President Bush to veto gay hate crimes bill

So much to say about this, just no time now.   But first:

CWA President Wendy Wright cites the case of Mary Stachowicz who was killed by a gay man.  From the 365.com article:

“Stachowicz was murdered on November 13, 2002 by her coworker Nicholas Gutierrez. Gutierrez claimed that Stachowicz continually harassed him on the job about being gay and attempted to convert him to Christianity.

On the day of the murder she allegedly asked him "Why do you have sex with boys instead of girls?" He flew into a rage and beat, stabbed and strangled her.”

His mistake was in stabbing and strangling her, when clearly he should’ve bludgeoned her with her bible.

The term “homosexual lifestyle” could make me beat someone with a bible.

HRC just announced on their website that the bill just passed in the House by a vote of 237-180.  They need an additional $25,000 to fund targeted advertising and to get their message to the senators, who take it up next.   The evangelical lobby will be stepping up pressure now that the bill has passed, so everyone's help is needed.  Don't give up now.  If it passes in both places by a wide enough margin, we could be able to override any presidential veto.  If you want to help financially, you can donate through the HRC's secure server ($5 minimum donation).  If you are unable or unwilling to donate, call your senator via the Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 and let the staffer who answers know how strongly you feel about this legislation.  Also call your representative to thank him/her if they voted yes, or if s/he did not, inform them of the reasons a yes vote is the right vote.

"Brains grow love."--H. H. the Dalai Lama

Being English (and admittedly my country is FAR from perfect) i am at a loss to understand the Bush Administration's justification of their, what seems to be, dismissal of gay rights.

I study philosophy and ethics at school and when we do prej. & discrimination the whole class cannot understand why some americans can hold the opinions they do whilst claiming to be righteous, compassionate under their religion, or indeed be in positions of power.

Whilst i can understand the Church's position against 'marriage' i can see no legal justification why gay couples cannot 'marry' in the eyes of the law to have the protection, rights and tax breaks , etc etc that any commited heterosexual couple can. Surely not allowing this is a breach of human rights.

And the thought of a law such as what you guys are discussing (although being english i dont know more about it than what ive read in this thread) being veto'd by the president is appalling. (though not shocking, as its Bush after all).

England might not be perfect but some days i feel proud to be british.

xxx

~I've been watching your world from afar, I've been trying to be where you are, I've been secretly falling apart...~

totally agree with BrownEyedGirl im also English and i just don't get it. Admittedly im not exactly into politics but im pretty sure that if the prime minister tried to do something like this in britain there would be an uproar, no one would allow it.

im not sure what type of christian Bush is, but i have a close friend who is evangelical christian with whom i have had many debates over sexuality and i no that theres no way of reasoning with him. "Gay is wrong end of" according to his faith

definetly proud to be british  

www.myspace.com/jo_16_

Yeah, i agree. There's no way Blair could ever get away with being so blatantly homophobic in terms of policy. I think it took the government long enough to change the law on civil partenerships as it is.

And as much as i think religion is a very tender issue in the UK these days with the percieved decling numbers of christians, i am so glad i dont believe in a deeply christian country/area like the US. Please correct me if my perceptions are wrong but it seems to me like a somewhat fundamental view of christian values are so deeply ingrained in the US legal system and government policy, often at the expense of Gay rights, and individual freedom of expression.

But i dont know, what is it like to live in the US, is my perception warped by the British stereotype of Christian America?

~I've been watching your world from afar, I've been trying to be where you are, I've been secretly falling apart...~

Matt Barber’s quote is just one part of the misinformation campaign being waged by the religious right around this.  In trying to mobilize support, they’ve completely misrepresented what this bill is.  One of the ways they’re trying to do that is by screaming that it’s some sort of free speech infringement or crackdown on religious beliefs.

From 365Gay.com article, the American Family Association is claiming that:

"The Hate Crimes Act criminalizes a vast array of state and local acts and threatens religious leaders with criminal prosecution for their thoughts, beliefs, and statements," AFA claims - something supporters of the bill and LGBT civil rights groups dispute.”

This is just a blatant lie.  This Hate Crime bill is not a new bill – all it would do is ADD LGBTs to an existing federal bill that already protects minorities from certain types of crimes, emphasis on “certain” – the crime has to be one that was committed while attempting to stop someone (based on their race, color, religion, or ethnicity) from exercising their federally protected rights (like voting or going to school).   And that’s it.  Period.  Nothing about free speech, religion or anything like that. 

I think it’s gonna come down to whether Congress can muster the 2/3 they need to override the veto (assuming it passes in the Senate, which I think it will, and assuming Bush vetoes, which I think he will).  I hate to sound the pessimist, but I don’t have a lot of faith in Congress.  I hope I’m wrong.

But that won’t stop me from trying, and Ysubassoon is right: contacting your senators (and reps even tho they just voted) is the best chance to get that 2/3 vote.  Absolutely keep the pressure on them.  I often email AND fax my senators and reps - to both their D.C. and home offices.  The religious right is way organized on this, so if there’s any chance of passing this bill, there has to be equal pressure from us.

I saw this on the HRC website but don’t know if these stats are accurate (couldn’t find it on Hart’s website):

“Americans overwhelmingly support the expansion of the hate crimes law. According to a new poll conducted by Hart Research, large majorities of every major subgroup of the electorate — including such traditionally conservative groups as Republican men (56 percent) and evangelical Christians (63 percent) — express support for strengthening hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Support also crosses racial lines — with three in four whites (74 percent), African-Americans (74 percent) and Latino/as (72 percent) supporting the act.”

If this is true, I’m astounded to see that 56% of republican men support it, but even more shocked that 63% of evangelical Christians do (which would lends credence to the idea that it’s a relatively small handful of politically connected people/groups like FoF, AFA, and CWA pushing to kill the bill).  BUT – I’d like to see the survey methodology, including the total # of people surveyed.

If anyone has a link at their fingertips of how individual Senators are leaning at the moment, I’d be grateful if you posted the link or PMed it to me.  I just don’t have the time to research it myself right now.

I apologize, sincerely, if anyone respects and admires this hateful man. But I would love to stand in front of him and after he is finished rambling on about something that is for the good of our nation, veto him and tell him to come back with a revised statement. Bush has been the greatest divider in our nation's history. How I long for the days when an intern scandal is the biggest story on the news. (Don't get me wrong we all know Clinton and the details of the affairs, yadda, yadda).

First, yes I'm straight, and no definatly not religious(atheist in fact), and I completly support gay rights.

None of the above precludes my belief in equal representation. This is whats wrong with your arguments. These additional funds are to investigate what mental state of intent a criminal is in when he/she commits crime(murder is murder doesn't matter if they hate a protected class or are just crazy). The laws we have are designed to prosecute anyone who commits a crime against anyone else. It's not the exclusion of gays and disabled persons to the hate crimes act that I disagree with. It's the hate crimes act passed after the assasination of MLK jr. that is unneccessary. The fact that you all are incensed Bush will veto this ignores the fact it is unneccessary legislation. Unneccessary because we allready have laws protecting citizens and specifically protecting gays (and in this case disabled persons also) will widen the gap between gays and straight that some bigots can't seem to get over. I can hear it now in the sports bars etc. 'Yeah now they have their own laws why does someone who kills them get 15 years with a hate crime attached to the sentance but someone who kills my sister get 10 just because she was straight." This only fuels homophobes and polarizes people in the middle. Think about this one again and decide where you stand. Think of it pragmatically not fuelled by bias or contempt for 'Bush' alone (because it wasn't him who decided to make this satement browneyed is probably right a constituency of The cristian coalition encouraged it) think of it in the more inclusive way gay rights should be treated which is equal in all facets of society.

Don't hate me cause' I'm different.

This type of legislation has all ready been passed on the State and Local level. Some examples of the enforcement of these laws are:

"In Philadelphia, a grandmother was hauled to jail and threatened with 47 years in prison for proclaiming her Christianity on a public street,

One Philadelphia woman, Arlene Elshinnawy, 75, and grandmother of three, was holding a sign: "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth," before she was hauled off by police officers."

"...in New Hampshire, a crime that typically carries a sentence of 3 1/2 years was "enhanced" to 30 years because a robber shouted an anti-homosexual name at his victim."

While I am not against all hate crime bills I believe that the wording of HR 1592 will ultimately be deemed unconstitutional in that it violates freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. This bill would allow preachers and others speaking their faith or beliefs on the pulpit, or soap box, to be jailed for having words to say against homosexuals. Not for committing assaulting them, murdering them, or anything along those lines but for having opinions against them. The 14th Amendment gives equal protection under the law to all citizens regardless of race, national origin, or sexual orientation and there is no sign that homosexuals do not get equal treatment under the law. This bill would lift them to a special status under the law above that of those who are straight. Should the fact that you beat someone who was gay make it more terrible of the crime? Would those in favor of this bill be in favor of legislation that added on to those who assault those who are straight or for those speaking against being straight?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

"In Philadelphia, a grandmother was hauled to jail and threatened with 47 years in prison for proclaiming her Christianity on a public street,

One Philadelphia woman, Arlene Elshinnawy, 75, and grandmother of three, was holding a sign: "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth," before she was hauled off by police officers."

"...in New Hampshire, a crime that typically carries a sentence of 3 1/2 years was "enhanced" to 30 years because a robber shouted an anti-homosexual name at his victim."

Sorry, but I simply don't believe this. Ann Coulter called John Edwards an "anti-homosexual name" (faggot) at the conservative party conference - on television - and no-one "hauled her off" to jail. No-one in the room even criticised her.

The word faggot is used at all levels of American life, from on the street, to conservative radio shows, to mainstream comedy shows, to Isaiah Washington talking to T. R. Knight, to rap music, to right-wing political pundits. I have never heard of anyone being sent to jail for using it.

This sounds like some nonsense made up by Focus on the Family or some similar organisation, in order to try and convince people that they are victims instead of the persecutors they are.

"Unnecessary" legislation is passed all of the time in this country. There are books and books of stupid and unnecessary laws that exist in this nation. The problem is, unnecessary or not, Bush is vetoing it because he is a bully and because he can. As far as censorship and the First Amendment goes, I don't think anyone wants to lock people up for life for calling someone a "faggot." It's when someone decides to end someone's life or seriously injure them on the basis of sexual orientation (or race or religion or ethnicity) that it becomes a hate crime. To me, it's about motive, not speech. When someone is so resentful and hate-filled that they would rather take a life than tolerate a different way of living, hell yeah, that person should never see daylight again.

I Googled the woman named above (Arlene Elshinnawy) and the only references I could find were found on Christian websites.  Taking this as absolute truth would be like getting facts on abortion from Pro-Life sites.

The woman was probably arrested, but not just for carrying a sign that had an anti-homosexual message -- That would be in direct violation of the First Amendment.  More then likely she refused to move or follow police direction and the religious right is milking it as a violation of civil liberties.

I am aware of european laws, being european, but I meant to ask of any american reading this thread whether I remember it correctly it being in the us constitution or declaration of independence or something like that, this particular statement of "equal before the law"?

Yes there are these laws in europe but most european countries, as far as I know, don't have such a clearcut constitution as the US! Like for instance in holland in our constitution it is often added the phrase "unless the government deems otherwise".

And just for good order I am indeed against such laws in general but considering why, I am definitely for, since the law already exist, including everybody in it.

That was exactly the information I was looking for.

All things considered the initial confusion is understandable,:) no problem and thank you for the extensive answer!

It's not really about law, or anyone's rights.  Marshall McLuhan's "medium is the message" might apply.  Such a stance simply sends a message- and this one mostly to the right-wing who are most likely to hear it: It's okay to violate rights and law and order, apparently because this is already an issue that the right wing has targeted. This is their way of doing business, and removing everyone else from the process.  They just need debate, and the issue, and then their zealots and corporate media machine will stir up the negative public sentiments.

 They care little that gay people will hear of it and take offense.  Their hope is that we will simply be intimidated.  This is straight up intimidation in the time-worn bullying tradition.  If the law were passed now, it would have little effect, because the right wingers who dominate the legal professions would simply go their own route anyway.  It stinks, and I have no real solutions-  except to just keep dialoguing back wherever possible-   They do indeed still seem to fear open dialogue, as indicated by their insatiable desire to constantly control it-  and all the other images and words that come through the media.

WHAM! George "Michaels"

Here's some of that "character" the Repetitives" are always claiming they have and their opponents don't-  From a Yale yearbook, and the LA Times

beat up

This is me after being assaulted by a groundskeeper after riding my bike down a pathway on an empty golf couse in Ventura CA, shortly before the LA Rodney King riots in 1993.  X=rays failed to show the broken jaw that was never set and still gives me migraine headaches.  From his insults beforehand, I believe it was a classic hate crime, even before that concept came about. 

In what I believe is a brilliant move, the Senate attached the Matthew Shephard Act to the Defense Spending Authorization bill that includes a pay raise for the military. That makes it much harder for W to veto. We'll see what happens now.  We have enough votes in the Senate to override a veto if he does. 

"Brains grow love."--H. H. the Dalai Lama

http://blog.myspace.com/ysubassoon

I think that hate crime laws are stupid and immoral and all of them should be resoundingly rejected.

What, in reality, will a "hate crimes" law add? Despite its name, it is not "hatred" as such that the proposed law targets. After all, which crimes aren't motivated by hatred? Are assaults and murders usually committed out of benevolence toward the victim? The real target is the criminal's ideas. The proposed law declares that criminals motivated by a government-designated set of intolerable ideas - racism, sexism, religious sectarianism, anti-homosexuality - deserve special prosecution and additional punishment.

But to subject someone to trial and punishment on the basis of his ideas constitutes a politicization of criminal law. Why should a racist be prosecuted for the special crime of targeting blacks, while the Unabomber is not subject to special prosecution for his hatred of scientists and business executives? The only answer is that the Unabomber's ideas are considered more "politically correct" than the racist's.

A "hate crimes" law would expand the law's concern from criminal action to "criminal thought." It would institute the premise that the purpose of our legal system is not to defend the rights of the victim, but to punish socially unacceptable ideas. This is a premise that should be abhorrent to a free society.

Also, if committing a crime based on bad ideas warrants greater punishment, then committing a crime based on "politically correct" ideas should warrant lesser punishment. The judicial process would have to focus on the criminal's ideology, rather than on the objective violation of his victim's rights.

Where will this end? If a man convicted of an actual criminal act can be sentenced to additional years in prison simply for his ideas, then, in logic, why can't someone be punished solely for his ideas? Even if he has not committed a single action against another person, why can't he be tried simply for being a "purveyor of hate"? Indeed, this development is already foreshadowed by campus "speech codes," which bar statements deemed "offensive" to protected groups and is also a not uncommon occurrence in European countries such as the UK and Sweden which have these kind of ridiculous laws in place.

__________________

"The world will not greet you with open arms, but with a clenched fist."