Bill Won't Cover Attacks Against Gays

Expanded Hate Crime Legislation Dropped From Defense Policy Bill

(AP)  Congress has dropped legislation that would have expanded hate crime laws to include attacks on gays after it became clear the measure wouldn't pass the House, aides said Thursday.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy, was widely supported by Democrats and even some moderate Senate Republicans. But because it was attached to a major defense policy bill that would have authorized more money for the Iraq war, many anti-war Democrats said they would oppose it.

"We don't have the votes," said one House Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because conference negotiations on the defense bill were ongoing. "We're about 40 votes short, not four or six."

The development is a blow to civil rights groups which say that broadening federal laws are necessary to address a rise in crimes motivated by hate based upon a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

The military bill is "the last clear chance this year for Congress to make a meaningful effort to stop hate crime violence," said Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

Under current federal law, hate crimes include acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin. Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction only if the victim is engaged in a specific federally protected activity such as voting.

Kennedy's bill would have extended the category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. It also would give federal authorities greater leeway to participate in hate crime investigations, and allow them to step in if local authorities were unwilling or unable to act.

The measure also would have provided $10 million over the next two years to help local law enforcement officials cover the cost of hate crime prosecutions.

The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay college freshman who died after he was beaten into a coma in 1998 in Laramie, Wyo.

The Senate voted 60-39 in September to attach the bill as amendment to the 2008 defense authorization bill. Nine Republicans broke ranks and sided with Democrats in support of the measure.

The House did not include similar provisions in its version of the defense bill, which it passed in May by a 397-27 vote.

While Democratic leaders said they supported the bill, the bundled package posed too high a hurdle. A substantial number of liberal House members routinely vote against the annual defense bill because of the billions it authorizes in combat operations and for programs such as missile defense.

At the same time, some conservative Democrats and Republicans said they would oppose the legislation if the hate crimes provisions were attached — either because they don't think hate crimes laws should be changed or because they don't think the issue should be tied to a bill for the troops.

In a private meeting on Wednesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and House Democratic Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., told Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., that if the Senate continued to insist on the hate crimes provisions, the defense legislation would fail.

Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and other Senate Democratic leaders agreed to back down to allow the defense bill to move forward.

The White House called the Senate bill unnecessary, but stopped short of issuing a veto threat.

"State and local law enforcement agencies are effectively using their laws to the full extent they can," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino after the Senate vote.

House and Senate negotiators were expected to finalize an agreement on the defense bill by late Thursday afternoon. The agreement puts the measure on track to be sent to the president's desk before lawmakers leave this month for their holiday break.

[antoniof123]

I am not prejudice I hate everyone equally.

Now that said the administration should not get one dime they have spent more than every other administration in US history. They have spent there share.

[paris1969]

This is no surprise ... the current Bush Administration, Congress and Senate are the most pathetic leaders in the history of this country.

[marcodele]

That was a dumb place to put that legislation.

[cbs_oliver]

""We don''t have the votes," said one House Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because conference negotiations are ongoing. "We''re about 40 votes short, not four or six.""

OK by me if it won''t pass.

I know that George Bush and the Republicans threaton to hold the troops in Iraq and Afganistan hostage and allow them to starve and die if they don''t get their way - or else fire workers at bases - but, hey, we don''t negotiate with hostage takers.

[animalwoman-2009]

Why can''t a bill go through without so many attached bills? Can''t they go through alone. Half of the good bills get bogged down or rejected because of some junk tack on to it. This is how all the stupid little bills that eat up our tax monies get through. Always some kind of way to ripe the little guy off. That''s what we pay all of senators and congressmen do for us. Well maybe it''s not for us but for themselves.

[global_chick]

Why should *** get special protection or stronger justice? Everyone is already protected against assault, murder, etc. We don''t need a special class of victims.

[yongamerica]

Isn''t there hate in every crime?

[usayesterday]

I MURDER PEOPLE BECAUSE I LOVE THEM!

Whew! That just saved me from ever being prosecuted for a "hate crime".

[animalwoman-2009]

ttinsly - you don''t have to hate someone or something to disapprove of it. You''re entitled to your opinion as is everyone. There''s no law that says we have to agree or approve of everyone and everything. Get over it.

[superdem]

Of course homosexuals need protection, just look at this site, you can''t even spell gay without it being blocked out as obscene. No there is not hate in every crime, some are just mindless random murders. Do you think that kid who killed the Redskin in Florida hated him ? NO - he probably loved football, and admired football stars. It''s a different category of killer who decides within himself that it''s OK to kill a member of a hated minority. And it''s a lesson to the whole society that this thinking is WRONG.

[superdem]

Guess I was wrong - gay was not blocked in my last message. It doesn''t change my point.

[skyk-2009]

Isn''''t there hate in every crime?




Posted by yongamerica at 04:53 PM : Dec 06, 2007
+ report abuse

Of course there isn''t. Some guy sticks up a gas station to feed his family or some kid hotwires a car to joy ride...there''s no hate in those crimes... wrong yes but when you commit a crime because you hate the person or the person''s beliefs... that''s a hate crime. We first passed such laws back when the Klan was big in the south. They, the Klan, are Religious Extremist and it''s Religious Extremist who are being protected NOW.

[scottyusa]

This is a bunch of bull. It is against the law to attack anybody so what is so special about *** and blacks? How about one for us caucasions we are getting to be a minority ourselves. Makes me feel special.

[skyk-2009]

Why should *** get special protection or stronger justice? Everyone is already protected against assault, murder, etc. We don''''t need a special class of victims.




Posted by global_chick at 04:37 PM : Dec 06, 2007
+ report abuse

Hate Crime Legislation was passed by Congress after the Horror of Jim Crowe was played out and all people saw what that was all about. The same Religious Extremist who were being addressed by the orginal legislation is being addressed here. It''s one thing to commit a Crime but yet another to do it for no other reason than pure hatred for that person. The orginal bill covered race, gender and orgin for a apecific reason. There were terrorist Religious Extremist Groups, like the Klan, American Nazi Party and several others, that would seek out and intentionally hurt people BECAUSE they were Black, Jewish, Homosexual or some other group. I''d suggest you go to the Souther Poverty Law Center to get a better feel for what hate crimes are all about. They have been in the business of killing off groups like the Klan for Decades and decades. Hate Crimes Legislation is VERY helpful to them when they go after the Klan, Skin Heads and other Terrorist Organizations in Civil Court. They supported this legislation and was one of the groups who wanted it passed.

[lloydbest1]

Hate crime legislation should never be attached to any other kind of bill. This particular bill is another blank check to fund an unpopular, unneccessary and probably illegal war in a country that (at least until recently) had no direct connection to terrorist activity directed against the U.S. and had no ties with Al Qaida. The fact this POS bill has some wimpy anti hate crime legislation tacked to it with Scotch Tape and spit does not make it any less odious.
My answer to global_chick''s post at 04:37 PM : Dec 06, 2007 is as follows:
The sole purpose of enacting legislation against hate motivated crimes is to emphasize punishment of the attitude that motivates the offender to commit them - as opposed to merely punishing the offender or the act itself. If I attack a person of a different race, religion, gender or s@xual orientation because (s)he has hurt me or mine or tried to take something away from me...that is still reprehensible. But it might be excusable depending on circumstance. If, however, I attack someone BECAUSE of differences in religion, race, etc then I am participating in a form of cultural warfare. This dramatically increases the opprobrium of an already disgraceful act; and it should be subject to a stricter level of penalty.
Yes we do need some form "anti hate crime" legislation on the federal level. But we do not need it attached to a bill that would enable a rouge president to conduct a treasury busting and illegitimate war..

[rohink-2009]

Of course there isn''''t. Some guy sticks up a gas station to feed his family or some kid hotwires a car to joy ride...there''''s no hate in those crimes... wrong yes but when you commit a crime because you hate the person or the person''''s beliefs... that''''s a hate crime. We first passed such laws back when the Klan was big in the south. They, the Klan, are Religious Extremist and it''''s Religious Extremist who are being protected NOW.

Posted by skyk

No, robbing a gas station is not a "hate crime" nor is hot wiring a car for a joy ride. But tell me. What is the difference between killing or hurting someone because they are gay, or killing or hurting a person just because? We already have laws for that. We don''t need special laws. I have gay friends, but, I don''t agree with their life style. And I don''t agree with their right to marry. But believe it or not, I get along with them fine. I judge them on who they are as a person, not their s*xuality.

[teeus]

Why should *** get special protection or stronger justice? Everyone is already protected against assault, murder, etc.
Posted by global_chick

Because they stand a higher chance of being targeted for assault and murder BECAUSE they are gay.

[rohink-2009]

Posted by skyk

Oh, so a hate crime protects those from people that really, really, really hate them.

[marcodele]

The reason hate crime legislation is necessary because societal trends sometimes legitimize violence against certain groups. In order to stem the tide of crimes that become popular, they need to make is specially known that it is not fashionable or excusable to commit violence against someone because of their race, faith, or sexuality.

Neocons will never understand this. They''re too busy supporting hate.

[scarletphd]

global_chick are you really this stupid???

[notblue]

marcodel, you and the rest are nothing more than a bunch of hipocrates, all on has to do to DEFINE and witness HATE is frequent these posts and listen to you leftwingers spew it on a daily basis, hate for the president, US policies, neocons, etc. your hate list is too expansive for this limited format.

[rohink-2009]

There are already hate crimes on the books that include ***. What did they need to expand? Just because it sounds caring doesn''t mean it will do more harm than good.

[rohink-2009]

ScarlettPhd, what was so stupid about what global chick said? We already have hate crime laws in effect. Maybe you''re stupid for just coming on to insult someone.

[excoachken]

All physical crimes involve hate. There is no reason for a specialized group of victims. That said, shame on those who truly try to demean *** with their discriminatory mind set. At least we know where the hate for *** is perpetuated.

[enufsenuf]

Judging by all the hate being posted against conservatives, maybe they ought to pass a law to protect them.

[three-o-six]

I am STILL waiting for them to include Homosexuals on my Varmit License (No Bag Limit)

[animalwoman-2009]

Some of the statements being made in these comments are awful. It doesn''t make someone stupid just because someone doesn''t agree with you. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and expressing them doesn''t make them stupid. Hatred and arrogance is not very becoming on anyone. We shouldn''t hate people no matter what race, color or sexual preferenc, but we don''t have to approve of something we feel is wrong. At the same time we shouldn''t call them names either. The golden rule is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Not "Do unto others before they do it unto you." This doesn''t apply to any religion - it''s just good common sense to treat others the way you want to be treated. Sure would improve things alot.

[dmhphils]

Why bother? When the Mullahs take over, they will dump all those hate crime laws and, like Iran, there won''t be any homosexuals in the U.S.

[libsluvsuvs]

Posted by animalwoman at 05:58 PM : Dec 06, 2007
+ report abuse


***********

bottomline..to avoid attacs..one must act accordingly..we wear a certain color in some ''hood'' you get your arsed kicked..you wear a leather thong down the street..you get your arsed arrested or it opens the person to attack..

JUST ACT ACCORINGLY..THINK OF THE LAW..AND THESE WOULD BE UNNECESSARY.

[klingon69]

The golden rule is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Not "Do unto others before they do it unto you." This doesn''''t apply to any religion - it''''s just good common sense to treat others the way you want to be treated. Sure would improve things alot.
Posted by animalwoman at 05:58 PM : Dec 06, 2007
Hmmm, and all this time I thought the golden rule was; he who has the gold, makes the rules.
Ok, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but do it first, meaner, harder, crueler than they could. Is that ok?

[libsluvsuvs]

Posted by Klingon69 at 06:06 PM : Dec 06, 2007
+ report abuse


********

then some "other" that is more mean and cruel and bigger than you would come over and kick your arse..because your mentality is the one that is asking for it.

[dmhphils]

The exclusion of the hate-crimes legislation, sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., is a blow to civil rights groups who say it is necessary to address a rise in crimes motivated by prejudice against a person''s sexual orientation or gender identity.
------------------------------------------------

What if someone''s sexual orientation is for German Shepherds and I don''t want anybody messing up my German Sheperd, is that a hate crime? haaaaaaa

[libsluvsuvs]

is this equal justice for ''some'' or equal justice for all..

if that is the case..there should be a law about *** attacking straight people..straight people attacking black people...black people attacking hispanics..EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE SPECIAL..

GET OVER IT.......

[global_chick]

Scarlet, gee, you might want to look in the mirror, as your comment was far from intelligent or useful. If you support these laws, you support having an unequal justice system. Everyone is entitled to the same justice should they be raped, murdered or maimed. To believe that any one group (***, blacks, whatever) is entitled to more protection than say, a white Christian, is RIDICULOUS and extremely dangerous. To believe that your perpetrators should be punished more harshly than mine is basically saying that my life is worth less than yours. All crimes are hate crimes and should be prosecuted EQUALLY. No one burglarizes or rapes because they love someone!!!

[dmhphils]

What if pedophiles claim that they are sexually oriented to little kids.......will they be protected by this law? haaaaaaaa

[libsluvsuvs]

Posted by noseonurface at 06:16 PM : Dec 06, 2007
+ report abuse

**************

FUNNY ENOUGH..there is a law about that...and there is a law about fondling..killing..children..HAAAAAA..
please dont complicate things..

[global_chick]

Because they stand a higher chance of being targeted for assault and murder BECAUSE they are gay.

By whose standards?? If I throw a rock at you, but don''t know you''re gay, is that a hate crime? What if you''re in the closet? Their is no rhyme or reason WHATSOEVER to create special laws!! I said it before and I will say it again: Everyone is already protected under the laws of this country. We do not need a special victims unit.

[robstrck]

"It%u2019s called blind justice for a reason%u201D. %u201CIt is why the symbol for law is a blindfolded woman holding the scales of justice. It%u2019s called blind justice because justice should be meted out based on actions, refusing to take into account the particular identities of perpetrators or victims.%u201D

[wireferee]

"I am STILL waiting for them to include Homosexuals on my Varmit License (No Bag Limit)"

Comments like that show exactly why a bill like this is necessary.

[global_chick]

Neocons like myself don''t support hate, you moron. They support equal justice. My life and property, and that of my friends and family is just as valuable as a gay person''s. Why should your attacker be punished more harshly just because you are gay???

[global_chick]

Wireferee, why? So you can completely invalidate the First Amendment? Guess what, my friend: The Constitution does not protect ANYONE from the right not to be offended. And for you to insinuate that speech you don''t agree with should be silenced is truly frightening.

[robstrck]

"I am STILL waiting for them to include Homosexuals on my Varmit License (No Bag Limit)"

Comments like that show exactly why a bill like this is necessary.

Posted by wireferee

~~~~~~~~~

No it doesn''t, if he harms or murders someone he is still guilty of a crime and should be punished. By your reasoning, someone that murders a homosexual, transgendered, or bi should receive a harsher sentence than someone that murders and elderly person, a child, etc. What exactly are you saying?

[robstrck]

You go global_chick, I''m with you.

[lorinkundert]

Designating a crime as a hate crime is patently unconstitutional as it would violate the due process clause at the least.

[shanev137]

Why would you tie a hate crime bill to a defense spending policy bill?

Some rocket scientist want to try and explain that one to me?

[dmhphils]

FUNNY ENOUGH..there is a law about that...and there is a law about fondling..killing..children..HAAAAAA..

please dont complicate things..

Posted by libsluvsuvs at 06:18 PM : Dec 06, 2007
-----------------------------------------------

There used to be laws on the books against homosexuality and sodomy too! That is the point, that things gravitate toward greater and greater immorality.

Just by calling it "sexual orientation" can be manipulated to include whatever one chooses given enough support from respective groups. You get my point?

[global_chick]

As a wise professor said, the right to say offensive things about other people%u2019s ideas is one of the mainstays of democracy. To that I say, amen. Laws like this are extremely dangerous for a number of reasons, but one in particular is that the next step is to limit "hate speech" against ***. If you know anything about France or Sweden''s laws in this area, they both prohibit "anti-gay" speech in public or private, and offenders are hit with fines and jail time. Is that what you want in this country???

[dmhphils]

Neocons like myself don''''t support hate, you moron. They support equal justice. My life and property, and that of my friends and family is just as valuable as a gay person''''s. Why should your attacker be punished more harshly just because you are gay???

Posted by global_chick at 06:21 PM : Dec 06, 2007
---------------------------------------------

Exactly!

[enufsenuf]

CBS reports.......Bill won''t cover attacks of ***. Expanded hate crime legislation dropped from defense policy bill. What a joke. First, *** are already protected from attack. Second it is an expansion of a hate crime bill that is already on the books. My question to that is, what was really in the bill that got defeated? Third, it should never have been attached to the Defense spending bill. Purely political. More paranoia and division amongst the people of our country. We don''t need anymore victims.

[global_chick]

Thanks Robstrck. People need to look at what is happening in Europe and understand that we are heading down the same path: A country where you cannot criticize *** for any reason, even in your home or church, lest you face severe penalties. We need to nip this in the bud, now.