaurant or denied an apartment for being gay? Is discrimination against gays and lesbians legal?
Answer: The answer is, it depends on where you live. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation:
•California
•Connecticut
•District of Columbia
•Hawaii
•Illinois
•Maine
•Maryland
•Massachusetts
•Minnesota
•Nevada
•New Hampshire
•New Jersey
•New Mexico
•New York
•Rhode Island
•Vermont
•Washington
•Wisconsin.
There is no federal protection for gays and lesbians.
Many cities and municipalities also have their own anti-discrimination laws. So do many of the major corporations in America. But if you’re unlucky enough to live or work in a place that allows legal discrimination, you have no legal recourse if you are discriminated against for being gay or lesbian.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Thomas, because hate crimes legislation has never been abused. Politicians will certainly play inside the lines.
#4: This is what people don’t seem to get. There are already severe punishments for committing some of these crimes, and yet people still do. I submit that this won’t help much, and will instead turn into a nasty partisan issue.
And why exactly are “hate crimes” more horrible than the same crime, only committed for not-”hateful” reasons? It’s illegal, and yet it still happens. Besides, how exactly can you prove “hateful” intent? To enforce this as anything other than an blanket “crimes committed against what we decide on a whim are privileged minorities are more severely punished” would take the Thought Police, I think.
Report comment to moderator
15: NJL didn’t read the bill, or comments 10 or 16, yet sees fit to comment on the legislation like she knows that it raises hate crimes to a federal level. Telling.
Report comment to moderator
There is no federal protection for gays and lesbians? Umm… they’re as “protected” as anyone else. A crime is a crime and should be treated as such.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1, you are not a big fan of the Boy’s Scouts are you?
An I guess you are not a big fan of the writtens of Paul are you?
Report comment to moderator
I wonder how soon we will heaar about a law suite or a police report against the Boy’s Scouts ?
Report comment to moderator
“There is no reason to not be derisive toward people who celebrate gay bashings. And brass tax, what this bill represents is fewer gay bashings!”
Give me a break. Putting aside for the moment your outrageous insult, just how many “gay bashings” do you think will be prevented as a result of this bill? It’s already against the law to “bash” people, period. In every state. I guess it makes you feel good to legislate your morality.
Report comment to moderator
TJS:
1. And why exactly are “hate crimes” more horrible than the same crime, only committed for not-”hateful” reasons? It’s illegal, and yet it still happens.
Because we protect the minority against the majority in this society. This is because we find their contribution valuable. A diverse society is a stronger one, which is the motivation for many corporations to adopt the same policies.
Besides, how exactly can you prove “hateful” intent?
Contemporaneous and prior statements are good. Computer records are useful. I’ve seen tattoos used also.
To enforce this as anything other than an blanket “crimes committed against what we decide on a whim are privileged minorities are more severely punished” would take the Thought Police, I think.
It’s a funding bill. Not an enforcement bill or penalty enhancing bill. Does no one read?
I see why there’s no link in the original post, though. That would be, you know, accurate and woulsn’t facilitate the spread of disinformation.
Report comment to moderator
Folks, they now have Federal Protection, their next’s move is to have the Military Ban lifted, while putting restricting on the Christian Chaplains. Then move to ensure that their life style is taught in Sex Education in School. Then they will move against the Defense of Marriage Act. Then move against all the States the have marriage only between a Man and a Woman.
Report comment to moderator
“It’s a funding bill. Not an enforcement bill or penalty enhancing bill. Does no one read?
I see why there’s no link in the original post, though. That would be, you know, accurate and woulsn’t facilitate the spread of disinformation. “‘
give them time,
Report comment to moderator
No, Thomas, YOU don’t read. But, then again, I don’t expect someone who attends the Google School of Law to understand what I wrote anyway.
Report comment to moderator
NJL – what you wrote was false. But I don’t expect someone who never let a fact get in the way of her opinion to write cogently.
Report comment to moderator
#22: The morality that s/he loves to bring up but never has a basis for.
#23: I thought you said it gave $5 million a year for investigation of “hate” crimes? I just think that a crime is a crime, without needing to consider the thoughts and intent. So, if it doesn’t enhance penalties, how does it purport to protect minorities against “violent attacks” and “discrimination?” The simple fact of the matter is that you can protect people from criminal harm, but you can’t legislate thought or opinion.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer 10.27.09 AT 2:31 PM
Not everything is a federal crime, nor should it be. This is a waste of resources and a consolidation of power on the federal level.
Ok what is wrong with this statement Thomas?
Report comment to moderator
tjs catlover – think about this, if someone is brought up on charges of a crime against GLBT Community at the State level. GLBT Community will be demanding the FED to charger that person with a Federal Crime also.
Report comment to moderator
TJS: #23: I thought you said it gave $5 million a year for investigation of “hate” crimes? I just think that a crime is a crime, without needing to consider the thoughts and intent.
Motive is an element in all crimes, and does go to sentencing. But states set sentencing guidelines. This just helps fund prosecution.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding NJL’s deceptive assertion that this makes it a Federal crime, again, no:
The bill leaves the prosecution of hate crimes mostly in the hands of the states, 45 of which have their own hate-crimes legislation to begin with. The bill simply provides money to help state and local officials with the costs of prosecuting hate crimes and provides that the federal government can step in after the Justice Department certifies that a state does not have jurisdiction or is unable to carry out justice.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 10.27.09 AT 3:03 PM
Regarding NJL’s deceptive assertion that this makes it a Federal crime, again, no:
The bill leaves the prosecution of hate crimes mostly in the hands of the states, 45 of which have their own hate-crimes legislation to begin with. The bill simply provides money to help state and local officials with the costs of prosecuting hate crimes and provides that the federal government can step in after the Justice Department certifies that a state does not have jurisdiction or is unable to carry out justice.
–
That is not true, under the Hate Crime Law that we have already someone can be charged with a Fedral Hate Crime. All this law does is added on someone sexual action.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, if I am murdered or beaten in New Jersey, why should there be recourse to federal resources? That’s why we have the state police and local authorities. This is the same thing that was wrong with the Violence Against Women Act, and all the federal judges were bent out of shape about it because it meant more work for them and in time this will be altered through case law, too. The feds do not belong in everything. States have rights, not to mention their obligations. Again, not everything requires federal intervention or dollars. We still have states in the country, 50 of them, in fact. So, I’ll say what I always say: A murder is a murder is a murder. A beating is a beating is a beating.
Thomas, I have not written anything false. Your comment to me is just as ill-informed as your comment that federal judges are “allowed” to do this or that. You have no understanding of how the judicial system functions. You’ve proven that. Just as you used the word “allow” improperly with respect to federal judges, you fail to understand what I am saying here as well. You and I are done for the day because I’m not going to take any more of your insults. Go to real law school and we’ll talk.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer 10.27.09 AT 3:14 PM
Pastor Roy, if I am murdered or beaten in New Jersey, why should there be recourse to federal resources
-
the first problem is you are in NJ. An I agree there should not be fedral funding here.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 @ 31: “Motive is an element in all crimes, and does go to sentencing.”
FALSE. Motive is not an element of any crime, except hate crimes. Motive can be used as evidence of intent (to commit the illegal act), and intent is an element of crime. But motive is not an element apart from hate crimes. Hate crime laws are an innovation, introducing a foreign concept to criminal law.
Report comment to moderator
RKG, um:
Evidence of a motive, or evidence of the lack
of a motive, may be considered by the jury.
For example, if you find from the evidence that the defendant
had a motive to commit the crime charged, that is a circumstance
you may wish to consider as tending to support a finding of guilt.
On the other hand, if the proof establishes that the defendant
had no motive to commit the crime charged, that is a circumstance
you may wish to consider as tending to establish that the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged.1
1. People v. Seppi, 221 N.Y. 62 (1917).
Report comment to moderator
34: Call a Waaaaahmbulance, and someone here will surely chase it!
Report comment to moderator
There’s a reason Tony Soprano went out in the same restaurant in NJ I frequented as a kid….
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, and look what happened to him!
Report comment to moderator
This is true: “Hate crime laws are an innovation, introducing a foreign concept to criminal law.”
Report comment to moderator
Does anyone recall the name of the male child who was brutally raped and murdered by two sodomites at about the same time as the Mathew Sheppherd case, or the names of the two sodomites who raped and killed him?
Report comment to moderator
You don’t know what happened to Tony Soprano. As I understand it, the door to Holsten’s opened and the program ended.
Report comment to moderator
Jesse is the first name, Roger. I’m pretty sure. If you google that name, murder, homosexual and cucumber, I’ll bet you’ll find the story.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry to be so nitpicky, Thomas1, but “element” is a term of art, and I was under the impression that precision of language was important to you. Proof of motive may indeed be offered to prove an element of the crime, but motive itself is not an element, and you need not prove motive to prove the crime. To prove a “hate crime,” however, you must prove motive to prove the crime. It’s new.
Report comment to moderator
For Roger Patno:
On July 3, 2000, in Grant Town, West Virginia, Arthur “J.R.” Warren was punched and kicked to death by two teenage boys who reportedly believed Warren had spread a rumor that he and one of the boys, David Allen Parker, had a sexual relationship. Warren’s killers ran over his body to disguise the murder as a hit-and-run. Parker pleaded guilty and was sentenced to “life in prison with mercy”, making him eligible for parole after 15 years.[125] His accomplice, Jared Wilson, was sentenced to 20 years.[126]
On September 22, 2000, Ronald Gay entered a gay bar in Roanoke, Virginia and opened fire on the patrons, killing Danny Overstreet, 43 years old, and severely injuring six others. Ronald said he was angry over what his name now meant, and deeply upset that three of his sons had changed their surname. He claimed that he had been told by God to find and kill lesbians and gay men, describing himself as a “Christian Soldier working for my Lord;” Gay testified in court that “he wished he could have killed more fags,” before several of the shooting victims as well as Danny Overstreet’s family and friends.[127]
On June 16, 2001, Fred Martinez, a transgender and two-spirit student was bludgeoned to death near Cortez, Colorado by 18-year-old Shaun Murphy, who reportedly bragged about attacking a “fag”.[128][129]
On June 12, 2002, Philip Walsted, a gay man, was fatally beaten with a baseball bat. According to prosecutors, the neo-Nazi views of Walsted’s assailant’s, David Higdon, led to what was originally a robbery escalating to murder. Higdon was sentenced to life in prison, plus an additional sentence for robbery.[130]
The December 2002 homicide of Nizah Morris, a trans woman in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The killing of Gwen Araujo(1985 – 2002), a trans woman, by at least three men who were charged with committing a hate crime. Two were convicted of murder, the third manslaughter; however, the jury rejected the hate crime enhancement.
Report comment to moderator
On May 11, 2003, Sakia Gunn, a 15-year-old lesbian, was murdered in a hate crime in Newark, New Jersey. While waiting for a bus, Gunn and her friends were propositioned by two men. When the girls rejected their advances, declaring themselves to be lesbians, the men attacked them. One of the men, Richard McCullough, fatally stabbed Gunn. In exchange for his pleading guilty to several lesser crimes including aggravated manslaughter, prosecutors dropped murder charges against McCullough, who was sentenced to 20 years.[131][132]
On June 17, 2003, Richie Phillips of Elizabethtown, Kentucky was killed by Joseph Cottrell. His body was later found in a suitcase in Rough River Lake. During his trial, two of Cottrell’s relatives testified that he lured Phillips to his death, and killed him because he was gay.[133] Cottrell was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 20 years in prison.[134]
On July 23, 2003, Nireah Johnson and Brandie Coleman were shot to death by Paul Moore, when Moore learned after a sexual encounter that Johnson was transgender.[135] Moore then burned his victims’ bodies. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to 120 years in prison.[136]
On July 31, 2003, 37-year-old Glenn Kopitske was shot and stabbed in the back by 17-year-old Gary Hirte, a straight-A student, star athlete[137] and Eagle Scout,[138] in Winnebago County, Wisconsin. Prosecutors contended that Hirte murdered Kopitske to see if he could get away with it.[139] Hirte pleaded insanity, claiming he killed Kopitske in a murderous rage after a consensual sexual encounter with the victim, because he felt a homosexual act was “worse than murder”. The ‘temporary insanity’ mitigation plea was not upheld, he was found guilty, and received a life sentence.
On October 2, 2004, multiple assailants in Waverly, Ohio, attacked Daniel Fetty, a gay man who was hearing-impaired and homeless. Fetty was beaten, stomped, shoved nude into a garbage bin, impaled with a stick, and left for dead; he succumbed to his injuries the next day. Prosecuters alleged a hate crime. Three men received sentences ranging from seven years to life.
On January 28, 2005, Ronnie Antonio Paris, a three-year-old boy living in Tampa, Florida, died due to brain injuries inflicted by his father, Ronnie Paris, Jr. According to his mother and other relatives, Ronnie Paris, Jr., repeatedly slammed his son into walls, slapped the child’s head, and “boxed” him because he was concerned the child was gay and feared his son would grow up a sissy. Paris, Jr., was sentenced to thirty years in prison.[140][141]
On February 27, 2005, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, 21-year-old James Maestas was assaulted outside a restaurant, then followed to a hotel and beaten unconscious by men who called him “faggot” during the attack. Although all of his attackers were charged with committing a hate crime, none was sentenced to prison.
On March 11, 2005, Jason Gage, an openly gay man, was murdered in his Waterloo, Iowa, apartment by an assailant, Joseph Lawrence, who claimed Gage had made sexual advance to him. Gage was bludgeoned to death with a bottle, and stabbed in the neck, probably post-mortem, with a shard of glass.[142] Lawrence was sentenced to fifty years in prison.
Report comment to moderator
roger patno 10.27.09 AT 3:35 PM
Does anyone recall the name of the male child who was brutally raped and murdered by two sodomites at about the same time as the Mathew Sheppherd case, or the names of the two sodomites who raped and killed him?
–
I remember the murder, but the media failed to report it because it involved to gay men killing a young boy an that was not the image they wanted to portray. The ran with the Mathew Sheppherd case because it fit the image they wanted to portray.
Report comment to moderator
On February 2, 2006, 18-year-old Jacob D. Robida entered a bar in New Bedford, Massachusetts, confirmed that it was a gay bar, and then attacked patrons with a hatchet and a handgun, wounding three.[143] He fatally shot himself three days later.[144]
On June 10, 2006, Kevin Aviance, a female impressionist, musician, and fashion designer, was robbed and beaten in Manhattan by a group of men who yelled anti-gay slurs at him. Four assailants pleaded guilty and received prison sentences.[145]
On July 30, 2006, six men were attacked with baseball bats and knives after leaving the San Diego, California Gay Pride festival. One victim was injured so severely that he had to undergo extensive facial reconstructive surgery. Three men pleaded guilty in connection with the attacks and received prison sentences. A 15-year-old juvenile also pleaded guilty.[146][147]
On August 18, 2006, an altercation occurred in Manhattan between a man and seven black lesbians from Newark, New Jersey. During the altercation, the man was stabbed. The women claim that they acted in self-defense after he screamed homophobic epithets, spit on them, and pulled one of their weaves off,[148] while he has described the attack as “a hate crime against a straight man.”[149]
On October 8, 2006, Michael Sandy was attacked by four young heterosexual men who lured him into meeting after chatting online, while they were looking for gay men to rob. He was struck by a car while trying to escape his attackers, and died five days later without regaining consciousness.[150][151]
On February 27, 2007 in Detroit, Michigan Andrew Anthos, a 72-year-old disabled gay man was beaten with a lead pipe by a man who was shouting anti-gay names at him. Anthos died 10 days later in the hospital.[152]
On March 15, 2007 in Wahneta, Florida, Ryan Keith Skipper, a 25 year old gay man was stabbed to death. Four suspects were arrested for the crime. The Sheriff is calling it a hate crime.[153]
On May 12, 2007, Roberto Duncanson was murdered in Brooklyn, New York. He was stabbed to death by Omar Willock, who claimed Duncanson had flirted with him.[154]
May 16, 2007, Sean William Kennedy, 20, was walking to his car from Brew’s Bar in Greenville, SC when Andrew Moller, 18, got out of another car and approached Kennedy. Investigators said that Moller made a comment about Kennedy’s sexual orientation, and threw a fatal punch because he didn’t like the other man’s sexual preference.[155]
On December 8, 2007 25 year old gay man Nathaniel Salerno was attacked by four men on a Metro train in Washington, DC. The men called him faggot while they beat him.[156]
In February 2008, Duanna Johnson, a transsexual woman, was beaten by a police officer while she was held in the Shelby County Criminal Justice Center in Tennessee. Johnson said the officers reportedly called her a “faggot” and “he-she,” before and during the incident.[157][158] In November 2008, she was found dead in the street, reportedly gunned down by three unknown individuals.[159]
On February 12, 2008, Lawrence “Larry” King, a 15 year old junior highschool student was shot by a classmate at E.O. Green School in Oxnard, California. He was taken off life support after doctors declared him brain dead on February 15.[160] According to Associated Press reports, “prosecutors have charged a 14-year-old classmate with premeditated murder with hate-crime and firearm-use enhancements”.[161][162][163]
In Rochester, New York on March 16, 2008 police say Lance Neve was beaten unconscious because Neve was gay. A man attacked Neve at a bar leaving him with a fractured skull, and a broken nose.[164] Jesse Parsons was sentenced to more than five years in prison for the assault.[165][166]
In Baltimore County, Maryland on May 29, 2008 eighteen year old Steven Parrish—a member of the Young Swans subgroup of the Bloods—was murdered by Steven T. Hollis III and Juan L. Flythe after they found “gay messages” on his cell phone. They felt having a gay member would make their gang appear weak and that by killing Parrish they could prevent that perception.[167]
17 July 2008, In Colorado, 18 year old Angie Zapata, a trans woman, was beaten to death two days after meeting Allen Ray Andrade. The case was prosecuted as a hate crime, and Andrade was found guilty of first degree murder on April 22 2009.[168]
September 7, 2008 – Tony Randolph Hunter, 27, and his partner were attacked and beaten near a gay bar in Washington DC. Hunter later died from his injuries on September 18. Police are investigating it as a possible hate crime.[169][170]
September 13, 2008 in Denver, Colorado 26 year old Nima Daivari was attacked by a man who called him faggot. The police that arrived on the scene refused to make a report of the attack.[171]
September 15, 2008 – A Bourbonnais, Illinois elementary school bus driver was charged with leading a homophobic attack on a 10-year old student passenger. The boy was taunted by the driver who then encouraged other students to chase and beat the child.[172]
On November 7, 2008 in Newton, NC the home of openly gay Melvin Whistlehunt was destroyed by arsonists. Investigators found homophobic graffiti spray painted on the back of the house.[173]
On November 14, 2008, a 22 year old transgender woman, Lateisha Green, was shot and killed by Dwight DeLee in Syracuse, NY because he thought she was gay.[174] Local news media reported the incident with her legal name, Moses “Teish” Cannon.[175] DeLee was convicted of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime on July 17, 2009 and received the maximum sentence of 25 years in state prison. This was only the second time in the nation’s history that a person was prosecuted for a hate crime against a transgender person and the first hate crime conviction in New York state.[176][177][178]
On December 7, 2008 Romel Sucuzhanya, a 31 year old straight Ecuadorean and his brother Jose, were attacked on a Brooklyn, New York street for appearing to be gay and for being Latino; they were walking arm-in-arm, which is normal for brothers in their culture. Romel later died from his injuries.[179]
On December 12, 2008 in Richmond, California a 28 year old lesbian was kidnapped and gang raped by four men who made homophobic remarks during the attack.[180]
On December 27, 2008 in Dayton, Ohio 24 year old Nathan Runkle was brutally assaulted outside a gay nightclub.[181]
Report comment to moderator
On February 15, 2009 in New York City Efosa Agbontaen and Branden McGillvery-Dummett were attacked by four young men with glass bottles and box cutters who used anti-gay slurs during the attack. Agbontaen and McGillvery-Dummett both required emergency room treatment for their injuries.[182]
On February 18, 2009 two men were arrested in Stroudsburg, PA for the stabbing death of gay veteran Michael Goucher.[183]
On March 1, 2009 in Galveston, Texas three men entered Roberts Lafitte bar and attacked patrons with rocks. One of the victims, Marc Bosaw, was sent to the emergency room to have twelve staples in his head.[184]
On March 14, 2009 a gay couple leaving a concert in Newark, New Jersey were attacked by 15 teens. Josh Kehoe and Bobby Daniel Caldwell were called “faggots” and beaten. Caldwell suffered a broken jaw.[185]
On March 23, 2009 in Seaside, Oregon two gay men were attacked and left lying unconscious on a local beach. The men regained consciousness and were treated at a nearby hospital.[186]
On April 6, 2009, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, an 11 year old boy in Springfield, Massachusetts, hanged himself with an extension cord after being bullied all school year by his peers. His peers said he “acted feminine” and was gay.[187]
On April 11, 2009 a gay man in Gloucester, Massachusetts was attacked and beaten by as many as six people outside a bar. Justin Goodwin, 36, of Salem suffered a shattered jaw, broken eye socket, broken nose and broken cheek bone.[188]
On June 30, 2009, Seaman August Provost was found shot to death and his body burned at his guard post on Camp Pendleton. LGBT community leaders “citing military sources initially said that Provost’s death was a hate crime.”[189] Provost had been harassed because of his sexual orientation.[189] Military leaders have since explained that “whatever the investigation concludes, the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy prevented Provost from seeking help.”[189] Family and friends believe he was murdered because he was openly gay; the killer committed suicide a week later after admitting the murder, the Navy have not concluded if this was a hate crime.[190]
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – it was murder an these people would have still kill them with or with out the hate crime law.
Report comment to moderator
And just a few weeks ago, an old man was beaten to death in his bed in NY by robbers who had broken into his home. Last week a 92 year old woman sitting in her living room was shot to death by a stray bullet.
There is case after case after case. Every day.
Dead is dead. And NO ONE’S should be given more value by the government, certainly not in a country that purports to believe that all men are created equal.
Report comment to moderator
No one’s life.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, let’s give it time and see if it has the desired effect.
In 1988 a Florida judge, trying a case concerning the beating to death of a gay man asked the prosecutor, “That’s a crime now, to beat up a homosexual?” The prosecutor responded, “Yes, sir. And it’s also a crime to kill them.” “Times have really changed,” the judge replied.[26]
Progress.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 10.27.09 AT 3:46 PM
Pastor Roy, let’s give it time and see if it has the desired effect.
In 1988 a Florida judge, trying a case concerning the beating to death of a gay man asked the prosecutor, “That’s a crime now, to beat up a homosexual?” The prosecutor responded, “Yes, sir. And it’s also a crime to kill them.” “Times have really changed,” the judge replied.[26]
Progress.
–
has the hate crime law stop bigots from killing?
Report comment to moderator
#48
That victim was young Jesse Dirkhising.
I was so hoping that somehow no one would “gay this thread”.
A bit too late for that I spoze.
Right about now Random should chime in with his perfunctory tale of a lesbian daughter who co-parents lovely random granddaughter.
If two gays get married and then one shoots and kills the other in a fit of rage lover’s quarrel, will that not be a hate crime? After all, had the dead homosexual been straight he most likely would’ve escaped the ire of the other homosexual.
If a gay man shoots or assaults his partner, can we therefore assume it is directly due to the victim’s GAY STATUS?? Maybe the victim wasnt gay enough or gay in the preferred way??
Report comment to moderator
It’s not signed yet. We’ll find out. It will certianly help catch more of them.
Report comment to moderator
True, the Hate Crimes amendment was attached to the Defense Appropriations bill as a “rider.” And don’t think there was anything particularly sneaky or unprecedented about it. According to Wikipedia, “The use of riders is prevalent and customary in the Congress of the United States, as there are no legal or other limitations on their use. Riders are most effective when attached to an important bill, such as an appropriation bill, because to veto or postpone such a bill could delay funding to governmental programs, causing serious problems.”
So there is nothing new about this. Democrats and Republicans both do it. The practice knows no political boundaries.
But as far as the hate crimes amendment goes, let me reassure you: The current hate crimes law has been on the books since 1969, and NEVER over the past 40 years has someone been prosecuted for expressing prejudice against members of a race or a religious group. I doubt that will change because sexual orientation is included.
Report comment to moderator
C’mon Thomas1, really. $5 million to help all 50 states? That’s $100K a state. This bill is political payoff, pure and simple. In terms of helping catch criminals, it will do, in a word, nothing.
Report comment to moderator
RKG, I think the funding may run out. But it will be allocated on a first come first served basis, thereby getting at the most virulent and pernicious states via an on-demand basis.
Report comment to moderator
THOMAS 1: Can I safely assume you are attempting to justify one crime by siting a number of others? Otherwise I fail to see why you did so.
I wonder if you are beginnig to expose your sexual orientation. Hopefully I am wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Roger, I have similar concerns about you. Are they justified?
No crime is justified. But I will point out that crimes against children do carry enhanced punishments, and they are also covered under the age provision of the Hate Crimes Act.
Report comment to moderator
Great comeback, Thomas1. Just brilliant. Is suggesting that someone is gay an acceptable insult now?
By the way, I think it’s offensive to the BLT community to compare them with children, don’t you?
Report comment to moderator
David L, you are late to the thread.
Roger Patno did two things.
1: He brought up a murder of a child by two “sodomites”, as though this was ecvidence of some particular depravity endemic to gay men. As for comparing gay people to children – not offensive in the context of what the law is intending to address: protection of a vulnerable minority.
2. Then, he wondered if I might be gay, and “hoped he was wrong”. This implies abunch of malarkey-type things that no one who is sane believes. Two of these things are the assumption that one must be gay to think gays should be treated properly under the law, and that being gay is bad. Since I happen to know that there is a correlation between homophobic bigotry (”sodomite” is a bigoted term) and closeted gay men, I merely wondered the same thing of him. No insult is implied or intended. He has not responded.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
1: He brought up a murder of a child by two “sodomites”, as though this was ecvidence of some particular depravity endemic to gay men. As for comparing gay people to children – not offensive in the context of what the law is intending to address: protection of a vulnerable minority.
-
That is not true. He brought up the fact that this murder done by two gay men story broke the same day of Matthew Sheppard Story broke. An the media made a big deal out of the Matthew Sheppard Story, (which resulted in the hate crime law) but did not report on the murder of ayoung boy by two gay men.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps this was because the two incidents are unrelated?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 10.27.09 AT 4:57 PM
Perhaps this was because the two incidents are unrelated?
-
wrong they were related – gay men were involved in both, two did the murder and one was murder.
The media decide that the gay man that was murder was more important then the young boy that was murder. Why? image for the GLBT Community.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, once again, don’t let facts get in the way of your opinion.
It’s also telling that you can’t remember the boy’s name at all.
Jonathan Gregg, in a November 9 Time magazine editorial, asserted that, “[the killing of Dirkhising] was the kind of depraved act that happens with even more regularity against young females and, indeed if the victim had been a 13-year-old girl, the story would probably never have gotten beyond Benton County, much less Arkansas. The same editorial also said: “A red herring worth addressing at the outset is the failure to distinguish between homosexuality and pedophilia, which creates a false parallel at the core of the Washington Times argument. But sex with children is a crime regardless of the sexes involved, and is not synonymous with homosexuality….” The reason the Dirkhising story received so little play is because it offered no lessons. Shepard’s murder touches on a host of complex and timely issues: intolerance, society’s attitudes toward gays and the pressure to conform, the use of violence as a means of confronting one’s demons. “Jesse Dirkhising’s death gives us nothing except the depravity of two sick men.”
Report comment to moderator
THOMAS 1 @ 63: Your concern is not justified. My concern?
Report comment to moderator
Either we have hate crime legislation against hate crimes against Christians, against Muslims, against atheists, and against homosexuals in equal measure, we should perhaps stick to crimes.
However, I hate crime.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
Ok two gay men killing a little boy does not teach us a lesson.
But two men killing a gay man does teach us a lesson.
The lesson is the young gay man death was more important in promoting the GLBT Community moral values, viewed idea, onto society through pitty.
Here in Colorado, we had a gay man drive to New Life an open fire. What does this leasson teach us Thomas?
Report comment to moderator
Jesse was sodomized. By sodomites, aka homosexual men. Nevertheless, I absolutely agree that those who murder sodomites should be punished to the full extent of the law, for that is taking God’s judgement into their own hands.
Report comment to moderator
roger – do you not understand they were not gay they were pedophilia. In is wrong to call them gay. even if they were gay men.
Report comment to moderator
Your concern is irrelevant to this or any other discussion, unless you’re asking me out on a date. And even then, my response would be a very polite: “No thank you.”
Surely don’t believe that only gay people support gay rights? No legislation favorable to them would ever pass.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – Surely don’t believe that only gay people support gay rights? No legislation favorable to them would ever pass.-
–
this is not shock since we live in a Nation that has rejected God.
Report comment to moderator
I hope you were not being facetious. I will agree with your statement at 71.
Report comment to moderator
People who use the word “sodomite” to describe gay people automatically are Christianists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianism
An excellent definition.
Lots of them are also “Dominionists”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
Report comment to moderator
It’s God’s will, brethren.
Report comment to moderator
“Jesse Dirkhising’s death gives us nothing except the depravity of two sick men.”
How many sick men killed Matthew shepherd?
Report comment to moderator
kBells 10.27.09 AT 5:45 PM
“Jesse Dirkhising’s death gives us nothing except the depravity of two sick men.”
How many sick men killed Matthew shepherd?
-
It does not matter the young boy was not gay. Matthew Shepperd was. Matthew death was more important for the cause.
Report comment to moderator
Out-o-context, KBells, and you know it. Did you read the whole thing?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1- if Matthew was not gay, he would have been viewed as just another murder. The media would not have reported like they did. The reason his death was a big deal and the little boys death was not, was because Matthew was gay.
Report comment to moderator
and the little boy was not.
Report comment to moderator
Little more than noise here now.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 10.27.09 AT 5:55 PM
Little more than noise here now.
-
why? because people are dealing with a real issue, by looking at two death we see whick one is more important,
Report comment to moderator
So glad they have finally distinguished between hate crimes and ordinary, run of the mill, love crimes…
Report comment to moderator
President Obama will sign this into law because he does not appreciate what our Founders passed down to us. He does not respect the principle of equality under the law. He is MORE tolerant of ‘greed crimes’ than other particular crimes (I wonder why). Worse, our President believes in government thought control and criminalization. He wants a nation wherein white males are considered 2/3rd human and heterosexuals are considered 2/3rds human compared to homosexuals, bisexuals, metrosexuals, monosexuals, trans-sexuals and other-sexuals.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 wrote; “The reason the Dirkhising story received so little play is because it offered no lessons.”
This is the most reprehensable, despicable, bigoted, disgusting and shameful sentances EVER written on this blog.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark 10.27.09 AT 6:18 PM
Thomas1 wrote; “The reason the Dirkhising story received so little play is because it offered no lessons.”
This is the most reprehensable, despicable, bigoted, disgusting and shameful sentances EVER written on this blog.
-
That is why he left. we were addressing this posting.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“…the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions…” This excerpt is from Jefferson’s “wall of separation between Church & State” letter on Jan. 1, 1802 – to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association.
Jefferson’s bedrock belief was that the legislative powers of government may not be used against people’s “opinions” or thoughts (only actions). This undermines the idea of “hate crimes” legislation. Our government may punish the action, not the opinion. Like Senator Joseph McCarthy in the fifties, the modern advocates of governmental action against perceived “opinions” need some lessons from Jefferson.
Report comment to moderator
How does any crime against any other person not involve—or is not an act of—hate?
Yet, now we need to prosecute those who think—or who can be shown likely to have thought—ill of those identified on a, now longer, list of “special” people . . . just like we all are not special. The fact that everyone is on the list already must have escaped those not bright enough to understand the concept of protection under law. For those who do understand, it’s obviously just not good enough to include all people since they think some require more for purely political reasons. What will we do when we’ve finally, again, added everyone on the “special” list—bite our tail?
Such is the pride of man . . . not to mention the divisive tactics employed by some ‘tolerant’ politicians trading favor in an attempt to permanently ensconce themselves in their job.
Report comment to moderator
THOMAS ! My concern really stems from the fact that God’s Holy Spirit is more than able to deliver us from sin. “”If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we cofess our sins, He is faithful and just toforgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” I John 1:8,9. If my concern is unfounded, I beg your forgiveness and repent of even thinking it.
Report comment to moderator
There are thousands of murders each year and only about 9 were hate crimes. Shouldn’t the same we be spending the most money on the most common cause?
Report comment to moderator
We now live in Joseph McCarthy’s America, wherein perceived dangerous opinions are officially criminalized. For McCarthy, it was communism (which was indeed truly dangerous, but still should not have been criminal), and today it is political incorrectness.
Report comment to moderator
The murderers of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard are all doing maximum time already. Any one identified as a culprit in Thomas1’s laundry list has likely already been charged and or convicted. The crimes are horrific, and everyone here supports the vigorous prosecution and punishment of such outrages. That Matthew Shepard was gay had nothing to do with his murder. But truth is the first casualty of social engineering.
To single out any member of a perceived group as deserving of enhanced penalties for crimes committed against them because of that identification does nothing to support the common humanity of us all. The noxious delusion of identity politics, that we are all the sum total of our membership within a discrete group of people, drives counterproductive measures like this.
Canada’s experiment with hate crimes, which has a few years head start, has already led to the prosecution of pastors and writers and editors who challenge the shibboleths of political correctness. The tide has been turning with their provincial kangaroo human rights courts when Mark Steyn refused to be bullied and the assault on human liberties was recognized as the evil it is.
Thomas1’s diatribes miss the clear differentiation between motive, which along with means and opportunity, can be considered evidence of guilt, and intent, which is a required element of some crimes. Without intent, robbery becomes assault, burglary becomes larceny or trespassing, and a killing could be manslaughter or a tragic accident, but not murder. Lawyers and police are paid to know the differences. Anyone else should learn the distinction if they value precision and fact.
NJLawyer was exactly correct in saying that everything does not have to be raised to a federal level and Thomas1 was patently wrong in criticizing her post.
Report comment to moderator
I will say this you folks are a lot smarter them.
Report comment to moderator
The Devil has a will, too, Hermes. And this one comes from him.
Report comment to moderator
No, the guys who killed Jesse were homosexual sadists.
The Catholic priests were homosexuals and pedophiles.
Report comment to moderator
Hate crimes legislation based on sexual orientation has only one purpose: silence all opposition to homosexual behavior by the threat and force of government power. All other reasons advanced for the support of such laws are merely deceitful smoke screens designed to cover up that one purpose.
True to form, Thomas1 (#6), couching his comment with typical diversions of deceit, voiced the real purpose and sentiment of homosexuals: Just “…keep your mouth shut about Jesus.” So, with all opposition forced into silence, the only voices permitted to speak on the subject will be those affirming and supporting the practices of homosexuality.
The only reason this legislation has passed is because Democrat politicians pander to homosexuals who will give them money and votes. This legislation is nothing more than blatant political payback to homosexuals for supporting Democrat politicians and giving these politicians the raw power they have coveted for so long.
This legislation has absolutely nothing to do with justice or freedom. In fact, it is just the opposite. Justice is denied by granting special favors to the practitioners of sexual perversion; and freedom of speech is denied by threatening to punish those who speak out against it.
Report comment to moderator
“I guess it makes you feel good to legislate your morality.”
I have never seen RKG post before now. The inherent irony of this comment is so delicious, I assume he is some kind of Poe’s law satirist!
Report comment to moderator
Sheesh. A l’il commute and the crazay comes out.
Roger Patno @ 93: If my concern is unfounded, I beg your forgiveness and repent of even thinking it.
Sir, you should repent over your concern over anyone’s sex life other than your own, and beg forgiveness for expressing it in a public forum. What a crashing bore you must be at parties: “You know, Susan built this bookshelf herself… I have concerns.. You know, Ted plays golf with the gay guy in accounting – I have concerns.” So very, very ugly and small-minded such concerns are!
Worry about your own hoo-hah and be concerned about that, because it’s far more likely to get you into trouble than anyone else’s. K?
Ken at 96 cannot read (or refuses to), because he does not see that several people in that list got off scot-free for killing gay people. He also parrots the lie that Matthew Shepard’s murderers didn’t kill him because he was gay – a lie that keeps getting repeated even though it’s been debunked very often.
NJL repeats the lies about the distinction between the perps in the Dirkhising and Shepard cases, with not a jot or tittle of support.
Likewise Michael Martin @ 100, quotes comment 6 selectively and deceptively, lards it with unsupported opinion, and calls it apple pie. One can similarly shellack something from a catbox and call it a paperweight, but your desk at work will be the subject of a lot of commentary.
What’s with all the lies? Have you no real defenses or justifications for why religion should be protected under hate crimes laws and sexual orientation not?
I suppose, when
Report comment to moderator
What an ugly, ugly thread.
(walking away shaking my head in disgusted wonderment.)
Report comment to moderator
It’s always nice to see that the evangelical masses are reacting to this with such sober and godly judgment.
First, the Act requires one to willfully cause bodily injury to another (or to attempt to cause bodily injury to another). Thus, the Act does not reach thoughts, opinions, or speech.
Second, the First Amendment arguments are a bit disingenuous coming from folks who are already members of a class protected by existing federal hate-crimes laws. If evangelicals are so opposed to hate-crimes laws per se, then why aren’t they lobbying to have “religion” removed as a protected class from 18 USC 245? Why are evangelicals entitled to hate-crimes protection, but homosexuals are not? White-washed tombs, you are!
Third, there is ample precedent in criminal law for enhancing punishment when the criminal act is carried out for the purpose of intimidating an entire class or group of persons. In this way, the punishment fits the scope of the intended harm.
Fourth, the Dirkhising case is irrelevant to this issue. There was no evidence that the crime was committed for the purpose of intimidating an entire group or class. Evangelicals’ propensity to resort to this kind of ad hominem argumentation gives ample evidence of why homosexuals need to be protected by hate-crimes laws.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G.,
Let me guess. It’s ugly because of the neanderthals, or “Christianists,” who oppose normalizing homosexuality, right?
I’m so glad you stopped by to demonstrate that you’re so above the fray, looking down on everyone else here.
Of course, if you really were, you’d have said nothing at all.
Report comment to moderator
“Evangelicals’ propensity to resort to this kind of ad hominem argumentation gives ample evidence of why homosexuals need to be protected by hate-crimes laws.”
Laugh out loud.
Bad arguments = a threat to physical safety.
What big words, what little thoughts…
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know how long RKG’s been around, but he’s definitely been posting awhile. A quick Internet search of “worldmagblog RKG” shows him posting as early as January 19th.
Report comment to moderator
David L.: It’s ugly because of the lengths y’all are going to to excuse or minimize the brutalization or murder of homosexuals because you fear, wrongly, that this law will take away your right to preach against homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG. please show me where anyone said someone who brutalizes or or murders a homosexual should be excused. They should be punished the SAME as any other murderer.
Report comment to moderator
David,
I’m not sure what your point is. I made my comment to point out why I question the motives of those who bring up the Dirkhising case. Should Christians lose their status as a protected class because a Christian kills a non-Christian? Of course not. In fact, such an incident would have no relevance to the question of whether Christians should be a protected class. Then, why is the Dirkhising case of relevance to the question of whether homosexuals should be a protected class?
Report comment to moderator
First, the Act requires one to willfully cause bodily injury to another (or to attempt to cause bodily injury to another). Thus, the Act does not reach thoughts, opinions, or speech.
But willfully causing (or attempting to cause) bodily injury is already against the law, and should be strongly prosecuted. The Act is trying to prosecute the thoughts, opinions, and speech behind the crime.
Why are evangelicals entitled to hate-crimes protection, but homosexuals are not? White-washed tombs, you are!
I haven’t seen anyone argue that we are entitled to hate-crimes protection. Do you think you are?
Furthermore, I think religious hate-crimes laws would apply to everyone including atheists/agnostics. So an attack against Random Name because he is agnostic would be classified as a hate crime. Very few of these type of hate crimes were reported by law enforcement in 2006, but there were some.
Third, there is ample precedent in criminal law for enhancing punishment when the criminal act is carried out for the purpose of intimidating an entire class or group of persons. In this way, the punishment fits the scope of the intended harm.
That, to me, just seems like some sort of bogus liberal class division/identity politics argument. If crimes are thought to be committed against by groups against each other, rather than by individuals against society, it will lead to a persecuted mindset, resentment, and division. Thus crime would actually increase. Also this kind of mentality probably increases the ugliness of WMB threads like this one.
Report comment to moderator
BTW I wasn’t defending religious hate-crime laws in the above post, just pointing out that since everyone (all religious views including atheism) is included, it doesn’t create a single protected class. It does however contribute to the crime-against-group mentality (this one’s against evangelicals, this against Catholics, and so on. . . and oh, you guys are so persecuting us).
Report comment to moderator
Matt,
Christians already enjoy status as a protected class. You argued for it, and received it decades ago.
On your last point, it is the criminal who chooses to make it a political issue. Because the crime was committed to send a political message to an entire class of similarly situated persons, the punishment is enhanced.
I agree that there’s a point where the creation of additional protected classes becomes senseless. But in the past few years, we’ve seen and heard a fair bit of angry rhetoric directed to homosexuals that goes beyond merely expressing moral disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle. Therefore, I think that there is a reasonable basis for this protection.
But this will silence groups like Focus on the Family no more than the previous hate crimes laws silenced those who hate women, racial minorities, and various religious groups. Unless guys like Fred Phelps plans to go out and physically attack someone, he’ll be free to continue spewing his anti-gay rhetoric despite the adoption of this Act. The same goes for Tony Perkins and James Dobson.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: Excuse me?
It’s ugly because apparently there are strong (and hard) feelings on both sides. Including from you, apparently. Seems to me that you complained about the ugliness, and then added to it. In fact, it seems that the ugliest comments on this thread are 15 and 98. Think about it?
Report comment to moderator
“Third, there is ample precedent in criminal law for enhancing punishment when the criminal act is carried out for the purpose of intimidating an entire class or group of persons. In this way, the punishment fits the scope of the intended harm.”
From all of this, if you are ever assaulted; claim you are gay and they beat you up because of it. They’ll get the maximum. Hate crimes seem to be the object of hatred by those who make the laws.
Report comment to moderator
There are many strange and fascinating phenomena on worldmagblog.
A very well-known phenomenon of human nature in general is “scapegoating,” where one group seizes on an individual or group to punish for real or perceived offenses or sins. The persecuting group seems to get some sort of relief or satisfaction from picking on the the victim[s].
For a long time in our history, we scapegoated and persecuted because of race. The primary (though not only) victims were black people. Going farther back in time, many people scapegoated the Jews.
A group may deserve some suppression or control, though it is fairly typical of humans to overdo it. The examples I typically use are Nazis and Communists. In Indonesia about 1965, about half a million Communists were killed in an genocidal backlash against efforts by Communists to take over the country.
It’s hard to be sad that the Communist coup was defeated. It’s hard to be enthusiastic that an orgy of mass killing similar to events in places such as Cambodia and Rwanda was the way the coup was defeated.
The foaming at the mouth about homosexuals and “gay marriage” at wmb strikes me as less malignant and less extreme examples of the same type of behavior. As I’ve said, the growing discrimination against Christians and the long-time but gradually lessening discrimination against homosexuals (to use a less loaded term than “persecution”) strike me as similar.
Conservative Christians at wmb seem to consider it a basic right to insult homosexuals and efforts to discourage them from doing so as an example of religious prejudice.
I suppose if I belonged to some eccentric sect that considered shaving heads as a “sin” and then started to try to forbid people with shaved heads from getting married, everyone would consider this quite ridiculous. I am not sure there is any real difference, really.
Report comment to moderator
Another odd phenomena is the sentimentalization of groups such as people with Down’s Syndrome.
This is something like the reverse of scapegoating. I don’t have a catchy phrase for it at the moment.
Obviously, people with Down’s Syndrome are human beings. Obviously once they are born they should not be persecuted or enslaved or murdered. (When I say “obviously,” I mean I can take it for granted that few people at worldmagblog, regardless of their political or religious affiliation would support persecution of Down’s Syndrome people once they have been born.)
The tactic here, by people who loath abortion is to say Look. Society is now aborting fetuses that will be born with Down’s Syndrome. Down’s Syndrome people are lovable and worthwhile.
I don’t know who is authorized to negotiate for the “Homosexual Agenda” and for the “Stop Abortion Agenda.”
On the table we should put:
One agenda will work to reduce abortions and the other agenda should allow homosexuals to have legal domestic partnerships (that are not called “marriages.”).
I will settle if there is a one cent tax levied on every abortion prevented and on every legal domestic partnership (not called a marriage ceremony performed) and I get 1% of the tax revenues collected as a royalty for helping improve the universe. Mickey gets the Nobel Prize for Peace. It’s a win-win.
Report comment to moderator
Wait how are Christians a protected class?
You seem to think that this will protect gays somehow. But how? Do you really think that bigots will go, “Oh wait, I’m about to commit a ‘hate crime’”?
TJS already brought up the question of distinguishing “hate crimes” from other hate crimes. You’re going to distinguish extra-hateful intent from “normal” hateful intent how? It would have to involve thought policing.
You are probably correct that this won’t silence anyone. It’s not the same as hate speech laws in Canada, Australia, Europe, etc. Fortunately the courts still apply the First Amendment strongly enough to strike down any such laws in the U.S. But as time goes on, it seems that socially and morally we keep getting farther and farther off track, just like Paul predicted in 2 Tim. 3:13, and I would not be surprised to see the First Amendment reinterpreted by the courts to allow hate speech laws. And then it will continue to “progress” to the arrival of the Man of Sin. Hopefully pre-trib’ers are correct and we will be raptured by then.
Report comment to moderator
And then it will continue to “progress” to the arrival of the Man of Sin. Hopefully pre-trib’ers are correct and we will be raptured by then
Then we have nothing to worry about. Just sleep tight until you are raptured.
I love it when people provide practical, down-to-earth, sensible suggestions.
Report comment to moderator
Matt,
I don’t know that we’re getting “farther off track.” Ask an older African-American who lived in the segregated South whether our country today is more just than it was 50 years ago, and I doubt that he or she would agree that we’re “farther off track.”
Yes, we are more sexually permissive, if that’s what you mean. But that’s just as true of those in the church as it is for those outside of the church.
Report comment to moderator
Random,
I agree. It seems as though many folks embrace those with Down’s because they imagine that Down’s sufferers possess some kind of lovable innocence. I agree that we should embrace those with Down’s, but not for this reason. After all, this “lovable innocence” is actually an effect of cognitive impairment. At the same time, gay people don’t seem to possess the same lovable innocence. So, gays suffer the full frontal assault from the evangelical world…with NJL, Joel Mark, and Victoria leading the charge.
Report comment to moderator
Y’know, Christians saying “homosexuality is a sin” != Christians hating homosexuals. I’m not saying that some Christians don’t go too far, but I am saying that they’re wrong.
Report comment to moderator
RSD,
I don’t know that we are in disagreement. We are both, I think, just trying to figure out how the thinking and the emotions in these processes work.
Report comment to moderator
TJS,
In the old days, Christians had a tendency to say things like we love you, that’s why we are burning you at the stake, to save your soul from sin. That no longer works very well, so Christians have drawn back their horns a bit (so to speak) and say things such as we love you, that’s why we won’t let you go get domestic partnered.
The problem remains that the definition of “sin” is based on writing thousands of years old and ascribed to a supernatural being wh probably does not exist, and is probably rooted in something I don’t like and frightens me and I ascribe to a supernatural being because it is more impressive and is more likely to get other people to agree with me.
For example at this web site probably 9 out of 10 people are nodding their heads and sayings Yes, she is right. We are not filled with hate; we are filled with love.
Report comment to moderator
KBells: SteveG. please show me where anyone said someone who brutalizes or or murders a homosexual should be excused. They should be punished the SAME as any other murderer.
Whether or not there should be something called a “hate crime,” it is true that they are intended to protect certain marginalized groups. As as been noted, religion is similarly protected, and I don’t see Christians arguing that it shouldn’t be.
Here’s some ugliness.
Pastor Roy, #1: Well here we go, our nation is falling deeper and deeper into sin.
“Sin” to argue for protection of homosexuals against those who would harm them simply for their orientation.
Pastor Roy #25: Folks, they now have Federal Protection, their next’s move is to have the Military Ban lifted, while putting restricting on the Christian Chaplains. Then move to ensure that their life style is taught in Sex Education in School. Then they will move against the Defense of Marriage Act. Then move against all the States the have marriage only between a Man and a Woman.
Oooh, it’s all part of the nefarious “homosexual agenda.”
Roger Patno, #43: Does anyone recall the name of the male child who was brutally raped and murdered by two sodomites at about the same time as the Mathew Sheppherd case, or the names of the two sodomites who raped and killed him?
“Sodomites” is not a word one generally hears in polite conversation.
Roger Patno at #62, regarding Thomas1: I wonder if you are beginnig to expose your sexual orientation. Hopefully I am wrong.
Because Thomas is is favor of a law to add protection for gays, he might be gay himself, is the implication.
Roger Patno at #70, continuing the thought: THOMAS 1 @ 63: Your concern is not justified. My concern?
That Thomas could potentially be gay is a “concern,” i.e., bad if true.
Joel Mark at #88, about Obama and sounding absolutely insane: He wants a nation wherein white males are considered 2/3rd human and heterosexuals are considered 2/3rds human compared to homosexuals, bisexuals, metrosexuals, monosexuals, trans-sexuals and other-sexuals.
Michael Martin at #100 continues the fear parade: Hate crimes legislation based on sexual orientation has only one purpose: silence all opposition to homosexual behavior by the threat and force of government power. All other reasons advanced for the support of such laws are merely deceitful smoke screens designed to cover up that one purpose.
Now, this not to say that there are not cogent, intelligent arguments against this law. Ken at #96, Matt Y. at #111 and a few others make some of those points.
But by and large, the thread is seething with unjustified fear and paranoia, as the above examples show.
Report comment to moderator
RSD, you are not being intellectually honest.
You are incorrect. This act certainly does reach thoughts, opinions and speech and you certainly know it. It betrays the principle of equality under the law by incorporating the thoughts, opinions and/or speech of only particular groups and of a particularly politically incorrect nature.
It devotes money to investigating and prosecuting “certain” suspects over others ON THE BASIS of their alleged thoughts, opinions and speech.
This law is despicably discriminatory ON THE BASIS of race, gender and sexual orientation and it brings certain thoughts and opinions into the realm of criminal activity.
Report comment to moderator
Every crime, bar none, affects and intimidates a class, group or family of people. That is not new. This law discriminates blatantly against certain particular groups, classes and families for unequal treatment.
Report comment to moderator
The Dirkhising case was one of the most intimidating crimes ever committed in America. It was vicious and brutal beyond all description and homosexuals did it to a young innocent boy. It was despicable beyond description. It was hateful beyond the pale. But RSD thinks it is irrelevant to this “hate crime” discussion. This is so despicable, words fail. Serious shame on you RSD.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG wrote; “It’s ugly because of the lengths y’all are going to to excuse or minimize the brutalization or murder of homosexuals…”
This is terribly dishonest. No one on the right has ever suggested excusing or minimizing brutalization of ANYONE and SteveG knows it.
The ‘hate crime’ supporters MUST resort to dishonesty to make their points. Another example is RSD who wrongly claims that “Christians already enjoy status as a protected class.”
This is baseless and untrue.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG.,
KBells asked you to “show me where anyone said someone who brutalizes or or murders a homosexual should be excused.”
Then you showed us what you deem “ugliness” from the Christians here.
Which is nothing but an admission that you can’t point to one place where anyone here said that those who act violently against homosexuals should be excused. No one, nowhere. The whole point of this discussion has been that anyone who acts violently towards anyone else should receive the full punishment of the law equally. (You know, equal treatment and all that.)
You have such animosity towards Bible-believing Christians you can’t even think straight.
Report comment to moderator
RSD wrote; “It seems as though many folks embrace those with Down’s because they imagine that Down’s sufferers possess some kind of lovable innocence.”
Huh? RSD displays gross ignorance of the motives and thoughts of others (yet he want to criminalize certian thoughts that he ‘thinks’ others are thinking). We embrace Down’s not simply because they are lovable (which they are) but because they are human beings worthy of the same dignity anyone else gets.
RSD wrote: “I agree that we should embrace those with Down’s, but not for this reason.”
What reason? The simplistic one you made up in your own mind out of straw to apply to those with whom you differ?
Report comment to moderator
RSD wrote; “At the same time, gay people don’t seem to possess the same lovable innocence.”
What innocence? The “loveable innocence” you made up in your own mind out of straw to twist the presumed motives of people you know nothing about? Oh, THAT “innocence.”
Innocence is as innocence does.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, and yet you conveniently omit the fact that “religion” is also a protected category under federal hate crimes laws. Therefore, those who commit violent acts with the intent to intimidate an entire class of religious believers can also be prosecuted under the Act. I’m sure that this was just an oversight on your part.
None of your heated rhetoric over the Dirkhising case convinces me that there was any evidence that the crime was committed for the purpose of intimidating a particularized class or group to which the victim belonged. Before impugning my motives, please: (1) identify a class to which Dirkhising belonged; (2) identify all facts which tend to support the conclusion that the perpetrators had specific intent to commit the crime against Dirkhising for the purpose of intimidating this class of persons; and (3) state why those facts support that conclusion.
I doubt that you have an answer. You point to the Dirkhising case for the simple reason that it avails you the opportunity to disparage homosexuals as an entire class based on an isolated crime committed by two persons. This kind of argumentation is logically fallacious at best, and dishonest at worst.
Report comment to moderator
Futher, Steve G., you’ve said that the Bible isn’t totally clear on one side or the other whether homosexual behavior is a sin, and that therefore we “conservative” Christians should cut you “liberals” some slack.
But you refuse to do the same. You still think that those of us who believe the Bible’s teaching against homosexuality is clear and authoritative are, in your unpside-down world, “immoral.” You can’t leave our side well enough alone, as you’d have us do with your side.
Not only that, but you demonsrate a monumental failure of imagination, and even “empathy” (a favorite word with you guys) when you read every statement here in the worst light possible.
Case in point, you cite the following:
Pastor Roy, #1: Well here we go, our nation is falling deeper and deeper into sin.
“Sin” to argue for protection of homosexuals against those who would harm them simply for their orientation.
No, Steve, not even close. “Sin” to keep pushing for the acceptance and normalization of behavior God calls in His Word an abomination. No longer do we simply turn our eyes away and allow people to indulge in their sin privately; no, now we bring it into the public square and “celebrate” it, point to it and say that anyone who disagrees is wicked.
As I said before, if you exercise your imagination just a *little* bit, you might be able to understand this if you substitute homosexuality with one of your pet sins, like racism.
You also say, which I find very telling, “Sodomites” is not a word one generally hears in polite conversation. What does polite conversation have to do with anything. Time was, you didn’t see gay pride parades marching down Main Street, either. No, you hate that word because it’s redolent of God’s judgment against that behavior, and that’s why certain of us still use it. All the other words are weasel terms invented to hide the reality of what it signifies.
“Because Thomas is is favor of a law to add protection for gays, he might be gay himself, is the implication.”
Actually, I had the same thought. Perhaps it had to do with the fact that Thomas1 was the only one here defending the law, and he made so many comments about it that normal readers started to wonder if he didn’t have something personal at stake in it. But what difference does it make to you? I thought homosexuality was nothing to be ashamed of?
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that disagreement is inevitable and then castigate everyone who thinks differently from you.
Report comment to moderator
David L. Flunks reading comprehension yet again: No longer do we simply turn our eyes away and allow people to indulge in their sin privately; no, now we bring it into the public square and “celebrate” it, point to it and say that anyone who disagrees is wicked.
The law allows you to say what you wish, with a megaphone if you wish about what you percieve as “sin” under your (flawed) exegesis.
Just don’t commit violence or directly incite others to do so, and you’ll be just fine.
But you WANT the right to tell people to harm gays or to harm them yourself – hence language like “sodomite”, “abomination”, and bringing up the tragic murder of a teenager by two gay men as though ALL gay men do these things twice before breakfast every day.
As to this: “Because Thomas is is favor of a law to add protection for gays, he might be gay himself, is the implication. And therefore gay = bad”
You say: Actually, I had the same thought.
I bet you did. Was it titillating? Stimulating? (Rhetorical questions only – I already know the answer.)
Perhaps it had to do with the fact that Thomas1 was the only one here defending the law, and he made so many comments about it that normal readers started to wonder if he didn’t have something personal at stake in it.
David L., if you mean by “normal readers”, people who lie in the name of Christ, I’m sure there was a whole lot of wondering going on. Not my definition of the term “normal”, but okay.
Report comment to moderator
Man, you’ve got some serious issues, Thomas1.
In the first paragraph you quote, I wasn’t even referring to the law itself, what it does or doesn’t allow, or anything about it, really. I was referring to the climate in which the law is being proposed and signed. What’s that you said about “reading comprehension”?
“But you WANT the right to tell people to harm gays or to harm them yourself”
This is a lie and an insult. It’s 100% unproveable. You don’t know me or the groups I associate with or my church or how we deal with the Christians in our congregation who are tempted by same-sex intimacy. Second, I never even referred to the murder of the teenager, so what are you talking about?
As for thinking you have some kind of personal thing at stake in this argument, I won’t apologize in the least for that. The thought was about as titillating as realizing that 2 + 2 = 4. Someone comes on here and writes 100 comments about something, yeah, I think it means something personal to him. And yeah, people who suspect this are completely normal. People who don’t have their heads in the sand.
But again, why get so worked up about it, if there’s nothing shameful about being gay?
As for this “lying” you charge me with, I dare you to prove it. The fact is, you’re the liar here. If we were in the same room, I’d be asking you to come outside right about now.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – Pastor Roy #25: Folks, they now have Federal Protection, their next’s move is to have the Military Ban lifted, while putting restricting on the Christian Chaplains. Then move to ensure that their life style is taught in Sex Education in School. Then they will move against the Defense of Marriage Act. Then move against all the States the have marriage only between a Man and a Woman.
Oooh, it’s all part of the nefarious “homosexual agenda.”
–
yes
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – But you WANT the right to tell people to harm gays or to harm them yourself – hence language like “sodomite”, “abomination”, and bringing up the tragic murder of a teenager by two gay men as though ALL gay men do these things twice before breakfast every day
–
you just refuse to understand what people are saying both murder took place around the same time. Both murder had people who were gay involved. One made the major news shows the reason Matthew was gay. The young boy did not make the major news shows because he was not gay, his murders were.
So Thomas why was Matthew murder more important then the young boy’s murder?
Report comment to moderator
“and the little boy was not.”
Actually there is reason to believe that the 13 year old “little boy” was indeed a young homosexually oriented male who was victimized by older homosexual men.
Someone rightly noted the comparison to 13 year old girls who get victimized by older adult men.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe – that is the first I heard about that the few media source did not report that.
Report comment to moderator
Here is Andrew Sullivan on the Jesse Dirkhising case.
“The irony is deepened by the fact that Jesse may well have been gay himself. He trusted his gay neighbors; he worked with one of them at a hair salon; his mother let him stay at his neighbors’ place on weekends; it’s even conceivable that at the beginning he went along with some part of their sexual game, as defense lawyers have argued. But he was also a child, in no position to consent to anything of this nature–a child who needed the support of his elders, not their monstrous betrayal. It’s difficult for me to fully express my fury at this kind of behavior. For a young, impressionable boy like this to be used for sick sexual predation is an outrage to any homosexual who remembers being young or who has ever seen the need for guidance and support of a young gay soul.”
Report comment to moderator
Young homosexuals often look to older homosexual men as mentors. What they did to him was horrific and if one is a gay person concerned about the safety of gay youth, one should be especially outraged.
However framing it as two gay men victimizing a heterosexual little boy is false.
Report comment to moderator
Here is a link to the Sullivan article. It’s from Frontpagemag.com, which hardly has a liberal bias.
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=21990
Report comment to moderator
Jon the key words in your posting is “may well have been gay himself” they was no proof was there?
So he may have not have been gay correct?
Report comment to moderator
The problem on the left is that they have been saying for decades that the right’s “tough on crime” stand is code for bigot, but they would like to be tough on criminals who are bigots and or criminals who victimize people they know personally. So, in order to cut the drug addict who shot your Uncle Roy to death in his store some slack and still come down hard on the bigot who got in a fight with a gay guy, they need two sets of laws. Thus; Hate crime laws.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: I would agree there is no smoking gun proof that JD was and I’m willing to frame the issue as two gay men victimizing a 13 year old boy and leave it at that. However I will NOT let the idea that this was a gay on straight boy or that while MS was gay, JD was not, go unchallenged. I only bring up the fact that JD with good probability was gay, when I see other folks terming him straight.
And by the way, even James Dobson has admitted that whatever causes homosexual desires it’s there by the early single digits. So whatever JD’s sexual orientation was (and whatever caused it), it was fixed by the time he was 13 — the age of his death.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe -is Frontpagemag.com, a pro-gay mag.?
Report comment to moderator
It wouldn’t matter if it were (as you’d be committing the genetic fallacy). But not really. It’s David Horowitz’s partisan conservative magazine. But he has a live and let live attitude on both homosexuality AND on religious conservatives who have moral objections thereto.
Report comment to moderator
Jon the issue is the media and the GLBT Community has made Matthew murder to be more important then Jesse Dirkhising. The reason I believe is the ones who kill Jesse Dirkhising were gay and that would have hurt the GLBT Community image and by make Matthew death the issue, they used him as their poster boy and their image.
Report comment to moderator
Back to David L at 136.
Thank you. You have helped to illustrate the point.
“But you WANT the right to tell people to harm gays or to harm them yourself”
This is a lie and an insult. It’s 100% unproveable. You don’t know me or the groups I associate with or my church or how we deal with the Christians in our congregation who are tempted by same-sex intimacy. Second, I never even referred to the murder of the teenager, so what are you talking about?
All I did by making that statement (which I happen to believe in the sense of the collective use of the word “you” as opposed to “you, David L”.) was employ the dirty rhetorical trick often used by many Christian posters on this site. I assumed facts not in evidence, and made a statement that is unprovable and has no reasonable factual basis about my debate opponent, which derails the discussion.
Didn’t like it much, eh?
As for anyone’s personal sexuality, it’s irrelevant to this discussion – thank you for finally ceding that point. But I offer this: http://www.fresnofamous.com/content/study-links-homophobia-homosexual-arousal
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals….Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
Sometimes, a little titillation is telling.
Report comment to moderator
“All I did by making that statement (which I happen to believe in the sense of the collective use of the word “you” as opposed to “you, David L”.) was employ the dirty rhetorical trick often used by many Christian posters on this site.”
You’re so full of bs, Thomas1.
“Sometimes, a little titillation is telling.”
And so laughably juvenile.
Report comment to moderator
How soon before we hear from the GLBT Community, demanding that Focus on the Family be brought up on Hate Crime Charge.
Report comment to moderator
RSD wrote; “You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, and yet you conveniently omit the fact that “religion” is also a protected category under federal hate crimes laws.”
I do accuse you of intellectual dishonesty for the reasons I mentioned at #125 and this has little to nothing to do with “religion” being a protected category in anyone’s mind or on paper. Your red herring did not fly.
I never claimed that religion should be a special protected category or that it was or wasn’t and I would say that it should not be. No oversight on my part. It’s unrelated to my point, which stands.
All crimes intimidate people and various groups. That’s why we need law and order. But trying to judge who gets intimidated more than others is not possible to do justly. Just prosecute the crime to the fullest exent of the law–justly, equally and without unjust discrimination.
RSD wrote: “please: (1) identify a class to which Dirkhising belonged;”
You miss my point completely. But he belongs to the following classes or groups: human beings, teenagers; U.S. citizen and more–and as such, he deserves EQUAL protection under the law with members of any other group.
And his victimhood is of equal concern and status with Matthew Shepherd (though the media did not care about Dirkhising).
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – And his victimhood is of equal concern and status with Matthew Shepherd (though the media did not care about Dirkhising
–
why did the media not care?
Report comment to moderator
RSD wrote to me; “You point to the Dirkhising case for the simple reason that it avails you the opportunity to disparage homosexuals as an entire class based on an isolated crime committed by two persons.”
You again confirm my conclusion that you are being intellectually dishonest, RSD. It is dishonest of you to presume my motives so wrongly and presume the falsehood you are telling yourself about my motives as some sort of fact. You don’t know my motives and you have zero idea what you are talking about. I am pointing out hypocrisy and injustice and the Dirkhising case illustrates it well. I have no motive to disparage anyone BUT the criminals and murderers involved.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe does NOT know any real reason to believe that the aforementioned 13-year-old victim was a young homosexually oriented male.
It is disgusting to make presumptions like that about a TOTAL victim of rape and murder who cannot speak for himself any longer. Do not assume.
Report comment to moderator
It is deeply disgusting and disreapectful for Anderw Sullivan to project that Jesse Dirkhising may have been homosexual himself. He does not have ANY real evidence of that. It is irresponsible to assign or project such notions on such young people, especially victims who cannot speak for themselves. Even at the age of 13, many young males don’t know yet what to think of girls or what to do. Many in a formative stage of normal personal development.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark
Could it have been an attempted to justified the media coverage between the two murder and why the media and Hollywood and the Dem. Party put more Matthew as being more important?
Here is Colorado, we had two murder a young women that lived down the street from me was Brutally murder by a GI and the State news barley touch the story. No one talked about the need of a hate crime law to portect her. No special charger were brougth against her killer. At the same time a member of the GLBT Community was murder and the State news made it a big story and why we need the hate crime law.
Report comment to moderator
Jonathan Gregg wrote in Time, “Matthew Shepard died not because of an all-too-common sex crime, but because of prejudice. Essentially, Shepard was lynched; taken from a bar, beaten and left to die because he was the vilified “other” whom society has often cast as an acceptable target of abuse; Dirkhising was just “another” to a pair of deviants. And while child abuse is unfortunately no big news, lynching still is.”[9]
Report comment to moderator
I do not believe that anyone’s sexual preference or orientation is absolutely fixed–especially in early years. Humans have a sex drive, but we make moral choices (especially early on) for how it is cultivated and expressed over time. When it comes to how and whom we love and why, we make personal and ethical decisions, choices and form certain habits and preferences. Then we feed them in certain ways.
Animals may well have fixed instinctual programming but humans are not mere animals or chemical robots. We are made in the image of God and we are not mere genetic machines, especially when it comes to “love” and sexuality. These are moral issues, most of all and they are not “fixed” until WE choose (over time) to fix them. First a man makes his habits and preferences, and then his habits and preferences make the man.
Jesse Dirkhising was just a developing boy who became a murder victim.
Report comment to moderator
The man that murder the GLBT Community member was charged with murder and a hate crime to add on more jail time.
Report comment to moderator
A red herring worth addressing at the outset is the failure to distinguish between homosexuality and pedophilia, which creates a false parallel at the core of the Times’ argument. A double standard would be in effect had the media ignored a situation where two gay men killed a straight man for being straight. But sex with children is a crime regardless of the sexes involved, and is not synonymous with homosexuality. Brown and Carpenter were roommates, and the details of their relationship have not been revealed, but evidence taken from their house — handwritten fantasy scenarios involving children, as well as diagrams and instructions on how to sedate, tie up and position a child — indicates a strong interest in pedophilia.
Report comment to moderator
A red herring worth addressing at the outset is the failure to distinguish between homosexuality and pedophilia, which creates a false parallel at the core of the Times’ argument. A double standard would be in effect had the media ignored a situation where two gay men killed a straight man for being straight. But sex with children is a crime regardless of the sexes involved, and is not synonymous with homosexuality. Brown and Carpenter were roommates, and the details of their relationship have not been revealed, but evidence taken from their house — handwritten fantasy scenarios involving children, as well as diagrams and instructions on how to sedate, tie up and position a child — indicates a strong interest in pedophilia.
Report comment to moderator
The most salient difference between the Shepard case and this one, however, is that while Shepard’s murderers were driven to kill by hate, the boy’s rape and death was a sex crime. It was repulsive, unconscionable — and the predictable pastime of perverted criminals. Matthew Shepard died not because of an all-too-common sex crime, but because of prejudice.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
would Dirkhising death be as important as Matthew death. If the young man was gay and was killed by two straight men claiming to be Christian?
Report comment to moderator
Jesse Dirkhising’s death gives us nothing except the depravity of two sick men. There is no lesson here, no moral of tolerance, no hope to be gleaned in the punishment of the perpetrators. To be somehow equated with these monsters would be a bitter legacy indeed for Matthew Shepard.
Report comment to moderator
The motives of Matthew Shepherd’s killer are unproveable and unknowable by other people. They may be reprehensible in many different ways. So what? They murdered a man without mercy. That’s the point. It cannot be worse than that, even if they did it for money or for jealousy or whatever. Prosecute vigorously. Convict and punish. Their thoughts and opinions about Shepherd do not make a difference in hindsight since their crime is proven and they deserve the worst punishment possible anyhow.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 10.28.09 AT 11:53 AM
The most salient difference between the Shepard case and this one, however, is that while Shepard’s murderers were driven to kill by hate, the boy’s rape and death was a sex crime
–
Thomas how do you know that Shepard case was driven by hate and the young boy was not?
Report comment to moderator
The truth has come out – Thomas1 wrote Jesse Dirkhising’s death gives us nothing except the depravity of two sick men. There is no lesson here, no moral of tolerance, no hope to be gleaned in the punishment of the perpetrators.
This mean that the GLBT Community could not use Jesse death to promote their life style. With Shepard they were able to promote their life style.
So to Thomas, Shepard death was more imprtant then Jesse death. Sir, that is what is wrong with the GLBT Community and those who support them.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a relevant blog post from NRO that I’d like to bring up:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTFiMjkxNTg2Y2IzZWI5YWZiOWY3Y2U2YjE2YjAwZjU=
‘In crime-ridden England, Her Majesty’s Constabulary nevertheless have time to send two coppers round to the home of a 67-year old wife of a Baptist minister who made the mistake of complaining about the Gay Pride parade:
‘I’ve never been in any kind of trouble before so I was stunned to have two police officers knocking at my door,’ she said.
‘Their presence in my home made me feel threatened. It was a very unpleasant experience.
‘The officers told me that my letter was thought to be an intention of hate but I was expressing views as a Christian…’
The two police officers later turned up at her home in Poringland, near Norwich, and informed her the contents of her letter had caused offence.
‘Can’t have that, can we? As John O’Sullivan likes to say, the British police are now the paramilitary wing of the Guardian.
‘As to “an intention of hate,” strange how the “pre-crime” language of Philip K. Dick’s sci-fi dystopia now passes almost without notice. In my testimony to the Canadian House of Commons the other week, I said:
‘Ian Fine, the senior counsel of the CHRC, has declared that the commission is committed to the abolition of hatred—not hate crimes, not hate speech, but hate. Hate is a human emotion; it beats, to one degree or another, in every breast. It is part of what it means to be human… and when the alternative is a coercive government bureaucracy regulating what you can say… you are no longer free.
‘If some uptight gran’ma doesn’t dig the godless sodomites, what’s the big deal? Is she supposed to be a Stepford Wife and just stand there as the parade passes by with a glassy-eyed stare? The conformity enforcers of “tolerance” and “diversity” are growing ever more explicitly totalitarian.’
The liberals here need to recognize that hate-crime laws like this one are a step on the road toward policing thought and opinions. But you don’t want to recognize that. You say, like those whom Sinclair Lewis was satirizing in pre-World War II days, “It Can’t Happen Here,” even though it’s happened in innumerable other governments before. The trend is obvious and, pessimist that I am, I suggest it’s unstoppable, too.
Nobody here–and certainly no Biblical Christian–excuses violent crimes against homosexuals or anyone else for any reason. If they do, they’re in sin, no question about it. But it is possible to condemn violent crime and also to oppose ever-expanding hate-crime laws that are meant to control how people think about certain social behaviors. Hate is wrong, but it’s a subjective emotion that you can’t contain. It will never be completely eradicated on this earth, as hard as the social engineers on the left try. And, as Thomas1 and others here show, it transcends party lines. (I have no doubt whatsoever that Thomas1 is seething with hatred against us Bible-believing Christians. He actually projects onto us a wish to do violent harm to others and ignores the reality of how Christians actually minister to and–yes, love–those strugging with same-sex temptations. This is nothing but prejudice.) Hate-crime laws are part of a larger project to legislate the left’s morality onto everyone else. You’d think liberals would oppose this kind of thing, to hear them ranting against it when conservatives try to do it, but their hypocrisy is evident when the morality at stake is their own. This kind of Orwellian legislation should be opposed by anyone who cares about the freedom of thought.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
Based on your premises it is disgusting and disgraceful of YOU or anyone else to presume to know that JD was a heterosexual and frame this as two homosexual men victimizing a STRAIGHT boy who cannot speak for himself.
YOU folks are the ones who started this disgraceful business of terming JD a young straight boy when you have NO clue that he was.
Report comment to moderator
“I do not believe that anyone’s sexual preference or orientation is absolutely fixed–especially in early years.”
It doesn’t matter what YOU believe; it matters what the best science shows. And EVEN James Dobson has conceded that the homosexual orientation fixes itself in the early digits.
I don’t know what EXACTLY causes sexual orientation and science doesn’t either. But there are a few things that we do know. One is that no one choose to whom they are attracted and the other is, whatever causes it fixes itself at a very young age, in the single digits.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy (and others who have asked this question): So Thomas why was Matthew murder more important then the young boy’s murder?
Well, no one’s said it was more important. In both cases, a life was taken, a presence snuffed out of the world and a family left bereft.
But in terms of social significance, the murder of a homosexual man by anti-gay bigots is an act designed to intimidate other homosexual men. The message is, if you are gay, and especially if you don’t keep it secret, this might happen to you.
What was the message in the Dirkhising murder? Don’t be a boy? Don’t be kidnapped by sadists?
The Shephard murder was textbook case of a hate crime. They killed him because they hated him, purely because of his sexual orientation. The Dirkhising murder was brutal and heinous and deserving of severe punishment, but it had no larger meaning.
Hate crimes are a form of terrorism. They’re intended to scare other people of the group (sexual, racial or otherwise), and therefore they have a reach byond the immediate circumstances of the specific crime.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe
YOU folks are the ones who started this disgraceful business of terming JD a young straight boy when you have NO clue that he was.
-
Not at all no one mention JD sexually behavior, we were point out the fact two murder took place, one who was murder was gay, and in the other case the two who committed the crime was gay. An the media only cover and made a big deal out on the young man who gay and was murder. The reason matthew death helped them promote the GLBT Community moral values, views, and ideas.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG
Well, no one’s said it was more important. In both cases, a life was taken, a presence snuffed out of the world and a family left bereft
-
Thomas1 wrote Jesse Dirkhising’s death gives us nothing except the depravity of two sick men. There is no lesson here, no moral of tolerance, no hope to be gleaned in the punishment of the perpetrators.
Report comment to moderator
To add: This thread has turned into a gay-bashing one, but the logic of the hate crime applies anytime someone is victimized purely because of his membership in a group, by people who oppose that group and are willing to resort to violence in an effort to intimidate its members.
The lynching of Michael Donald, a black man, in Mobile in the 1980s was a hate crime. The murder of a Christian by a Muslim, if the reason was the religious difference, would be a hate crime.
Hate crimes are simply small-scale terrorism.
Report comment to moderator
JD death was traggied but meanless,why? it did not promote the GLBT Community morale values, views and ideas like Matthew death did. That is the only way to views these statements
Thomas1 wrote Jesse Dirkhising’s death gives us nothing except the depravity of two sick men. There is no lesson here, no moral of tolerance, no hope to be gleaned in the punishment of the perpetrators.
And this ” But in terms of social significance, the murder of a homosexual man by anti-gay bigots is an act designed to intimidate other homosexual men. The message is, if you are gay, and especially if you don’t keep it secret, this might happen to you”
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
If you look at your words carefully you termed MS “gay” and JD as “not gay.” Others have done this before you; and some religious conservatives have framed the JD case as two gay men victimizing a straight boy.
I’ve already noted and I’ll note again: I’m willing to leave JD’s sexual orientation alone if you frame the issue as two gay men victimizing a 13 year old boy/teen period. DON’T frame it as straight on gay, because if you do, the other side has EVERY right to respond and question whether JD really was “straight.”
Report comment to moderator
I meant, don’t frame the JD case as gay on straight crime.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 10.28.09 AT 12:25 PM
To add: This thread has turned into a gay-bashing one, but the logic of the hate crime applies anytime someone is victimized purely because of his membership in a group, by people who oppose that group and are willing to resort to violence in an effort to intimidate its members.
-
Where is the gay-bashing point to the posting?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
There isn’t one. For the same reason Steve claimed that we’re all excusing violent crimes against gay people, he has to claim that we’re all “bashing” gays here–namely, that he’s incapable of thinking about these issues outside the tiny box of his own cramped and narrow stereotypes.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote; “Based on your premises it is disgusting and disgraceful of YOU or anyone else to presume to know that JD was a heterosexual and frame this as two homosexual men victimizing a STRAIGHT boy who cannot speak for himself.”
I think it is desprespectful of you, Jon Rowe, to say such a thing to me without even bothering to read my comment at all. That’s wierd. I did NOT presume anything personal or specific about that boy’s personal sexual orientation. I said he was a young man in the process of normal development. My view is that he may be too young to know either way. Some lete-deviloping 13-year-olds who do end up heterosexual do not know if they like girls yet. He could have ended up pursuing a variety of preferences but we don’t know, do we? He’s dead. I consider it an irresponsible presumption either way, and irrelevant. He’s a murder victim.
Report comment to moderator
Let me understand you, Jon, it is wrong to point out that two gay men murder a boy around the same time two stright men murder a gay man. An the media focus on the two stright men who murder a gay man and did little or no reporting on the two gay men who murder a boy . Correct
The GLBT Community made a big deal using the murder of a gay man to promote their moral values, views and idea. An this is ok correct.
Report comment to moderator
I think the issue is you folks have turned this thread into a gay theme when the concept of “hate crimes” is about other things that YOU IGNORE.
I agree with many folks in principle about hate crimes laws being a bad idea. I’m a libertarian and my perfect world would permit quite a bit — legalized drugs, prostitution, and other voluntary exchanges. But we libertarians believe in throwing the book at folks who commit force and fraud.
We could prosecute and execute MS’s and JD’s murderers under generally applicable criminal laws.
But hate crims laws include things like race, gender, religion, etc. But it’s ONLY sexual orientation as a category that seems to concern religious conservatives.
And quite frankly if we have to have hate crimes laws, it makes NO SENSE to NOT include sexual orientation.
No doubt whites have victimized blacks in a lot of ways historically and presently. However, presently white on black violent crime simply is not a common thing. There is SO MUCH MORE gay bashing that occurs that it makes far MORE sense to have a sexual orientation hate crimes category than a race hate crimes category. But again, you folks don’t talk about the other less needed categories. And, again, in my first best world, we would have no hate crimes laws but would throw the book at any violent criminal.
Report comment to moderator
Nope. You don’t understand me Pastor Roy. Nothing wrong with reporting that two gay men murdered a 13 year old boy/teen. Something DRASTICALLY wrong with terming that boy “straight” and framing it a “gay on straight” crime, when in reality there is good reason to believe he was not “straight.”
If you don’t want us speculating that JD was in fact a young gay teen, then DON’T MAKE PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT HIS SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
Report comment to moderator
Science does not render human beings to be mere chemical machines or robots.
Science has not proven that we have no control over who, how or why we are attracted sexually.
Science does not prove that human beings are NOTHING but animals.
Science does not prove that there are zero moral elements or aspects to the development of our sexuality.
Science does not prove that homosexuality is an absolutely fixed orientation. It is a behavior. First a child and/or man makes his habits, then his habits make the man.
Report comment to moderator
“Some lete-deviloping 13-year-olds who do end up heterosexual do not know if they like girls yet.”
?????
Any heterosexual men on this thread relate to this?
On an earlier thread, if I remember correctly, YOU termed JD “straight.” But even if you didn’t, you’ll see that I was responding to Pastor Roy’s terming MS as “gay” and JD as “not gay.”
Report comment to moderator
“Science has not proven that we have no control over who, how or why we are attracted sexually.”
And I never said this. I DID say, and it is most certainly TRUE, that science has provent that we do NOT CHOOSE and have no control over who we are attracted to sexually.
The Bible even confirms this when St. Paul speaks of the “law of our members.”
Report comment to moderator
“I think the issue is you folks have turned this thread into a gay theme when the concept of “hate crimes” is about other things that YOU IGNORE.”
Excuse me, but sexual orientation is the central point of this hate crime legislation, is it not? The main post mentions disability and gender, but I don’t think any religion calls being a male or being handicapped a sin and therefore there’s no debate or question about whether we need to “tolerate” males or handicapped people as a society.
However, orthodox versions of all major religions call homosexual behavior a sin. These laws therefore hold up point to those religions and say, “You better check your beliefs and make sure they’re acceptable. Because what you ignorantly call ’sin’ is sacrosanct around these parts.”
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe 10.28.09 AT 12:42 PM
Nope. You don’t understand me Pastor Roy. Nothing wrong with reporting that two gay men murdered a 13 year old boy/teen. Something DRASTICALLY wrong with terming that boy “straight” and framing it a “gay on straight” crime, when in reality there is good reason to believe he was not “straight.”
If you don’t want us speculating that JD was in fact a young gay teen, then DON’T MAKE PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT HIS SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
-
That right we must be framing two gay, because we know the gay men never attack straight men or boys because of hate. It is only straight men who attack gay men is it hate correct?
The real issue is these gay men were not worth of the GLBT Community to used to promote the Community moral values, views and ideas. So the Media and their supports did not make JD murder news worth. But Matthew death, well that helps the GLBT Community to used to promote the Community moral values, views and ideas. So the Media and their supports did decide that Matthew death was news worth.
Report comment to moderator
Hmmm. . .I’m inclined to agree with Jon about Dirkhising.
SteveG – Well if you’re going to find a “message” in a crime, like you did from Shephard’s murder, the message from Dirkhising’s murder is pretty obvious: If you’re a boy, we’re going to rape/kill you. What do you think about Andrew Sullivan’s comments from Jon’s link?
You might argue that the Shepard murder was a trend story, highlighting the prevalence of anti-gay hate crimes. But murders like Shepard’s are extremely rare. In 1997, a relatively typical recent year, the FBI identified a total of eight hate-crime murders in the United States. The number that were gay-specific was even smaller. Most years, two or three occur at most. How common is a rape-murder like that of Dirkhising? In 1999 there were 46 rape-murders nationwide. If you focus not on the rape-murder aspect but on the fact that Jesse was a child, there were 1,449 murders of minors. There are no reliable statistics on how many of these murders were committed by homosexuals, but let’s generously say 5 percent. That’s a paltry 72 cases. In other words, the murders of Shepard and Dirkhising are both extremely rare, and neither says much that can be generalized to the wider world. So why the obsession with Shepard and the indifference with regard to Dirkhising?
The answer is politics. The Shepard case was hyped for political reasons: to build support for inclusion of homosexuals in a federal hate-crimes law. The Dirkhising case was ignored for political reasons: squeamishness about reporting a story that could feed anti-gay prejudice, and the lack of any pending interest-group legislation to hang a story on. The same politics lies behind the media’s tendency to extensively cover white “hate crimes” against blacks while ignoring black “non-hate crimes” against whites. What we are seeing, I fear, is a logical consequence of the culture that hate-crimes rhetoric promotes. Some deaths–if they affect a politically protected class–are worth more than others. Other deaths, those that do not fit a politically correct profile, are left to oblivion. The leading gay rights organization, the Human Rights Campaign–which has raised oodles of cash exploiting the horror of Shepard’s murder–has said nothing whatsoever about the Dirkhising case. For the HRC, the murder of Jesse Dirkhising is off-message. Worse, there’s a touch of embarrassment among some gays about the case, as if the actions of this depraved couple had some connection to the rest of gay America. Don’t these squeamish people realize that, by helping to hush this up, they seem to confirm homophobic suspicions that this murder actually is typical of gays?
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe
“Science has not proven that we have no control over who, how or why we are attracted sexually.”
And I never said this. I DID say, and it is most certainly TRUE, that science has provent that we do NOT CHOOSE and have no control over who we are attracted to sexually.
The Bible even confirms this when St. Paul speaks of the “law of our members.”
-
An St. Paul calls the Gay Life style a sin.
Report comment to moderator
That right we must be framing two gay, because we know the gay men never attack straight men or boys because of hate. It is only straight men who attack gay men is it hate correct?
I didn’t say this; in a nation of 300 million and a world of 6+ billion, you’ll be able to find anything; so the “never” term is unwarranted. But I think YOU understand that a perceived gay man is more likely to be violently attacked for that reason by straights than a perceived straight man by gays.
Re the ignoring of the JD case by the gay community, I don’t disagree; that’s not my main criticism with the sentiments expressed on this thread.
Report comment to moderator
I was addressing JM not you with that comment.
Report comment to moderator
“Excuse me, but sexual orientation is the central point of this hate crime legislation, is it not?”
No ABSOLUTELY NOT. Hate crimes statutes equally apply to race, gender, religion, disability, age, sexual orienation and a whole host of OTHER categories.
Re whether a particular religion considers race or gender immoral categories, many religions, including yours, considers the practice of OTHER religions to be fundamentally immoral. See the First Commandment. If someone attacks a Hindu because he is a Hindu, evangelicals could make the same arguments they make re gays; Hindus, by their very nature violate the First Commandment and many other parts of the Bible and again, even like gays, merit the death penatly for the practice of their religion.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe
But I think YOU understand that a perceived gay man is more likely to be violently attacked for that reason by straights than a perceived straight man by gays.
-
Lets see my brother has be gay for 20 years an never been attacked, lost a job. His love never been attack or lost his job. My friend at work is gay, he has never been attacked, lost a job. His lover has never been attacked, lost a job. My best friend in the Army and his lover never been attacked, lost a job. So sorry I do not agree that gay man are more likely to be violently attacked for that reason by straights men.
But lets look at what has happen in CA over Prop 8. GLBT Community have cause support of Prop 8 to lose their jobs. GLBT Community have attack Churches. Etc. An no call for special protection from the GLBT Community.
Report comment to moderator
“No ABSOLUTELY NOT. Hate crimes statutes equally apply to race, gender, religion, disability, age, sexual orienation and a whole host of OTHER categories.”
I’m not talking abour hate crime legislation in general. I’m talking about the law Obama is about to sign, you know, the subject of this post, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
And sorry, but your 2nd paragraph is completely disconnected from anything I was talking about. Please try to refrain from commenting until you’ve understood what’s going on.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
We are getting off on a little bit of a tanget here with anecodtes; but I would note 1) I know of as many personal anecodotes of you where I could say the reverse; and 2) strangely enough, when heterosexual men attack on the motive of homosexuality, PERCEIVED sexual orientation is a big factor. If two men are holding hands, then “perception” is cleared. I could link to the story of Chris Crain a big buff 6-6 gay man getting attacked by homophobic Muslims in Europe; were he not holding hands with his partner his attackers probably wouldn’t perceive his sexual orientation.
Though it’s really feminine men, a disproportionate number of whom are homosexual, who are at risk. I’ve seen a number of self identified heterosexual evangelical Christian men who could be perceived as homosexual. because they are feminine (I’m thinking of a Christian pianist who is about as masculine as Liberace was and wears as much jewelry) and attacked for that reason. And they would be equally covered under such a hate crimes statute.
Many of the so called “ex-gay” Christians like Stephen Bennett are still very feminine and could be perceived as homosexual and attacked for that reason. And they would be covered.
But if you want a p!$$ing list of folks who were violently attacked for their perceived orientation, I could list anecdote horror stories as could many other posters here.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
I was trying to explain, in response to your bewilderment, why this discussion is about homosexuality. You want to talk about hate crimes in general but not about homosexuality, but this hate crime legislation is clearly focused on preventing “hate” crimes against gay people. I don’t know if I can explain it any more simply for you.
Report comment to moderator
David L,
Actually my second paragraph to which you refer contains an important argument with which anti-gay religious conservatives must grapple; I will not leave it alone.
There are all sorts of hate crimes statutes which protect “religion” — and they protect conservative evangelicals along with Hindus — that, in principle, violate your conscience as much as a hate crimes statute that protects sexual orientation would.
Report comment to moderator
David L,
You are missing the forrest for the trees. This hate crimes law might be about ADDING SEXUAL ORIENATION TO AN ALREADY EXISTING LIST. But the important thing to note is that the LIST ALREADY INCLUDES RACE, GENDER, RELIGION, etc.
The question is why it’s having sexual orientation ON the list that ALREADY INCLUDES race, gender, religion etc. that BOTHERS you.
If this were about a hate crimes list that included ONLY sexual orienation, I’d be as outraged as you. That’s why the “special rights” rhetoric of anti-gay conservative rings so hollow. Gays qua gays want the “special rights” under these anti-discrimination and hate crimes statutes that evangelicals qua evangelicals already possess.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
I don’t necessaryily see anyone “ignoring” any vital aspects of this issue. People just have different things to say. But it was you that began presuming that there was allegedly “reason to believe” that Jesse Dirkhising was “gay.” I contend that you don’t know this at all. But now you are accusing others of making presumptions they did not make (#185 abnd others) . You were the one who first brought in irresponsible presumptions about that boy’s sexual orientation (#139). I have not read all posts but yours, Jon Rowe, was the first irresponsible presumption I read.
Report comment to moderator
No Joel, you are wrong. It was Pastor Roy who on this thread first claimed that while MS was gay, JD was not and framed this as a gay on straight crime. If it gets framed that way, I’m going to contest that JD was “straight.” If it doesn’t, I won’t. And that’s exactly what happened today.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote; “Hate crimes statutes equally apply to race, gender, religion, disability, age, sexual orienation and a whole host of OTHER categories.”
Which is why it is bad law. How can you equally include all groups? It is identity politics applied to lady justice and she is NOT supposed to be swayed by such things. This defies the principle of equality under the law AND it even mitigates against the separation of powers principle by bringing politics (and rank presumption regarding what is or isn’t “hate”) unduly into the judicial branch.
Report comment to moderator
MATT Y, (#191)
Incline all you wish, my friend, but my point is that you do not know. None of us do and the presumption either way is inappropriate.
Report comment to moderator
“Which is why it is bad law. How can you equally include all groups?”
Well then put as much energy into getting rid of ALL HATE CRIMES LAWS AND EVERY category included and not picking on sexual orientatin.
That’s my position.
Report comment to moderator
Good point David L. Matthew Shepherd’s name is on the bill.
Report comment to moderator
How am I wrong, Jon? I said that yours was the first post I read that made an irresponsible presumption about Dirkhisings alleged orientation. Don’t try to twist it. If anyone else made a presumption, deal with them about it not me. I speak for myself and I was correct in exactly what I said.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, my position is — put all the energy into prosecuting crimes fairly and justly applying equality under the law to all citizens (victims or victimizers) and leave identity politics and group-think to the hypsters, homosexualists and Democrats.
Report comment to moderator
#181: I didn’t express myself well. Jon says what I meant in #184: I think the issue is you folks have turned this thread into a gay theme when the concept of “hate crimes” is about other things that YOU IGNORE.
Pastor Roy continues to not understand the difference between a crime intended to terrorize other members of the group the victim is identified with and one that had no such larger motive. One is murder; the other is murder-plus. Both are great evils; but one has a motive that extends beyond the primary victim and one does not.
It really is not complicated.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe 10.28.09 AT 1:32 PM
No Joel, you are wrong. It was Pastor Roy who on this thread first claimed that while MS was gay, JD was not and framed this as a gay on straight crime. If it gets framed that way, I’m going to contest that JD was “straight.” If it doesn’t, I won’t. And that’s exactly what happened today
–
Again wrong, I was pointing out the fact that one person who was murder was gay and those who committed a murder was gay. An the media and GLBT Community cover the story of the person who was murder and not those who committed a murder. When all three were gay.
Report comment to moderator
Was there any evidence that show those who killed MS did it to send a message to the gay community?
Report comment to moderator
David L.: Excuse me, but sexual orientation is the central point of this hate crime legislation, is it not?
No, it is not.
The central point of this legislation is to provide federalf unds to help state agencies investigate possible hate crimes, under their individual state laws.
Sexual orientation is a protected class under many or most of those, but so are race, religion and other things. This legislation does not single out sexual orientation.
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y: Well if you’re going to find a “message” in a crime, like you did from Shephard’s murder, the message from Dirkhising’s murder is pretty obvious: If you’re a boy, we’re going to rape/kill you.
Who is “we” in this formulation?
Report comment to moderator
To answer Pastor Roy’s question above:
No.
But what does evidence or reason have to do with it when the gay rights agenda can be pushed down our throats on presumed pretenses?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG wrote; “One is murder; the other is murder-plus.”
Plus what? Let me finish the sentence:
One is murder; the other is murder-plus politically incorrect opinions and thoughts.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG- Pastor Roy continues to not understand the difference between a crime intended to terrorize other members of the group the victim is identified with and one that had no such larger motive. One is murder; the other is murder-plus. Both are great evils; but one has a motive that extends beyond the primary victim and one does not.
-
Not at all, murder is murder. The reason the media and the GLBT Community used the death MS, is it help them to promote the GLBT Community moral values veiws and ideas. Those who killed the young boy did not help them to promote the GLBT Community moral values veiws and ideas. So yes, MS death was more imprtant to the media and the GLBT Community then the death of the young boy at the hands of two gay men.
Now if MS was killed by two gay me. An the young boy was gay and killed by two straight men. The young boy killing would have been front page news and MS would not have been.
Report comment to moderator
All crimes (let me repeat) ALL CRIMES have victims that extend in one way or another beyond the primary victim. Not all motives or victims are visible to the eye but they always extend beyond any isolated case. That’s why society at large have an interest in justice.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 10.28.09 AT 2:00 PM
David L.: Excuse me, but sexual orientation is the central point of this hate crime legislation, is it not?
No, it is not.
The central point of this legislation is to provide federalf unds to help state agencies investigate possible hate crimes, under their individual state laws.
Sexual orientation is a protected class under many or most of those, but so are race, religion and other things. This legislation does not single out sexual orientation.
-
yes it does, under this bill sexual orientation is the focus.
Report comment to moderator
Correction:
“…has an interest in justice.”
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
I just returned from work. I guess I was right when I predicted that you would fail to answer my interrogatory. You seem to be more interested in using this blog to disseminate misleading information.
I also notice that you have consistently dodged Steve’s efforts to pin you down on the fact that religion is also a protected class under federal hate crimes law. Why are members of religious groups more worthy of federal hate crimes protection that gay people?
Report comment to moderator
rsd – I also notice that you have consistently dodged Steve’s efforts to pin you down on the fact that religion is also a protected class under federal hate crimes law.
-
So why was no one in the GLBT Community arreted on Hate Crime Charges for their attacks on Churches over Prop 8 in CA?
Report comment to moderator
Hermes (3,79) Yes it is.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG writes:
(#173): “Hate crimes are a form of terrorism. They’re intended to scare other people of the group (sexual, racial or otherwise), and therefore they have a reach byond the immediate circumstances of the specific crime.”
(#176): “Hate crimes are simply small-scale terrorism.”
(#210): “Pastor Roy continues to not understand the difference between a crime intended to terrorize other members of the group the victim is identified with and one that had no such larger motive. One is murder; the other is murder-plus. Both are great evils; but one has a motive that extends beyond the primary victim and one does not.”
Steve, what you say is correct in some contexts, but in this discussion it makes no sense and is not applicable. What you started in #173 was to introduce the subject of terrorism and conflate it with Christian opposition to homosexuality.
Homosexuals, like Mynock in #15, automatically make, and continuously cultivate that false assumption because it suits their political purposes and feeds their emotional bigotry. But I expected better of you.
Terrorism, in today’s context, is practiced by groups such as Islamic jihadists, drug cartels, organized crime, communist movements and governments, various military dictatorships, and a few white supremacist groups. They make specific threats of physical harm followed by criminal actions to do just that. Your quoted comments are applicable in these contexts, but Christian opposition to homosexuality is as far removed from that pattern as night is from day. Yet many homosexuals continue to perpetuate this falsehood and even compare Christian opponents to the terrorists of the Taliban. Why you join hands with them in this slanderous comparison is beyond me.
Contrary to your implications, the real terrorism comes from the homosexual camp, not vice versa. In actual practice this legislation will be used in a preemptively intimidating manner against free speech. This is NOT paranoid fear mongering as you and Thomas1 allege. Notwithstanding cosmetic assurances in the bill to protect against such abuse, similar legislation in Canada and England is already being used in this fashion (See David L’s post #170).
This is exactly what homosexuals intend and, as I have said before, that is the main purpose of this legislation: silence public opposition through the fear of government power. This legislation provides millions of dollars and expanded federal authority to investigate “hate crimes.” “Hate crimes” include not only actual crimes in the traditional sense, but any speech subjectively deemed to incite actual criminal acts, either before or after the actual act.
There is no doubt that this legislation will be used preemptively.
Who then will make the subjective determination of speech that incites to criminal acts; and who will prevent those criminal acts as Reps Honda and Schakowsky noted to be one of the intents of the legislation? Why, of course it will be the investigators who show up at your door, or your church, after a homosexual files a complaint that you offended him or frightened him with your speech. Speech now becomes a crime, not just criminal acts. This is already happening in England and Canada. Even if you are not dragged into court and finally convicted, investigations (so called) can be just as intimidating, financially expensive, and damaging as actual prosecutions and convictions.
So, Christians had best do as Thomas1 warns, just “…keep your mouths shut…” or else…” This is terrorism and intimidation, homosexual style.
Thank you, Obama and the Democrat tyrants who now control our federal government and rape our Constitution at will.
Report comment to moderator
Just to be fair, in paragraph #6 above, I need to also include a few black supremacist groups (along with the white ones) who practice terrorism.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin: Steve, what you say is correct in some contexts, but in this discussion it makes no sense and is not applicable. What you started in #173 was to introduce the subject of terrorism and conflate it with Christian opposition to homosexuality.
Um, no. Not even close.
What I “conflate” terrorism with is violent crime intended to terrorize members of a particular group. From what I can see, it is the opponents of this law who are doing the conflating — or more accurately, the eliding. You’re attempting to argue that a law aimed at certain types of violent crimes is really an effort to stifle opinions.
Pastor Roy said it explicitly in nos. 7, 8 and 25.
So what I say has nothing to do with sermons against homosexuality, politicians who stand against homosexuality, or anyone who believes homosexuality is sin and wants the freedom to openly say so.
But it has a lot to do with those people who go beyond speech into violent action.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – you mean like how the GLBT Community attacks on Churches and people after prop 8 correct?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#226):
There is not a Christian on this blog who would disagree with the convictions and sentences decreed against the murderers of Matthew Shepard. There is not a Christian on this blog who would support violence against homosexuals. There is not a Christian on this blog who advocates or incites violence against homosexuals. We already have laws against the acts of murder, assault, battery, and threatening others with harm. Shepard’s murderers received two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. Nothing more could be done to them, except to put them to death, which is what I think their punishment should have been. In my opinion, the deliberate murder of anyone should be a capital crime. That also goes for the two murderers of Jesse Dirkhising.
Genuine Christians are not, in any way shape or form, verbal or physical terrorists against homosexuals. To even remotely imply that, as you have done, is to damage your own credibility. The credibility of many homosexual activists has already been destroyed by their absurd comparison of Christians to the Taliban.
I give you the benefit of the doubt, as to YOUR sincere (but misguided) rationale in supporting this legislation.
However, the evidence both within the construct of this legislation and the history of similar laws shows their primary intent to be, not the punishment of actual crimes (for which we already have laws and punishments), but the prohibition of speech against homosexuality. It is a preemptive measure aimed at speech and constructed so as to intimidate by investigation and threat of prosecution anyone who speaks out against homosexual behavior. Even though your purpose may be different, you are naively walking in lockstep with those homosexuals whose purpose is to deny freedom of speech to their opponents.
In your blindness, you have allowed yourself to become a useful dupe to those homosexuals who demand, by government force, that their opposition just shut their mouths about the immorality of their behavior. Your blindness is such that you have not even bothered to address the main points of my posts that have shown the true intent of these people.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!