Update: Federal Hate Crimes Legislation (gay amendment apparently dead this year)

civilrights.org ^ | May 8 06 | civilrights.org

[churchillbuff]

Update: Federal Hate Crimes Legislation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 9, 2006

Late last week, on the floor of the Senate, Sen. Edward Kennedy asked for unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider sex-offender legislation, S. 1086, and that the Kennedy-Smith legislation be considered as an amendment to that bill. The presiding officer of the Senate, at the request of Majority Leader Senator Bill Frist, objected, thus apparently ending any chance for a Senate vote on hate crimes legislation in connection with S. 1086.

Statement by Eleanor (Eldie) Acheson, Director of Public Policy & Government Affairs, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:

"The prospects for a Senate hate crimes bill that its sponsors, Senator Edward Kennedy and Senator Gordon Smith, intended to be fully inclusive of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people were diminished on Thursday, May 4, when the Senate majority objected to Senator Kennedy's effort to bring the measure to the floor for a vote. The majority's blocking a chance for the Senate to vote for hate crimes protections was no doubt the intolerant and regrettable bidding of its extreme right-wing base.

"Despite this development, the 109th Congress has been a net gain in the campaign for federal hate crimes protection for the LGBT community. The strong bipartisan votes in the House of Representatives adding an explicitly transgender-inclusive hate crimes amendment to a crime bill, and then passing that crime bill as so amended, makes clear that the support and votes for a clearly inclusive measure are indeed there in the House, and we believe that the same is true in the Senate.

"And there is no question that the critical need for this legislation continues, as senators Kennedy and Smith have so eloquently and resolutely reminded us in their long and much appreciated leadership on this issue. We continue to hope and work for opportunities in the 109th Congress to advance fully inclusive hate crimes legislation."

[Captain Kirk]

I believe that George Allen, a big favorite here, supports adding protection of gays to this law.

[churchillbuff]

The majority's blocking a chance for the Senate to vote for hate crimes protections was no doubt the intolerant and regrettable bidding of its extreme right-wing base. ""

It's the "hate crime" concept that's intolerant. I've read that in Canada and parts of Europe, "hate crime" laws are being used to silence pastors and others who would preach Christianity or who would urge homosexuals to seek reparative counseling.

[churchillbuff]

I believe that George Allen, a big favorite here, supports adding protection of gays to this law."""

Could you supply some evidence for your claim? It's a pretty significant accusation - can you back it up?

[Solamente]

"...the Kennedy-Smith legislation..."

Named after William Kennedy Smith?

[sweetliberty]

"The majority's blocking a chance for the Senate to vote for hate crimes protections was no doubt the intolerant and regrettable bidding of its extreme right-wing base."

How about just plain common sense? Of course, I realize that common sense is quite uncommom these days, especially where politicians are concerned.

[gidget7]

VERY misleading. This bill was about sex offenders and mandatory sentences, etc. Kennedy and Smith wanted to add an amended version that included hate crimes clauses. Hate crimes are bogus anyway, and they have no place in this bill.

Good for the Senate for not allowing their "attachment"

That Kennedy and Smith would do this, and prevent this country from protecting children is criminal. Even most Democrats, are for protecting children from predators. Presenting this on a truer basis, would get Kennedy slammed by a lot of his voters. He would hold up a bill, in order to protect transgender people.

It's like saying clamping down on prostitutes would unfairly profile transgender people. Hideous to say the least!

[sweetliberty]

"Hate crimes" legislation is nonsense anyway, but if the government starts offering special protections for every lust-driven "lifestyle" choice, then pretty soon the only people actually needing protection will be decent, working, tax-paying, lawabiding white heterosexuals who haven't murdered any of their children.

[308MBR]

I don't know how "decent" I am, but I work, pay taxes, obey laws, married with unmurdered/molested kids, and I am white.

For SOME strange reason, I feel I may need additional protection.

[untrained skeptic]

All hate crime legislation should be struck down under the 14th amendment which grants us all equal protection under the law.

Bigotry, discrimination, and blind hate should factor into sentencing because they do give an indication of the likelihood that the perpetrator of the crime would commit such a crime or other similar crimes in the future.

However, groups or individuals deserve equal treatment and protection under the law. None deserve special treatment.

[pabianice]

"Hate crimes." Right up there with "Marxist compassion."

[Old_Mil]

The criticism comes from Joe Glover, president of the Virginia-based Family Policy Network (FPN) and involves an Oct. 27, 2000, letter that Allen wrote to a constituent.

The recipient of that letter was acting as a liaison between Allen - at the time a candidate for the Senate - and pro-family leaders who were concerned about Allen's position on granting legal recognition or special privileges to homosexuals.

"As we discussed, if I am elected to the Senate, I will take no action that would have the effect of elevating sexual orientation to civil rights status," Allen wrote, "including, but not limited to, adding sexual orientation to Federal Hate Crimes legislation or any other similar legislation."

...the freshman senator voted to support the addition of "sexual orientation" as a protected category under the federal "hate crimes" law in 2004. The amendment did not become law, but the House recently passed a similar proposal. Glover is rallying conservatives to discourage Allen from supporting the current measure in an upcoming vote.

[A. Pole]

"The prospects for a Senate hate crimes bill that its sponsors, Senator Edward Kennedy and Senator Gordon Smith, intended to be fully inclusive of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people were diminished on Thursday, May 4,

Why only these FOUR sexual orientations were selected for the special protection? What about other sexual minorities?

[A. Pole]

However, groups or individuals deserve equal treatment and protection under the law. None deserve special treatment.

EVERY group?

[little jeremiah]

DB - one for the list. Ted Kennedy and Gordon Smith - strange bedfellows. Smith (imo) is one of the worst RINOS in the Senate. How could he side with TK on this garbage?

And CK - if you have a link or quote or something about Allen's position on including homosexuals in hate crimes protection, I think people on DBeer's list would like to know!

[Captain Kirk]

I said I believe, that's not exactly an "accusation." I heard it on the radio show, Point of View. I'll try to dig into it today if I find the time.....though you're free to google too!

[Captain Kirk]

It took me all of three minutes of googling to find it. For more background on George Allen's opportunistic and unprincipled support for adding gays to hate crime laws, see here.

[Captain Kirk]

Here is the link on Allen you seek. Frankly, I am surprised that so few here have heard about it.

[untrained skeptic]

EVERY group?

Everyone deserves to be treated equally by the law.

The laws should be applied consistently regardless of a person's race, wealth, religion, ect.

However, applying the law to someone who's religion leads them to blow up innocent people likely has a different result than applying it to someone who's religion leads them to help provide food for the hungry.

It's all part of that holding people accountable for what they do, rather than grouping people by characteristics like race and gender and trying to blame people for the actions of others that are outside their control.

[CatQuilt]

You didn't see the other articles when you googled, stating that he withdrew his support of hate crimes legislation?link