Matthew Shepard Act is getting closer!

[Hwy99]

"Some form of harassment and/or violence" isn't the same as 60% being killed.

Ok I admit my mistakeness, but that is still a hate crime.

Do you really believe a hate crime law will change that?

It can be. It will make GLBT community, especially transgenders, to feel safe to be express themselves. They killed themselves because they scare of others, not themselves.

How? Will it prevent hate? Isn't that the root problem? How do you change people's hearts, beliefs and attitudes?

First, I said "reduce", not prevent. It's just like the black people in the past. Transgender folks experience the discimination at their workplace, their housing, etc just like the black people in the past had experienced. Those had to be stopped.

That has nothing to do with changing police and court procedures.

How do you legislate emotions? You can't.

You can legislate behavior. We already have laws against assault and murder. That is a behavior. If you don't believe transgender people are getting a fair shake with police and the courts, then that's where the effort is needed. Creating a new law that won't get enforced, or gets enforced selectively or incorrectly, won't help anyone.

Of course we have freedom of speech, I know that, BUT what is the problem is that present hate crime law DOES NOT include the gender identify so the transgender group was the only group that are LEGAL to discriminate against. That is not fair for transgender while there is anti-discrimination law for race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

Secondly, police and courts does not require to remove hate criminals's right to vote or go to school which was suppose to be REQUIRED.

This law is not a "created law", it's ratherly a expanison of the 1969 Hate Crime Law.

 

[Reba]

The present law against the hate law does not require to remove a qulity person's right to vote or go to the school. This new law expand it as requirement consquences for the hate criminals, if this law was passed, the police can't reject to remove hate criminals's rights to vote or go to school, period. That is why this new law is so important.

I'm not talking about hate crimes only. I'm talking about all felony convictions. Convicted felons should ALL permanently lose their right to vote. It doesn't apply to hate crimes only.

A felony is a felony. Love, hate, or indifference shouldn't matter.

This is not for only one group, but other groups such like racist, sexism, etc. This is about the Hate Crime Law, not just for GLBT community.

I'm opposed to "hate" laws for any group. Everyone deserves equal protection under the law. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Reba]

Ok I admit my mistakeness, but that is still a hate crime.

Sigh...

It can be. It will make GLBT community, especially transgenders, to feel safe to be express themselves. They killed themselves because they scare of others, not themselves.

How will a hate crimes law do that? Please think this through.

First, I said "reduce", not prevent. It's just like the black people in the past. Transgender folks experience the discimination at their workplace, their housing, etc just like the black people in the past had experienced. Those had to be stopped.

How will a hate crimes law prevent discrimination in housing and the workplace? The bill is about violent crimes.

There are other laws for housing and job discrimination.

This law is not a "created law", it's ratherly a expanison of the 1969 Hate Crime Law.

Expanding on previous flawed legislation doesn't make it better; it just makes it broader.

If the previous law has been on the books since 1969, has it worked for anyone? Think about it.

 

[Hwy99]

I'm not talking about hate crimes only. I'm talking about all felony convictions. Convicted felons should ALL permanently lose their right to vote. It doesn't apply to hate crimes only.

A felony is a felony. Love, hate, or indifference shouldn't matter.



I'm opposed to "hate" laws for any group. Everyone deserves equal protection under the law. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then how suppose those people know what to not discriminate against? If the law does not have list of stuff that we cannot disciminate against, then the government will be bored with the FAQ of "Why shouldn't we discriminate anything? What to not discriminate?"

 

[Hwy99]

How will a hate crimes law do that? Please think this through.

Okay how would you feel if there is lot of people who think people with white hairs are very freak, calling them old fart, hearing that people with white hair have the highest percent of being harrassed, violence, suicide, depression, suicide, etc. Then you found out that there is no law protection for your group? I would be very scare to stand up for myself. That is exactly what transgenders today felt.

How will a hate crimes law prevent discrimination in housing and the workplace? The bill is about violent crimes.

There are other laws for housing and job discrimination.

*sigh*...

Expanding on previous flawed legislation doesn't make it better; it just makes it broader.

If the previous law has been on the books since 1969, has it worked for anyone? Think about it.

Then why was the hate crime law become effect in the year of 1969? What's going on that time? I am sure it's the same story as present as the black people in the history.

 

[Reba]

Then how suppose those people know what to not discriminate against? If the law does not have list of stuff that we cannot disciminate against, then the government will be bored with the FAQ of "Why shouldn't we discriminate anything? What to not discriminate?"

Do you really expect people to learn manners, fairness, concern for others, etc., from government laws?

 

[Reba]

Okay how would you feel if there is lot of people who think people with white hairs are very freak, calling them old fart...

I'd consider them jerks and ignore them.

...hearing that people with white hair have the highest percent of being harrassed, violence, suicide, depression, suicide, etc.

A hate crimes law won't help people cope with feelings of suicide and depression.

We already have laws against harassment and violence. It's not legal to beat up people with white hair or who are transgender. It's not legal to beat up anyone.

Then you found out that there is no law protection for your group?

The law is supposed to protect everyone, not just "groups". If the law isn't doing its job of enforcement and conviction, then those are the areas that must be corrected.

I would be very scare to stand up for myself. That is exactly what transgenders today felt.

Standing up for oneself is something everyone must confront.

Instead of pushing for redundant laws, why not push to enforce current laws, and clean up police departments and courts?

Then why was the hate crime law become effect in the year of 1969? What's going on that time? I am sure it's the same story as present as the black people in the history.

The big problem in 1969 (the year I graduated from high school) was race relations.

That was almost 40 years ago, and I'm afraid the "law" hasn't solved much hate since then.

 

[Reba]

Just for reference, the 1969 law:

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 245

(a)(1)Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to prevent any State, any possession or Commonwealth of the United States, or the District of Columbia, from exercising jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section, nor shall anything in this section be construed as depriving State and local law enforcement authorities of responsibility for prosecuting acts that may be violations of this section and that are violations of State and local law. No prosecution of any offense described in this section shall be undertaken by the United States except upon the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that in his judgment a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice, which function of certification may not be delegated.

(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.

(b)Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with--

(1)any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from--

(A) voting or qualifying to vote, qualifying or campaigning as a candidate for elective office, or qualifying or acting as a poll watcher, or any legally authorized election official, in any primary, special, or general election;

(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;

(C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any agency of the United States;

(D) serving, or attending upon any court in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror in any court of the United States;


(E) participating in or enjoying the benefits of any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; or

(2) any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been--

(A) enrolling in or attending any public school or public college;

(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by any State or subdivision thereof;

(C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any private employer or any agency of any State or subdivision thereof, or joining or using the services or advantages of any labor organization, hiring hall, or employment agency;

(D) serving, or attending upon any court of any State in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror,

(E) traveling in or using any facility of interstate commerce, or using any vehicle, terminal, or facility of any common carrier by motor, rail, water, or air;

(F) enjoying the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, or of any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises, or of any gasoline station, or of any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium, or any other place of exhibition or entertainment which serves the public, or of any other establishment which serves the public and (i) which is located within the premises of any of the aforesaid establishments or within the premises of which is physically located any of the aforesaid establishments, and (ii) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such establishments; or

(3) during or incident to a riot or civil disorder, any person engaged in a business in commerce or affecting commerce, including, but not limited to, any person engaged in a business which sells or offers for sale to interstate travelers a substantial portion of the articles, commodities, or services which it sells or where a substantial portion of the articles or commodities which it sells or offers for sale have moved in commerce; or

(4) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from--

(A) participating, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin, in any of the benefits or activities described in subparagraphs (1)(A) through (1)(E) or subparagraphs (2)(A) through (2)(F); or

(B) affording another person or class of persons opportunity or protection to so participate; or

(5) any citizen because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such citizen or any other citizen from lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin, in any of the benefits or activities described in subparagraphs (1)(A) through (1)(E) or subparagraphs (2)(A) through (2)(F), or participating lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly opposing any denial of the opportunity to so participate--

shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. As used in this section, the term "participating lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly" shall not mean the aiding, abetting, or inciting of other persons to riot or to commit any act of physical violence upon any individual or against any real or personal property in furtherance of a riot. Nothing in subparagraph (2)(F) or (4)(A) of this subsection shall apply to the proprietor of any establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, or to any employee acting on behalf of such proprietor, with respect to the enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such establishment if such establishment is located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor as his residence.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to deter any law enforcement officer from lawfully carrying out the duties of his office; and no law enforcement officer shall be considered to be in violation of this section for lawfully carrying out the duties of his office or lawfully enforcing ordinances and laws of the United States, the District of Columbia, any of the several States, or any political subdivision of a State. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term "law enforcement officer" means any officer of the United States, the District of Columbia, a State, or political subdivision of a State, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of, or make arrests because of, offenses against the United States, the District of Columbia, a State, or a political subdivision of a State.

(d) For purposes of this section, the term "State" includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

 

[Hwy99]

^^^Thanks for the sharing.. Not surprised that it was not that details who to not do the hate crime against, but the race. I am surprised not all courts and polices follow this law. Speechless..

Do you really expect people to learn manners, fairness, concern for others, etc., from government laws?

It's possible, like they force us to use the seatbelt

A hate crimes law won't help people cope with feelings of suicide and depression.

We already have laws against harassment and violence. It's not legal to beat up people with white hair or who are transgender. It's not legal to beat up anyone.

Agree, but the law need to expand. That's all I can say..

The law is supposed to protect everyone, not just "groups". If the law isn't doing its job of enforcement and conviction, then those are the areas that must be corrected.

No... The new law want to include the GLBT along with others, not only the GLBT.

Standing up for oneself is something everyone must confront.

Instead of pushing for redundant laws, why not push to enforce current laws, and clean up police departments and courts?

That's what the GLBT community is putting so much effort on.

The big problem in 1969 (the year I graduated from high school) was race relations.

That was almost 40 years ago, and I'm afraid the "law" hasn't solved much hate since then.

You graduated that year? That's cool About your last sentence, yeah I agree, I guess it does not change much..

 

[Foxrac]

If Bush vetoes the bill, it has nothing to do with having or not having a heart for anyone. It's just a bad bill.

Bad bill? Oh please, existing regular bill don't over transgenders and homosexual from prevent to get victim of hate crime, hate crime is big difference from regular crime like rape, murder, theft, assault and other, hate crime is include with harassment, verbal abuse, beat up (some are beat to die) and murder (If reason because victim is homosexual or transgenders). Police isn't care about them because it won't added on bill to tighten them up, same with FBI, they don't care about them, we need bill to pass to tighten up on hate crime, plus it's existing hate crime bill are enforced in some states.

I don't want be victim from beat up by redneck or people in southeast or nowhere of midwest, I don't want homosexual or transgenders to want be victim from hate crime, that breaks my heart. It's not okay for people that who yells against on homosexual, except they must do on their own in private area, not front of homosexual people, I don't want hear about what happen from homophobia, that's not accept in my life.

If you said bill is bad, it's your opinion, if passed and enforce then we will be great because it helps federal to get more expands on hate crime, even they cannot ignore to new bill or they can lose job, for police and FBI. This new bill isn't practicing to accept homosexual but rather to protect them from victim of hate crime, that will help the reduce on hate crime, if police in southeast usa and look at argue on between straight and gay people then they started hate crime against gay people and police don't care about them because they thought it's worthless due lacking of bill support, I don't want to be happen like that.

 

[Reba]

Bad bill? Oh please, existing regular bill don't over transgenders and homosexual from prevent to get victim of hate crime, hate crime is big difference from regular crime like rape, murder, theft, assault and other, hate crime is include with harassment, verbal abuse, beat up (some are beat to die) and murder (If reason because victim is homosexual or transgenders).

It's against the law to beat up or murder anyone, regardless of the reason.

Police isn't care about them because it won't added on bill to tighten them up, same with FBI, they don't care about them, we need bill to pass to tighten up on hate crime, plus it's existing hate crime bill are enforced in some states.

Tell me how this bill would cause the police to "care" any more than they did before.

I don't want be victim from beat up by redneck or people in southeast or nowhere of midwest...

Guess what? I don't want to be a victim of a beating by anyone at any time or any place.

Would you feel any better if you were beat up by a cultured person on the West Coast who "loved" you? :roll:

I don't want homosexual or transgenders to want be victim from hate crime, that breaks my heart.

Guess what? I don't want anyone to be a victim of violent crime.

If you said bill is bad, it's your opinion

OK.

if passed and enforce then we will be great because it helps federal to get more expands on hate crime, even they cannot ignore to new bill or they can lose job, for police and FBI. This new bill isn't practicing to accept homosexual but rather to protect them from victim of hate crime, that will help the reduce on hate crime, if police in southeast usa and look at argue on between straight and gay people then they started hate crime against gay people and police don't care about them because they thought it's worthless due lacking of bill support, I don't want to be happen like that.

And that's your opinion.

 

[Foxrac]

It's against the law to beat up or murder anyone, regardless of the reason.



Tell me how this bill would cause the police to "care" any more than they did before.



Guess what? I don't want to be a victim of a beating by anyone at any time or any place.

Would you feel any better if you were beat up by a cultured person on the West Coast who "loved" you? :roll:



Guess what? I don't want anyone to be a victim of violent crime.



OK.


And that's your opinion.

It's not included with transgenders and homosexual, this old bill is just applies for regular crime, even no reason to be because of race, sex oriention, religion, gender idenifty and disabilities. YOu had look that hate crime is rise in Seattle, that upeset Metroguy, where he was claimed in other thread, regular law isn't protect us so enough, need to be fixed but after can't work out in federal, more states are flavor to pass the hate crime bill in their state, separate from federal.

Homophobia and gay bashing are common in southeast and some part of midwest, even there's happen in west coast and northeast but not big as other area, I can't stand in stupid homophobia or gay bashing, I want to stop and respect people's personal and keep on our business, not others.

 

[MetroGuy03]

If Bush does veto it then he have no heart for Matthew Shepard too.

He has no heart for anyone. Over 700,000 people died because of him. Will it make any difference if anyone kidnaps his daughters and threaten him that they would hurt their daughters. I wonder if he would protect his daughters or not? If he does care, I would be in shock for sure. :roll:

If Bush vetoes the bill, it has nothing to do with having or not having a heart for anyone. It's just a bad bill.

What's wrong with you? Bad bill? You're gotta to be kidding me! I don't think you really understand what it is happening to GBLT community lately. :roll:

If that's what you believe, then how do you think a new law will be enforced any better than the current laws? The law might be new but the people in law enforcement and the courts will be the same people.

You really think that never happened like that before? New law will help reduce hate crimes against GBLT people.

I'm not saying that they didn't experience harrassment or attacks. What I'm saying is, a new law just for one group of people is not the right way to solve it.

All people should be protected equally, and punished equally, by the current laws. We should NOT have separate laws for each group of people.

That's what the government tried to do that in the very beginning. It failed. Why? People separated themselves into minorities and hate each other because they are different. Many people don't realize that they are all same people. That's why the government need to set up more and more laws to keep it under control. People will always be so stubborn and stuck with their own ways. Educated people like the government have to take care of dumb people. :roll:

If my friend gets beaten up by someone, I want that attacker's butt thrown in jail for a long time. Does it matter if my friend is gay, transgender, or straight? Does it matter if the attacker is gay, transgender, or straight? NO! My friend suffered pain, and the attacker needs to be punished. Period.

That is very easy of you to say that. Obvious, you still don't understand it at all.

 

[Foxrac]

Metroguy, that's true about alot of people died because of him, is it included with soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Last of post, you need fix the last quote, this quote on last of your post weren't mine, it was Reba's quote, plus it's alright, that's fine with me.

My strongest expected that Bush must sign on this bill, I will be very upset if he don't, plus can't wait til Jan 20, 2009 then he will be gone and I wish that more vote to support then would override the Bush's veto.

 

[Reba]

What's wrong with you? Bad bill? You're gotta to be kidding me! I don't think you really understand what it is happening to GBLT community lately. :roll:

You really think that never happened like that before? New law will help reduce hate crimes against GBLT people.

That's what the government tried to do that in the very beginning. It failed. Why? People separated themselves into minorities and hate each other because they are different. Many people don't realize that they are all same people. That's why the government need to set up more and more laws to keep it under control. People will always be so stubborn and stuck with their own ways. Educated people like the government have to take care of dumb people. :roll:

That is very easy of you to say that. Obvious, you still don't understand it at all.

Here's the deal. If this law passes, one year after it goes into effect, let's check back here and see if things really have changed as a result of its passing.

In the meantime, I will continue to support equal enforcement of our current laws against assault and murder for all people.

 

[Hwy99]

Bad bill? Oh please, existing regular bill don't over transgenders and homosexual from prevent to get victim of hate crime, hate crime is big difference from regular crime like rape, murder, theft, assault and other, hate crime is include with harassment, verbal abuse, beat up (some are beat to die) and murder (If reason because victim is homosexual or transgenders). Police isn't care about them because it won't added on bill to tighten them up, same with FBI, they don't care about them, we need bill to pass to tighten up on hate crime, plus it's existing hate crime bill are enforced in some states.

I don't want be victim from beat up by redneck or people in southeast or nowhere of midwest, I don't want homosexual or transgenders to want be victim from hate crime, that breaks my heart. It's not okay for people that who yells against on homosexual, except they must do on their own in private area, not front of homosexual people, I don't want hear about what happen from homophobia, that's not accept in my life.

If you said bill is bad, it's your opinion, if passed and enforce then we will be great because it helps federal to get more expands on hate crime, even they cannot ignore to new bill or they can lose job, for police and FBI. This new bill isn't practicing to accept homosexual but rather to protect them from victim of hate crime, that will help the reduce on hate crime, if police in southeast usa and look at argue on between straight and gay people then they started hate crime against gay people and police don't care about them because they thought it's worthless due lacking of bill support, I don't want to be happen like that.

Good post!

 

[InTheGenes]

Here's the deal. If this law passes, one year after it goes into effect, let's check back here and see if things really have changed as a result of its passing.

In the meantime, I will continue to support equal enforcement of our current laws against assault and murder for all people.

I've struggled with this one, I've got to tell you. In theory, I'm actually in agreement with you, Reba. If the laws that we had on the books already were enforced properly, then there might not be a need for this kind of legislation.

That said, we DO already have laws on the books right now that extend "special" protection for certain groups of people; typically people that are vulnerable in some capacity, or not able to adequately fend for themselves. Children are the example that immediately springs to mind. We have laws that protect children in a lot of different ways, whether it's Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor, child labor laws, truancy laws, curfew laws, etc. Yes, I know it's not QUITE the same thing, but the point I'm trying to make is that in our society, we've established a precedent that some groups are deserving of additional laws and protection... so this wouldn't QUITE be breaking the mold.

If society decides that we are well served by protecting those that are habitually victimized (and trust me, Reba... while it might not be something that you've ever had exposure to, but for a lot of folks out there - gays, blacks, jews, etc. - it's an all-too-real phenomenon, and for many, an ever-present threat), how can that be a bad thing?

I'll tell you what DOES bother me about it (and is part of the reason that I'm conflicted about it): it basically amounts to legislating thought, which is abhorrant to most democratic ideals. These laws, if enacted, are not going to keep people from being homophobic, they're not going to keep people from being bigots, racists, anti-semites, etc. It just might, however, serve as a deterrent against acting on those homophobic/racist/bigoted/anti-semitic thoughts, however. (I know, we disagree on this, you and I.)

It's not an easy thing to wrap one's brain around... and like I said, I've wrestled with the idea of hate crimes legislation, because I see both sides of the argument.

Attempting to draw a simple analogy: if someone spraypaints an image of a rabbit on my garage at Easter-time, it might piss me off, because it's damaged my property... and there are laws that could be used to prosecute the offender, even though the offense (to some) might seem relatively minor. If, however, that same person spraypainted "Get out of our town, you fucking FAGGOT!", or "All N****rs Must Die", or "Jews killed Christ, it's time for Payback!"... technically, the same physical act has taken place (the spraypainting and damage of property), but an entirely different element has entered into the picture: Hate. How is being hateful towards one another productive to society?

One last comment... just because you don't think that the law will make much difference (and again, Im know we disagree), doesn't necessarily make the best argument for why a law shouldn't be enacted. That's like a parent never setting boundaries with their recalcitrant teenagers, because they "know" that they'll be ignored. That, to me, is irresponsible thinking.

 

[Reba]

That said, we DO already have laws on the books right now that extend "special" protection for certain groups of people; typically people that are vulnerable in some capacity, or not able to adequately fend for themselves. Children are the example that immediately springs to mind. We have laws that protect children in a lot of different ways, whether it's Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor, child labor laws, truancy laws, curfew laws, etc. Yes, I know it's not QUITE the same thing, but the point I'm trying to make is that in our society, we've established a precedent that some groups are deserving of additional laws and protection... so this wouldn't QUITE be breaking the mold.

That's true that there are laws protecting the vulnerable members of our society. Like you stated, the reason is usually because they are unable either to physically defend themselves, or they are unable to make decisions for themselves. I don't think the sexual orientation category (as a whole) fits into those situations.

If society decides that we are well served by protecting those that are habitually victimized (and trust me, Reba... while it might not be something that you've ever had exposure to, but for a lot of folks out there - gays, blacks, jews, etc. - it's an all-too-real phenomenon, and for many, an ever-present threat), how can that be a bad thing?

I'm not against protecting victims. I just don't support this legislation as the way to do it.

I'll tell you what DOES bother me about it (and is part of the reason that I'm conflicted about it): it basically amounts to legislating thought, which is abhorrant to most democratic ideals.

Not just legislating thought, but judging it. A very mirky mire indeed.

Attempting to draw a simple analogy: if someone spraypaints an image of a rabbit on my garage at Easter-time, it might piss me off, because it's damaged my property... and there are laws that could be used to prosecute the offender, even though the offense (to some) might seem relatively minor. If, however, that same person spraypainted "Get out of our town, you fucking FAGGOT!", or "All N****rs Must Die", or "Jews killed Christ, it's time for Payback!"... technically, the same physical act has taken place (the spraypainting and damage of property), but an entirely different element has entered into the picture: Hate. How is being hateful towards one another productive to society?

Except for the rabbit example, all your other examples didn't just express the feeling of hate, they also threatened violent action. It's the threat of violence that should be prosecuted, not the name calling per se.

If someone just spray painted "Get out of town!" or "You must die" or "It's time for payback!" on your garage door, those phrases don't specify hate against any group but they are still threatening. It's the threat that needs to be prosecuted, not the "thoughts" or "emotions" behind them.

To me, here's the difference:

1. Spraying paint on my garage door with a nasty word or picture, or just a bunch of squiggles is vandalism.

2. Spraying paint on my garage door with a phrase "I hate Christian women!" That is a "hate" phrase but it's still just vandalism, under current laws. Why? Because it just expresses a thought and a feeling.

3. Spraying paint on my garage door that says "I love you--I will kill you, and release you from this awful world." Hmm. That phrase isn't hateful but it's a threat of murder. That's not just vandalism, that's a threat of physical harm. As a threat it might be prosecutable; as a potential "hate" crime it doesn't meet the criteria. Hate crime laws would NOT apply. Yet, the threat is there.

One last comment... just because you don't think that the law will make much difference (and again, Im know we disagree), doesn't necessarily make the best argument for why a law shouldn't be enacted. That's like a parent never setting boundaries with their recalcitrant teenagers, because they "know" that they'll be ignored. That, to me, is irresponsible thinking.

I think the law is redundant (we have laws against violent attacks), and too hazy (judging hearts and minds instead of actions).

 

[MetroGuy03]

Metroguy, that's true about alot of people died because of him, is it included with soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Last time I read that said Iraq alone. It didn't count Afghanistan. That is really good question. If that included that, I would estimate nearby one million people died by George W. Bush. I don't like this.

Last of post, you need fix the last quote, this quote on last of your post weren't mine, it was Reba's quote, plus it's alright, that's fine with me.

Oops! My mistake! Sorry about that.

My strongest expected that Bush must sign on this bill, I will be very upset if he don't, plus can't wait til Jan 20, 2009 then he will be gone and I wish that more vote to support then would override the Bush's veto.

I completely agree with you!

Here's the deal. If this law passes, one year after it goes into effect, let's check back here and see if things really have changed as a result of its passing.

In the meantime, I will continue to support equal enforcement of our current laws against assault and murder for all people.

Deal. We will see how it will turn out.

 

[Hwy99]

While I research around the Human Rights Campaign, it appears that they are planning even more.

Mission Statement

The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against GLBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

HRC seeks to improve the lives of GLBT Americans by advocating for equal rights and benefits in the workplace, ensuring families are treated equally under the law and increasing public support among all Americans through innovative advocacy, education and outreach programs. HRC works to secure equal rights for GLBT individuals and families at the federal and state levels by lobbying elected officials, mobilizing grassroots supporters, educating Americans, investing strategically to elect fair-minded officials and partnering with other GLBT organizations.

HRC | Mission Statement

So yes, it include the discrimination in workplaces. Also the education part really excited me because that could reduce the hate crime for the students before they graduated, just like they educated about the race. There are very few people that are victim of racist because of the school education, that can happen to the GLBT too.

Educational Outreach

Through research, educational efforts and outreach, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation encourages gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans to live their lives openly and seeks to change the hearts and minds of Americans to the side of equality.

The HRC Foundation is a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization. Programs funded in part or in full through the HRC Foundation include:

The HRC Coming Out Project, which encourages GLBT and straight-supportive Americans to come out and live openly by providing resources that empower them to talk about their lives and advocate for GLBT equality.
The HRC Family Project, which empowers members of the GLBT community to take action to protect their families, improves the practices within key institutions that serve GLBT families and promotes visibility of GLBT families.
The HRC Historically Black Colleges and Universities Outreach Program, which trains student activists to sustain dialogue, build viable student-led GLBT organizations and open campus-wide debate on the issues that affect the GLBT community, often for the first time.
The HRC Religion and Faith Program, which amplifies the voices of clergy who support GLBT equality while also equipping and empowering people of faith to talk about GLBT issues from a religious perspective.
The HRC Research Center, which serves as a comprehensive and authoritative source of research on GLBT issues for members of the media, lawmakers, pro-equality advocates and other thought leaders.
The HRC Workplace Project, which promotes equality in the workplace by advocating for policies that prohibit discrimination against GLBT workers, provide employees with equal benefits and diversity training and encourage appropriate marketing.

HRC | Educational Outreach

And some of their lastest news.

HRC Launches Full-Scale Nationwide Call to Action in Support of Inclusive ENDA

10/3/2007

WASHINGTON – Today, the Human Rights Campaign launched a nationwide call to action to the organization’s 700,000 members and supporters to begin an immediate campaign to urge their Members of Congress to support ENDA legislation the protects the entire GLBT organization. To view the Call to Action from Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese and to take immediate action online, please go to: Take Action: Equal Opportunity...unless you're GLBT

In addition to the written Call to Action, HRC President Joe Solmonese taped the following video message personally asking each of our members and supporters to have their voices heard on Capitol Hill in support of a fully inclusive ENDA bill. To view the video, go to: HRC | Home

Solmonese’s Call to Action is below:

"Late last week, House leaders announced their decision to change the language of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) so that it only includes sexual orientation and not gender identity. These House leaders have said that they do not have enough votes to move forward with the original fully-inclusive bill.

We are profoundly disappointed by this move, and I want to explain our position and ask you to write your congress member today.

Tell your representative we need an employment discrimination law that includes the entire GLBT community.

Since 2004, the Human Rights Campaign’s policy has been to only support civil rights legislation that is inclusive of gender identity - a policy that was reaffirmed by our Board of Directors in a vote on Monday night.

That’s why we fought tirelessly for - and won - Congressional approval for a hate crimes bill that includes gender identity, and have been working for years to pass an inclusive employment discrimination bill.

This year we ramped up our lobby presence on the Hill, helped coordinate broad coalition efforts, and deployed our field team to more than 40 key congressional districts to mobilize unprecedented support for an inclusive ENDA. We secured the active support of corporate America, with more than 50 major companies joining our Business Coalition for Workplace Fairness. Our Religion and Faith Program was instrumental as well, giving voice to thousands of faith leaders across the country. We secured supportive editorials from a record number of newspapers, and with your help we generated hundreds of thousands of constituent contacts to members of Congress, through emails, phone calls, postcards, and thousands of hand-written letters.

However, we’re facing a stark reality. The House leadership and bill sponsors are moving forward with a non-inclusive ENDA - even without the full support of our community. They view this as the best opportunity this year to get a successful vote on legislation extending protections to the largest number of people.

I want you to know we made every possible effort to avoid having a non-inclusive bill introduced and we did succeed in helping convince Congressional leaders to delay action on the new bill until later this month.

We now have a window of opportunity to try and line up the votes we need to pass a fully-inclusive ENDA.

We’ve delivered HRC’s message to Congress, but I’m asking you today to send your own message. Your Representative must understand that supporters of equality will not rest until rights are extended to everyone in the GLBT community.

Tell your Representative you stand behind legislation that will provide the same protections to all GLBT people.

This has been a long battle. HRC first started the quest for ENDA in 1994. We’ve been pushing for an inclusive bill since 2004. This month, ENDA could pass the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in history.

I implore you to take action today and to forward this message to your family and friends. Working together, I am confident we can pass historic civil rights legislation."

The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against GLBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

HRC | HRC Launches Full-Scale Nationwide Call to Action in Support of Inclusive ENDA

Human Rights Campaign Board of Directors Vote to Reaffirm 2004 Policy on ENDA

10/2/2007

WASHINGTON - Last night, the Human Rights Campaign’s Board of Directors voted to reaffirm the 2004 policy supporting a fully inclusive version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Therefore, HRC will not support the newly introduced sexual orientation only bill. The board’s position articulates a process for continued dialogue with House leaders about strategies that have been put forth to, in the end, achieve passage of a fully inclusive ENDA.

"We are now faced with definitive Congressional action to move forward a version of the bill stripping gender identity. Though we support a fully inclusive ENDA, we acknowledge the legislative strategy put forth by Congressman Frank and the Democratic leadership to obtain a clear path towards an inclusive bill in the future," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "We look forward to working with them to accomplish the goal all of us share - ending workplace discrimination against the entire GLBT community."

"Since 2004, HRC has had in place a policy that supports only a fully inclusive version of ENDA and the Board of Directors voted to reaffirm that position," Solmonese continued. "Therefore, we are not able to support, nor will we encourage Members of Congress to vote against, the newly introduced sexual orientation only bill. And will continue working with our allies in Congress to support a comprehensive, legislative strategy to achieve passage of a fully inclusive ENDA as quickly as possible."

The Human Rights Campaign has been and continues to be on the front lines actively and exhaustively advocating for an inclusive piece of legislation that protects all members of our community. HRC has led the charge on Capitol Hill for an inclusive bill and has focused grassroots organizing in 40 congressional districts across the country targeting moderate Members of Congress to educate them on the need for a bill protecting the entire GLBT community.

"For more than a decade HRC has been aggressively working to secure employment protections for the entire gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. Even in the dark days of anti-gay leadership in Congress, we moved Corporate America forward because we refused to accept that progress wasn’t possible. And today, we again reject the notion that progress isn’t possible by rededicating our efforts to specifically educate members of Congress on the need for gender identity protections in the workplace," said Solmonese.

"Some may say we should have joined the growing chorus of public dissenters earlier. We believed, and still do, that the correct course of action was to continue dialogue with our allies on the Hill and work to the last minute to effect change," said Solmonese. "That decision, in addition to yesterday’s letter signed by GLBT and civil rights organizations, paid off when we were able to engage in direct conversations that resulted in a guarantee from House leadership to postpone the mark-up until later this month."

The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against GLBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

-30-

HRC | Human Rights Campaign Board of Directors Vote to Reaffirm 2004 Policy on ENDA