Fundies: Protecting gays and lesbians with hate crimes laws is "Constitutionally Dubious"

from the American Family Assn's OneNewsNow, the No. 1 news source of Dominionist nuts everywhere:




14th Amendment - no need for hate crimes legislation
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 1/10/2009 4:00:00 AM


A Christian attorney says the hate crimes legislation that's been introduced in the U.S. House is entirely unnecessary.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) has reintroduced a bill that would expand the federal hate crime statute to include crimes motivated by bias against a person's sexual orientation or gender. The measure has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It passed the House in 2007, but Democrats failed to garner enough support for Senate approval and faced the threat of a veto by President Bush. Now, their prospects are brighter with a larger majority in both houses of Congress and Barack Obama in the White House.

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs at Liberty Counsel, believes the bill is unnecessary because there is no epidemic of hate crimes being committed against people who self-identify as homosexual or transgendered. Perhaps more problematic, he says, the legislation is constitutionally dubious.

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law," he explains. "Hate crimes legislation is a prima fascia violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in that it elevates one class of citizen based upon their chosen sexual behaviors above other people. It creates a two-tiered justice system where there are first-class victims and second-class victims."

Because of the current economic crisis in the country, Barber contends the hate crimes bill may be on the backburner for a while in Congress. But he notes that Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have "signed off wholesale" on everything on the homosexual lobby's wish list, which includes the passage of hate crimes legislation.


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=377968 (if Rick-rolled, the story's in the onenewsnow area of www.afa.net )

We've had laws against murder since the founding of the Republic, and yet people still kill other people. What's the point of having the law on the books if it's not going to protect anyone?

The logic is airtight!

Hate crime laws punish opinions, which is literal thought crime.

I understand that many DUers support people being punished for their opinions, but I am against it.

I mean, dead is dead, right? Who cares if the decedent was killed through a well-thought out plan of execution or just happened to get rolled over when a vehicle's parking brake was improperly set? A person's dead either way, and the responsible party should be, what, locked away for life? Executed? After all, it doesn't matter what was in the perpetrator's heart, the victim is still dead.

Otherwise, we'd be punishing someone for their opinions rather than their actions. As I said, it's a watertight argument.

I mean, dead is dead, right?

Right, dead is dead.

Who cares if the decedent was killed through a well-thought out plan of execution or just happened to get rolled over when a vehicle's parking brake was improperly set?

I care.

A person's dead either way, and the responsible party should be, what, locked away for life?

Depends on the situation. The murderers opinions should not be a factor. For example, if the well-thought out plan of execution was to kill a former lover, than that person should be locked up for a while to protect society. If the person who made a mistake with their vehicle's parking brake was an unrepentant racist, and accidentally killed a person of the race they hate, then the killing should just be treated as a normal accident.

Executed?

I am personally against the death penalty, but that could be a whole other debate in itself.

After all, it doesn't matter what was in the perpetrator's heart, the victim is still dead.

I don't know what 'in the perpetrator's heart' means, but yes, the dead person in all situations which involve a dead person, will still be dead. I foresee no resurrections.

A teenager spray paints "Motherfucker" on the side of a 7-Eleven. He's caught.

Another, little older adult spray paints a swastika on a synagogue door.

The owner of the store, and possibly a neighbor or two are pissed off about the tagging.
The entire community of Jews who go to that temple has been terrorized, and are now, collectively in fear of escalating crimes in their neighborhood.

Hate Crimes statutes are not just for murder. Murder is the least likely reason to be an advocate for it. Which is why all you Hate Crime Legislation skeptics always refer to murder and nothing else. It makes your argument more palatable.

A Hate Crime isn't only for the intended victim, such as a wife beater, a bank robber, or a black widow. Hate crimes are meant to terrorize and intimidate an entire community. The victim is merely an "example" of what will happen to YOU if you happen to get uppity.

I would consider the 'motherfucker' to be vandalism, and the swastika to be a threat.

If someone spray paints, 'I am going to kill you motherfucker', then I would consider that to be on par with the swastika. They are both threats.

and threats to an entire community a Temple serves?

The person making the threat, in either situation, is potentially very dangerous and needs to be investigated for the sake of public safety.

I don't think that we should lock people up as punishment, I think that we should lock people up to protect the public.

I agree that killing fifty is more tragic than killing one, but anyone who intentionally kills the innocent is a serious threat to public safety and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

n/t

What's the difference if someone acted with malice aforethought or was simply negligent? It sounds now like you want to adjudicate whether a person was killed intentionally or accidentally, and try to figure out motivation. How would that work? After all, dead is dead. The mechanism of the murder shouldn't count for anything, because we've agreed that the perpetrator's intention shouldn't count.

Unless you're admitting that we already take into account the perpetrator's mindset. In which case, adjudication of a hate crime is merely another category tending to show aggravating circumstances warranting harsher punishment.

Damn, I seem to have sprung a leak.

Do you really not know, or are you just trying to pad your post? This is not a homework assignment, you don't get points for length.

It sounds now like you want to adjudicate whether a person was killed intentionally or accidentally, and try to figure out motivation.

There is a difference between intent and opinion.

How would that work?

Again, do you really not know?

After all, dead is dead.

Yes, we have thoroughly established that dead people are dead. We both agree on this point, there is no reason to keep rehashing this.

The mechanism of the murder shouldn't count for anything, because we've agreed that the perpetrator's intention shouldn't count.

No, there opinion should not count.

Your being so silly that I feel like I am wasting my time, if you wish to debate like an adult, then I will continue. Just let me know your decision.

People can think all the racist and homophobic things they want, and they can unleash all kinds of hate speech and they won't be prosecuted for it. Once they assault or murder someone on the basis of their race or sexual orientation however then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

There is nothing wrong with giving stiffer sentences to those who threaten entire communities by their actions. We also give stiffer sentences for first degree murder than we do for second degree murder, both result in a dead body the only difference between them is the state of mind of the perpetrator of the acts. Hate crimes laws are based on the same legal principle that allows us to separate between first degree murder and second degree murder.

protecting the public. Locking murderers in prison should be for public safety, not punishment.

At least, that is my view of prison.

You aren't actually arguing that people who commit hate crimes are not a serious threat to public safety are you?

No, I am not arguing that. I am arguing the following...

A prison can be used to protect innocent people from dangerous people. I agree with this use.

A prison can be used to try educate and rehabilitate people who have committed foul deeds. I agree with this use.

A prison can be used to punish a person for their crimes. I do not agree with this use.

People who kill for money are just as dangerous to others as people who kill for bigotry, therefor, in my opinion, their prison sentence, and other sentences, should be basically the same.

I actually agree with you about the proper role for a prison, but that was never the argument. I never said anything about punishment I was only talking about prosecution, and I would assume that you agree that people who commit these crimes should be prosecuted. Don't try and go off on some issue that was not part of the debate.

People who commit hate crimes pose a serious threat to society, and hate crimes spread beyond the individual and strike fear in entire communities. Matthew Shepard's case is still talked about today in a way that few if any murders that were committed for money are talked about because it was a crime that had such a huge impact on an entire community of people. Do you honestly think that the people who killed Matthew Shepard did not pose a threat to public safety far beyond that of the average street thug? We have seen the effects that hate crimes have had from groups such as the KKK and those crimes have been used to exercise power to control minority groups through fear. Random street crimes do not have nearly the chilling effect that hate crimes have. If you don't think that people who commit hate crimes do not pose a larger threat to public safety than more traditional criminals then I really think you should study the history of the KKK and other hate groups so you can see the enormous damage they have done to the public's sense of safety.

since hate crime laws deal with punishment. Hate crime laws either add an additional punishment to a crime, or increase the punishment of a crime, depending on how you look at it; but either way, hate crime laws are about punishment.

Matthew Shepard's case

Mathew Shepard was not just murdered, he was tortured and then murdered. So the person who kills for money is less dangerous than the person who tortures and kill homosexuals.

But a person who tortures and kills people at random, is just as dangerous to the public as a person who tortures and kills homosexuals. I don't think either torturer/murderer should go to prison for what they did, I think that they should go to prison to protect the public.

I made a poll sorta related to this if you are interested:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4817713

I know they appeal to the knee-jerk reptilian brain emotional part of people, but, as a human being, I prefer to live in the human being part of my brain, not the brain stem. And so, I really don't like the "hate crimes" laws.

I mean, seriously, murdering or perpetrating violence against ANYONE is a hate crime; it doesn't matter if the motive is "I wanted their purse" or "I didn't like their sexuality".

Either way, someone is dead or a victim.

I know this is a touchy subject with the liberal "I want to be holier than thou" sect, but I am willing to risk the self-righteous condemnations of me - which condemnations, I wonder, are thy also hate crimes? I think they are.

..... if an attack is motivated by some bias - racism, homophobia etc - it's likely that the crime would not have happened otherwise. That makes it a special crime, IMHO.

How is that? There is truly no fundamental difference, other than they are different motivations, and motivations are not illegal, only the crimes are illegal.

..... such as an anti-gay crime does on the gay community, an anti-African American crime, anti-Latino crime etc etc.....
A hate crime does.

Amazing how so many people have such a hard time grasping that.

Don't worry, you are certainly not alone here if you do not.

The only reason Matthew Shepherd and James Bird's killer were eligible for the death penelty is because thay commited robbery and or kidnapping also.

If you kill someone because they have threatened you in the past, or if you kill someone because of the color of their skin, you still have the same result but the two crimes are not equivalent IMO.

The punishment should fit the crime, not the thoughts of the perpetrator.

Hate crime laws do not punish thoughts. They punish actual criminal actions which clearly result from such thoughts. There are plenty of virulent racists in this country who don't act out their beliefs in a destructive fashion. Those few that do are subject to apprehension and punishment. What's the problem?

Look in a mirror.

They're being punished for an act that terrorizes a community. Because that's their intent. They mean to send a message to an entire community. They aren't just victimizing the person or persons they're directly committing the violent act against. They're victimizing an entire community. The crime is even bigger than that. So the punishment should be bigger as well. They aren't being punished for an opinion.

Prisons should only be used to keep dangerous people away from everyone else.

terrorizes a community

I would never punish someone for terrorizing a community, but communities deserve to live in peace. I would be willing to lock someone away to protect a community.

Would you say that someone who kills a loved one who is suffering from a painful terminal illness at their request and someone who beats to death a hispanic teenager because of his ethnicity deserve the exact same punishment?

If the terminally ill person wanted to die, then their should be an assisted suicide procedure for them to follow with their doctor. A professional verifier, such as a doctor, would be important.

or perhaps I just wasn't clear enough.

So mental states and intentions do matter, then?

Whether or not the killing was intentional matters.

Whether or not the killing was for defense or not matters.

The politics of the killer make no difference whatsoever. (except of course for current laws)

In my opinion, people should not be locked up for punishment, people should be locked up to protect the public.

I think that this is our difference, you wish to punish the psychotic murderer by locking him or her up, I wish to protect the public by locking the psychotic murderer up. We both wish to lock him or her up, but for different reasons.

If I am wrong about your position, then I am sorry.

I think I will make a poll about punishment vs security. Look for it in GD.

I agree that some people should be removed from society because they are dangerous. I also think that punishment in the form of retribution serves a purpose (but I also think we've sort of run off the rails with it as a society). I don't think it is one of those things where you have to choose one or another, as a societal response to a crime can have multiple justifications and rationales. I also think that, to an extent, punishment benefits the offender by stating that they have a debt to repay society and punishment allows them to repay it (and at the end of that term, I think they should be restored to full members of society - but that doesn't happen in our society).

I also don't think that the politics of the killer should make any difference unless it is relevant to motivation. Motivation, I think (as does the law), matters. IMO there's a major difference between killing someone in a moment of blind rage and killing someone for fun (i.e. joy-killings). Take cases of infanticide, for example. Here recently, he have the Anthony case, where in all likelihood the mother killed the daughter because the "little snot-head" got in the way of her partying. You also have cases of parents killing their kids who have terminal or pervasive developmental disorders and they are just overwhelmed and, for whatever reason, think that killing their children is the right thing to do. Or take cases like the Yates case, where the mother killed her children as a result of some psychotic break. In my mind, people who are mentally ill are less responsible than people who are sane - thus mental state makes a difference.

If the crime was particularly egregious, the judge does have considerable sentencing leeway. Then there are the crimes that cry out for more punishment...its like the death penalty. I am normally opposed to it, but now and then there are crimes where death does not seem like enough.

Hate crime is similar to terrorism. Someone stealing your purse or wallet is normally a free agent criminal.

You wouldn't expect to not leave your house because hordes of people want your particular wallet simply because they despise your religion, last name, ethnicity, sexual orientation or anything else. Once you've been targeted in this way, you understand hate crime much better.

Would you consider that to be a hate crime?

They do not target an individual; they target entire communities. The idea behind hate crime enhancements is that an act which targets hundreds or thousands of people merits more punishment than an act which targets only one or two.

A guy gets into a fight over beer, one hits the other yelling, "Carrot Head" as he does it. The red haired victim is seriously injured and the perpetrator gets extra points in the bad boy book because he said something against a class of people. That's what constitutes a "hate crime" these days. I don't think you said you support that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, bnt it seems to me like you're saying if someone bombs a gay bar that would be a hate crime because it's not against the bar owner, but the patrons as a protected group. if that could be determined.

It seems to me that the issue is ill defined, the solution is not likely to solve anything, the painter is using a large brush and the application of the laws are haphazard. I'm against that.

And if such a thing happens, it sends a chill down more than just the target community, it affects the entire community, as does all crime. I see no reason to single that type of intent out more than existing law allows.

In My Humble Opinion.

Nor are they a community in the same way as African Americans, Latinos, and the GLBT community.

The issue is that there are two crimes being committed in these cases. There is the crime of obvious violence, but in a hate crime there is also a crime of terrorism against the community. "Don't be so obviously gay and you won't get hurt" is the message people get. Or, "Stay in your place." That is not happening in crimes against individuals. It isn't happening in crimes against redheads either. That's a silly comparison and it seems dismissive of people who are facing real discrimination and are targeted by hate crimes.

:shrug:

If they were victims of society-wide discrimination, they'd be protected from it. But they don't have that problem.

If someone were to start killing red heads, such as a serial killer, red heads in that community may feel fear.

I thought I wrote "society-wide" discrimination. If I didn't, that was my intention. A serial killer isn't really the same thing - they tend to target people who remind them of someone, so they often look the same. But it isn't an attack on a community in the way a hate crime is - an attempt to keep people from living freely.

The only difference is that their opinions on why that group of people should be targeted.

but some psychopathic need to consume. These crimes are almost always sexual in nature.

These are not really comparable to say, the spate of hate crimes underway against Jews worldwide at the moment.

additional punishment for the similar actions of other people.

In other words:
Person A gets extra punishment for the actions of person w, even though the two people have nothing to do with each other.

I am understanding you right? I am not trying to create a strawman, I am just trying to understand your post.

:)

I meant the serial killer analogy doesn't really work. Serial killers are not motivated by hate necessarily. If you take the case of Ted Bundy, he favored blonde girls with straight blonde hair parted down the middle. Once he was apprehended, straight haired blonde girls were once again safe from terror, and not since then have girls matching that description been forced to live in fear. That's one difference I think between serial killing + rape, versus hate crime. (There's also the lone wolf quality to it.) Hate crime is pervasive and transcends generations so that whatever community is persecuted, it never feels relief. Additionally, I guess you could say that serial killers are punished severely in the way that hate crime sentencing advocates would like. While 99.9% of them are definitely mentally ill, they are always given life in prison without parole or are executed.

If nothing else, it certainly helps a community to cope when hate crimes are at least designated as such (even without the sentencing enhancement). If the current defacing of synagogues, the beatings and murder were not identified as crimes against their community, Jews would not be forewarned to take extra steps to secure their safety.

That is what makes the distinction. Also, keep in mind that "hate crime" is not a category of crime, it is a enhancement to a criminal act. Assault would still be assault, vandalism would still be vandalism, setting off explosives in a building filled with people would still be... I'm not sure what the crime would be exactly. If the purpose of committing these crimes is to express distain for a group of people, to "send a message" that "their kind" is unwelcome -- then it can be classed as a hate crime which add penalties rather than replaces any of these charges.

Some people complain that hate crimes penalize thought and motivation. Well, our legal system has done that for centuries: the distinction between murder and the relatively less severe manslaughter is whether the person set out to take the victim's life. In a similar fashion, the distinction between assault and assault with intent to commit a hate crime is whether or not the person set out to target someone in a particular group.

Legally, the issue is not "ill defined."

:eyes:

I think we must have hate crime legislation.

and a level of punishment. The legal system has all sorts of definitions of intent and punishment, the difference between murder and manslaughter is intent and even within those definitions there are different degrees of guilt. I have no objection with fine tuning the law to make the punishment fit the crime.

Let's say a bank robber shoots a guard that is gay the intent is to rob and shoot anyone that gets in their way so it's not a hate crime no matter what the sexual preference of the victim was, however, if someone goes out looking to hurt or kill someone who is gay that's intent, not opinion.

to the public as the person who kills people who are gay, and therefor they both need to be dealt with in the same manner.

From my view, it is not about punishment, but about protecting the public.

There's an old saying; locks are made to keep the honest people out, no law prevents a person from breaking them if they are so inclined. The legal system isn't built around treating people who cause the death of another in the same manner, our laws built around degrees of intent, it's not a simplistic, one size fits all, system.

But in my political philosophy, prisons should not be used as punishment. Prisons should be used to keep dangerously violent people away from the general public.

I am aware that prisons are used for punishment, but I disagree with this use.

locks are made to keep the honest people out

My mother would sometimes tell me this when I was a minor. A simple saying that says so much.

A homosexual man was violently beaten ON HIS OWN DOORSTEP by teenagers he never met because they had heard he was gay. This is absolutely a different type of motive than "I wanted their purse".

Do you feel it is acceptable for tax-exempt religious organizations, or other outfits like the KKK to encourage people to hate, victimize, and discriminate against other groups? What if you or your family were the ones singled out by these groups? How would you feel then? Why not legitimize rape clubs by granting tax-exempt status to those who promise to attack only those you dislike?

By the tone of your response, I strongly suspect that you have little first hand experience being on the recieving end of any type of violence or discrimination.

A heterosexual man was violently beaten ON HIS OWN DOORSTEP by teenagers he neverm et because they had heard he was wealthy.

Fill in "wealthy" with anything else.

Fill in "heterosexual" with anything else.

As I stated a moment ago, hate is hate. A perceived condition is NOT an exception and NOT an excuse for brutalizing or killing anyone. I couldn't care less if the teenagers hated him for having green eyes and heliotrope hair. Or thought he had green eyes and heliotrope hair because they were colorblind.

There is NO excuse to justify beating.

BTW: I too know discrimination. Been there. Done that. Many times. So kindly don't shove that excuse in my face either or presume other people don't know what it is. :eyes:


Plus, you went way overboard by throwing in the absurdly irrelevant "--why not legitimize rape clubs--".

Coloring book logic? Just use the blue crayon?

Where was a wealthy man beaten on his doorstep for being wealthy? The story I told is true, and it happens more often than you may realize.

You are also wrong about "rape clubs". They were used, often religiously inspired, in early Greek times during the transition from a matriarchial society to a patriarchial society. Goddesses were replaced with Gods during this same period, and Mary mother of Jesus was the only Female like diety that survived. The purpose of the rape clubs were to put women into their place. Read the book "Reign of the Phallus" sometime.

The odd thing is that you use Limbaugh's argument, and dont even know why he preaches it. Fundamentalist religious organizations, the Neo-Nazi's, the KKK, the Neo-Confederates, and the CCC are only a few examples of organizations that use hatred of other races, religions, or sexuality as membership criteria. Would there be any churches if there was no satan to hate? Limbaugh wishes to protect these organizations as I suspect you do as well.

Please tell me about your personal experience with discrimination.

and I won't get into that argument here.

But I will say this - being against "hate crimes" doesn't mean that one is therefore in favor of terrorizing minority groups.

What it means is, in my instance anyway, that if someone murders another person, their sentence, judgment, and punishment should be the same as any other murderer.

I was beaten, teased, picked on, ridiculed, laughed at, and so on as a youth, from childhood through high school, simply because I was smarter than pretty much everyone else and was rather geeky and unathletic. And even now, there are plenty off asshole adults who feel the need to ridicule and make fun of the smart, unathletic types.

But I don't think that we need more severe punishments for people who perpetrate crimes against people like me. Nor do we need the brain police offering their commentary on any other crime.

I'd hate to be the judge, trying to console a grieving family, saying, "I'm sorry your grandmother was murdered, and that the guy who did it will only be getting twenty years, but the guy who murdered the gay grandmother is getting forty years".

"Maybe if we can prove that your grandma was gay (or black, or hispanic, or whatever the hate crime du jour is), we can put this guy away for life!"

How does one deal with that kind of injustice?

I cannot. I find it a radically unjust system, one that punishes unfairly, and one that creates separate classes of victims - an upper class, and a lower class. Murder is murder. Theft is theft.

What I *could* live with is saying that in cases of crime that is perpetrated solely because of the victim's personhood (whether it be white/black, gay/straight, wealthy/poor, corporatist/communist, and so on), that the criminal should be provided psychological evaluation - that would make sense. But to say that that criminal should get a longer or more punitive sentence is, to me, as radically unjust as the old days when the white folk would get a slap on the wrist for killing the black folk.

I sense that you are a firm believer and view the topic through rose-colored glasses. I am curious what your religious views are concerning homosexuality and God. How does God feel about it? Remember, HE is watching and expects your honest answer.

Quote: "What it means is, in my instance anyway, that if someone murders another person, their sentence, judgment, and punishment should be the same as any other murderer." End Quote.

What your argument lacks is a fundamental understanding of law. There are different legal levels of criminal liability based on various factors ranging from pre-meditation, to self-defense, negligence, or manslaughter. A conviction could carry a sentence ranging from death to probation depending upon these different circumstances.

Limbaugh's argument is that if you are dead, then you are no more dead if killed by a club or gun. You are equally dead if killed for money or for hate. He rants stpidly to the stupid, and the listeners believe without question or thought.

There is a big difference between murdering someone for "sport" because your religion or paternal organization has dehumanized your victim to the point where they are merely an animal and totally undeserving any of mercy or human compassion, and killing an abusive husband who has hospitalized you countless times. The psychosis which permits such an act is so extreme that a legal category IS necessary to protect society from these nut jobs. Furthermore, any organization that promotes this type of crime should be held accountable as well. There are different levels of evil and random violence purely to gratify no other motive besides hate is on the top tier.

For these reasons, your argument has no merit and fails under the burden of reality.

Which is why it's better to go through life working on truth and fact.

We've had 8 years of "gut instinct" presidency, and we can see how well that's served us.

(though some already do and that is THEIR problem.)

It does not matter what a person is, or perceived to be. You don't beat up or kill. Period.

Unless it's in self-defense because the bastard is already pummeling you and there's no other solution...

And one guy feeling belittled for having been asked out by another guy is not self-defense for starting any pummeling. "the gay clause", or any other bogus excuse to throw a punch. You don't beat up or kill.

And, yeah, since when is it a crime of love? "I love you so much that I'm going to rob, impale, then kill you." No jury would buy that either.

Hate doesn't need special attention or discrimination.

Hate is hate.

Knee jerk and comes from reptillian emotional part of brain.

I wonder why you feel the need to make things up. Do you feel that it helps your argument? Perhaps you just have very poor reading comprehension today, and it was an honest mistake.

He want's exclusivity to his victimhood. He's not advocating the removal of religion as a protected class. He's advocating the exclusion of a class he wants to discriminate against and preach that "They asked for it" when they become victims.

It's very much about special rights. The special right to hide behind Jesus to excuse bigotry.

Besides, the poster was responding to the OP, and the letter from Mr. Brown. Not anyone who posted here later. Tell me again about reading comprehension?;)

I'll take their lawyer's own words and just change it a bit.



Hmm.

I read it and immediately thought about marriage equality. But you know, if you pointed that out to him, he would have some bizarre answer on how it was not the same thing at all, probably with a riff on 'we poor Christians are so persecuted'.

The pro-prop 8 donors shouldn't be anonymous? there are laws out there already addressing harrassment...... just saying...

(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/01/08/state/n172303S97.DTL&type=politics
Supporters of the November ballot measure that banned gay marriages in California have filed a lawsuit seeking to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying the reports have led to harassment of donors.)

as long as religion is included.

And the irony is, these same people passed Prop 8--which is a "prima fascia violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in that it elevates one class of citizen based upon their chosen sexual behaviors above other people."

The stupid, it burns. Sexual orientation is not a choice. And Prop 8 elevated one class of citizen above another.

So hate crime laws run afoul of the Constitution's little-known Roofing Materials Clause?! :dunce:

edit: spelling

Flaw 1) A Christian attorney says ......
Flaw 2) from the American Family Assn's OneNewsNow
Flaw 3) Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs at Liberty Counsel

Therefore, any statement from any of these sources is at least wrong, if not an outrght lie.

The simple fact is that the more fundamentalist religion interferes in the affairs of civil society, the more tribalistic and violent it becomes.

Knowing that Christians already enjoy Hate Crimes Protection, his arguments against expanding it to those he wishes to victimize, reeks of self serving hypocrisy. Every argument he made casts doubt on why religious affiliation needs to be protected. Christians are First Class Victims, gay people are second, or lower. I agree! Let's take Religion off the protected class now!

Your party lost. There's going to be much "unnecessary" legislation.

It makes me queasy... :puke:

according to the perpetrators.

probably because I lean a little libertarian in these kind of areas. I see it like vice, there are already laws to cover all punishable outcomes and if at all possible we need less laws governing individual behavior rather than any more. I'm also always dubious of our "justice" system's ability to get anything right and by adding another level of intent, you run a severe risk of more injustice rather than addressing what was already there.

Of course if you believe laws seriously dictate behavior then you might look at it differently but with the exception of perhaps speeding more there's nothing I'd do really differently if we lived in anarchy. I could give two shits about legal and illegal, I care more about right and wrong and being happy with who I am.

Wahhhh. Their attackers would get more time in jail than mine would if I were a victim! Wahhhh. Never mind that I don't have to worry about getting beat up just because of who I am the way they do! So what if I'm less likely to be a victim of violence? I'm still going to bitch and whine about it and pitch a fit!

I hate that mentality. Yes. Let's just let the violence go on, and do nothing about it, and let groups that are victims of hate crimes go on living in fear. That's real fair. As if there's something wrong with telling people "Hey, you terrorize a group of people by committing violence on members of their group, you get extra time tacked on to your sentence". There's not a damned thing wrong with that. It's not punishing them for their opinions. They keep their hands off other people, they don't have a damn thing to worry about.

Okay, first it's spelled "prima facie."

Second, if it's conceeded that the 14th Amendment applies in full to gay people, then that equal protection also applies to the benefits of legal marriage.

I think I'm gonna die of laughter.