I am going to be very, very angry with Democrats

[cboy4]

if they do not support these measures in support of basic human rights.

==============================================================================

1. A hate-crimes bill that would cover offenses motivated by anti-gay bias

2. A measure that would outlaw workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

3. A measure to be introduced Wednesday seeking repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that bans openly gay Americans from serving in the military.

==============================================================================

I, along with other gay people, HELPED vote Democrats into power in November.

I'm proud to be a liberal Democrat and I want my party to start doing what's decent when it comes to gay civil rights.



http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/feb/25/historic_breakthroughs_expected_gayrights_legislat/

Historic breakthroughs expected for gay-rights legislation

By David Crary - Associated Press Writer
Sunday, February 25, 2007

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.

<snip>

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.

If approved by Congress, the bills would head to the White House. Activists on both the left and right are unsure whether President Bush would sign or veto them.

<snip>

For gay-rights leaders — whose efforts to legalize same-sex marriage have been rebuffed by many states — the congressional votes are keenly anticipated after years of lobbying.

[BayCityProgressive]

1. agreed

although at this point they can keep dont ask dont tell for all I care..I sure as hell don't want to go to Iraq. I'll answer the door in heels with a purse if they come for me! LOL

[cboy4]

6. I understand you don't want to go to Iraq, but you should

care about Don't Ask Don't Tell for all of those who do want a career in the military.

It's not fair for people like Bleu Copas:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14052513

[Kelly Rupert]

45. Everyone wants equality, except for when it's to their advantage.

:eyes:

Gays will not be equal until they are equal.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. as a straight, moderate person, I COMPLETELY AGREE!

now is the time. the religious reich has had their time. It is now ours..

[Olney Blue]

3. I'm with you, cboy. It's time for the Dems to deliver.

[lostnotforgotten]

4. I Agree, But Don't Hold Your Breath

eom

[frankenforpres]

5. I Dont like #1

simply because i am against any hate crime legislation. i support your other points.

[JackBeck]

7. If there is any group that needs to be added to the already exisiting

Hate Crimes laws it is the GLBT community.

You have to understand that people go out of their way to plan and execute violence against the GLBT community. This is a reality we face on an every day basis. We're not asking for anything more than to just be protected under Federal Laws.

[frankenforpres]

26. i think i agree with that

if it is given that hate crime legislation must continue to exist, then gays should be protected. i am just against any hate crime legislation.

[cboy4]

8. Why is it you don't like #1?

Just curious.

[frankenforpres]

27. because

i feel that punishment should be severe enough without some arbitrary thought aspect added to it.

[cboy4]

29. The bottom line is there is a federal hate crime law. We can argue

the merits of needing hate crime enhancement penalties.

But I can't believe anyone doesn't feel gay people should be added to the list of protected individuals.

Fair is fair.

[ScreamingMeemie]

39. ...

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070224/METRO/702240351/1003

You don't think Anthony, and others like him, deserve to have some thought attached to the brutal attack based upon who they are?

How progressive.

[frankenforpres]

40. so if someone beats a straight guy down

he deserves a lesser punishment than someone that beats a gay guy?


i said in other posts, that given current legislation, it would be consistent for it to pertain to gays. i just dont think there should be any hate crime legislation.

[ScreamingMeemie]

42. If he's beaten down for being straight I'm all for it.

I think there should be hate crime legislation.

[TahitiNut]

54. The defendant's state of mind has always been a consideration.

In both civil and criminal law, the defendant's state of mind has always been an essential element to consider in either determining whether the person is responsible and in determining the severity of the offense. Always. There is no such thing as "some arbitrary thought aspect."

So, let's try to get the above clear, first and foremost. OK? Generally speaking, there are four levels of mens rea (mental state) of the defendant in performanc of the act that have been part of due process in assessing the degree of guilt for a criminal act. It must be shown that the defendant acted either intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, in a generally decreasing sense of responsibility. Further, the "insanity defense" is an affirmative defense where the defense shows that the defendant was incapable of forming intention, having knowledge, or acting responsibly.

Again, the 'thought' (or state of mind) is ALWAYS a consideration.

The argument in favor of 'hate crime' legislation relates to the idea that not only has the crime been committed, but that the selection of a victim was based on (because of) the victim's protected exercise of their human rights and/or civil liberties. For example, people have an inalienable right to practice their religious faith. Thus, committing a crime against a victim chosen specifically because they're Jewish, or Muslim, or whatever has the additional element of being a crime against the general exercise of human rights in the community. It is seen as much more serious than intention as intention is more serious than recklessness.

That's why. So, if one wishes to disagree ... it's probably best if that's an informed disagreement rather than one based on falsehoods and myths.

OK? :eyes:

[frankenforpres]

58. i dont see how

any of: intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently relates to thoughts of hate



you want sentencing guide lines based on motive. i think that is bullshit. motive is not intent.

[TahitiNut]

59. "motive is not intent"???

It isn't? Really? Are you actually claiming that one can form an intention without a motive?
Wow. :wow:

[frankenforpres]

60. are you the type of person

that condescends even when you dont know what you are talking about? that is incredibly rude.

"It isn't? Really? Are you actually claiming that one can form an intention without a motive?
Wow"


you have created a straw man.

i did not say that one can form intent without motive, i said that motive is not the same as intent.

lawyers may wish to show motive to prove intent, but they arent the same thing.

say for example you shoot someone in the face. why did you do it (to kill them INTENT), why did you want to kill them (because he was gay MOTIVE).


so again, motive may help you prove to a jury that the defendant was acting intentionally, but motive does not equal intent.

[Maven]

63. I understand the distinction you're trying to make, but

criminal law is a bit more complex. It recognizes "specific intent" in addition to the four basic levels of intent. The best-known example is tax evasion, but there are others. And in fact, many state hate crimes laws (sometimes called ethnic intimidation laws) define a hate crime as an act performed with the specific intent to harm, harass, etc. based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

You could also argue that the specific intent of hate crimes is to terrorize or intimidate a particular social group.

[frankenforpres]

64. Harvey, i agree that hate crime laws exist

i am just stating that i do not agree with them.

what if they work? doesnt that simply mean we should have harsher punishment for all crimes.

i have also said in this thread that if the laws exists, they should include sexual orientation. Maybe we should have a hate crimes thread, because what i am debating isnt really a gay issue.

[Maven]

65. Okay.

My point was merely that hate crimes laws, while unique, are by no means a legal anomaly.

You're right, this discussion is better left to a more general thread.

[LoZoccolo]

9. Would it change your mind to know that the justification for hate crimes legislation is that...

...hate crimes differ from others because the scope of who is victimized is increased? The effect of a hate crime is that a group of people are intimidated as well, rather than just one person being victimized.

[JackRiddler]

11. Doesn't that make rape the leading hate crime by far?

Almost by definition, rape is a hate crime against women. So every rape conviction should be doubled up?

And isn't the standard you suggest applicable to muggings or thefts, as these terrorize all people who live in that given neighborhood?

I question not the goal but the means, and am open-minded to being convinced in a serious debate about this.

[REP]

37. You Are Correct - Rape is a Hate Crime

I also agree, however, that the punishment should be for the action, not for what the perpretator may or may have not been thinking at the time. If we must have thoughtcrime laws, though, thoughtcrimes against any group should be covered, including sexuality or gender.

[Kelly Rupert]

47. Hate-crime legislation does punish the action,

in that it punishes the chilling effect a hate crime has on other members of that community.

As for what the perpetrator is thinking--would you advocate eliminating the distinction between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and all types of manslaughter? After all, the *action* is a wrongful death. The only distinction is the state of mind of the perpetrator of the death.

[Bake]

52. Punish the criminal ACT, not the thought.

If a gay person is assaulted and that crime is investigated and prosecuted to the fullest, won't the gay community take notice of that? If law enforcement goes after and arrests the guys who dragged a black man to his death behind their pickup truck, and they are prosecuted to the fullest, won't African-Americans take notice of that? In fact, won't ALL citizens take note of that?

What is the need for the thought crime legislation?

Bake

[Kelly Rupert]

53. Do you support eliminating the distinction between murder and manslaughter?

How about murder one and murder two? The only difference there is the murderer's state of mind.

[frankenforpres]

57. intent is not the same as hate n/t

[Bake]

66. Exactly.

Premeditation is an ACT (or series of acts) in itself, that reveals intent - the "mens rea" that is part of the crime. It's apples and oranges between that and so-called "hate crimes." Motive is different from intent.

And here's the difference. With a "hate crime," the penalty is harsher simply because of the perpetrator's animus toward the victim. "I did it because he'she was gay/black/etc." With intent, the issue is not "why" the perp did it (although juries almost always want to know what the motive was), but whether the perp INTENDED to do it: was it premeditated, or was it accidental or reckless?

Bake

[JackRiddler]

10. What about two out of three?

Give us the bill numbers and phone numbers of the relevant committees - I'll call on behalf of No. 2 and No. 3.

As for No. 1, I believe crimes should always be defined in terms of what one does, rather than one's possible motives. Assault is assault, murder is murder. Hate crime laws are well-intended an invitation to abuse by the justice system. You will see them twisted around and used against the very groups they are meant to protect.

[cboy4]

17. There is already a federal hate crime law, but the language does

not include sexual orientation.

It's a separate issue as to whether hate crime enhancements are necessary.

That's a different argument

But since hate crime laws do exist, why shouldn't sexual orientation be included in the language?

[salin]

21. great response to the 'anti-hate crime legislation' crowd.

As long as there are hate crime laws in existence, they should be extended to the groups of people who are most often the victims of hate crimes.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Agreed. If it's there, it should include sexual orientation. nt

[JackRiddler]

25. Yes.

You are correct, if there's a hate crime law at all, it should include this type of hatred.

Again, I don't support criminalizing motives.

[Maven]

61. Motives are already criminalized.

Edit: addressed more specifically above.

[jannyk]

12. How about not just support

but actual activism for 2 out of 3?

As a straight, married woman who has been immersed in the centre of the San Francisco Gay community for more than 20 years, I not only support but have aided in the fight for Gay rights. However, I do not and never will support any 'hate' crimes bills - sorry.

I have had this discussion with my Gay friends, employees and tenants over the years. Many agree that you cannot campaign for equality and special treatment at the same time. As someone who truly believes that all persons should be treated equally in all situations, my stance on hate crimes is in line with my beliefs.

[cboy4]

13. I respect your opinion, but that fact of the matter is people

are not being treated equally in all situations.

If everyone had the same rights, then I could better understand your point.

But until it happens, what's wrong with this sentencing enhancement?

[jannyk]

16. Because it's a

step in the wrong direction. If we are working toward equality, why obsfucate that goal with 'separate and special' treatment? It is confusing and somewhat hypocritical to demand equal treatment in all things and special treatment in the courts of law.

It convinces those that are not as enlightened, that Gays are not the same as everyone else, but distinct and very different. And the only way to full equality for the GLBT community is for the majority to begin thinking they are just like 'them'. Hate crimes legislation defeat this.

[cboy4]

19. Why is it "separate and special" treatment to include

sexual orientation as part of the language of current federal hate crime law?

Why is it considered at hate crime for a white supremacist to beat up a black person, but it's not a hate crime for a homophobe to beat up a gay person?

We can argue all day about whether hate crime enhancement penalties are right or wrong.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Personally, I think we should put ALL violent criminals behind bars.

Period. That's what prisons are for.

If we'd stop locking up so many people for non-violent drug offenses, there'd be room to do it, too.

I hear both sides in this debate; after all, ANY violence against a human being can be considered a "hate" crime. But I also think when targeted violence against certain groups has the effect of instilling widespread fear in those communities, it's legitimate to use whatever tools society can come up with to fight it.

[cboy4]

30. I obviously agree with you 100 percent, including the insanity

of locking up so many people with drug problems.

It solves nothing and it's taking up unnecessary space in overcrowded jails.

[Pushed To The Left]

33. Hate crime legislation is not "special treatment". Anybody can be a victim of a hate crime.

In Long Beach last Halloween, a group of black youths assaulted a group of white women while yelling racial slurs. The case was treated as a hate crime. I look at hate crimes legislation as a special circumstance that makes the crime more serious, just like "lying in wait" can add to the seriousness of a murder.

[mondo joe]

49. Hate crime legislation is not special rights. It should include any sexual orientation, not

simply gays.

[woo me with science]

14. Two out of three here, too. nt

[Porcupine]

15. Good luck. We can't get basic health care or stop a war.

Of course the proposals you outlined don't cost the goverment anything so maybe they'll get through. Some of them fill prison cells and that's always popular.

[foreigncorrespondent]

18. I really do hope...

...for you guys, that they do realize the queer community did help deliver the power they currently enjoy and give you guys the above mentioned things, plus more.

Of course I don't see full equality happening in my life time, but there are lots of things out there which if made into law would make life as a queer U.S. citizen a hell of a lot easier than it currently is.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. I can't fathom my Rep or Senators not voting for those.

I can't speak for the rest of the country, though.

[Nicole]

24. I will be angry as well.

It's past time to do the right thing.

I'm against the hate crime bill in general. I think all crimes should be prosecuted based on the action, not the motivation behind them.

However, as long as we have the hate crime bill, it should be amended to include gays.

[myrna minx]

28. K&R for more people to know about this legislation.

Equality is not a wedge issue.

[Pushed To The Left]

31. Why wouldn't they support those measures?

I think somebody would have to be pretty hardcore right-wing to oppose those 3 things! They seem like basic common sense to me.

[cboy4]

32. I can already predict that horrible Democrat Ben Nelson of

Nebraska will shoot these down.

Joe LIEberman could be another.

[Pushed To The Left]

34. I don't think Lieberman is as conservative as Nelson on domestic issues

I think Lieberman might actually support them. Nelson I'm not so sure about.

[cboy4]

35. You may be right. I'm just cranky in general with Lieberman

and I don't trust him anymore. ;)

[MonkeyFunk]

41. Lieberman

co-sponsored the original ENDA, he co-sponsored bill to add sexual orientation to the hate crimes laws, and he supports the repeal of don't ask, don't tell.

He's wrong on the war, but on almost every other issue, he's a solid democrat.

[cboy4]

50. I understand, but I worry he's a changed person because of

the Dems bootings him out of office in Connecticut.

People who are hurt sometimes change positions because they are angry and seek vengeance.

I hope that's not the case with Lieberman, but sadly, I don't trust him as being solid on anything until I see his vote(s).

[k_jerome]

36. my .02...prepare to be angry with Democrats....

in my observations, not enough people care about minority rights and equality issues to see anything done anytime soon. having said that, strong recommendations to pass this legislation will be sent to my representation in Congress. unfortunately, i feel i may be in the minority...literally.

[Forkboy]

38. I have such mixed feeling on hate crime laws

Because I feel that a crime against any human for any reason should be punished accordingly.I truly see us all as equal (even republicans),and we all have basic rights that should be covered.

However,I understand this isn't the case,and if we already have the laws and it doesn't cover the GLBT community then that should be changed.

So I guess I'm a 2-1/2 out 3 guy.

[area51]

43. How about single-payer, universal healthcare? (n/t)

[Midlodemocrat]

44. While important, it's time for the GLBT community to have the

same human rights as the straight community.

It's their turn. We need to stop throwing them under the bus in the name of other causes.

[mondo joe]

48. How about it? How about equal civil rights too?

[cboy4]

51. I'm not sure what your post has to do with my OP, which

focuses on three specific issues.

As for health care, I believe it's a travesty that any human being does not receive basic health care because they can't afford it...thus I am interested in John Edwards' proposal.

[Nevernose]

62. Why not both? And ending the Iraq Fiasco?

And repealing the tax cuts for the wealthy?
And setting up a tougher EPA?
And other regulatory agencies?
And repealing/drastically altering NCLB?
And doing something to help the IMPOVERISHED of this country?
And establishing actual anti-terrorism laws, as opposed to ones that look good to voters?
And taking a second look at NAFTA?
And mandating a higher fuel efficiency?
And combating a global warming?

And a million other things?

Fighting for gay people's rights in no way detracts from myriad of other messes we have to clean up, or wrongs we must right.

[Kelly Rupert]

46. Yes to all three. n/t

[Rex]

55. Basic human rights.

Too much to ask for in the 21st century? I can hear other countries laughing at us already.

[bobbolink]

56. And I'm angry with Democrats for not doing more about the deplorable poverty in this country!

A lot of good it does me.

:(