View Full Version : Matthew Shepard Amendment Stripped From National Defense Authorization Act
Kurtz
12-06-2007, 05:12 PM
Washington, DC – The ACLU today expressed its disappointment that Congress has stripped from the National Defense Authorization Act a provision that would have extended federal civil rights protections to individuals targeted for violent crimes based on their gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability. The Matthew Shepard Amendment would allow federal law enforcement officials to step in to prosecute hate crimes where local law enforcement can not, or will not.
The following can be attributed to Christopher E. Anders, senior legislative counsel for the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:
“The Matthew Shepard Amendment represents ten years of hard work on the part of the civil rights community, and this is the closest we’ve come to having much-needed hate crimes language reach the president’s desk. Of course we’re frustrated to come so far, only to see the measure stripped out of the final bill. Whether as an amendment or a stand-alone bill, this should be an easy measure for Congress to pass, and we see no basis for a presidential veto. In addition to enjoying bipartisan support, the Matthew Shepard Amendment contains important protections for free speech and free association, as well as civil rights.”
HateCrimes (http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2007/12/hate-crimes-provision-stripped-from.html)
issac the dragon
12-06-2007, 05:38 PM
I can't see any reason for elimination that. It is as if the Reps. think they would lose their right to hate and kill.
Kurtz
12-06-2007, 05:41 PM
I can't see any reason for elimination that. It is as if the Reps. think they would lose their right to hate and kill.
That's exactly what it is.
God forbid all persons be equal in this "Christian based" country.
Yellowdogtexan
12-06-2007, 07:12 PM
Here is the statement from the ACLU on this defeat for the rights of people to be same from homophobes and haters. http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/speech/33023prs20071206.htmlWashington, DC – The ACLU today expressed its disappointment that Congress has stripped from the National Defense Authorization Act a provision that would have extended federal civil rights protections to individuals targeted for violent crimes based on their gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability. The Matthew Shepard Amendment would allow federal law enforcement officials to step in to prosecute hate crimes where local law enforcement can not, or will not.
The following can be attributed to Christopher E. Anders, senior legislative counsel for the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:
"The Matthew Shepard Amendment represents ten years of hard work on the part of the civil rights community, and this is the closest we’ve come to having much-needed hate crimes language reach the president’s desk. Of course we’re frustrated to come so far, only to see the measure stripped out of the final bill. Whether as an amendment or a stand-alone bill, this should be an easy measure for Congress to pass, and we see no basis for a presidential veto. In addition to enjoying bipartisan support, the Matthew Shepard Amendment contains important protections for free speech and free association, as well as civil rights."
I can't see any reason for elimination that. It is as if the Reps. think they would lose their right to hate and kill.
That's exactly what it is.
God forbid all persons be equal in this "Christian based" country.
That is ridiculous. If this Amendment is so important it should pass on its own. It has absolutely no place on a National Defense bill. It is a ploy of politicains that both sides use. This has absolutely no place on that bill or in that discussion and it is ridiculous for you to claim that Republicans stripped it to "hate and kill." Your statements have no fact or foundation behind them.
Kurtz
12-07-2007, 10:00 AM
That is ridiculous. If this Amendment is so important it should pass on its own. It has absolutely no place on a National Defense bill. It is a ploy of politicains that both sides use. This has absolutely no place on that bill or in that discussion and it is ridiculous for you to claim that Republicans stripped it to "hate and kill." Your statements have no fact or foundation behind them.
I know issac said hate 'n kill, but I'm gonna address that part.
Republicans want to maintain that no one has special rights
when it's really gays barely have second class citizenship rights.
This way they can say they're workin' for the religious right.
And in regards to this law enforcement action bein' attached
to a Defense spendin' bill, well, we got a few cowboys in office
right now who think Homeland Security is a law enforcement
issue, dumbasses don't know it's a covert intelligence issue, kwim? :lol
However, I do agree with you, this bill needs to stand alone as a civil rights issue.
toxic
12-07-2007, 10:06 AM
Sorry, but this is as useless as the Equal Rights Amendment was for women. Everyone already had rights under the constitution.
Similarly, every real crime involves hate, lust or greed. All crimes should be punished equally.
Similarly, every real crime involves hate, lust or greed. All crimes should be punished equally.
100% Agreed
Kurtz
12-07-2007, 10:21 AM
Sorry, but this is as useless as the Equal Rights Amendment was for women. Everyone already had rights under the constitution.
Similarly, every real crime involves hate, lust or greed. All crimes should be punished equally.
This bill was just another means to equalize homosexuals to the mainstream society as real people. toxic, I think you are an older person who might remember when men were condoned in beatin' the hell outta their lyin' ass cheatin' wives (sarcastically said). Yes, there was no special law that stated they could no longer beat their wives, however law enforcement often turns a blind eye when a homosexual is murdered or assaulted claiming their "lifestyle" asked for it. After all, consider someone like Wabash investigating such a crime.
And if homosexuals had equal rights under the constitution, how come they can't legally marry?
Ringo
12-07-2007, 10:26 AM
That is ridiculous. If this Amendment is so important it should pass on its own. It has absolutely no place on a National Defense bill. It is a ploy of politicains that both sides use. This has absolutely no place on that bill or in that discussion and it is ridiculous for you to claim that Republicans stripped it to "hate and kill." Your statements have no fact or foundation behind them.
Far from being the GREAT Political Guvment Expert, like say Doggie, this makes me wonder, who is REALLY behind this! I might be just a dumb ol Farm boy from Little House House on the Prairie area, but does this look a little LIBERAL to you??
http://www.southernvoice.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=15272
Oh and also HOW MANY Bills can Liberals actually put together that will stand on their own?? RIDERS should be banned, had they been banned, BYRD would have been a ONE TERM Senate Leech!!!
Yes, there was no special law that stated they could no longer beat their wives, however law enforcement often turns a blind eye when a homosexual is murdered or assaulted claiming their "lifestyle" asked for it. After all, consider someone like Wabash investigating such a crime.
Do you have any proof that law enforcement does this?
So in your opinion, a person that murders a gay man should be sentanced to a longer prison term than someone that murders a srtaight man? Talk about convoluted logic. A crime is a crime and should be punishable as such.
Kurtz
12-07-2007, 10:57 AM
Do you have any proof that law enforcement does this?
So in your opinion, a person that murders a gay man should be sentanced to a longer prison term than someone that murders a srtaight man? Talk about convoluted logic. A crime is a crime and should be punishable as such.
I agree with your simple view, however you might want to look at
the actual bill, it was aimed more at funding than ideology.
I gotta git cl, I got Admin stuff to do, but look to see a new addition
of LGBT issues here at TPA in the future so I can post more about
the inequal rights/liberties of queers here in America. :)
And yes, I have proof for my allegations.
I used to be a cop. :lol
Ringo
12-07-2007, 03:14 PM
This bill was just another means to equalize homosexuals to the mainstream society as real people. toxic, I think you are an older person who might remember when men were condoned in beatin' the hell outta their lyin' ass cheatin' wives (sarcastically said). Yes, there was no special law that stated they could no longer beat their wives, however law enforcement often turns a blind eye when a homosexual is murdered or assaulted claiming their "lifestyle" asked for it. After all, consider someone like Wabash investigating such a crime.
And if homosexuals had equal rights under the constitution, how come they can't legally marry?
But I have seen RAPE victims that have been chastised, because they wore a Mini-Skirt, or they walked a street alone, or my favorite, "They looked liked they wanted it"!!
Kurtz I really believe that Wabash would approach it as a HUMAN Crime, not as a Gay or Minority crime! I doubt he condones anyone beating the hell out of someone for their Lifestyle? Now if a Gay guy approached nme and started to grab my privates, then damn right I deck him and sort it out later, just as I would do if a straight did this!
Kurtz
12-07-2007, 03:38 PM
But I have seen RAPE victims that have been chastised, because they wore a Mini-Skirt, or they walked a street alone, or my favorite, "They looked liked they wanted it"!!
Kurtz I really believe that Wabash would approach it as a HUMAN Crime, not as a Gay or Minority crime! I doubt he condones anyone beating the hell out of someone for their Lifestyle? Now if a Gay guy approached nme and started to grab my privates, then damn right I deck him and sort it out later, just as I would do if a straight did this!
:cheers
And the same goes for a man who grabs a woman or a woman who asssaults a woman.
However, there are those who believe that some victims 'ask for it.' Dallas had a judge who actually ruled that way in an official ruling when some youths beat up a gay man for no other reason than the kid was gay. The judge's name was Hamilton 'n I was involved in the protest 'n voting off of that judge for that ruling. It's hard to change folks' minds when they believe some folks are less worthy than others for no other reason than color, sex, gender, etc. Hell, I know guys who hate white guys 'n when they beat those guys for that reason, it's a hate crime which calls for a stiffer penalty than an assault coz two guys got drunk 'n fought.
But don't get me wrong, I'm all for beatin' the hell outta criminals. :D
Ringo
12-08-2007, 08:32 AM
:cheers
And the same goes for a man who grabs a woman or a woman who asssaults a woman.
However, there are those who believe that some victims 'ask for it.' Dallas had a judge who actually ruled that way in an official ruling when some youths beat up a gay man for no other reason than the kid was gay. The judge's name was Hamilton 'n I was involved in the protest 'n voting off of that judge for that ruling. It's hard to change folks' minds when they believe some folks are less worthy than others for no other reason than color, sex, gender, etc. Hell, I know guys who hate white guys 'n when they beat those guys for that reason, it's a hate crime which calls for a stiffer penalty than an assault coz two guys got drunk 'n fought.
But don't get me wrong, I'm all for beatin' the hell outta criminals. :D
If a good looking Woman grabbed me by the Privates, I might just think it was a proposal, but then I see the World in a different light!!!
Ditto on the Criminals, we will let TB feel sorry for them!!
Trueblue
12-08-2007, 08:54 AM
Holloway, do you believe that there are degrees of murder?
Kurtz
12-08-2007, 09:21 AM
I'm movin' this to the new LGBT forum, Odd Ones Out.
TB, you make a good point in the variety of charges available to prosecutors. Ya know that case in MO where the mother of a kid CONTRIBUTED to the death hanging of another kid cannot be charged with any offense coz well, there's no law against it in MO so she gets to walk, that pisses me off. Course, that's just a murder that will go UNcharged 'n another story.
I'm gonna move this thread.
:kickcan
Trueblue
12-08-2007, 09:22 AM
YDT pointed that out to me, and caused me to see the issue in a new light. Not that I was previously in favor of hate crimes :shock, but I previously couldn't see how it could be applied....Thanks, YTD.
Holloway, do you believe that there are degrees of murder?
Yes, but what does that have to do with this discussion?
If someone murdered a gay man simply because he was gay, it would be pre-meditated first degree murder.
Trueblue
12-08-2007, 10:10 AM
Yes, but what does that have to do with this discussion?
If someone murdered a gay man simply because he was gay, it would be pre-meditated first degree murder.
The point is that we already acknowledge any number of "enhancements" to criminal acts. The penalties vary, depending on the circumstances. If that's not wrong, then why is this?
The point is that we already acknowledge any number of "enhancements" to criminal acts. The penalties vary, depending on the circumstances. If that's not wrong, then why is this?
Apples and oranges there TB.
A "hate crime" can already be covered by one of the "degrees" of murder. Penalties really don't vary depending on circumstances, as much as time. By that I mean pre-meditated=1st Degree, instant or within reasonable time, crime of passion(anger, jealousy, etc)=2nd degree, and so on.
Trueblue
12-08-2007, 10:21 AM
Apples and oranges there TB.
No, it's not apples and oranges at all. It's the same concept.
A "hate crime" can already be covered by one of the "degrees" of murder.
So can a murder-rape, or a torture murder. Armed robbery is a higher penalty than robbery.
Penalties really don't vary depending on circumstances, as much as time. By that I mean pre-meditated=1st Degree, instant or within reasonable time, crime of passion(anger, jealousy, etc)=2nd degree, and so on.
Yes, time IS one of the circumstances. Yes, premeditated means you thought about it beforehand. I don't want to be sarcastic, but you are making it difficult.
Kurtz
12-08-2007, 10:24 AM
No, it's not apples and oranges at all. It's the same concept.
So can a murder-rape, or a torture murder. Armed robbery is a higher penalty than robbery.
Yes, time IS one of the circumstances. Yes, premeditated means you thought about it beforehand. I don't want to be sarcastic, but you are making it difficult.
I'm not sure cl is makin' it difficult, he's
actually wantin' it to be simple when it ain't. :)
Trueblue
12-08-2007, 10:28 AM
I'm not sure cl is makin' it difficult, he's
actually wantin' it to be simple when it ain't. :)
Good point.
I'm not trying to be smart, cl, I'm very concerned that as a society we make it clear that hate for any such personal factors is unacceptable. It does make a difference. It does get through to people.
No, it's not apples and oranges at all. It's the same concept.
So can a murder-rape, or a torture murder. Armed robbery is a higher penalty than robbery.
Yes, time IS one of the circumstances. Yes, premeditated means you thought about it beforehand. I don't want to be sarcastic, but you are making it difficult.
I don't believe it to be the same concept. I see where you are coming from, but just disagree with it. I believe they can already be punished under existing laws, and that is sufficient.
In my opinion, hate crimes penalties give more "value" to some lives than others. If someone is convicted of murder as a hate crime, and gets 50-life, while someone else just murdered a rival gang member, for example, and gets 25-life, doesn't that give more value to one victim's life over another? Just my opinion.
Trueblue
12-08-2007, 10:39 AM
I don't believe it to be the same concept. I see where you are coming from, but just disagree with it. I believe they can already be punished under existing laws, and that is sufficient.
In my opinion, hate crimes penalties give more "value" to some lives than others. If someone is convicted of murder as a hate crime, and gets 50-life, while someone else just murdered a rival gang member, for example, and gets 25-life, doesn't that give more value to one victim's life over another? Just my opinion.
I can appreciate the way that you expressed this, but again, if someone is killed by vehicular homicide or criminal negligence they are just as dead as if they were murdered after premeditation. Does that give one victim more value than another?
I can appreciate the way that you expressed this, but again, if someone is killed by vehicular homicide or criminal negligence they are just as dead as if they were murdered after premeditation. Does that give one victim more value than another?
Now you are talking about intent. That is entirely different.
Trueblue
12-08-2007, 10:45 AM
Now you are talking about intent. That is entirely different.
Intent has nothing to do with hate crimes? Are you serious?
Intent has nothing to do with hate crimes? Are you serious?
I was talking about your description of vehicular homicide and first degree murder.
See post 26.
Trueblue
12-08-2007, 12:05 PM
I was talking about your description of vehicular homicide and first degree murder.
See post 26.
I saw it, but I'm not sure of your point. In first degree murder, and in hate crimes, there is intent.
I saw it, but I'm not sure of your point. In first degree murder, and in hate crimes, there is intent.
I said that in my opinion, hate crimes can, to a degree, make one life more valuable than another.
You then said something about accidental vehicular homicide and first degree murder victims being dead just the same. Which obviously is accurate. I was just saying that intent is judged in those cases by what they are charged with. Which doesn't value one life more than another, it just takes intent into account.
Kurtz
12-08-2007, 05:29 PM
I said that in my opinion, hate crimes can, to a degree, make one life more valuable than another.
You then said something about accidental vehicular homicide and first degree murder victims being dead just the same. Which obviously is accurate. I was just saying that intent is judged in those cases by what they are charged with. Which doesn't value one life more than another, it just takes intent into account.
In that case then, it is your belief about hate crimes
'n the value of one life over another that is wrong because:
Public Law #103-322A, a 1994 federal law, defines a hate crime as:
"a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.