Friday, October 9, 2009
Homo No Special Protections!
Posted by Dominic Holden on Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Conservatives don't want people to have special rights—unless, that is, Christian fanatics are the ones feeling persecuted.
Yesterday, the House voted to expand federal hate crimes laws to include violence committed against gay, lesbian, and transgender people. It passed by a margin of 281 to 146, largely along party lines. Democrats argued that crimes motivated by a victim's sexual orientation should be punished with the same vigor as crimes motivated by the victim's skin color. But Republicans said we shouldn't be protecting victim's based on the victims beliefs, identity, or associations:
Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, called the legislation radical social policy. “The idea that we’re going to pass a law that’s going to add further charges to someone based on what they may have been thinking, I think is wrong,” Mr. Boehner said.
Yes, conservatives would never support this sort of law—I mean, they'd be aghast at the prospect of seeking legal protection from bias crimes...
Protect Marriage Washington, argued in federal court that releasing the names and addresses would cause petition signers “immediate and irreparable deprivations of their First Amendment liberties." The group said that “individuals whose names are already connected with Referendum 71 have been subjected to threats, harassment, and reprisals simply for exercising their First Amendment freedoms of speech and association.”
Craven hypocrites.
Share via
1
I thought Republicans were the lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key types, or is that only the case when the victim isn't gay?
“The idea that we’re going to pass a law that’s going to add further charges to someone based on what they may have been thinking, I think is wrong,”
I thought Republicans were the lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key types, or is that only the case when the victim isn't gay?
3
Special protections must be extended to heterosexual couples only. They have the calling to uphold gawds law by getting married and procreating, which makes divorce a special right.
If we aren't going to grant special rights, then we better fucking repeal the right to divorce, because if THAT isn't a special right that is an affront to Christian assholes, then nothing is.
How can we have supremacy if the right to be supreme is taken away?
If we aren't going to grant special rights, then we better fucking repeal the right to divorce, because if THAT isn't a special right that is an affront to Christian assholes, then nothing is.
How can we have supremacy if the right to be supreme is taken away?
5
Well first off the claim that motivations behind a crime shouldn't be considered is ludicrous, why do you think we have multiple degrees of murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter, all for the same 'crime' of killing someone?
Secondly I have to admit that while I support Hate Crime Laws in principle, in practice I am torn. The charges are almost exclusively brought against crimes committed against minority groups, which beyond not being impartial has created a backlash. I'm not sure if the benefit gained by showing that society will not tolerate such behavior is worth said backlash. *shrug*
Secondly I have to admit that while I support Hate Crime Laws in principle, in practice I am torn. The charges are almost exclusively brought against crimes committed against minority groups, which beyond not being impartial has created a backlash. I'm not sure if the benefit gained by showing that society will not tolerate such behavior is worth said backlash. *shrug*
7
Based on what somebody may have been thinking?? A racist who beats somebody up because of their skin color is probably thinking that they're doing the right thing. Boehner's argument doesn't make any sense.
8
When this passes in the Senate (again.) and Obama signs it, I won't be able to stop from picturing Judy Shepard kick James Dobson in the face.
When I saw Judy Shepard speak about her new book, she struck me as an average woman who went to extraordinary lengths to achieve justice for gay people that she couldn't have for her own son.
Someone in the audience told her that he didn't think his parents would go to such lengths for him and a lot of people in the room could say the same. Judy said "You don't fuck with somebody's mom."
When I saw Judy Shepard speak about her new book, she struck me as an average woman who went to extraordinary lengths to achieve justice for gay people that she couldn't have for her own son.
Someone in the audience told her that he didn't think his parents would go to such lengths for him and a lot of people in the room could say the same. Judy said "You don't fuck with somebody's mom."
9
whaaa.
Whaaaaaaaa!
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Whaaaaaaaa!
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Most Commented on Slog
-
Straight Up by Dan Savage
-
Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church by Dan Savage
-
Neologism Needed by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Cheat Sheet by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Toilet Brush Off by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
Tea Party Crowd Believes That Only Good Spellers Should Vote by Dan Savage
-
How's That Hopey, Changey Stuff Working Out For Childhood Obesity? by Dan Savage
-
This Shit Will Never Get Old by Eli Sanders
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (10) RSS