Gay rights advances likely this year; "Concerned Women" are aghast

[Bluebear]

NEW YORK — Anti-gay bias has flared up in Hollywood and pro basketball recently, and soon the topic will be thrust dramatically into a new forum — a reshaped Congress likely to pass the first major federal gay-rights bills.

Wary conservative leaders, as well as gay-rights advocates, share a belief that at least two measures will win approval this year: a hate-crimes bill that would cover offenses motivated by anti-gay bias, and a measure that would outlaw workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. Also on the table — although with more doubtful prospects — will be a measure to be introduced Wednesday seeking repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bans openly gay and lesbian Americans from serving in the military.

All three measures surfaced in previous sessions of Congress, at times winning significant bipartisan backing but always falling short of final passage. This year, with Democrats now in control and many Republicans likely to join in support, the hate-crimes and workplace bills are widely expected to prevail.

"With liberals in control, there's a good possibility they'll both pass," said Matt Barber, a policy director with the conservative group Concerned Women for America. "They're both dangerous to freedom of conscience, to religious liberties, to free speech."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4578873.html

[varun]

1. Wonder if Bush will sign them

if the bills come to his desk.

[Ian David]

6. Maybe, but he'll have Presidential Signing Statements up the wazoo.

"I hereby declare that companies that contribute to The GOP are exempt from complying with this law. Heh heh heh."

[Maat]

16. Now, THAT was funny, IanDB1!

:spray:

We salute that wicked sense of humor!

:patriot:

[Ian David]

2. We should include ammendments exempting the families of those who vote against these bills...

from being protected by them.

[achtung_circus]

3. What are they concerned about?

Their husbands' fidelity?

[Luna_C_06]

4. Wait a minute...

... why is a guy directing "Concerned Women" for America? And why is it a big deal to protect gays from discrimination? I thought most work places did that already.

[Bluebear]

7. Women can't determine policy decision, silly.

You need a MAN for that, ferchrissakes! :eyes:

[SharonAnn]

5. So is the Concerned Citizens Council, otherwise known as the KKK.

Anytime I see "Concerned" anything, I think of the Ku Klux Klan.

[Pushed To The Left]

37. Same thing for the word "Family" . RW hate groups love to put "family" in their names

Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, etc. Notice the last part of the KKK's name: Klan, another name for family! Maybe if they changed their name to the Ku Klux Family they would become another mainstream religious right organization!

[kdpeters]

60. Family is their word for 'homosexuality'

Just call them: Focus on Homosexuality, Homosexuality Research Council, American Homosexuality Association

You get the picture. And now you know why they use 'family'. When you read those titles aloud, it sounds like they have a freakish, pathological obsession with homosexuals.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Uppity queers!

Maybe we should just shut up and have a Snickers! :eyes:

I was going to ask why "Matt" was bolded, then it dawned on me. ;)

[Lautremont]

9. This is a good one:

'"It's taking us to the point where anyone who opposes the sexual behavior of homosexuals will be silenced," Perkins said.'

Yeah, because it's none of your business, is it now, Tony? Interesting that the REAL Anthony Perkins, the very talented actor, was himself gay. Too bad this bozo has his name now.

[Bluebear]

10. Poor Perkins, so "silenced", so oppressed.

:nopity:

[mitchtv]

11. also too bad :

Concerned Women of America stealing the initials of my union CWA
Communications workers of America. Also California Women in Agriculture and California Waterfowl Assoc.are concerend about these whackos, I suppose.

[Bronyraurus]

15. Anthony Perkins Rocks

Especially as Chaplain Tappman in Catch-22.

I don't like these first two laws, but for God's sake, let gays join the military.

[Bluebear]

17. Why don't you like the first 2 laws?

[Bronyraurus]

18. I don't like hate crime laws generally

It's a little too close to thoughtcrime. I'm not very exercised about it, it just creeps me out ever so slightly. If I was attacked and beaten up for any reason, I wouldn't be comforted to know that if they had attacked me because I was gay, they would've gotten stiffer penalties.

As for the second, I believe that sexual harrassment law already covers this sort of thing. I don't like legislation for its own sake.

I guess you could say that I'm fairly libertarian on most social issues, which is why the ban on gays in the military is absolutely outrageous to me.

[Bluebear]

21. Sexual harrassment does not cover sexual orientation. nt

[Midlodemocrat]

22. Do you feel the same way about crimes perpetrated against

minorities? or are gays okay to discriminate against?

As a "JD", I would think you would understand how hurtful hate crimes are in any form.

[Bronyraurus]

23. No, I don't like any hate crime law

It's not okay to discriminate against anyone! And hate crimes are hurtful as hell, but what is being punished, the crime, or the contents of someone's mind?

Does anyone seriously argue that hate crime laws are a deterrence against homophobia or racial bigotry? No, they're just an electoral stunt to make us feel like we're doing something. But the something we ought to be doing is creating a society where it's okay to be an out homosexual. Say what you want about the media and Hollywood, they're out in front on this and they need some help.

I don't think that enacting a fairly useless law does anything.

[JackBeck]

27. So we should take all hate crimes laws away

instead of adding the GLBT community to the laws that already exist, right?

I invite you to start a movement to take away existing laws, since you believe they shouldn't be there to begin with, and then we will ALL be equal.

[Bronyraurus]

28. Theoretically, that's right.

However, look at the argument that Buffy has made a few posts below. It puts these laws in a different light.

[JackBeck]

32. I'm talking to you right now

so I will not reference another poster's statements.

I will once again ask you, since you feel so strongly, why don't you start your own movement to overturn the already existing hate crimes laws, instead of adding the GLBT community to them? If it bothers you so much, why not focus your energy toward rescinding the laws that already exist, instead of bullying a community that wants equal access?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackBeck]

39. If that were the case

wouldn't there be loads of people coming to your defense? If I was being, as you put it, a "bully"?

I choose not to "screw off", since I never used that language with you. I asked you a very reasonable question. Your answer is still pending.

[Bluebear]

40. Isn't it grand, having new leglislation to improve gay people's lives?

And immediately have someone on a progressive message board tell you why they are against it? You know, just for the principle of the thing?

[k_jerome]

41. you must win them over to your side...get on the ball...

this rights and equality stuff is way out there...a very niche cause if you catch my drift.

[Bronyraurus]

42. I was asked, and I explained.

I think that Buffy made an excellent point that I had not considered. Other posters made nasty.

Not much more to discuss.

[JackBeck]

43. Not me that made it nasty. Just asked a simple question.

Funny how my posts aren't deleted...

So when are you going to answer my question?

When are you going to start the movement to get rid of the existing hate crimes laws?

[Bronyraurus]

49. OK, you've convinced me!

I'm going to start printing up posters today!

[k_jerome]

44. some posters will attempt to inflame discussion...

you do well to avoid confrontation with them.

[Bronyraurus]

50. It seems that many

don't really want a discussion of the issues, but would rather bully people with views that diverge from their own.

It's politics, folks, it's not personal. I'm not insulting your mother's virtue or anything.

[treestar]

66. Dodging the point

If you never debate ring wingers, you never have to deal with the fact that there is a difficulty with this. How do you get around that dimension? It'd be nice to live in a world without freepers, but we don't.

The point is that it does inevitably punish the contents of a person's mind, which is always dangerous, because we can't ever penetrate another human being's mind. It can be difficult to draw the line. It can become a witch hunt in the right environment.

If someone wants to argue that there are other and better ways to combat homophobia, why can't they do so without being treated to a bunch of outrage? It's like debating freepers when you say there is a better way to fight terrorism than a war in Iraq and they insist you are in favor of the terrorists.

[SemperEadem]

47. no one's punishing anyone for their thought

they're punishing them for putting that thought into criminal action to justify their intolerance against a person for what/who they are.

[NMMNG]

25. Unfortunately hate crime laws are a necessity

as are laws to protect GLBT people from discrimination in the workplace. Thanks to rampant (and even increasing) bigotry from the RW GLBT individuals experience significant barriers to equal rights and even threats to their safety. Sexual harassment laws do not cover the threat of not getting hired, being harassed, getting fired, etc. for being GLBT.

Hate crime laws are necessary because the nature of the crime is different from a standard crime. If a person beats you because you and he got into a fight at a bar, you eyed his woman, etc., it is an isolated incident and nobody else is at risk (and you probably are at no risk in the future once he has calmed down). If a person or group beats you because he/they hate gays not only are you likely at future risk--assuming you survive--but other GLBT people are at risk as well because the crime is directed at GLBT people in general. Worse yet, this behavior can incite others to copy it. That is why hate crimes need to be treated differently than regular crimes--they put an entire group at risk.

[Bronyraurus]

26. That's actually an argument that I hadn't considered

And a compelling one at that.

That's a fairly decent justification. As an intellectual exercise, square that logic with seemingly random attacks. If someone is inclined to randomly attack someone else, then shouldn't they get a stiffer penalty because if they're walking free, everyone they meet is at risk? Your argument makes a fine legal point because no one gets charged with first (or even second) degree assault in bar fights. They're generally third degree assault, a misdemeanor, because they're generally the result of people getting drunk, talking shit, and then starting something. It's not something that the assailants will usually do when sober.

I'm going to have to think about that. Thanks for the food for thought, and parenthetically, thanks for making that argument without calling me a bigot.

[NMMNG]

29. Hmm

As an intellectual exercise, square that logic with seemingly random attacks. If someone is inclined to randomly attack someone else, then shouldn't they get a stiffer penalty because if they're walking free, everyone they meet is at risk?


The important word there is "seemingly". In most cases it turns out that the seemingly random attacks aren't random at all, but actually have a reason after an investigation is done. If the attacks don't have an identifiable pattern/cause it's possible there is a mental illness behind them. In that case the person would need to be directed to undergo appropriate treatment until s/he is no longer a danger to others. If a personality disorder such as Antisocial Personality Disorder is the culprit then long term (if not permanent) incarceration would likely be necessary.

[Flubadubya]

45. If you're a J. D., why haven't you thought of it in this way before?

My, isn't it your job to be deeply "thoughtful" of such matters as they relate to human and civil rights in this country? You appear to say in an earlier post that you just more or less off-handedly do not like any of these "hate crime laws". Is that why you never put it in context of GLBT matters? Is it that you have already put your blinders in place where it comes to "hate crimes" overall?

More importantly, why do you tend to dismiss hate crime laws in general? To me they make perfect sense. When you are dealing with a child with bad behavior, you typically tend to punish most forcefully those behaviors that are most antisocial and deleterious to the common good, whereas those that represent only personal indiscretions or those that can be easily redirected, are treated more leniently. Given the vast amount of bigotry and intolerance in this country against various and sundry "minorities" (GLBT included), and the extreme and dire consequences to not only life and limb but also livelihood and the pursuit of happiness that attackers of said people can cause, why NOT come down on these specific offenders even more stringently than for other crimes?

Well, I don't know, this is a little OT, but when you've got a country that has certain legal systems within it that allow a citizen to blow another one away just because the perp claims that the victim was "appearing threatening", then I'm not too sure just how much "sympathy" any kind of hate crime legislation will garner in general anyway... and it is really too bad and very sad.

I guess we are truly living in the "interesting times" that the Chinese speak of.

[Bronyraurus]

48. Who knows?

We didn't talk much about hate crime laws in school.

And you've mischaracterized the law concerning self-defense, as many non-lawyers do. You can't blow someone away "just because the perp claims that the victim was appearing threatening." The perp must affirmatively prove that he was threatened with deadly force. That's not an easy thing to do, and if someone can do that, why shouldn't he be able to use deadly force in self-defense, rather than be forced to "retreat," which might get him killed?

[Flubadubya]

51. Too bad I mentioned the self-defense laws...

It seems to have given you the perfect "out" to gloss over and basically ignore the main issue and questions regarding hate crime laws. Who knows? ...perhaps I should have known. :shrug:

[Bronyraurus]

55. Care to answer my question?

[Flubadubya]

46. Delete - duplicated post n/t

[kdpeters]

56. Serious question. What differentiates between 'thought crime' and 'motive'?

I've never really heard of thought-crime except in 1984. But I'm pretty sure it's quite standard nationwide to determine a person's motives and charging them thusly. If a person is killed, one can be charged with first-degree murder, negligent homicide, or not even charged at all. But determining motive requires getting into one's thoughts. So here's the question....

As a self-described libertarian, are you likewise uncomfortable with the practice of determining one's motive, and thus one's thoughts, to charge him with greater or lesser crimes depending?

If not, can you explain to me why hate crimes legislation to you is "thought crime" rather than determining motive? That's what 'hate crimes' seems to be to me. A lot of people get stuck on the semantics of the terms. Of course, the right wing does so intentionally. What ever you want to call it, the concept is terrorism. Just like homicide is murder if intentional, vandalism becomes terrorism and intimidation when it is bias-motivated. I've had my house TP'd a couple of times. It's annoying, but not frightening. But when strange random incidents become clear that you're being targeted -- and being targeted because you are gay, it's terribly frightening -- especially when you notice it starting to escalate. What made it worse in my case was that it came from a cop. Filing a complaint just brought the entire machine bearing down on us. They came after us as if presenting evidence of what was being done and who was doing it somehow made us the criminals. And every week, we read in our community papers that someone was assaulted and much too commonly killed. We take this stuff a lot more seriously than getting our houses TP'd. It is a lot more seriously than TP'ing a house. It's terrorism. And it goes to motive.

[kdpeters]

57. And consider the difference in the type of person who vandalizes out of hate rather than mischief

One of those quite clearly raises more concern that he may harm someone than the other one does.

I also like to use vandalism when discussing hate crimes. In reality, property crimes are the most common forms of bias crimes and it is at these lesser offenses where bias-legislation is most effective at preventing the much less frequent but much more shocking headline grabbers such as Buddy Anthos and Matthew Shepard. But once someone is murdered, they're already facing the harshest punishments in our legal system. That's not where hate crimes legislation makes the impact. It's the lesser offenses where a more serious charge can nip that behavior in the bud -- because it's not random and if not stopped, can be sure to continue and to escalate.

[Bronyraurus]

59. Its the same

But neither are the same as intent, which is what helps to determine the degree of the crime charged. Motive does not, and that's where your argument fails.

[kdpeters]

61. I'm not sure you understand my point.

because whether motive or whether intent, neither term makes a difference in the point I'm making so neither term makes a difference in the success or failure of my argument or what I was politely asking you. I'm trying to ask you what you mean by 'thought crime'. Certainly you know that's a loaded term and not a clearly defined one at that, so I'm trying to understand where you're coming from which is why I asked you a few clarifying questions. I would have preferred that you offer me the same consideration rather than presuming me to be asking you for your validation. I don't know who you are so I don't know why I'm supposed to care how you would grade my argument. I just wanted to talk to you.

Does not intent likewise require getting into a person's thoughts? That's what I presumed to be your issue with hate crimes legislation. If I'm misunderstanding your issue with hate crimes legislation, maybe it would help if you could explain to me the difference between intent, motive and what differentiates them from thought crimes.

And I'm not usually one to use a lot of smileys, but I don't want you to presume this to be a hostile inquiry. It's just a chat. So here's one for you. :toast:

[Bronyraurus]

65. Ha! That's ok.

I didn't think it was a hostile inquiry. And forgive me if you already know what I'm about to tell you, but it's essential to the distinction that I'm drawing. Basically, intent shows whether or not a person intended to commit the actual act committed, whether it was out of recklessness or planned beforehand, etc... So in a first degree murder, the intent is there and the act has been planned. For each successive degree, the intent is taken away until you end up with manslaughter, which can involve purely negligent actions (no intent at all) that result in someone's death. Intent just shows, in other words, whether or not the person meant to commit the act. Motive, or why the person committed the act, has nothing to do with it.

Motive is a device that prosecutors use to introduce evidence that tends to show that the defendant is guilty. It's purely circumstantial, because it doesn't prove anything- it's just a piece of the puzzle that the prosecutor shows (someone with a motive is more likely to commit a crime than some random dude who had no reason to...).

So, in other words, motive won't usually affect what crime is charged, or what sentence is levied. Judges might take more pity on a man if he shot his adulterous lover in the passion of the moment over someone who shot a random dude for no reason, but that's it.

Should that be codified? I'm generally all for giving judges leeway in sentencing. I don't like mandatory sentences at all, and one need only look at the drug laws in this country to see what's wrong with them. The issue here is just another mandatory sentencing guideline that I don't think is necessary, and incidentally seems to punish a mindset or belief that is protected by the constitution, as is racism.

Look, none of this stuff is pleasant, and anyone reading this would be a moron if he thought (as some posters on this thread seem to) that my point of view sanctions any hate crime. But there it is.

[Midlodemocrat]

19. Okay, why not?

you seem to be okay with gays in the military, but no equal rights for gays? :shrug:

I wonder if you mean that you are okay with gays being cannon fodder, but nothing else.

[Bronyraurus]

20. Whoa!

I'm the last person you would ever accuse of homophobia if you knew me. See above for my explanation. I'm a J.D. and have some definite thoughts about this kind of law.

[Jamastiene]

53. Wow, sounds like you want gays to face as many ways as

possible to die, huh? Is that a message? You just want us dead? You don't care how?

[Bronyraurus]

58. Yeah, you got it.

Glad I got that off my chest.

[terrya]

12. The "Concerned Women of America" can blow me.

As we've read, a 72 year old man was beaten to death because he was gay. So, I'm not really in the mood to hear from these disgusting bigots.

As we've read, when a 72 year old man is murdered because he's gay, it's LONG overdue for federal hate crimes legislation.

And it's about goddamned time for gay and lesbian people to be treated with respect and not to be discriminated against, be it in the military, in employment and housing, in adoption rights and to be given the right to have their marriages legally recognized.

And I think it's about fucking time to tell the "Concerned Women of America" and other bigots like them to go fuck themselves. Because I'm tired of their shit.

[Bluebear]

13. With you brother.

And "Matt", the concerned woman cited can fuck off.

[Midlodemocrat]

24. Terrya, you rock.

:applause:

[HappyWeasel]

33. CWA are a bunch of racist monkey-people that fli ng poo.

That outtake from Red State was about a CWAer arguing for the repeal of Equal Housing and Civil Rights....but still claiming she wasn't a "segragationist".

[bliss_eternal]

35. Well said!

:applause:

[Duncan Grant]

36. From your lips to God's ears.

:hi:

edit: k&r

[terrya]

14. Kick

Read this, DUers

[JI7]

30. "Matt Barber" policy director with the conservative group Concerned Women for America

next we will be seeing "George Allen representing concerned minorities of america"

[k_jerome]

31. surprise surprise...a minority rights post can't get responses or rec's....

next time put iraq or hillary in the title. i could go on, but why bother.

kick.

[ComerPerro]

34. Shouldn't the Concerned Women of America be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?

and stop abusing the liberties that feminists won for them, and that they oppose?

[depakid]

52. The so called "concerned" women are projecting

It's a common psychological problem on the far right:

"They're... dangerous to freedom of conscience, to religious liberties, to free speech."

(along with projecting, one also has to note that these types are irony impaired, which is usually associated with low intelligence).

[Clark2008]

54. If Matt is a Concerned Woman, he might ought to be thankful

for the advances the GLBT community gets.

:crazy:

[NuttyFluffers]

62. wasn't this the same "Concerned Women" who helped defeat Equal Rights Amendment?

they sound familiar...

btw, i never understood their (i do know it was a 'concerned women' group, though i forget the exact name) argument used to defeat ERA -- something about the death of chivalry, or something equally inane, if i remember correctly.

[xchrom]

63. it's a new week, a new day -- and i'm ready to oppress heteros again.

i took the weekend off.

but now i'm rested -- and i'm sure heteros are quaking in their guccis that i'm coming to oppress them -- i will this week some how make their lives a living hell with the power of my glare!!!

[salin]

64. odd that he uses the words 'freedom' and 'liberties' in his statement....

as he certainly isn't for those things for all americans. Try this on for size, Mr. Barber.... America is aghast at the theocracy being shoved down our throats by Concerned Women and other fringe reactionary groups.