Posted on 05/03/2007 1:02:59 PM PDT by EShellenberger
The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would punish offenders more severely if a criminal assault or murder could be proven to have been motivated by the attackers alleged hatred for the victim because of the victim's "sexual orientation," though that term is not defined in the legislation.
advertisement
A news release from the Family Research Council (FRC) called the legislation "a direct violation of the 14th Amendment which affords equal protection under the law."
Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the Judiciary Committee agreed.
"Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice for all," Smith said. "Under this bill justice will no longer be equal, but [will] depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim."
FRC says the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007," H.R. 1592, which passed by a vote of 237 to 180, would, "grant certain victims of crimes allegedly motivated by bias greater protection than other victims of violence.
"Criminalizing thoughts as well as actions, and creating special categories of victims is unconstitutional," said Tony Perkins, FRC president. "The actions of a majority of the House today undermine the promise of equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
"This legislation creates second-class victims and a legal system of 'separate and unequal,'" he added.
The Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee defended the bill.
"It does not impinge on public speech or writing in any way," Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.)argued.
But Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, warned that the true intent of the bill was "to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality." If you read the Bible in a certain way, he told his broadcast listeners, "you may be guilty of committing a 'thought crime.'"
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) explained his opposition to the bill in a news release issued just after the vote was taken.
"The law should not distinguish between victims or levy higher penalties based on a criminal's supposed motive," Wilson wrote. "Our legal system was founded on the principle that justice is blind. It is our duty to uphold this standard."
But the South Carolina Republican also echoed Dobson's concerns.
"[C]ertain provisions of this bill would inhibit the free practice of religion and compromise First Amendment rights," Wilson explained. "For these reasons, I could not support this legislation."
Twenty-five Republicans crossed party lines to support the bill. Fourteen Democrats did the same to oppose it.
The White House issued a "Statement of Administration Policy" shortly before the vote indicating that President Bush might veto the legislation, if it passes the Senate and is sent to his desk.
"The Administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics such as race, color, religion, or national origin," the statement said. "However, the Administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."
The statement goes on to explain that the acts covered by the legislation are already illegal under the laws of all 50 states and that states have had no difficulty prosecuting such crimes. In addition, the White House notes that many states impose penalties for these crimes that are more severe than those proposed in the bill.
This was before the invention of HVAC.
Maybe we should ban HVAC in all government buildings in Washington, DC.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Despicable. Agreed.
These says “surveillance techniques” make the quartering of soldiers unnecessary to listen to what is said within a home. Make no mistake the people pushing these bills will use surveillance to suppress “unacceptable speech”.
This is exactly the sort of thing that drove the founding fathers to rebel against their government. Our Representatives need a reminder. They fancy themselves to be the Earls and Dukes of old.
It actually "sieg".
I got to correct your German... oooh that felt good
We can only hope that he, in a lapse of his compassionate-conservatism nature, does veto this as a small gesture to those who contributed money and time to get him elected and re-elected.
Musn't hold our breath.
If the court does what we would expect it to do,then yes this law is doomed.I don’t have much faith in the court following the Constitution anymore.
Thanks for the link. As expected, my congressman did not do the right thing, but it helps to confirm it.
I have already written him, politely expressing my dissatisfaction with his vote. Politely, because I’m still lobbying him everyday to seal the borders.
Not that he will do the right thing there, either.
God help us. I guess it’s time for the end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.