Gays Will Get Hate Crimes Protections

Congress Votes to Add Sexual Orientation, Gender to List of Federal Hate Crimes Following Decade-Long Push

(CBS/AP)  Physical attacks on people based on their sexual orientation will join the list of federal hate crimes in a major expansion of the civil rights-era law Congress approved Thursday and sent to President Barack Obama.

A priority of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., that had been on the congressional agenda for a decade, the measure expands current law to include crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. The measure is named for Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student murdered 11 years ago.

President Obama had previously urged Congress to pass the bill and has promised to sign it.

To assure its passage after years of frustrated efforts, Democratic supporters attached the measure to a must-pass $680 billion defense policy bill the Senate approved 68-29. The House passed the defense bill earlier this month.

Many Republicans, normally staunch supporters of defense bills, voted against the bill because of the hate crimes provision.

"The inclusion of the controversial language of the hate crimes legislation, which is unrelated to our national defense, is deeply troubling," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

Hate crimes law enacted after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1968 centered on crimes based on race, color, religion or national origin.

The expansion has long been sought by civil rights and gay rights groups. Conservatives have opposed it, arguing that it creates a special class of victims. They also have been concerned that it could silence clergymen or others opposed to homosexuality on religious or philosophical grounds.

House Republican Leader John Boehner's office suggested earlier this month that Boehner opposed expanding the law to protect gays and lesbians because sexual orientation is not an "immutable" characteristic.

More: Why GOP Leader Opposes Hate Crimes Protections for Gays

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group, hailed the bill as "our nation's first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Too many in our community have been devastated by hate violence."

Some 45 states have hate crimes statutes, and the bill would not change current practices where hate crimes are generally investigated and prosecuted by state and local officials.

But it does broaden the narrow range of actions - such as attending school or voting - that can trigger federal involvement and allows the federal government to step in if the Justice Department certifies that a state is unwilling or unable to follow through on an alleged hate crime.

"The action by Congress today to pass this vital legislation is a milestone in helping protect Americans from the most heinous bias-motivated violence," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "Hate crimes victimize not just individuals, but entire communities. Perpetrators of hate crimes seek to deny the humanity that we all share, regardless of the color of our skin, the God to whom we pray, or whom we love."

The measure also provides federal grants to help state and local governments prosecute hate crimes and funds programs to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.

"As we learned in the civil rights era, sometimes communities need assistance and resources from the federal government when they have to confront the most emotional and dangerous kinds of crimes," said Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo.

The bill also creates a federal crime to penalize attacks against U.S. service members on account of their service.

At the urging of Republicans the bill was changed to strengthen free speech protections to assure that a religious leader or any other person cannot be prosecuted on the basis of his or her speech, beliefs or association.

"Nothing in this legislation diminishes an American's freedom of religion, freedom of speech or press or the freedom to assemble," said Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md. "Let me be clear. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act targets acts, not speech."

That didn't convince Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who said the bill was a "dangerous step" toward thought crimes. He asked whether the bill would "serve as a warning to people not to speak out too loudly about their religious views."

Holder said there have been nearly 80,000 hate crime incidents reported to the FBI since he first testified before Congress in support of a hate crimes bill eleven years ago.

[tennessee77]

So, I guess we need to express to everyone who we are sleeping with to have justice served in this America Obama is recreating! Justice is now peeking and No Longer Blind! OUTRAGEOUS!!! STAY OUT OF MY BEDROOM!

[Aldymac]

The majority of 'hate' crimes against homosexuals are perpitrated by homosexuals themselves, I have lived by them and have never seen more violence of a group of people that is vented toward each other than the gays. Jelousy and hatred flourishes in that crowd more than any other that I have seen, so there is more to the hate crimes act than is being told. I think the government will use it to force people to submit to government entities, espiecialy federal entities.

[RandomUser1886]

Careful with those comments there, you'll get banned for speaking against The Left.

[hakori]

Aldymac, gays are a violent group? Are you serious? I'll agree that some gays do commit violence against other gays, but it's those gays who are afraid or ashamed of who they are because they're taught from the earliest time of their lives that who they are is bad. Now whose fault is that, Aldymac? Get a frickin clue!

[nokia3210c]

now i see where the so called civilised people are going! i hav 1 question:- what is the %ge of gays in american society? is it 1:1; 1:2 or 2:1; 2:3 or 3:2?
THAT IS THE SO CALLED FREE-WORLD.
no wonder, the whole society is!

Exactly what is a hate crime? A crime where hate is the motive. And what is an assault weapon? A weapon with which an assault is commited. So then it is possible to commit a hate crime with an assault weapon on a gay homosexual.

[djseavy]

Why can't our law enforcement just enforce the laws we already have? I agree that it's illegal to single out anybody to murder because of their sexual orientation, but simply adding more distinctions to the existing laws just takes up more court time and jury time. Murder is murder - so try it as such, and forget all the time wasted proving that it was because someone was white, black, gay, straight, etc.

[Hosheen]

Hmm, I thought there were already laws against assault and murder. As far as I know, none of those laws make exceptions for race, creed, religion, or sexual preference. Why do we need more laws for prosecutors to trump up charges to enhance their careers?

So, if I call someone an SOB, and it turns out their mother was a "less than ideal" person, is that a hate crime against someone who is "parenting disadvantaged"?

Whenever we think the government goons have reached the limit of stupidity, they always manage to show us, "No we haven't. We can be far more stupid!"

[skyk-2009]

Hosheen, now you see this is what happens when you don't finish school kids!

[warsux]

hey hosheen, since there are no laws stating that idiots are protected under hate crime laws, I can tell you that you are a moron.

[j_mcdonald-2009]

Because hate crimes are two crimes at once: the first, against an individual, is (as you note) already covered by existing laws.

But hate crimes are also designed to strike fear into an entire population. They amount to an additional crime of coercion designed to inhibit people beyond the individuals assaulted, and to strike at the fabric of legal protections that provide the groundwork for civilized society. And current law doesn't address that additional crime very well.

Maybe a better name would be to call them terrorism crimes. You get one sentence for shooting someone, and another for letting their friends know they are next.

[michaelm07]

I don't get it, a crime, is a crime. You're either pregnant or you are not, you can't be more or less pregnant.

Why is a supposed hate crime, defined as different than any other crime? It is PC crap, and if you think about it, it makes no sense unless the goal is to make people 'feel' like, by defining something as a hate crime they are singling out people who are worse than say, a mugger who beats up and robs and elderly person, or rapes and abuses a child. Those can be called hate crimes also. How do you separate a hate crime, is it a crime, or it isn't? That is the problem with applying 'feelings' to legislation of criminal laws and punishment. It seems hate crimes legislation is the ONLY category in which victim's rights is considered so important. If you applied the same logic to all crimes committed against all people, instead of just selected demographics we'd all be better off. But that would be true equality, wouldn't it? That is logical but our country no longer applies logic as it once did or as the Constitution demands. You know, the Constitution, that old rag liberals think is out of date. A criminal is a criminal, period. Punishment should be applied equally regardless of who or what group the perpetrator or the victim is.

[michaelm07]

What a joke. Granted, gays shouldn't be picked on nor should anyone else who is a minority but there are those in the majority who are targetted by a minority, but these laws are never used to defend those victims. You can too easily mold and shape what defines a "hate crime" all day long and apply it to almost any group all too selectively. I white kid getting beaten up (and video taped) on a bus by a number of black punks (who do NOT represent most law abiding blacks) can be defined as a hate crime, but wasn't. Black assaults on Hispanics in L.A. - and vice versa, can be called hate crimes but usually aren't. I've seen reports of gays beating up heteros. Why is it that hate crime laws are primarily applied to white on black or, straight on gay crimes and NEVER the other way around? Sure there are likely more of them percentage-wise but you mean to tell me there are NEVER black on white or, gay on straight crimes committed, never? Hmmm, something is amiss. Well, I "hate" political correctness and whiny people who promote PC, so charge me.

[nextgenman09]

"Insecurity is defined by those who pretend to have the quotable elegance of the truly intellectual."
TheActualTruth

The Fantasies of the Mediocre

[searingtruth]

"Truth is defined by the weakest of us who must suffer through it."
SearingTruth

A Future of the Brave

[Void_Master]

by tmittelstaed October 23, 2009 2:20 AM EDT

Because the law isn't worth the paper it's printed on unless it's enforced. And, the sorry history of the US has shown that enforcement of crimes motivated by political positions is spotty. If the victim is a member of a class of people that the majority don't like, then the majority in many communities has shown that it doesn't have the 'nads to enforce the law.

***

Hence the "self defense" clause.

[searingtruth]

"If all were equal then we would have truth and justice."
SearingTruth

A Future of the Brave

[searingtruth]

"Justice is simple. Beware of those who declare it is not."
SearingTruth

A Future of the Brave

[Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01]

If only it were that simple. There is ethics, and wisdom that should be applied to the equation of justice. It seems a simple equation but if one of the factors is missing or cannot be agreed upon, which is too often the case, it becomes anything BUT simple.

Consider the following: A rich man and a poor man commit the same type of crime. The rich man is fined $10,000 while the poor man is sent to jail for one year. Do you believe this to be fair and just?

[Void_Master]

The only law that any civilization really needs is: Inflict no material harm upon another. And the only legitimate exception would be self defense. Why is this so complicated?

[tmittelstaed]

Because the law isn't worth the paper it's printed on unless it's enforced. And, the sorry history of the US has shown that enforcement of crimes motivated by political positions is spotty. If the victim is a member of a class of people that the majority don't like, then the majority in many communities has shown that it doesn't have the 'nads to enforce the law.

[searingtruth]

"All crimes are crimes of hate or desperation, and should be justly and equally punished.

To assume the mind of another and judge the quality and quantity of hate or desperation, and allot special punishment, only opines a door for political persecution.

So let us assure that all laws are equitable and just as legislated, with no one considered more guilty than another for identical crime."
SearingTruth

A Future of the Brave

[dremn1]

Are liberals included in the hate crime bills; after reading the article below I would like to beat some sense into about 300 of them in washington.

Subject: From The Wall Street Journal

We thought cash for clunkers was the ultimate waste of taxpayer money, but as usual we were too optimistic. Thanks to the federal tax credit to buy high-mileage cars that was part of President Obama's stimulus plan, Uncle Sam is now paying Americans to buy that great necessity of modern life, the golf cart.

The federal credit provides from $4,200 to $5,500 for the purchase of an electric vehicle, and when it is combined with similar incentive plans in many states the tax credits can pay for nearly the entire cost of a golf cart. Even in states that don't have their own tax rebate plans, the federal credit is generous enough to pay for half or even two-thirds of the average sticker price of a cart, which is typically in the range of $8,000 to $10,000. "The purchase of some models could be absolutely free," Roger Gaddis of Ada Electric Cars in Oklahoma said earlier this year. "Is that about the coolest thing you've ever heard?"

The golf-cart boom has followed an IRS ruling that golf carts qualify for the electric-car credit as long as they are also road worthy. These qualifying golf carts are essentially the same as normal golf carts save for adding some safety features, such as side and rearview mirrors and three-point seat belts. They typically can go 15 to 25 miles per hour.

In South Carolina, sales of these carts have been soaring as dealerships alert customers to Uncle Sam's giveaway. "The Golf Cart Man" in the Villages of Lady Lake, Florida is running a banner online ad that declares: "GET A FREE GOLF CART. Or make $2,000 doing absolutely nothing!"

Golf Cart Man is referring to his offer in which you can buy the cart for $8,000, get a $5,300 tax credit off your 2009 income tax, lease it back for $100 a month for 27 months, at which point Golf Cart Man will buy back the cart for $2,000. "This means you own a free Golf Cart or made $2,000 cash doing absolutely nothing!!!" You can't blame a guy for exploiting loopholes that Congress offers.

The IRS has also ruled that there's no limit to how many electric cars an individual can buy, so some enterprising profiteers are stocking up on multiple carts while the federal credit lasts, in order to resell them at a profit later. We should note that some states, such as Oklahoma, have caught on to the giveaway and are debating whether to cancel or limit their state credits. But in Congress they're still on the driving range.

This golf-cart fiasco perfectly illustrates tax policy in the age of Obama, when politicians dole out credits and loopholes for everything from plug-in cars to fuel efficient appliances, home insulation and vitamins. Democrats then insist that to pay for these absurdities they have no choice but to raise tax rates on other things?like work and investment?that aren't politically in vogue. If this keeps up, it'll soon make more sense to retire and play golf than work for living

[tmittelstaed]

This is not a fiasco. My grandparents lived for over 20 years in Sun City, AZ, and since there's a huge golf course there, easily half of the residents in the city use golf carts as their primary vehicle to go to the grocery store, etc. Using road-worthy golf carts where you would normally use cars is very common with people who live in neighborhoods with golf courses close by.

[prajaowain]

It's about time!

[mikejacobskc]

I am a Republican, a lifer, and I strongly support this legislation. I didn't like the fact that it was added to an unrelated bill. Everyone should have had to go on record for the specific hate crimes bill. That being said, I encourage anyone and everyone to google Matthew Shephard and read about the case and what happened. This bill is a great step forward to protect a group of people that need protecting. Game, set, match.

[vietnamwar]

Good Job Congress, and the President, our economy are taking a big dump, and we worry about GAY RIGHT...

[Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01]

by vietnamwar October 22, 2009 11:08 PM EDT
Good Job Congress, and the President, our economy are taking a big dump, and we worry about GAY RIGHT...
===============================================================

Speaking of gay right...
www.gayrepublicans.org

[stuart-johns2]

by mensarino October 22, 2009 9:56 PM EDT

Well, regardless of objections to the contrary, it is soon to be the law,deal with it!
-----------------

Yep again. I just wanted to add that the people with the objections are probably hateful people. Me. I don't care if they had passed this law or not. I don't hate gays or anyone so I have no objections to it.

[cidaia]

Right now, where I live, homeless people are in more real danger of being hurt or seriously hurt, because they are homeless, than gays are in danger of being hurt (and it's not even close when we compare "seriously hurt") because they are gay.

But gays are special and homeless people are not, so we have two tiers of justice.

I guess that's why people like you need so badly to insist that anyone who doesn't agree with you, just MUST be motivated by "hate". You don't know them, but you know all about "Their kind", and THEY ("those kind of people") are all bigots.

[tmittelstaed]

At least 1/3 of homeless out there are alkies or druggies, they are choosing to engage in this behavior and homelessness is a result of those choices. Another 1/3 are mentally ill, and the rest are divided between families who have gotten accidentally stuck (and who don't stay homeless that long) and average people who are just bumming around, seeing the country, and don't want any responsibility. The fact is that this makes at least half of the homeless people out there, homeless due to their own poor choices. So, why do we want to have them stay homeless? We don't.

I'd love to see hate crimes legislation making it a federal feloney to attack a mentally ill person, since that's got to be one of the sicker crimes. But, communities don't have any qualms about prosecuting criminals who do this, so there's nothing to fix.

[Hosheen]

Summrex, please explain exactly what is the "homosexual steamroller" and how it affects you. Other than making your prejudice and hate more apparent, that is.

Remember, when you discriminate in any way against anyone else, you give others permission to do the same to you. What if I marched in front of your house carrying a sign saying, "Down with the homophobic fools". Would you feel a bit uneasy? Especially if you knew that I had friends that were the type that were easily swayed and inclined to violence?

[cidaia]

"At least 1/3 of homeless out there are alkies or druggies, they are choosing to engage in this behavior..."

WOW! The double standard just staggers...!!

The reality: gays wouldn't keep getting their faces bashed in if they didn't insist behaving provocatively, and picking & choosing which rules they feel like complying with vs. which ones just don't apply to them...too many ENJOY going out of their way to offend, upset, and generally screw with anyone who dares to hold different beliefs about what constitutes appropriate behavior.

Some people can say, straight-faced, that a girl has a RIGHT to get drunk, throw her clothing out the window, and hit on the boys, but if the boys take her up on what she's offering, that's "rape"...but then they can turn around and say that some poor homeless guy DESERVES to get beaten within an inch of his life, because he brought it on himself by being homeless, didn't he? (Unless it's a LIBERAL homeless guy, in which case substance abuse is a DISEASE, and not his fault at all.)

Equality: that means freedom and rights for all "who deserve it" (as judged by liberals)