Posted on 05/08/2002 7:17:41 AM PDT by truthandlife
The U.S. Senate is considering a hate crimes bill that lists sexual orientation alongside other federally protected categories such as race, color and religion. Opponents point out its inclusion is more a political statement than a real need for protection.
If you read the Local Law Enforcement Act, you might think there is an epidemic of hate crimes against homosexuals in the United States. But according to Matt Kaufman, a contributing editor for Citizen magazine who has reported on the topic, that's not the case.
"Out of more than 15,000 murders in the U.S. overall, two of them were found to be anti-gay," Kaufman said. "Now, every one of those events is awful, but it does not amount to an epidemic that requires new laws when murder is already illegal."
In fact, Kaufman said, hate crimes of any kind are not very common.
"Hate crimes are very rare and the federal government's own numbers confirm this," Kaufman said. "The total number of crimes in the U.S. last year was 11.6 million. Roughly eight ten-thousandths (0.0008) of that number were found to be hate crimes."
Bob Knight, executive director of the Culture and Family Institute of Concerned Women for America, said the recent trend to put hate crimes laws on the books has more to do with politics than law.
"The real game plan is to elevate sexual orientation to a protected class," Knight said.
And that, he said, is a threat to traditional values and the view that homosexuality as an immoral practice.
"If the government adds sexual orientation to law, it immediately places people with traditional values on the wrong side of the law," Knight said.
Currently, the federal government can only prosecute hate crimes if the victim was engaged in a federally protected activity or if the crime occurred on federal property. Passage of the proposed hate crimes bill would extend federal involvement to any crime determined to be motivated by bias.
There are 51 co-sponsors for the Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001, all but ensuring its passage. The bill will have a tougher time, however, in the House of Representatives.
There is only one race: "Human Race", we are all "colored" (yes white is also a color although I am not white) and religion is protected (which means you can only abuse people who have religion)...
So who needs protection again?
LOL...........and I'm sure there will be plenty here and elsewhere that will say by signing it, he (Bush) is in the midst of some great plan. :)
5 moves ahead he is!
5 moves ahead on the chess board.
Not only that, but they will bash you and trash you for daring to criticize Bush for signing it.
Which bizarre fetishes will be included in time? Will these kind of laws make public expression of such orientation permissable or even legal by making former laws and even prosecutions invalid as acts of hate by the state?
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
homosexuality
bestiality (animal bill of rights?)
polygamy
pedophilia
S&M (will slavery become legal?)
exhibitionists
incest
I am sickened so I can list no longer, but ...
And who will make these "determinations"?
Geez... "hate crime"...Well, I hate that term. If someone is abused or even murdered for whatever reason like money or passion (translate "hate"), then it's a crime, dammit! Why do these liberal-thinkers feel the need to police our thoughts, too???
So if a criminal attacks 'Lola, the transvestite show-girl', because he is a transvestite, this attacker will get more punishment than the criminal who attacks one of my loved ones for just plain ol' robbery? (Eeegads! In that case, I suppose we are just supposed to feel sorry for the poor hungry criminal that had to steal to eat [sob!])
I've always said, if homosexuality is ok, why not beastiality or necrophillia? No one who supports homosexuality because it "doesn't hurt anyone" has an answer to that question. Beasiality and necrophillia don't "hurt anyone", do they?
I would really like to hear the answer to it too.
Don't forget necrophilia, coprophilia, transvestism etc.
There is NO reason why any of these behaviors would not be encompassed within the hate crimes bill as proposed. It is not a bill to protect homosexual orientation in particular, but sexual orientation in general.
The fact that the underlying behavior inclination--if acted out--would be illegal in its own right wouldn't matter. Suppose a pedophile has just been convicted of sexually assaulting a dozen children. While he is out on bail and awaiting sentencing, a few neighbors see him talking to a child, become enraged, and physically assault him. They have very likely committed not just an unlawful assault under state law (which would be the case in any event), but a hate crime under federal law as well. They are subject to increased criminal penalties even though the object of their anger committed heinous crimes against children (which, oddly enough, would not be considered "hate crimes").
The federal legislation thus elevates the convicted pedophile to exalted victim status.
Oh my, you are so right and that is just so sickening. Just thinking about this whole thing and how it can domino is more than pathetic.
Why is innate condition comparable to behavioral choices? Next they’ll be wanting protected status for booger eaters, ass pickers and “nerds”. All animals are equal except some animals are more equal than others.
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.