Senate votes to add sexual orientation to hate crime protections

Randall, name calling doesn't make you correct, it only makes your immaturity apparent, so why don't you try a different debate tactic.

The simple fact is that laws such as thes are vageuly written in ways that they can be interpretted in many ways.

Obviously there were many problems with the law, as it was heavily debated outside of Congress. And within Congress, debate was largely stifled by the Democrats who sposored the bill, even when the issue of whether criminal activity such as peodophilia would be protected or not.

The fact that you say that the issue with the first amendment is "utterly stupid" reflects that you either have an issue with free speech and the 1st amendment, or that your understanding of the controversy I refer to is not clear. Let's hear what the ACLU has to say about it:

ACLU speaks out against Senate hate crimes measure"

"In its July 17 statement, the ACLU says the Senate hate crimes measure, set to be an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, lacks "the strong protections for speech and association" found in the House version of the legislation that lawmakers in that chamber approved in June.

Fierce protection of free speech rights has historically created the space for the improvement of civil rights protections," he said. "Unless amended to block evidence of speech and association not specifically related to a crime, the Senate hate crimes amendment could chill constitutionally protected speech and association."

Randall, thanks for your response. I do wish to correct a miconception, however. You had mentioned that I disapprove of gay people. Not true. Read any of my previous posts- I do not disapprove of gays, I disagee with their behavior. Yes, there are gays whose behavior I find reprehensible- like the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" or those participants of the Folsom Street Fair. But we're all God's children- gay or straight.

maasanova,

you're arguing that this impinges on the first amendment; however, there is no provision making any speech illegal or a basis for conviction. all this law adds is provisions for witness testimony to the character of the criminal witnessed during the commission of the original criminal act, and it allows for expanded punishment based on whether the motive was 'hate-based.'

this isn't an automatic add-on to the charges, either. the burden of proof rests on the prosecutors to demonstrate to the judge that the criminal expressed specific words or actions alluding to a 'hate-based' motive for the crime. For example, screaming race or sexuality-based comments during the commission of the crime, etc...

the intent of the criminal, according to witness accounts, is key to escalation of charges based on the hate crime provisions. it does not violate any first amendment clause; it provides for entry of the criminal's intent into court testimony to prove the intent of the criminal was hate-based.

randallr01 I understand that the one of the bills intended aims was to violate the first amendment, otherwise there wouldn't have been an amendment needed to protect free speech.

I also understand that the bill is a concentration of power into an already bloated federal government. There needs to be less control by the federal government, not more! The bill is based largely on a variety assumptions and it's simply fundamentally flawed. How do you determine what is a hate crime?

And furthermore,the Anti-Defamation League, a lobbying group, which is a mouthpiece for a foreign government, is a wholly corrupt lobbying organization that has distinct agenda that is very much against the US constitution. It is a special interest group that should not have the authority to author federal legislation.

Maasanova, an excellent, well thought out response. I am tired of those who tirelessly promote homosexuality as completely acceptablel behavior, and detest those who demand we accept homosexuality as virtuous behavior, or else be labeled "homophobe". (I also detest those who attempt to indoctrinate students into accepting and validating the gay lifestyle, in elementary, high schools, and colleges) All that does is to try to take the discussion away from the issue and focus it instead on the individual who dissents- intellectually dishonest and it dodges discussion of the issue in an open, forthright way. "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashion." G.K. Chesterton

There should be nothing more insulting to gay people than their causes and well-being used as a political football.

What this "hate crimes" legislation is really is all about is Christianity.

I'm not much of a religious person (I'm agnostic), but I was raised in a deeply religious family and I can see this for what it is: a direct assault on Christianity, and free speech (even though there was an amendment by Leahy).

This bill was written by the anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-free speech, Anti-Defamation League, who's lawyers had 11 Christians jailed for praying during a 2004 gay pride rally in Pennsylvania. These Christians faced 8 years of hard time and $80,000 fines. For praying.

There's nothing wrong with being gay, but the Anti-Defamation League is determined to PROMOTE homosexuality and make you a "hate criminal" when you don't want gayness shoved down your throat, excuse the pun.

All this bill does is concentrate power from the state and county to the federal jurisdiction and it make penalties heavier as crimes like murder and assault already carry penalties.

So now the ultimate test to see if this is not a biased law is to see if Christians will be protected from prosecution. Methinks that there will be no protection and that this law will be selectively enforced, with the ADL grandstanding about "hate" whenever someone or some group goes against their homosexual promotion agenda.

It's about fucking time.

This has been so long in the coming. I'm so happy right now.

Maybe this is just a generation thing, but it's about time. I personally think this should have happened after the Matthew Shepard murder.

Unfortunately it sounds like that are only classifying violent crimes against "homosexuals" as a hate crime. It appears that is does nothing to address the flawed federal anti-discrimination law. I believe, but could be mistaken, that it would still be legal to discriminate against homosexuals on the federal level, but you just can't be violent towards them. I am hopeful that the social consciousness is undergoing an awakening, which I am very grateful to be a part of Hopefully, in time we all can see each others as individuals and not be defined by social stratification

OK, we're making progress, but at this rate I'll be long dead and buried before there's full equality for gays.

Wow, the biggest fag hating criminals finally come around ...Congress.

Agreed. Now we see if it passes. Time to write your representatives.

about time