Help pass hate crimes legislation once and for all.

[poolerboy0077]

"- ruling on the fact one has motivation and the other doesnt is not the same as saying some motivations are worse than others (which is what you are doing)"

You seem to be confused about the law of homicide. Voluntary manslaughter is not "lacking in motivations." Have you seriously never heard of "heat of passion" manslaughter? They're both intentional crimes with motives present, albeit different motives.

[types10000]

@poolerboy0077

"You seem to be confused about the law of homicide. Voluntary manslaughter is not lacking in motivations."

the dictionary begs to differ:

"Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender had NO PRIOR INTENT to kill and acted during the heat of passion"

"They're both intentional crimes with motives present, albeit different motives."

-are you seriously trying to claim that 'motivation' based on a whim is the same as motivation based on prior intent

[poolerboy0077]

@types10000 "the dictionary begs to differ"

That definition you cite, which is from Wikipedia, never denies intent present; look under where it says "state of mind." The keywork in your definition is "prior" intent, which is obvious since it's based on a heat of passion. To make matters worse, you still have 2nd (and in some states 3rd) degree murders. Punishments differ here and the end result of the crimes are the same: the people are killed. Your beef is with criminal law, not only hate crime

[types10000]

@poolerboy0077

it appears your intent on denegrating the word 'motivation' as much as you are the word terrorist.

In this is the case then my response is as follows:

There is no crime called 'motivation to commit murder'

and each of those crimes (whilst involving motivation) reflect specific OBJECTIVE differences with regard to timing and mental state UNLIKE your claims regaridng hate crimes.

instead of arguing semantics, I choose to debunk your argument by demonstrating it isnt analogous

[poolerboy0077]

@types10000 "There is no crime called 'motivation to commit murder"

Right, because it's a criminal *element*. Intent is a criminal element (meaning by itself is not a crime). Motive (which is different from intent under the law) is an element. Actus reus is an element. Causation is an element. Bias is not being criminalized. It's simply an element to put more weight on elevation in a punishment already underway.

[poolerboy0077]

"UNLIKE your claims regaridng hate crimes."

Not at all. In fact, just sticking to 1st degree murders alone, there is a reason why some who commit it get the death penalty and others do not. They rest on the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors. These factors are ordinarily carried out by the judiciary and in bias motive crimes they are taken to the legislature and made into statute.

[poolerboy0077]

@poolerboy0077 And yet again, we go back to my initial post which addressed the constitutionality of it all, which has nothing to do with the points you're raising. This is argument is stale.

[types10000]

@types10000

if your having difficulty wrapping your head around my hypothetical because it involves the rich, then feel free to substitute in an arbitrary occupation like computer programming instead.

[types10000]

@poolerboy0077

"Not at all. In fact, just sticking to 1st degree murders alone, there is a reason why some who commit it get the death penalty and others do not. They rest on the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors"

- the difference is that these factors objectively exist, unlike your claims regard hate crimes where factors are solely based on the subjective inference of those who hear about the crime.

there is no comparison.

[poolerboy0077]

@types10000 "the difference is that these factors objectively exist"

Oh the fact that factors objectively exist was never the dispute. It is an entirely subject process; we have lenient, compassionate judges and we also have hanging judges. Discretion to be compassionate or harsh is inherent in the sentencing scheme, and being denied compassion is one of the risks that the offender knowingly assumes.

[poolerboy0077]

"if that's true then provide these 'facts'"

I did provide them. I cited the case and directed you to its amici. I have no obligation to do your homework. Would you say it's a "logical fallacy" for thesis papers to only direct you to sources but not provide the text of those sources? Of course not.

[types10000]

@poolerboy0077

"I did provide them"

- if you cant provide them then you cannot backup your claim.

"I cited the case and directed you to its amici"

- this is not a valid form of argument. you are appealing to the authority of that case (logical fallacy) and asserting that the facts are present in it without actually being able to provide them.

"I have no obligation to do your homework"

-you do however have an obligation to provide evidence for your claim, which is what your failing to do

[poolerboy0077]

@types10000 "-you do however have an obligation to provide evidence for your claim, which is what your failing to do"

It's preposterous to post the amici in a small character box on here. But the point is irrelevant to my initial claim. Whether or not you think it's a sensible law is irrelevant to its constitutionality. Moreover I cited the amici not as my foundation but merely as support. I don't have to prove that they're different because it is axiomatic.

[types10000]

@poolerboy0077

"It's preposterous to post the amici in a small character box on here"

- you claimed the facts were in there, whilst you dont need to post the entire amici you do need to provide the facts.

so far all you've done is demonstrate there is a legal president, this does not address any of my claims which object to the law based on constitutional and logical arguments.

simply pointing to amici is not an argument.

[types10000]

@poolerboy0077

"Would you say it's a logical fallacy for thesis papers to only direct you to sources but not provide the text of those sources? Of course not."

- in a thesis paper a claim is being made and the burden of proof is on the examiner to investigate and disprove it.

- in this discussion the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claims. simply saying something is a source and saying 'the evidence is in there' doesnt cut it.

do you understand the difference yet?

[StoogeWatcher]

Why is there Jesse Dirkhising or Jeffrey CUrley Act? Why is there no "hate crime" bill named after Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom?

[antonkhuu]

you REALLY should check on wikipedia .

[antonkhuu]

if you consider every1 equal , theres nothin 2 fear at all .

its just as simple as that !

[RiveraMichaelAnthony]

Hate crime laws are quite unconstitutional. To say that a person's punishment can be fluctuated based on the criminal's personal beliefs and expression of those beliefs is to say that expression itself is an amplifier of the crime's illegality, and therefore punishable. The expressed beliefs of someone should not be punished or used as a basis for determining someone's punishment, as it is protected by the first amendment. The punishment for the crime itself as is must suffice.

[WerewolfOfTheWater]

That's a good idealized perspective, but unfortunately not reality. Certain people are targeted more than others and the problem needs to be dealt with

[RiveraMichaelAnthony]

It's not about idealism, it's about the law.

[poolerboy0077]

"Hate crime laws are quite unconstitutional."

Incorrect. See Wisconsin v. Mitchell. 'In determining what sentence to impose, sentencing judges have traditionally considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt, including a defendant's motive for committing the offense...the Constitution does not erect a per se barrier to the admission of evidence concerning one's beliefs and associations at sentencing simply because they are protected by the First Amendment.'

[types10000]

@poolerboy0077

"In determining what sentence to impose, sentencing judges have traditionally considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt"

Approach it from a logical perspective.

- The punishment must fit the crime

- Why does the nature of the crime change because of the motive?

- How does a violent crime motivated by the fact the victim is gay differ from a crime motivated because the victim is rich?

[poolerboy0077]

@types10000 They're worse than crimes with ordinary motives because the impact is felt far beyond the actual victims of the crimes themselves. They're acts of terrorism directed at certain victimized groups. By design they're felt by entire communities who get a message that they are in danger merely by virtue of their existence. When Jon kills someone to steal his money, no special message gets sent or is received by anyone; anyone can be a victim of a greed-motivated crime at any time.

[types10000]

@poolerboy0077

"They're worse than crimes with ordinary motives because the impact is felt far beyond the actual victims"

- that's pure inference and could be said of any crime.

"They're acts of terrorism"

- again, if your going to denigrate the word terrorist to fit this then it could apply to almost any other crime as well.

[types10000]

@poolerboy0077

"When Jon kills someone to steal his money, no special message gets sent or is received by anyone"

- that is your opinion. you have failed to identify any objective basis for crimes against the rich (because they are rich) not being hate crimes but crimes against gays (because they are gays) being hate crimes. if your entire claim is the 'feelings of those who hear about it' then why should that affect the punishment?

[poolerboy0077]

@types10000 "that is your opinion"

That was deduced from the facts in the State's amic from Wisconsin v. Mitchell.

.

"you have failed to identify any objective basis for crimes against the rich"

I don't have to. You're getting too caught up with the title of the law rather than what it sets out to do, which is respond to disproportionate attacks on historically attacked groups for their identity. But all this is irrelevant to constitutionality which was the point of my initial post.

[types10000]

@poolerboy0077

"That was deduced from the facts in the State's amic from Wisconsin v. Mitchell."

- if that's true then provide these 'facts', simply stating they exist doesnt help you. you just made an appeal to authority (logical fallacy).

"I don't have to" - if you are unable to provide any logical basis for determining how a crime committed against one group on the motivation that they belong to that group is a hate crime in one instance but not another then you have no argument

[types10000]

@poolerboy0077

"You're getting too caught up with the title of the law rather than what it sets out to do, which is respond to disproportionate attacks on..."

- Last time i checked 'all people were equal in the eyes of the law' and 'the punishment must fit the crime'

- if you cant answer my hypothetical regarding the rich then your defending the position of it being a worse offensive to target one group OVER another but not having an objective basis for why this is the case.

[poolerboy0077]

@types10000 "Last time i checked 'all people were equal in the eyes of the law"

What's that got to do with anything? All victims of bias crimes are protected. The law doesn't say that one race, or gender, or disability, or particular age is selected preferentially over others. These are facially neutral statutes. Most laws work this way. Take the law of homicide and ask yourself why 1st degree murder and voluntary manslaughter get different punishments even though both victims had the same fate

[types10000]

@poolerboy0077

"What's that got to do with anything?"

- my comment consisted of two paragraphs, read the second.

"All victims of bias crimes are protected" - how this possible when the only basis for determining them as being bias is subjective opinion?

"why 1st degree murder and voluntary manslaughter get different punishments..."

- ruling on the fact one has motivation and the other doesnt is not the same as saying some motivations are worse than others (which is what you are doing)

[JoeyBoya]

ROCK ON EVERYONE! Welcome to a free'er america one that values its neighbors and respects its differences!

[feeknocks]

Yeah, lets throw people in jail because of their intentions, not their acts. This is fucking brilliant legislation.

I think that if a white person kills a black person for jolly ranchers, the whitey should get off with a slap on the wrist, but if he killed the blacky because of his darker pigmentation, well, golly, I'd have to recommend that poison be shot up his arm.

guffaw!!!!!

[haha169]

They already have hate crimes laws. This merely expands it. If you have something against hate crime laws, then target the entire law, not just the one to add gender, sexual orientation, transgender, and disabilities on the existing list.

But I think it works fine - most states already have such laws in place.

[feeknocks]

obviously

[boanerges144]

What kind of stupid crap is this??? it is already against the law to kill someone but now gays will have there own law how stupid is that, This is going favor gay people above everyone else, a hate crime can manifest itself in many ways, and now gays will have special favor above everyone else, I used to think gays were ok but now they are fucking stupid dick eating carpet munching assholes. Oh excuse me is that a hate crime? dam pussies, crying to uncle sam for help, pathetic.

[FreudianSlip75]

Getting government protection from LGBT hate crime is not 'special favor', it's basic human right to equal treatment. The United States government grants rights protecting minorities from intolerant idiots like yourself, and last time I checked, the LGBT populous IS a minority. Would you just as quickly speak out against African-American hate crime laws, or laws punishing gender-based assault? Honestly, your intolerance is an embarrassment to every American human in this country. Grow up, kid.

[boanerges144]

Your as stupid as your deathstyle, It will favor gays. How dare you even mention yourself in the same breath with the black struggle. Race is natural. Your diseased depraved mind/deathstyle is not. My intolerance is toward trying to get everyone to believe that gay is an alternative way that is acceptable. everybone in my body recoils at the thought of ever having sex with the same gender but your trying to tell me I am wrong!!! Your the sick bastard. By the way I am black. U dick eatin chump!

[FreudianSlip75]

Can you truly be so depraved as to think that being gay is a choice? An anti-gay hate crime law will not favor gays any more than an anti-black hate crime law does african-americans. No matter sexual orientation, race, or gender, human beings deserve protection from bigots such as yourself. Honestly, I do not care how YOU feel about having sex with another man, because this doesn't concern your rights. It concerns mine. And I know better than some self-righteous bigot what those should be.

[FreudianSlip75]

I am gay, and I would MUCH prefer to be gay and hated than to be stupid and close-minded like you make yourself out to be. Dear God...calling people names, stereotyping...you're no better than the people who oppressed your race in the past. No better than an upset child, for that matter.

[straightarrow50]

Homosexuals are closed minded bigots that want special rights and special protections. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, therefore everyone who commits a crime is punished according to the law. The law is not here to give special protection to people based on their desire to pervert themselves.

[haha169]

The constitution provides minorities with 'special rights'. Last time I checked, gays and lesbians are minorities - along with transgendered and those with disabilities. They're all minorities and in this bill to EXTEND the existing law that includes race

[Craighill9]

cite the ammendment. This bill grants special rights that are not in the constitution.

[gingermax]

The first amendment is a God given and unalienable right. It was so important that it was the 1st amendment. Congress, Obama or the Zionist Media can not touch our free speech. It is out of their reach and untouchable. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the Bill of Rights is the Law of the Land and takes precedence over everything else. The Zionists should be more concerned with their own record of hate and apartheid in Palestine where they have murdered thousands because of race.

[Wolfbloodvamps171]

The Matthew Shepard Act isn't trying to touch our right of free speech.

[richardruhe]

If Christians have any guilt here it's letting this zionist attack on America go on with ease. Let me guess, Christians and Men are not protected class? big surprise there. the intention is to destroy the culture and boy we have let them.

[DerektheDuctTape]

Every crime is a hate crime and needs to be treated like a hate crime.

[Wolfbloodvamps171]

Robbery isn't a hate crime but murder is. If someone kills a gay person it is a hate crime, just like if someone killed a black man, it would be a hate crime.

[alpuretim]

What does the bible, religion, New World Orders, Zionists and Jews have ANYTHING to do with a person's basic human rights? If anyone of you stupid, closed-minded morons were born homosexual or lesbian you would want this law passed. Unprovoked murders should stop. Even if you don't like the idea of gay people, they do, sadly for you, exist. Grant them protection - or else you are condoning their deaths. I am SO grateful I live in Europe, America REALLY frightens me.

[superk13ngreen]

You are my hero. I am american and you should know that not all of us are close-minded bigots. But living here can feel like an alien world sometimes. I just wanted to say that I love your post and those americans who accept and embrace people for who they are will never stop the cause for human rights.

[Aurthorcreation]

Straight people created us. You should love your own creations! Not try to destroy what you created. That is not humane. That is not human. I am a gay man! It feels so good to be honest with people who don't hate me. We want to live in peace just as you do. We have dreams, and we have visions of our own. I think I speak for all when I say we want to live for a change without living in fear as I have myself. I am happy that I am alive. People tried to kill me several times out of hate.

[Wolfbloodvamps171]

Hi friend. Straight people did create us you're absolutely right. The Matthew Shepard Act will be passed by Obama for sure.

[Wolfbloodvamps171]

The Matthew Shepard Act will be passed it has to protect gays and make murdering of a gay man or woman a hate crime.

[nastylefthook1]

jewish zionists are hiding behind homosexuals in this hate crime bill,,,in 1917 russian controlling jewish bolshiveks passed similar laws to restrict criticising or identifying jews,,this soon led to 40 million christians being imprisioned or murdered,,,,,this bill is anti christian and furthering zionist agenda

[KeithUrbanfan]

I don't have the means to donate but I do wish you all the best of luck!

[urbanwarrior]

I just called my two US senators to urge them to vote yes on the Matthew Shephard Act. Everyone should do the same!

[RicochetBoing]

I too am a supporting (partner) member of HRC, an awesome organization. To those of you who contacted your representative, major league Kudos to You! I did the same. I also, just a few moments ago, thanked my representative. Since I have been out of the proverbial closet, 32 years, I have been a victim of hate crime, directed at me because I am a lesbian. Shame on those that commit a crime against a person because of who they are. Thanks to all of you that support the Mathew Shepard Act!

[totakikay]

I was glad to know that HR.1913 PASSED the US House. Please SUPPORT S.909 that is coming up this month of May 2009, introduced by no other than the wonderful Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) Send an e-mail and send a phone call to YOUR Congressperson to SUPPORT this Civil Rights bill. Vote YES on S.909!

[BenAliGtor]

Isn't it funny how the only ones who oppose Federal hate crime legislation are skypilot preacher parasites who have the most to gain by fanning the flames of hatred among their sheeple for the purpose of pecuniary gain?

[bloodwolf117]

It's really not too surprising, in my opinion. Their backwards teachings have been indoctrinating people against others for millenia.

[cnh2005]

Hey, I am in fact a member of HRC! I called my rep two days ago and encouraged her to vote yes, on my behalf. She must have got my msg! ha ha Thanks for the words of education, I think it's great you can pass along the info! - Thanks!

[marklulrich]

Hi cnh', Thanks for your words of encouragement and Right Back At Ya'!! No doubt we are doing our part, I hope others "wake up" and stand up for what they believe in. Makes me think of a great song by the late great Marvin Gaye "What's Going On" 'Brother Brother there's to many of us dying' are part of the lyrics. It was true then w/ The Civil Rights Movement and Now too. Apparently Mankind just takes a LONG time to learn! I also called my Rep. I like to think it made a difference it felt good!

[zerogravityhead]

Matthew Shepard was murdered for his money. Not to say that if makes it any better.

[cnh2005]

really? Cause you were there? And his sexuality had nothing to do with his brutal murder? Did you call to let Judy know this? Because i'm sure she would fell so much better to know her son was murdered for a few dollars and had nothing to do with hiim being gay. She should campaign against people murdering for money then. I'm glad you posted such an educated response to why he was actually murdered! Thank You zerogravityhead

[marklulrich]

Hey cnh2005, I LOVE your response to zero', every word you said I agree with. I don't think zero' meant to be malicious, but of course how would they know such a thing. Are you a member of HRC(Human Rights Campaign) they fight for LGBT People. And the House just passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act(after 10yrs), now it's up to the Senate. One battle won another to fight. Our Pres. Obama said he WILL sign it into Law if it gets to him! We ALL deserve to be safe and not hurt or murdered.TY

[cnh2005]

Hey Mark! Yes I am a member of the HRC! I appreciate though that you are spreading the word, and helping educate the truths! Thank you for what you do man!

[zerogravityhead]

I personally support hate crimes legislation. Yet I believe there might be more to the Mathew Shepard story then previously thought. ABC did a story on the incident not too long ago and the murderers of Mathew Shepard claimed that they meant to mug him for his money. But one criminal was high on Meth and got carried away, but they might just be saying that because they want to avoid the extra harsh penalties of the Hate crime legislation.

[bubbafrombama]

That's absolutely and completely FALSE!

[gabbylove1982]

Have you ever read the Matthew Shepard story, I seen it performed in theatre, you should really read it or watch it.

[Rebbeshlomo]

We have laws that differentiate between self defense, degrees of murder, manslaughter, negligence, etc. The reason is that the murderers have different motives, and are then dangerous to others in different degrees. People who commit hate crimes have a particular disregard for human life. They are a danger in a different way from someone who murders for drugs, or out of jealousy, or whatever. They need to be treated differently. The system is imperfect, but there need to be distinctions made.

[designratt]

Prehaps if there wasn't so much hate speech in this country, the hate crime and suicide rate would be greatly decreased. Respect fellow humans and help fight for equallity... it is the RIGHT thing to do.

[whitedovenativeangel]

Equality in hate crimes, IS already on the books. Redundancy is a waste of money. If you wanna talk about hate, then try getting involved in the local level with your DOS. That wont be redundant and cost more tax payers money for semantics.

[bloodwolf117]

That only applies to race, not sexual orientation. That's what we're fighting for, retard.

[heavenstinyangel]

Actually, had to looked at the bill, you would see it applies for any HATE crime. Special BILLS for hate crimes is redundant and un`needed. All ppl are created equal. SPECIAL laws are ignorant in and of itself, and creates more segregation of the human race. When will ppl understand SPECIAL laws create nothing but more animosity. Calling ppl name is without class! Sexuality has NOTHING to with HATE. HATE IS HATE.

[229julbee]

When you can write in a grammatically correct sentence, get back to us!

[heavenstinyangel]

That is all you have to say? When you stop being so self-important, get back to me!

Ever heard of being distracted? Thought not!

When you come down off that obvious high horse, you will see that the "rest" of the world is quite busy with OTHER things in life.

*tisk tisk*

[heavenstinyangel]

Did you create an account just to pick? Geeze, get a life!

[whitedovenativeangel]

Hate crime? We already have on the books laws against ANY crime. Why should crimes committed against homosexuals be any different? Answer? Its not. ANY CRIME out of hate is a HATE CRIME. Gays are no different than the black man, the red man, the straight man, gunned down the street.

Any ACT of hate is a hate crime. What makes gays special?. You are no better than the mother down the street that gets beat for putting out a sign that says she is pro marriage. Oh...but thats not a hate crime?

[SeanChapin1]

whitedovenativeangel, I understand where you are coming from, but the reality is America is still a predominantly homophobic country, and countless Americans live in fear of being attacked and harmed, sometimes killed, for being gay, and we need to do what we can as a society to ensure that gay people can live a normal life too without having to constantly look over their shoulders. A crime is a crime, and a crime out of hate is a hate crime, and they should be treated as appropriate.

[whitedovenativeangel]

Sean, I respect what you saying. But has anyone ever took into consideration that some are "homophobic" (and that word is used incorrectly in so many ways,) because of others forcing their views down others throats? The point is, we ALREADY have on the books hate crime laws. We dont need SPECIAL laws to prove this. Heck, I live in fear that I will offend someone because they will think i am a savage. You know, all native americans are savages. Yes.....I am reaching, but you get my drift.

[SeanChapin1]

whitedovenativeangel, we have hate crime statues, but on a federal level, they do not currently extend to cover LGBT people, and the Matthew Shepard Act would achieve this extension. All crimes are punished, and no one should commit any kind of crime. The varying degree of punishments is determined by propriety, not specialness. I find it appropriate that crimes driven by hatred of a demographic trait like race or sexual orientation should be punished harder.

[whitedovenativeangel]

Well, you are entitled to believe that way Sean. Again, its redundant. Hate crime is hate crime. After looking into the hate crimes law on file, I dont see how its any different? Honestly, I dont. ANY crime committed in hate is HATE crime. Its again, redundant. Can you site me source to say you think the current hate crime will NOT cover for race or sexual orientation? I dont see it. Also, lets not forget, race and sexual orientation are not the same. I can SEE race, i cant see sexuality.

[SeanChapin1]

whitedovenativeangel - from what I found, you can look up "Hate crime laws in the United States" on Wikipedia, and they note current statute 18 U.S.C. § 245 which covers race, color, religion, or nation origin, while proposed legislation would add gender, sexual orientation, gender-identity, and disability. I don't think it matters that race and sexual orientation are different by nature, as it doesn't matter what race or orientation you are when it comes to being treated equally and fairly.

[kokolilia]

Thank you SeanChapin1, you are absolutely right.

[bloodwolf117]

You know that half of the shit on Wiki is wrong, right? Because any dumbshit can go in and edit whatever they want.

[designratt]

This include the LGBT people and they are victims in 1 of every 6 cases of this horrifying violence. Whitedovenativeangel why are you so eager to exclude LGBT out of being protected? You come off as an ignorant bigot. it is good to protect everyone from crimes of hate.

[whitedovenativeangel]

Designratt, you dont know, so dont assume you do. I never said I was not for protecting ppl. We have hate crimes on the books, we dont need MORE "special" laws. WE are ALL ppl of the this great planet called earth. What makes YOU more special than I? Answer? You are not. WE ARE ALL protected against hate under the laws we ALREADY have. You think being redundant is a good thing?

[Avalik]

They have hate crimes for several things: race, gender, and so on, but not for sexual orientation. No laws for that.

You're right, everyone is people of this earth and everyone should be treated equal.

Hence why hate crime laws against LGBT need to be made. There are SEVERAL murders and attacks made on people for being a certain sexual orientation. We aren't "more special", however, LGBT people do need protection agaisnt violence directed to them. Just like gender and races need protection.

[ThreadandTreadle]

The current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity, 18 U.S.C. § 245, (see 1969 law, infra). Legislation is currently pending that would add gender, sexual orientation, gender-identity, and disability to this list

[ThreadandTreadle]

Penalty-enhancement hate crime laws are traditionally justified on the grounds that, in Chief Justice Rehnquist's words, "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."

[marklulrich]

Thank you so much for the info, too many don't even know the truth. Even when it is them/their "group" that is under attack. Yesterday the H of Rep's finally passed the Matthew Shepard Act(for h/c's)after 10yrs. It's a huge VICTORY, now it's up to the Senate and Pres. Obama said if Sen. gets it to him he WILL sign it into LAW. Something Pres. Bush WOULD NOT do thought he HAD the chance, he refused to, bigot IMO. How about Iowa, over a Gov's veto they passed equal Marriage! I no 2 dif' things

[rrsrichard]

Thanks whitedove for recognizing WE are ALL ppl of this great planet earth. I don't think LGBT people want special rights. I think they are exhausted being taunted and beat up from a very young age for who they are. Ignorant people kill just because they think someone is LGBT. I think you will agree, it's starts with the family and schools to educate children. The religious nuts need to stop teaching hate and killing of LGBT's. Since we're all equal, you must encourage marriage for all.

[heavenstinyangel]

The point is, we need to teach ALL ppl should be treated equally, and NOT just for one certain group. I think if we segregate ourselves, we cause more harm than good. Yes, ignorant ppl kill. It starts with FAMILY. Its not the schools fault. It starts at HOME. I dont think it has as much to do with religion, as it does with IGNORANCE being taught by the radical movements in BOTH religion And in secular society. Religion is the cause of ignorance, God is not reason.

[rrsrichard]

Thanks heavenstinyangel for your insightful opinion. Yes family is important, but if one does not have that wonderful foundation, then schools should teach tolerance for everyone, fat, gay, short, not beautiful. It's not all about teaching tolerance for just gays, although that is the subject we are speaking of. You're correct organized religion is the cause of ignorance and wars. It's a non taxable profit making business. Keep the sheep dumb and fearful and they'll give money. Shame!

[heavenstinyangel]

I agree with you with everything but the last point. I have been a part of MANY, too many to count, churches who run off almost no money. I have fed the poor, over 2500 a week with the money my church takes in. The church is NOT a money making business. Now, if you want to talk about SOME Of them being that way, I will agree. As a native american Christian, I dont consider myself a SHEEP,and I have never blindly followed anyone. But remember, the church needs MONEY to keep on lights and air!

[rrsrichard]

Heavenstinyangel, let me rephrase what I meant. It is the television evangelist that are the culprits of this money scheme. In my opinion, they don't care a hoot about you or me, just their money. They claim to heal people on TV and they sit and cry to please send donations. It's a disgrace and it should not be tolerated. I agree, churches that you speak of do mean good and they are loving. I myself without a church have been to Africa 6 times to help the needy. So I'm glad you are you.

[heavenstinyangel]

On this, we can totally agree. TV preachers just give me the creeps. After 15 years of theology, with a minor...these ppl just dont sit right with me. Any crime done with hate in your heart, means to me, you dont love God, and you dont LOVE YOURSELF. Africa? How awesome. Bless you for caring for those poor ppl!

[rrsrichard]

Thanks for your intelligent banter. Keep believing in what you believe in, but continue to believe with love in your heart for all woman and mankind. We are in this together through good and bad. I love to be able to agreeably disagree with others. Please believe me when I say, I respect you. I happen not to believe in the same thing you do, but regardless, it's all good.  In my opinion, I don't know if I'm correct and I don't know if you are, so we remain just being good people.

[rrsrichard]

Oh and by the way, please make it a point in your life to visit Africa. No matter how impecunious and destitute the African people are, they greet you with the warmest smile and love. It is the same from South Africa up to Kenya. I have only been to the southern African countries, but they all have the same happy smile and love. They always seem to be singing and I can't wait for my return next month. :)

[heavenstinyangel]

I wish you tons of luck. Be good and be fruitful in your efforts

[rrsrichard]

Cheers, you as well.

[XMewthree]

Um... straight, married CHRISTIAN here following Christ's example to LOVE and SUPPORT all fellow human beings regardless of who God created them to be -- you sound pathetically ignorant and you are being WOEFULLY intolerant of Christians! Shame on you!

[whitedovenativeangel]

Also, those who seem to have no clue, throw the word "bigot" around like they throw the word "tolerance" around. Why is that anyone who does not agree with you, is suddenly a bigot? Educate yourself on what a TRUE bigot is. You dont know me. You where not there with ME when I marched in response to the mess done to Matthew Shepard. Yes...stop ASSuming, and just ask. Stop with the ignorant name calling, and intolerance of others who dont necessarily believe as you do.

[whitedovenativeangel]

Why is that the radical left gets so upset and cries they are tolerant, when they are some of the most intolerant of them all. Gays ARE included in our current hate crimes laws. Perhaps you should the laws before you speak!

[PainAddict666]

How long should we endure Republican hatred? Education seems to not affect them, common sense escapes them. Intellect is way out of their reach too.

[designratt]

No doubt, and it is soooooo transparent to everyone!

[astoria30001]

"All men are created equal, no matter how hard you try, you can never change those words" Equality for all!

[gaydizo]

Can you believe Bush didn't sign this into law? Unbelievable. The Republican Party of Homophobia & Heterosexism needs dissolving. And fast!

[mandygrrrl]

I don't agree that the Republican Party needs to be dissolved, per se, but it has definitely lost sight of its own beginnings. I'm not personally Republican, but I have voted for some Republicans who I feel truly are Republican. I can't take any Republican seriously who complains about "big government" and loss of personal freedoms while also trying to vote for constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage. Isn't a ban on same-sex marriage a big government ban on personal freedom?

[nonst8]

It never fails to get to me. The meek may inherit the earth, but not before we beat and torture them for a good long while. It is those most understanding and even supportive of such crimes, that naturally are opposed to any enhancements.

[punkassrocky666]

They used losey examles for why "hate crime" legislation would be a good thing.

For example disqualifying someone for a job there able to do because you don't like the fact they have epilepsy. I'm speaking about nervous system conditions but that the subject of prejudice and bias opinion. Like skin color, race, gender, religion, appearance, and sexual orientation.

Hate speech always will lead to violence eventually so I'm for "The Matthew Shepard Act" he was an awesome person.

[RevoltorAdapt]

Thinking will be a crime soon.

[punkassrocky666]

I Hope not..i do a lot of that.. :)

[mandygrrrl]

Hate crime laws have nothing to do with the way one thinks. It's about the way one acts. If one personally has a problem with LGBT people, hate crime laws aren't going to make it illegal for one to think or express disagreement. They will make it illegal for one to act violent toward someone who is LGBT simply because they are so. It's okay for one to think being LGBT is wrong, but it is not okay for one to beat, kill, rape, harass, stalk, or in any way harm someone simply because they are LGBT.

[astoria30001]

"Mandygrrrl". Right on! Couldn't have said it Better. Totally agree with U.

[masterslayer256]

and thats why we'll become tools of the system if we dont do something about it and stand up for our rights

[yankeesrule2007]

Keep up the fight. We can change things. Keep fighting to pass hate crimes legislation.

[mjr256]

We make distinctions based on motives all the time. There's 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, etc. The list goes on.

I would never support legislation that would make hate itself a crime as I am absolutely opposed to the concept of thought crime. But when a violent crime is willfully carried out, using motive to determine the appropriate punishment sounds entirely reasonable to me.

[punkassrocky666]

You sound asthough you work in law somehow to me. do you? :-)

[mjr256]

No, and actually in retrospect my examples were more about intent than motive, but I think motive also plays an important role.

[nonst8]

We already have hate crime legislation for race and other distinctions. The issue is including gays, who are among the most violently abused of any group. Violence against gays is encouraged in many places, many high places.

[RPMenefee]

What silliness! ALL Violent crime is a hate crime. To make one crime of violence more heinous than another is foolishness. All violent crime is heinous.

[sfserpa]

I am forwarding this to everyone I know.

Enough! Yes we can!

[N7COF]

You guys missed one of the more horrific of the gay hate crimes. That of a dear friend Clinton Scott. Risetter who as he slept was doused with gasoline & burned to death.

Keep up the good fight.

Brian

[punkassrocky666]

That is a horrible tragedy! wow, what a way to go. did you know him? i don't think i've heard that story before.

[N7COF]

I knew Clint very well, last year I started sponsoring a buckle in his memory at Nevada Gay Rodeo Associations - Big Horn Rodeo.

[punkassrocky666]

My heart felt condolences to you for you loss. Wow, that sounds so wonderful to me though what your doing in his memory.

I wish you all luck in your doings. *hugs*

[N7COF]

Until the last few years of Clint's life he was very much in the closet & terrified of be outed. His parents had him late in life & his father died shortly before Clint's murder. His mother couldn't believe that her son was gay & was murdered because of it. So I decided in respect & because she just also lost her husband to keep silent until she died.

Thanks for reading & Hugs

Brian