RECENT  POSTS:  » Pro-discrimination activists continue to use one woman's one-sided spite against ex-husband to attack marriage equality » Audio: Tony Perkins minimizes actual religious persecution; pretends he and anti-gay pals face 'deadly consequences' » Ryan Anderson, Mark Regnerus, Rick Warren, other inequality advocates urge Pope to 'commit to marriage' » GLAAD: Are some anti-LGBT activists missing a self-awareness gene? » FRC faults Dems for broken, obstructionist Congress while advocating for broken, obstructionist Congress » FRC senior staffer: 'Ex-Gays: The Best Kept Secret in Your Child’s School' » Video: In inclusive ad, AZ Sec. of State hopeful makes discrimination his rival » That discriminatory OR baker is really overthinking reason why she's national news » Robert Oscar Lopez confirms belief that gay parents are like slave owners » Video: Values Voter Summit marriage panel was particularly boring, bad, ineffective this year  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

05/08/2009

Great, Bruce. So give us back your 'special' protections

by Jeremy Hooper

If the issue of lowering the voting age to 16 were to arise, we may have some arguments against the change. But we're not going to act as if the newly suffraged sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds would be getting any sort of "special" voting right that goes beyond what we of-age citizens already have.

In the debate about gun ownership, we may have our reasons for seeing assault weapons as overstepping the second amendment's intent. But if we ourselves were handgun owners, we wouldn't hypocritically overlook our own possession of firearms so as to make our resistance against the more powerful semi-automatics stronger and/or more convenient.

If our creative endeavors are protected by "fair use," we're not going to ignore our own deserved exemptions when addressing others' utilization of this important copyright law concept.

Now, that all being said: Go listen to this audio from Focus on the Family (speakers are Kim Trobee and Bruce Hausknecht):





*Audio source: 5/6/09 - Focus Action Update (comes around 8:55 mark) [CitizenLink]

Our response: YOU ARE PROTECTED ON THE BASIS OF BEING A CHRISTIAN! YOU ARE PROTECTED ON THE BASIS OF BEING A  Good As You Images 200807181555-1.Jpg-1CHRISTIAN! YOU ARE PROTECTED ON THE BASIS OF BEING A CHRISTIAN! YOU ARE PROTECTED ON THE BASIS OF BEING A CHRISTIAN! YOU ARE PROTECTED ON THE BASIS OF BEING A CHRISTIAN! YOU ARE PROTECTED ON THE BASIS OF BEING A CHRISTIAN! YOU ARE PROTECTED ON THE BASIS OF BEING A CHRISTIAN!

And not only on the basis of Christianity. Gender, race, sexual orientation, national origin: All of these things apply to the majority, as well as minorities! If a white, heterosexual, American male is specifically sought out and targeted for those qualities, then the bias motivation might very well qualify as a hate crime (with the burden of proof obviously and necessarily strong).

But the problem that we're currently combatting? Sexual orientation and gender identity (which could very well include heterosexuality and gender displays that FOF would consider "normal") are a top reason for bias-motivated incidents, yet remain unprotected characteristics in federal law! In Bruce's quote about "promoting some at the expense of others," the "some" is a whole panoply of classes and characteristics, while the "others" are LGBT people. So that is what this is current debate is really all about: EXPANDING the laws that are currently in-place to accommodate all parties who might need/benefit from the increased protections/increased allotment of resources!

We'd respect our opposition so much more if they were seeking a complete elimination of any and all protections. Hell, we've even complimented Matt Barber -- MATT BARBER! -- for pensively suggesting as much. But on the whole, an elimination of all hate crimes laws is not what they are seeking, and an acknowledgement of their own "special rights" is not something they care to (or even seem fit to) acknowledge. They are seeking to further marginalize certain groups, not accurately assess the full spectrum. They are seeking to muddy the waters, not clear they air. They are seeking to have their own cake protected, but leave other creations vulnerable to real and demonstrable spoils.

THEY are the ones seeking to pit group against group -- we are the ones seeking to keep ALL pitted groups safe!

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Now lets be real the protection of Christians is meant for Christians striving to improve life not just their own but of their brothers and sisters in Christ. The deviance that is the glbt is not about improvements its about promoting deviance as somthing that is good when they know it is not good for anyone. Know this though even with hate crimes on mans books to protect your deviance it offers no protection to your lives here today or your afterlife. Here if you are going to be hurt or killed the after damage legislation did nothing to prevent the damage ,and as far as your afterlife all it did is give you a false ok to sin against God and man even the ones you claim to care about.

Posted by: sinner | May 9, 2009 1:46:55 PM

Well, sinful, Christians are not the only religion that is protected on the basis of religion. Muslims, and Hindus, Buddhists, and Wickens are all equally protected. And, religious on religious violence is highly prevalent throughout the world. The primary reason that religiots are protected by hate-crimes legislation is to protect them from each other.

And, dare I say, one of the primary reasons for adding sexual orientation to hate-crimes legislation is to protect the LGBT community from the rabidly hateful religion-identified sociopaths who seek to do us harm.

Posted by: Dick Mills | May 9, 2009 4:02:23 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails