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.

[klingon69]

Where in the Bible does it say, "Thou shalt not have s`e`x with a person of the same gender"?
Posted by hungry1968 at 07:08 PM : Dec 06, 2007

Actually it staters, that for a man to lie with another man as he would with a woman is an abomination in the eyes of God

[simonsez40]

I was beat up, spit on, insulted, and even se.xually harrased as a form of degradation to me by so-called moral, upright, "KKKristian" people like you for years. The homophobic psychosis in many parts of America is at least partially responsible for these crazy kids (many of whom are not even going to be g.ay but are just sissies). Apparently though, sissiness, and g.ay men remain the threat.

Oh for the love of God, please protect me from your so-called followers, Jesus...


Posted by ttinsly

I hear you ttinsly - most of these people that are against have their own homophobe and hatred issues. During biblical times they would have spit and made fun of the harlot at the well - but Jesus didn''t do that did he???.....

[rudy654-2009]

It is about motivation. Last time I checked, it was acceptable to consider motive in our justice system.Posted by teeus at 01:17 PM

Exactly. Why does the law punish more severely those who kill police officers? So that police officers do not become a special target by those who simply hate them and then try to kill them. Otherwise they become a special target. Hate crime laws are meant to do the same. It is not about thoughts, but motives and resulting actions, and not one without the other.

[teeus]

How do you prove that the motivation for a crime is "hateful?"
Posted by global_chick

Well, I''d say when the accused says "I was just lookin'' for a f@g/******/$pic so''s I could beat ''em up just ''cause I hate ''em" you''re good to go on it being a hate crime.

And, yes, I think it would be great for this country to say as a people that we so disapprove of targeting people for assault because they''re Jewish or Catholic or Black or G@y, that we''ll make the punishment more severe if your motivation is hate.

It is about motivation. Last time I checked, it was acceptable to consider motive in our justice system.

[global_chick]

More on the problem of "thought crimes."
How do you prove that the motivation for a crime is "hateful?" I have read in at least one article that the FBI includes gestures and other body language in its hate crime statistics. The article stated that "prosecutions to date in some cases have been based upon bigoted statements made several years before the act in question." Do you really want law enforcement using your past words, books that are in your home, or any other external factors to determine that you are "hateful?, and determining that your punishment should be TWICE what a "non-hate crime" would be? Orwell''s vision would quickly become a reality.

[global_chick]

One more thing: Intent and motivation are two different things.

[global_chick]

No, it is you who are wrong. Hate crime laws punish people for their thoughts. It is NOT against the law to hate another person or to hate what they do. It is against the law to assault, rape and murder. The Constitution gives us the right to think and feel what we want, right or wrong. We do not need to go the route of France or Sweden and outlaw people''s personal opinions by threatening them with fines or jail time. I ask again, is that what you want in this country?

[teeus]

Teeus, you continue to miss the point. It doesn''''t matter WHY you kill or harm someone. IT DOESN''''T MATTER. I don''''t care whether you kill me because of my ethnicity or gender. I''''m still DEAD and am still deserving justice. The motive is IRRELEVANT. We need equal justice for equal crimes. NO ONE is entitled to more protection under the law than anyone else. PERIOD.
Posted by global_chick

No, GC, I do not "continue to miss" your point. I understand what you''re saying. You''re wrong, of course, but I understand.

It DOES matter WHY we kill someone. Premediated murder carries a different punishment than manslaughter. Killing a cop carries a harsher penalty than kiling a civilian. Killing someone while committing another felony brings a different punishment as well.

As a society, we''ve decided that targeting people with certain cahracteristics needs to be dealt with more harshly than other types of killing.

[rudy654-2009]

No need; you''''re already dead as you speak.
Posted by noseonurface at 05:09 AM

Wow. Are you sure you are a Christian? I thought only radical murderous Muslims talk like that. Birds of a feather?

[mudrose-2009]

this attachment was about hate crimes directed mostly at homosexuals and the mistreatment of a person based on gender... Are you suggesting all homosexuals are non white--or merely demonstrating that you lack reading comprehension skills?

Posted by b-easy63

This bill is an attempt to elaborate on the 14th Amendment which really doesn''t need further elaboration. When the discussion also asked for the inclusion of the elderly and the unborn those aspects were shot down. So this is designed to give special status to a select group of people for the sake of pushing an agenda that is offense to the majority of the American public. Please stop deluding yourself into thinking the people don''t know what that big fat Cap Cod Ocra is up to.

[b-easy63]

This is rediculous. The dimocrats will support these abominations, but not the military!!!!!We need to fire every last one of them! Enough is enough!Posted by Hwy71So at 10:09 AM : Dec 07, 2007

This is ridulous.
Posted by pensuesil at 09:32 AM : Dec 07, 2007

Am I the only person wondering if intolerance and ignorance/miseducation go hand in hand? What is ridiculous is that whenever you read a post full of hatred; invariably it is posted by a person either too lazy or ignorant to at least spell check their spiel. Not saying we have to be grammar police--but, please. Special bills would not be needed if those who oppose it spent more time getting an education, kept their intolerance and ugly attitudes to themselves and focused on the quality of their intellect and communication skills, instead of trying to control evolution by succumbing to the ''dumbing down'' principle. LOL

[b-easy63]

his ''''hate crimes'''' craapp is just that.....CRAAPP!!!! It only applies to whites who commit crimes against non whites. Posted by Infidel_Us at 09:12 AM : Dec 07, 2007


this attachment was about hate crimes directed mostly at homosexuals and the mistreatment of a person based on gender... Are you suggesting all homosexuals are non white--or merely demonstrating that you lack reading comprehension skills?

[b0ludo]

Leave Christ out of this. He had no pronouncements against or for ***. The core religious issue against "Sodomites" is a little bit older and it goes back to the days when Moses was splitting seas and making sweet bread rain from the sky. The Holy Khoran has pretty much the same exact information... *** were suppossed to be punished by swift death via one of the many fun ways they had to take people out back then. Jesus was a revolutionary, stating such things as "Whosoever be without sin, let him cast the first stone", or something along those lines. His mum, Mary, was almost stoned to death, so I am pretty sure he was not for killing anyone, period. Leave Christ alone, already!

[b-easy63]

Extra legle protections for one group = discrimination (for excluded groups) no matter how you cut it.

Posted by ralan40 at 08:39 AM : Dec 07, 2007


EXTRA legal protections are needed when a group is targeted for illtreatment or even death. It starts with words and an idea. Like seeing the differences and making fun of it,

It continues with arguments/justifications about why a certain group must be mistreated.

(They smell funny, they are criminals. they are deviants, they are going to contaminate my child/life/faith)

After the ideas and justifications are around long enough, they are accepted as fact and many will respond to the implicit sanction of mistreatment of the group.

It ends with violence or death, justified by first the verbiage, then the rationale and finally the harm.

This is the way humans proceed to kill groups different from them. Separate, Castigate, Denunciate, Discriminate--then violence. It was done to the Jews, to Native Americans, to the Irish, Scottish, to Blacks, to Catholics--to any group.

Hate crimes recognize the inherent danger of intent--long before it becomes accepted violence.

[b-easy63]

hen someone harms due to race, gender, religion or sexual orientation--then chances are, they will do so again and again--at any decent opportunity. WE punish for intent as well as the crime--because society is not simply here to punish, but to ensure that it can function as a cohesive unit--to not punish for intent implies those who can get away with harming others and have a good defense, do not have to pay. Society must enforce equitable treatment for all law abiding citizens or the entire thing starts to unravel. Trust us--you don''t want unraveling--cuz then you get shades of Iraq--right here from people of every race, color, sexxx and religion. You get mayhem. People need to keep their ugliness for other races, and religions to themselves--in speech in deeds and in acts--when they don''t--they need to GO. NO one benefits from their presence.

[b-easy63]

Had Ismus said of a white team..."look at those blond cracker babes go" ...would he have been fired? If the team whose mascot was a pig and they called it porkchops...thus offending Puerto Ricans, instead would have called themselves the Pork Hocks and Saurkrauts...would the Germans been offended? Doubt it. I want a bill throwing out politcal correctness!

Posted by GrammaWhamma at 03:51 AM : Dec 07, 2007


Maybe if Imus had said: Look at those stringy haired, wet chicken smellin'' white maggot *** go!!! It would have been equitable in terms of offense and yes--he would have been demanded to go.

We DO target the rationale as well as the crime==to deter more crime. For instance, a person who steals some food to eat, is not judged as harshly as a person who steals for pleasure or to predate. Why? Because one did it after running out of choices--(we can improve their rehabilitation by improving the choices.) But the other did it for pleasure. THAT can not be rehabilitated. so that must be discerned and dealt with accordingly, lest they perpetuate their hatred and create ethnic and racial mayhem.

[hwy71so]

This is rediculous. The dimocrats will support these abominations, but not the military!!!!!

We need to fire every last one of them! Enough is enough!

[b-easy63]

This is ridulous. What does a hate crimes bill and military spending have to do with each other?! The system of attaching disparate policy issues in one bill as a means of legislative horse-trading undermines the ability to have an honest debate and full representative accountability on all issues. What bureaucratic nonsense.

Posted by pensuesil at 09:32 AM : Dec 07, 2007


You have a good point. The two things are the antithesis of each other:

1. An expanded hate crimes bill might actually deter some from killing.

2. A military spending bill will certainly increase the odds of humans being killed.

Pet causes are always piggybacked onto bills. ANY bill. There is nothing holy, sacred or inviolate about spending money for this illegal war. It will have pork attached, it always has--and when the war mongers want it bad enough, they will eat the pork along with the desired swill measured out for their war of choice.

[pensuesil]

This is ridulous. What does a hate crimes bill and military spending have to do with each other?! The system of attaching disparate policy issues in one bill as a means of legislative horse-trading undermines the ability to have an honest debate and full representative accountability on all issues. What bureaucratic nonsense.

[infidel_us]

This ''hate crimes'' craapp is just that.....CRAAPP!!!! It only applies to whites who commit crimes against non whites.

See if the 9 blacks who beat up a white woman on a bus in Baltimore get charged with ''hate crimes.''

It would be laughable if it weren''t so pathetic!!!