I do think this is a somewhat cheap trick; I wish both parties would abstain from these kinds of litigious maneuvers. I don’t really believe in the constitutionality of “hate crimes” at all (though charging hate criminals with terrorism is okay in my book), but I see no reason why homosexuality shouldn’t be covered if other minorities will be.
God bless.

This is but one more way Bush looks like a fool. Being in opposition to hate crimes for political reasons simply heightens the silliness of the political process/regress. He has even managed to find a way to make his supporters to look foolish, or at least stuck. I suppose there is some genius in that.

So, once agian they don’t want equal treatment, they want SPECIAL treatment. This is another indicatiohn that there is nothing too low for them to stoop to, in order to push their agenda. So now this bill will be vetoed, and thousands of wives and mothers will continue to struggle while their loved ones are fighting overseas.
But I shouldn’t be surprised. Here is a bill, sponsered by Barney Frank, that would force churches, religious schools and bookstores, etc… to hire against their religious beliefs. H.R. 2015

Quote-Article, “I think it’s shameful we’re changing the subject to take care of special interest legislation at a time like this”, Rep. Senator John Cornyn said.
It’s shameful that a Hate-Crime Bill wasn’t put into effect after Matthew Shepard was found hanging from a fence in a coma, out in the boonies of where, Montana? from a beating of two gay haters. This was 1998, three years before 9/11, and the Iraq war. Many glbt were beaten before 1998, and it’s continuing, some lived, some have died and this great U.S.A. is still fooling around deciding if “GLBT are worth passing a better Hate Crime law” then we have in place at this time. It must be that reason or why haven’t we got this law in place? It isn’t mentioned in this article presented here, but 10 million dollars will be earmarked to help law enforcement officials cover the cost of Hate Crime prosecutions. Also Federal authorities will have greater leeway to participate in Hate Crime investigations.

And if (G-D forbid) some of these conservative has a gay child and didn’t cut them out of their lives, and they were attacked because they were gay, I suppose they wouldn’t want the perps prosecuted fr such a thing.
How Xian.

According to FBI statistics, 1 in 6 hate crimes is based on the victims sexual orientation. Where is the “Special treatment” in extending Hate Crime protections to GLBT people, who are proven to be victims of this violent form of terrorism just as much as any other covered minority?
How can anybody even suggest that the fault of this bill being vetoed (should it be) rests on GLBT people, and not in the hands of he who wields the pen? That’s blaming the victim. That’s as sick as the defense attorneys for the people who beat Matthew Shepherd to death saying, “Well, if he wasn’t gay, he’d still be alive, so really, half the blame is his.” Which, by the way, they did.
As for the larger ramifications of taking this bill on to a defense spending bill – which Bush desperately wants to be passed; personally, I’d rather this bill stand on its own and pass on its own, but sometimes Justice and Equality have to be given a kick in the butt, ala Abraham Lincoln. Oftentimes it is necessary, when the people whose job it is to be impartial are too busy playing politics and pandering to America’s own brand of religious extremists.

If the proponents will just stand up to the SOB it will pass. They desperately need to grow a backbone. But I sympathize with them, given the vast right wing propaganda apparatus that gets cranked up for things like this. The same one that got congress to accept Bush’s phony’d up evidence so we invaded Iraq and got into this god awful mess we’re in now. And likely the same one that will get us to attack Iran, which will make this mess we’re in now look like high cotton.
I favor hate crime laws for groups that demonstrably are at greater risk of being attacked. We have laws censoring what children can see because they are more likely to be hurt by it than adults. Same idea.

“This is another indicatiohn that there is nothing too low for them to stoop to”
So, Tunamelt, you are in favour of it being legal to beat people up just because they’re gay. I can just feel the “love” that emanates from that kind of thinking. Unfortuanately, I can feel it with the force of a baseball bat to the skull.
Pace Matt, Gwen, Teena, Aaron, et al.

To Tunamelt,
I guess you are going to want to have a law passed to protect really stupid people from themselves. It sounds like you need it before you get hurt. I can’t believe that you would consider it someones agenda to want to protect people. Every person in this country and any other country has the right to walk the streets with out being harmed. That did not happen to Matthew Shepherd. People who didn’t have the sense they were born with decided that they had the right to judge his life, just as you seem to think you have that right. Guess what

If someone is the victim of battery because she or he is, say, the target of a robbery, that person would be victimized regardless of who or what that person is. Most states’ (and I believe federal) criminal codes recognize (attempted) robbery, not only as a crime per se, but as an aggravating condition of the battery.
If someone is a victim of battery because she or he is a police officer or other public official, that person would not be victimized if she or he were not. And again, criminal codes recognize intimidation of a public official as a crime per se, as well as an aggravating condition of the battery.
If someone is the victim of battery because she or is is, say, left-handed, that person would not be victimized if she or he were right-handed (or believed to be). Anti-hatecrime legislation attempts, in effect, to make victimization because of who or what the victim is, to be an aggravating condition.
This is not “special treatment.” This is the logical extension of a long-established legal principle to populations which, like robbery victims and police, are especially subject to victimization by criminals.
If I get into a car crash and have an argument with the other driver, and I end up punching him in the face, I am a batterer and ought to be punished.
If that person happens to be a judge, I ought not to be punished further because his being a judge is irrelevant to my crime.
But if I hit his car or his face because he is a judge, I ought to be punished more severely, because my crime is much more severe for that reason.
Take those last two paragraphs, remove the word “judge,” and insert “queer” or “towelhead” in its place, and the essential fairness, reasonableness, and necessity of anti-hatecrime law becomes obvious.

Your comparisons of reasons are easy to understand DS, for people who have a hard time with comprehension. I’m wondering why you just didn’t say glbt, instead of queer, and what is a towelhead? never heard this expression.

Thanks, rc -
I used hateful expressions in order to emphasize the hatefulness of hate crime, using expressions which those who might be inclined to commit such crime might use.
“Towelhead” is a perjorative expression which refers to a person from the greater Middle East, and refers to the kaffiyah.
DS

Just pass the legislation already! All folks have the right to walk, ride, skip, run etc. without fearing that they will be attacked….gee! that even includes GLBT people! “W” is already screwed up his entire presidency, so why would this be different?
Tunamelt:
Not to worry, the soldiers will get their needed funding etc. And hopefully those people who want “SPECIAL” treatment will get the laws they deserve.

OK, simple statement …
…a vote against hate crimes is a vote for hate crimes. Anything more complicated than that is simple obfuscation (love the Oxymorons).
Do it, stop yelping and fussing, and move on. The funding will get in there one way or the other. I am sure nothing will happen until Halliburton and its subsidiaries get their cut of the action.

Watch out, jest – Blackwater may come and enforce the funding law!

Deacon,
Let ‘em come. I’ll throw holy water on ‘em and then brandish a silver cross. That ought to get those leeches and blood suckers to back off! What a Halloween-ish gesture!

I don’t believe in a special category of crime called “a Hate Crime,” anymore than I believe that Holocaust denial ought to be a crime.
However, prosecutors use what they have, and sometimes, it is easier to prosecute someone who is committing an act of intimidation or violence against someone else when a law like this is on the books. This is a complex issue, it seems to me.