HR 1592 advances; religious right searches for new ways to lie about it
By a 20-14 party line vote, the House Judiciary Committee voted last night to send LGBT-centric hate crimes legislation (HR 1592) to a full House vote.
Or as the religious right is referring to the news:
::sigh:: So dramatic they are in their fib campaigns! But looking beyond their flawed rhetoric, most every rational person realizes that what hate crimes protections actually hope to do is keep EVERYONE of out the bull's eye, and that they will actually only create penalties for acts of violence (not thought). And most see that unless Christians are planning on literally beating gays over the head with a Bible, then this legislation will affect their preachings none!
But then again, it must be hard to realize what's actually going on with the bull's eyes when you spend your days swimming in his sh*t!
It remains to be seen if this truly righteous legislation will pass though the House (where it did last year), pass through the Senate (where it failed), make its way to Bush's desk, and then finally become law. Though if it does find its way to the final steps, except our opposition to pull out all the stops and say:
YOUR GOVERNMENT WILL MAKE YOU EXPLODE
Christians will spontaneously combust in new 'hate crimes' plan
Congress working to destroy society by encouraging a world where gays are less demonized
And don't think we're being all that far-fetched. After all, these are the same folks who made a wanted poster for Jesus!
**Take action on this legislation: Decades of Hate Violence. Let's take action now [HRC]
If it passes, it's war:
Posted by: Cicero | Apr 27, 2007 3:13:23 PM
This legislation doesn't make sense nor does your argument for it. If a christian hits you over the head w/ a bible that's assault and battery and is already covered by current laws. By legislating the intent of the crime then we are starting to head towards "thought police". Creating special laws for certain groups is by nature discriminatory and should not be law. The only rights that matter are individual rights. If those are protected than we are all protected.
What you would like legislated is forced acceptance of your way of life which can never be in a free society. Only in a dictatorship could that happen. When we are free from government interference than we will all be more free. Free to be gay, straight, pray to Jesus or the moon. Think about it.
Posted by: Jason | Apr 27, 2007 7:06:51 PM
Jason: First off, we have loads and loads of arguments for HR 592 and against the religious right's condemnations of it (and similar measures). I suggest you read more to learn better about our views.
As for the "literally beating gays over the head with the Bible" part -- that is merely our (slightly silly) way for conveying that gay antipathy has to go from thought into action before this legislation would have any effect on religious folks. But taking it to the serious degree that you have -- If one were to go around beating gay people over the head with a Bible while screaming "gays are going to hell," this would, indeed, be more along the lines of what we are wishing to protect through HR 1592. While you correctly assert that it would be something along the lines of assault and battery regardless of motivation, if extreme gay bias and an attempt to terrorize an entire community were the stimulus, then the government has a vested interest to tack on additional charges.
Nobody wants to legislate "forced acceptance of [our] way of life." If we were proposing the "THINK AND SPEAK IN ONLY ONE MANNER ACT OF 2007," then you would have a more valid point. However, we are not trying to change anyone's views. What we are suggesting (in simplistic terms, because it's Friday night and I've just come back from a lovely dinner and had a few glasses of wine) is that a violent act, while typically sad and horrible, is a different situation when it is a targeted, bias-motivated incident. Just like most every other minority sect is already protected, we wish to see the LGBT community -- a group that is undeniably targeted -- just a little more safeguarded (with those who commit the specified acts of terror punished more harshly) .
I will refrain from telling you to ".think about it," as hopefully that goes without saying
Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 27, 2007 10:47:16 PM
G-A-Y: I am an African American female and I would like to know what law is in place that protects myself and not you. Also, a violent act is a violent act is a violent act; if you think about it, violent acts always begin in hate, why do we need a new law to stop someone from saying the word faggot, or nigger, or whatever when they decide to hurt someone, this law is not going to stop that. The present laws that are in place, and the justice system, should be enough to address violent acts. I am against any law that prohibits any American from their own opinion. People who hate me because of my race do not have power over me. They can think what that want. If someone wants to hurt me, some law prohibting them from saying nigger while they're hurting me will not stop them from hurting me. It makes no since.
Posted by: rob | May 10, 2007 10:05:03 PMcomments powered by Disqus