Obama signs first major federal gay-rights law: "No one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they love."

In a generation or two, the mindset will be different. People will view gay couples the way that interracial couples are now viewed. Sure, there are some who still get in a dither, but for the most part, nobody even notices anymore.

Aside from that douche bag who refused to marry that couple.

I suppose it does indicate that society has the capacity to be outraged by such behavior.

Good for us.

Killfile - correction #2.3 - acclimated to the notion that OPPOSITE SEX people OF DIFFERENT RACES marry.

People who don't believe in gay marriage have recourse. They don't have to get married to a same sex partner. End of story.

Whats wrong with that road? It sounds fine to me...

Same here. Am I missing something?

"nd people who don't believe in abortion don't have to have one.

And people who don't want drugs to be legal don't have to take them.

And people who don't like foodstamps/welfare/unemployment/etc don't have to use those services either.

Sure you want to go down that road?"

As a matter of fact, Killfile, yes, I do!!

:)

Bluekil...

This is just one rung on a long ladder

I think the first step is the hardest but it begins the momentum of change. It is rather exciting to be witnessing the behavioral leap that this signifies and to be part of a new country. Obama is moving our country forward. And I like it.

LOL, I could tell you misunderstood it, Killfile.

DEVIL1

The first thing Bill Clinton did was the ''Don't ask don't tell'' bill.I think this has merit but I see a pattern with democratic presidents and gays.

Is there some meaning to this? Just a guess but are you trying to say that Democrats support Gay rights. A group that supports Democrats. Like the Republicans support Insurance Companies and the RICH!!

Hey Bad.Well thought out comment.Do you guys run on anything other than emotions?

Are you referring to other, non-homophobic emotions?

Maybe if the Far Right Wing would learn to have emotions and compassion for anyone other than themselves and their rich buddies they could win an election.

Don't let them in on the secret.

It's eluded them thus far.

"Do you guys run on anything other than emotions?"

All humans run on emotions. Are you anti-human?

Emotions don't have logic.

Emotions need to be balanced out by the brain.

Hey, I like logic. Its why I'm not religious. which of course explains why I don't worry about what OTHER people do in the privacy of their own home!

:)

I don't either.

Do you guys run on anything other than emotions?

Do you guys run on anything other than greed and intolerance?

Do you guys run on anything other than greed and intolerance?

Or facts and logic?

I think this needs to return back on topic instead of throwing insults at each other.

The first thing Bill Clinton did was the ''Don't ask don't tell'' bill.I think this has merit but I see a pattern with democratic presidents and gays.

What pattern do you see, besides a group which rewards it's supporters?

You don't know and I don't. But when someone says that they attacked a person because of the color, sexual orientation or age that is a hate crime. If you can't see that I feel sorry for you.

The reason is that most murder, rape, robbery, etc. is random. We ALL have an equal chance of walking out the door and getting mugged or killed. We all have that little nagging fear in the back of our mind that something could happen to us, but it's not debilitating...we realize that the chance is spread out among the entire population and that the odds are very low. We don't live in constant terror. A gay person, for example, has that fear, plus the ADDED fear that he will be targeted by people who hate gays. The odds are against them in that if someone decides to rob, they can find anyone to rob. If someone decides to lynch a gay person, the small numbers of gay people make their odds of being a victim go way up.

If you can't see that, it's hopeless.

Ok, let's call it hopeless and stop pestering everyone with your special rights legislation.

Yeah, let's stop going after terrorists, too, because that would be unfair to the poor terrorists.

Wah! I'm a bleeding heart and I worry about the poor murderer who might have to do a little extra time! Waaaaaaaaaaah!

Do people who oppose this actually listen to themselves? Mollycoddling murderers. That's rich.

Ok, let's call it hopeless and stop pestering everyone with your special rights legislation.

What special rights legislation?

What special rights legislation?

The special rights legislation that, as Tango mentioned in 1.9 clearly illustrates:

Two couples walking down a street holding hands. One straight, the other gay or lesbian.

Someone comes down and shoots one of each.

For the conviction of the heterosexual killer, a sentence is imposed. For the conviction of the gay or lesbian killer, a stricter sentence is imposed with this new legislation because one is a simple homicide, the other, a hate crime. In that alone, the nation is saying that it places a greater value on the life of the person that is gay or lesbian than that of the one the straight.

One person, two bullets...why should one person's life be considered more valuable in their death than anothers?

GREAT Post Shawn, right on point...............

KUDOS!

Shawn-299392 and Dylan923

Do you not understand the law. If happen as you wrote there would be no hate crime enhancement. It would only take effect if one or the other couple were murdered because of their sexual orientation.

Do you not understand the law. If happen as you wrote there would be no hate crime enhancement. It would only take effect if one or the other couple were murdered because of their sexual orientation.

Having generations of family in law, I understand it quite well thanks.

The prosecuting attorney would go after it as a hate crime and then, while it's been publicized and enflamed the nation, the defense would have to figure out a way to show that they weren't against the gay and lesbian community, while dealing with a wonderful line of questioning that would make Mother Theresa seem evil.

I retired after spending 25 years in Law Enforcement so I (I am not sure but :-)) know you are wrong. You did not say in that either murderer had stated they committed the murder because of the victims sexual orientation, just that they were murdered. In that case there was reason to file Hate Crime charges.

You did not say in that either murderer had stated they committed the murder because of the victims sexual orientation, just that they were murdered.

You are right. I purposely didn't say that and there was a reason for that...because the law that was broken was "murder" (in one way shape or form) and then it would be up to the prosecution through investigation (in conjunction with the police force) to determine how they want to handle the case, if it was premeditated, etc.

Father in law and brother in law have been officer's through their respective lifetimes as well...between me and my wife we live a proverbial "Law and Order" life - oye!

(Nothing was more comical than finding out that your father-in-law did a background check before being met - wasn't too happy at my track record of not wearing my seatbelt {and subsequent tickets} but pleased that that was all he found.)

Then you understand how the hate Crime laws will work.

PS: I did the same thing to both of my daughters husbands. No need to do it to my son's wife he married a cop.

Agreed, Shawn.

What happens if someone hates someone who just happens to be gay and then kills the gay guy? Killed him for some reason that has nothing to do with sexuality. What stops the family of the victim from saying that it was a hate crime and getting it pushed at trial? How can you prove it was or wasn't a hate crime?

It kinda reminds me of those that cry 'rape' and it never happened (I'm talking about the liars who want revenge on a boyfriend, husband, etc.).

Two women are walking down the street. One man comes up behind and beats one of the women. another man comes up behind the second woman with the intention of raping her. He beats her, but does not carry through with his intent to rape.

One man is given a 5 year sentence for assault. The second man is given a 10 year sentence for AGGRAVATED assault, b/c his assault carried with it a different INTENT.

Nobody cries but the conservatives who are soft on crime and hate when different sentencing guidelines are used for these poor violent criminals.

The prosecuting attorney would go after it as a hate crime and then, while it's been publicized and enflamed the nation, the defense would have to figure out a way to show that they weren't against the gay and lesbian community, while dealing with a wonderful line of questioning that would make Mother Theresa seem evil.

I'm no expert in law like you are... but isn't it innocent until proven guilty? Wouldn't the prosecution have to prove that it was a hate crime? I feel like it would be difficult to prove guilty unless there is some sort of admission by the defendant of hatred toward one certain group or of premonition of the crime toward this individual and others like him/her.

Hate crimes are intended to terrorize a specific group of people such as gays, Blacks, women, etc. Hate crimes are meant to send a message (just like TERRORISTS) to the group that they are not welcome, or should 'change their ways', or stop supporting certain legislation, etc.

No one 'accidentally' lynched a Black man in a bar fight, ok?

All you are proving is your distrust of the justice system, and your own narrow viewpoint.

They both may have justification, but they are still ugly.

DEVIL1

I am going to write this really slow so you will understand.

In Akron Ohio there is an on going trial for a gay guy going after a straight guy and hacking him up with a machete.Is that a hate crime?

If the attacked the man because he was straight "Yes"

And I'm not interested in you feelings for me.

That doesn't surprise me. Like most Far Right Wing people you are only concerned with yourself.

If I beat the hell out of a black guy because he was trying to steal my cell phone is that a hate crime cause I'm white?All he would have to do is say I came up on him.

If you did it because he was Black "Yes" If you did because he was stealing from you "No"

Can you see the difference. One is because of what they are. The other is because they are a criminal.

In Akron Ohio there is an on going trial for a gay guy going after a straight guy and hacking him up with a machete.Is that a hate crime?

"Hate crimes" are just what they're called, and it's not that good a name. If you read the text of the laws you will see that they are crimes intended to intimidate an entire group of people.

So, attacking a person because he stole from you is not a hate crime. Even attacking an individual because you hate him is not a hate crime. When you attack someone because he belongs to a group and the implication is that you would have made the same attack on anyone from the group, that is a hate crime.

It is terrorism, pure and simple. The World Trade Center bombing was a hate crime, because it was an attack on all Americans, not just on the people in the building.

My guess is that you think terrorism is more than just a police matter. If so, maybe you can begin to see the thinking behind the hate crimes laws.

"they are crimes intended to intimidate an entire group of people"

Would this make the death penalty a hate crime, since it is intended to deter murderers?

I know I find the possibility of being lethally injected intimidating.

Just askin'.

Would this make the death penalty a hate crime, since it is intended to deter murderers?

Uh, no. That's in irrelevant comparison. Someone can choose to be a murderer. Someone can't choose to be black.

Shucks, I thought I had found a loophole.

It was meant to be humorous BTW.

If you read the text of the laws you will see that they are crimes intended to intimidate an entire group of people.

Otherwise known as terrorism.

The problem with 'hate crimes' is that so many of them will go unprosecuted. If the perp admits he did it for 'hate' reasons, or if a third party hears him say a racial or gender slur it will become a hate crime. If he doesn't say anything it won't. That is not good enough. For example, it is known that some black criminals will target whites to jack up because they believe, rightly or wrongly that whites will be more afraid and offer less resistance. This type of assault or robbery is surely a hate crime, but will almost never be prosecuted as such.

True, JohnRussell. And many men rape women because they hate women...they beat their wives b/c they hate women. So yes, unfortunately many hate crimes will go undetected, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use the law when and where we can. Many murders go unpunished as we speak. Does that mean we have to throw out laws against murder?

Following what law? There is no such law. If you say there is please provide a link to it. Or admit you made that up.

Are you fishing for a date? Sorry I am not gay, but you might try this link even a person of your limited intelligence and narrow mind views should be able to find a man. Hope this link allows you to come out of the closet it would so good for you. Then you could release all your hate and anger. Buy the way I believe that you use small words as not to run out of crayons.

http://www.craigslist.org/about/sites

Buy the way I believe that you use small words as not to run out of crayons.

grrrrrrrr! Now the whole office wants to know what's so damned funny! The laptop's lucky I wasn't drinking something.

"I certainly have very little time for people who are willing to simply make things up in order to support their points."

It is in the Devil's nature to obscure truth with lies.

With that said, Devil1 seems to take great pleasure in spewing forth a slew of them just to rattle the masses.

The bottom line to this whole thing,in your little minds, is that the crime is secondary. How was he FEELING when he did it is more important.On top of it,you would probably want the bums'life spared if he was found guilty of killing any that qualified for a hate catagory crime.

Do you know what the word enhancement means? Hate crime laws make the penalty greater. Which means get sentenced for the crime and more time for why you did it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enhancement

en⋅hance

 

<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/E01/E0193900" target="_blank"><img src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" mce_src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" /></a> /ɛnˈhæns, -ˈhɑns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [en-hans, -hahns] Show IPA

Use enhancement in a Sentence

See web results for enhancement

See images of enhancement

–verb (used with object), -hanced, -hanc⋅ing.

1.
to raise to a higher degree; intensify; magnify: The candelight enhanced her beauty.

2.
to raise the value or price of: Rarity enhances the worth of old coins.

No, hate crime does not just mean enhanced sentencing. It moves a crime from a state law violation to a federal law violation. And, more importantly than the sentencing, it flags the crime for special attention from the media. It is an attempt to change people's perceptions and to promote a specific political agenda.

Only if the State refuse to prosecute. Why are worried about the media? Don't you believe justice is Blind. That is what every minority was told when they had a white jury.

Ok so I made it up...

Joe? Is that you, Joe? Joe the Plumber?

Devil, why are you looking for ways to excuse criminals or get them off easy? You are defending criminals who murder, rape, rob or beat someone.

Why would you do that? Are you soft on crime? Or are you planning to commit one of the above crimes?

Ok so I made it up does that count as a hate crime?

Sean Hannity, is that you? Beck? It's at least someone who's taken FNC's lessons on making stuff up to heart.

I certainly have very little time for people who are willing to simply make things up in order to support their points.

Same goes for anyone with any sense.

To start off, I'm against hate crime legislation.

Pushing "hate crime" legislation tries to make people's thoughts and beleifs criminal, and is an abomination

That's incorrect. You can think that all gay people deserve to go to hell. That's fine. The problem pops up when you beat him up because he is gay.

Black men frequently target white women for rape or assault, but that has NEVER been prosecuted as a hate crime

If he raped her specifically because she was white, then it is a hate crime. If he raped her because she happened to be there, then it's not a hate crime.

If a white man rapes a black woman (I challenge you to find a case of this happening) the media would explode in orgasmic coverage

If he raped her because she was black, it's a hate crime. Please research a little before opening your mouth.

Black men frequently target white women for rape or assault

Do you have a source? All the violent crime statistics I've seen shows that people often commit crimes in on thier own ethnic group.

"The leading cause of death among black men is being murdered by other black men"

Actually, the leading cause of death among men and women of all colors is being murdered by other men.

I know that's not politically correct, but it's a fact. I just thought you'd like to be as accurate as possible.

:)

Actually, the leading cause of death among men and women of all colors is being murdered by other men.

??

So heart disease, cancer etc. is second to murder?

Are you asking dsanthony or me? Because I'm just setting his statement a little straighter....

Do you deny that men murder other men (and women) in ridiculous proportions?

You should support the hate crime laws. Since men are the biggest victims of murder by other men, maybe you guys will actually benefit one day.

;)

thoughts and beliefs? Like 'homos and n#(Dgers need to be killed'? Those type of thoughts and beliefs?

If a black man rapes a white woman, he does it for the reason that she is a white woman. Why no hate crime? Because you can't get any political benefit from highlighting this crime.

Hate crime laws are themselves evil. Period. It is orwellian to lift certain crimes up to push a political agenda, and ignore others because the race of the victim or perpetrator does not benefit a political agenda.

Just more evil social engineering from the left.

"If a black man rapes a white woman, he does it for the reason that she is a white woman."

Are you stating this as an absolute"

If so, WTF?

"junior high forensics class"

Again, what the hell are you talking about?

You need to tone down your posts a bit, since you are so disinterested.

Your claims are ten pounds of sh!^ in a five pound bag, pal.

dsanthony

That is not prove. It's your opinion as to why the rape happened. Rape is not about sex, color or anything than power. The sick person feels that they have gained some type of power or their victim. Any one that continues to refer to buy color as much as you do reminds me of that old line "We gotta keep them from our White Women."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJkHykGRXrw

Nice way of saying that certain crimes deserve national media coverage and classification as "hate crimes" because they can be used by democrats politically -- but other crimes cannot be used politically and so are not deserving of national coverage or classfication as a hate crime.

Your orwellian double speak, complicated definitions you create yourself to justify your actions, are evil. I hope america wakes up to this type of manipulation by the left. I doubt they will, but I will continue to tell the truth.

You have completely missed the point on this. Lets do a little experiment here, tell me which of the two crimes is worse:

-A drug deal goes wrong and a man ends up shot dead. The murderer and the victim happen to be of different races (black vs white, white vs black whatever doesn't matter).

-A black man talks to a white woman. He is beaten viciously by a gang of white men and hung dead from a telephone pole as a warning to other blacks.

Hopefully you are still with me and agree that the second crime is worse (if not you can just f*ck off cause you're obviously a monster). The reason is the second crime is terrorism, not just simple assualt or murder. If you commit a crime to send a mesage to a group of people its quite a bit worse than just a person on person conflict.

If a black man rapes a white woman, he does it for the reason that she is a white woman.

Are you speaking of a specific example here? If a black man raped a white woman for no reason other than to punish her for being white, and to send a message to whites, yes that would be a hate crime. If he did just cause he was a pervy rapist who saw an easy target, no, thats just rape. If you are speaking in general terms that all black and white rapes are committed because the woman is white...well I dont know what to tell you buddy, seek help I guess.

Why no hate crime? Because you can't get any political benefit from highlighting this crime.

No, becuase you are using a fictional example, fictional examples are not prosecutable under US law.

Ok does it matter to the guy that gets shot, hung or burned at the stake?Is it going to stop the bull@!$%# killing.Are you going to stop some idiot from doing whatever because"Oh I won't kill this guy I may get convicted for a hate crime".Punishment is what counts,to people that think of consquences for they're actions,for people that just react what the hell does it matter if you toss hate into the mix.And to the dead guy or his family it means nothing,they've lost.I lost a family member to a bullet.I wanted that guy eaten by crazy people with spoons.He died of natual causes.

Devil1:

That might help to explain your insanity.

Punishment is what counts,to people that think of consquences for they're actions,for people that just react what the hell does it matter if you toss hate into the mix

We are talking about INCREASING PUNISHMENTS HERE BUDDY. Sure its not going to stop the killing, no law ever will. We are simply increasing the punishment for people that commit crimes that are more henious than usual. No its not going to bring the murdered back to life, no punishment will. "Tossing hate into the mix" certainly does not make things worse at all, so why the hell are you against it?

Ok, lets try this exercise again, this time in the spirit of what DSAnthony is talking about

Tell me which of the two crimes is worse:

-A black man talks to a white woman. He is beaten viciously by a gang of white men and hung dead from a telephone pole as a warning to other blacks.

-A white man talks to a black woman. He is beaten viciously by a gang of black men and hung dead from a telephone pole as a warning to other whites.

Bajee:

He's petrified that some queer, black guy might have more rights than he does.

MJV:

I know! I know!

They are equal.

Neither they are both murder with a Hate Crime enhancement.

MJV in Wisconsin

Ok, lets try this exercise again, this time in the spirit of what DSAnthony is talking about

Tell me which of the two crimes is worse:

-A black man talks to a white woman. He is beaten viciously by a gang of white men and hung dead from a telephone pole as a warning to other blacks.

-A white man talks to a black woman. He is beaten viciously by a gang of black men and hung dead from a telephone pole as a warning to other whites.

Yup, they are both the same crime, and HOPEFULLY they would be prosecuted equally

Get ready for the "Not for the white guy" spew!

The problem here is that DS is making the racist assumption that all black men rape white women because they're white. CoH, man, CoH.

I tried to address that and DS just blathered something about junior high ferensics.

Whatever that means.

I would like this addressed as well. It's one hell of a stupid assumption

Alright lets try that exercise again...

-A black man talks to a white woman. He is beaten viciously by a gang of white men and hung dead from a telephone pole as a warning to other blacks.

-A man talks to a woman. He is beaten viciously by the woman's brothers and hung dead from a telephone pole as a warning to any other guy that they don't like talking to their sister.

Does the addition of Race make this any worse of a crime? Are the white guys more evil because they hate blacks then the brothers are for killing someone they didn't find worthy? This is the problem with "Hate" crime legislation to me. Its saying that someone is a worse criminal because their motivations are bigotry related then when committing the EXACT same crime for other reasons.

My guess is that when race is left out, those with racist tendencies will assume the victim is their own race to justify their outrage.

It is not a value judgment that the sentence is more extreme for hate crimes. It is merely meant as a deterrent for behavior motivated by certain prejudices.

absolutes? Get over your junior high forensics class. I'm not interested.

There has NEVER been a hate crime trial for a black man raping a white woman -- even for black serial rapists who specifically target white women. Why? Because democrats get no political benefit from pointing out violence by "democratic group" (black men) against another "democratic group" (white women).

Hate crime laws are evil. Period.

Blue - If someone is going to accept the risk of committing a crime I don't think that tacking on "Hate" to it is going to deter them. If you are willing to risk 5 years chance are you are willing to chance 10, seeing as most people who commit a pre-meditated crime don't think they will be caught anyway what is the difference?

"Hate crime laws are themselves evil. Period. It is orwellian to lift certain crimes up to push a political agenda, and ignore others because the race of the victim or perpetrator does not benefit a political agenda."

dsanthony, why are you are so worried about the poor rapist getting a little more time? Why is it that those who disparage "liberals" the most are now showing themselves to be such bleeding hearts for murders and rapists? You should be happy for ANY way to get a murder or rapist off the street to do more hard time. Are you soft on terrorism, too? Should we do away with anti-terrorism laws because "murder is already a crime on the books"?

Give me a break. The more time spent in jail for a murderer the better, and you should stop crying for them and defending them.

Unless of course your concern is due to your planning on committing a hate crime in the near future. I don't believe that, so why the worry, then?

Forensics is not taught at the Middle School Level, or at the Secondary Level, for that matter.

I guess, that is, unless you are in the Armed Forces.

Not sure what you mean by this post. If you are referring to the fact that homosexuals cannot serve openly in the military because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," that's a completely different topic. However, that is a federal law, passed by Congress, and the military is bound to enforce that law. Congress can change that law if it wants to.

On another note (also slightly off-topic), at least it is applied uniformly. While it is true that homosexual soldiers cannot walk down the street holding hands, neither can heterosexual soldiers. It is a breach of the regulations for any soldier in uniform to walk hand-in-hand with his/her significant other.

Just wanted to point that out, because I'm not exactly sure where you were going with that comment.

I ahve my doubts that the policies about fraternizing and consorting are applied equally between gays and stragihts in the military, if it was, then you would hear alot more about straight people in the military acting inappropriately, I'm sure it isn't only gay soldiers that hold hands or partake in that oh so evil sodomy.

you would hear alot more about straight people in the military acting inappropriately

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's just that it doesn't seem to make the news as much. Not sure why that's the case.

What if what you do is directly linked to what you think?

Does not matter. When did we become the thought police?

That's an illogical extension, until we can monitor thoughts.

The by what logic do you presume to know that a black man was thinking when he beat a white man?

I never claimed to know what anyone was thinking.

But actions are directly linked to thought.

One must think some of this up prior to acting on it, regardless of the reason.

Blue, that is the point exactly. If you commit a crime you are executing a thought, so you punish the crime not the thought.

- A man hates Black people so he goes out and robs 10 black men before he is caught. Because he targeted people based on race this is a hate crime.

-A man thinks the world owes him something so he goes out and robs 10 people before he is caught. Because his victims are chosen at random this is not considered a hate crime.

Both of these men committed the EXACT same crime with the same number of victims but because the first guy used race to profile his victims he can get a longer sentence. If the first guy wasn't racist would he have committed those crimes? I don't know and that is not what justice is about, its about punishing those that commit the crimes.

In either case they are punished. So you must be happy regardless.

I think they should be punished equally for the crime though, otherwise what good is our justice system?

Our justice system's goal should be to be less bigoted then we are.

LMAO!

I did the Quagmire from Family Guy on that one!

When you were asked if you were heterosexual and replied, "yes."

Perhaps some one has a relevant answer.

Here is one. Were does it say that one life is more valuable than another?

well, I suppose your right in way...but let's say a little black girl ten years old is raped, and a little white girl ten years old is raped, if the little white girl was raped because she is white then the sentence should be more harsh than for the punishment of the little black girl. So, i guess the reasoning is the little white girl suffered more than the little black girl?

Try and understand the enhancement is add because the reason for the crime. If a rape or any crime is committed because of Sex, Color, Sexual Orientation or Age then the enhancement kicks in. If the crime happened because a criminal saw an opportunity it doesn't.

Nohandouts:

Sentencing is not in place to pay a debt to the victim. It is a debt to society.

There is nothing to say that a longer sentence implies a more severe crime.

There is no reasoning in that comment.

Well, I understand but just seems we are sending a message that raping a white girl is more severe than raping a little black girl, which it isn't. They both suffer horrible....not society.

Blue - Extent of punishment should be equal to the extent of the crime! A longer sentence in of itself implies a more severe crime otherwise our sentences are just at the whim of who ever is sitting on the bench at the time.

The larger the offense the larger the judgment against you, or do we just apply arbitrary amounts to the sentences of criminals.

So you're telling me there is no disparity in sentencing independent of hate crime legislation?

I don't understand what you are asking. You said that length of sentence does not equal the severity of the crime while I said it should, thus if you are going to make a person's sentence larger for committing a hate crime then you should feel that the crime it's self is worse.

Let's just say there is Bob in Illinois, and Jerry in Texas.

One night, in different parts of the country, unbeknownst to the other, both Jerry and Bob decide to rob two different banks.

In the process of committing the crimes, both Bob and Jerry pistol whip the guards at each respective bank.

They also do a bang up job of terrorizing six employees at each bank and seven customers, as well.

In an even more surprising ccoincidence they both make off with exactly $46,987.45.

Crazy right?

The next day both Bob and Jerry are picked up by the police in their states of residence and put on trial in separate jurisdictions. Both are represented by public defenders.

Now despite both crimes being identical, Bob's judge had his life savings in the bank Bob robbed, and took his offense a bit more personally.

He therefore sentenced Bob to 7 and 1/2 more years than Jerry got.

My point is that crimes that are identical receive different sentences all the time. This is not new.

But, Blue, you agree that in your example the disparity in the sentencing is unjust right?

Personally I'm glad that a murderer or rapist would do more time, but I'm not convinced that citing bigotry as a motive is the right reason for this.

The point is that the disparity need not be caused by the reasons outlined in the example, but something totally arbitrary.

Many factors are taken into account for sentencing purposes from victim impact statements to the particular circumstances of the perpetrator. This is not new, is my point.

Perhaps a day will come when some don't need the protection of these stiffer laws.

I hope so.

Then why do we need these laws? If the judge will take the racism into consideration in making his judgment on sentence then these laws are unnecessary.

While you are correct that two people who commit the same crime may get different time because of everything from the situation to the mood of the judge that day, that doesn't make it right, and by making these laws your making the motivation as important as the crime its self. Personally I don't see how killing someone over race is worse then killing someone over money given all other aspects of the crime are the same.

And does it matter if he was white or not? This crime needs to be persecuted the same no matter the color of the victim.

What about the safety of a straight couple walking down the street on the south side of Chicago or South Central LA?

Why do I get the feeling that you've never set foot in either one of those locations? But hey, why don't you tell us how many straight couples are killed each year in Chicago and South Central LA just because they're straight couples? I'm sure there are a lot of gay "wanna be gangsters" earning their colors for offing straight couples to send a message to the rest of the non-homosexual couples out there. Really, it's an inner-city epidemic.

I've heard about the gang you're talking about:

The Lords of Lavender!

There's no lobbying group for that. No dice. You're on your own. Sad, huh??

Yes, very, Americans are being bamboozled as Mr X might say.

The consept makes no sense.I beat up a black guy and get 3-5yrs I beat up a black guy because he's black and get 15-20yrs.What hell.

Sounds fair to me. Black guy kicks your A$$ he get's 3 to 5 years. Black guy kicks your A$$ because he believes you are a White racist A$$hole he get's 15 to 20 years.

Devil1:

Are you really so dense, that you can't see the necessity in this type of legislation?

In 31 states it is still lawful to fire an employee due to the fact that they are gay or your boss thinks you are? That number goes to 39 for being transgendered, or if your boss just thinks you are.

Your entire argument assumes that laws are the same for everyone. They are not.

This is a fact.

You would never know Bad the most you would deliver is a pinch and pout.You won't get too much time for that.

Please translate that into English. I don't have a clue what you are trying to say.

My guess would be it is some sexist colloquialism, but I might be mistaken.

Dam Bluekilgoretrout I didn't know you were bi-lingual in crayon.

I'm actually tri-lingual.

Does that mean you can also translate Troll for me too. It would really help if you could.

That is an illusive dialect, passed down through the ages.

I would recommend this site:

http://www.trolls.com/

Go to the Contact us link, and enter "Shoobeedoobowop" in the subject line.

An interpreter will contact you when one becomes available.

Thanks I'll check it out.

Dang, why can't they learn English! ;-)

enter "Shoobeedoobowop" in the subject line.

Ok, I tried that and kept getting press one for English or press two for Troll, but I'm confused......Will the interpretor think I'm a troll if I press 2 or just that I want to translate troll? Please help

Repeat after me:

"Magic Locket, take me to the freeway."

Now say it three times real fast.

OMG, I have to exit this thread now. I'm laughing so hard my roommate thought I was choking

Again with the assumptions.

I don't think you're just a homophobe, but a cretinous neanderthal, as well. But we are all welcome here.

I will gnash my teeth, though.

Yes we do not need laws against terrorism. If someone is going to commit the act of terrorism their motivations will be stronger then any legal deterrent.

Were you in favor of The Patriot Act?

Oh Hell No!

How do anti-terorrism crimes work, then? Let's get rid of those because, oh,, murder is just murder.

You know and I know there IS a difference between terrorism and murder, and I know, and you know, deep down, that there is a difference here, too.

Ronin,
Your comments are logical but they have no affect on threads like this. The originator and the posters only want people who agree with them. Interesting that they are so quick to call other people Nazi and proletarian, but they are so blind to their group think and lock step attitudes.

so winelover, you are another person who is supporting murderers and rapists and worrying that the poor scum will have to do time?

man, conservatives are so soft on crime, it's sickening.

Boons, no there is not a difference between Terrorism and Murder when it comes down to the crime itself. The difference comes in the size of the crime itself. Most terrorist are going to be going for size to make an impact. Now does it really make a difference if he gets 24 life sentences for Murder or Terrorism? Does the guy who snaps and starts shooting people from a clock tower count as a terrorist? When he spends the rest of his life in jail for his crimes just like the terrorist does it matter?

I don't have a problem with criminals doing their time, I just want to make sure that everyone gets treated equally and objectively. Unfortunately there are groups out there that will make sure that once the issue of race/sex/sexuality comes up in a case the objectivity on both sides of the issue is going to go out the window and the case will become more about ideals then the crime its self.

If a man is hung upside down, skinned, tortured and killed I don't care what the criminals motivations are, he needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but I don't care if the victim was killed because he was Black, Gay, or just wearing a blue shirt that day, the victim needs to be shown the same amount of respect and the moment that you increase the crime because of the type of victim that was involved then you are telling everyone else that they are less important.

So if two women are raped, and one of the rapists get hit with a "Hate" crime law and the other doesn't so one gets 5 years and the other gets 10 how are the two victims going to feel about it? Are you going to tell me that the one who's rapist gets out in 5 years isn't going to ask why does she rate less?

All people are created equal in this country, so they should all be treated the same weather they are Black, Brown, Gay, Straight it doesn't matter. If you believe in that then all victims should be equal as well.

What you wrote is true. People should be treated the same under Law. This law does nothing to prevent that. All it does in enhance the penalty. Just as California 3 strikes law does. If a criminal commits one crime he gets 5 years. If they do it a 2nd and 3rd time the get life in prison.

Just look at the difference the Federal Government gives people caught with powder cocaine as compared to rock cocaine. I see it as cocaine.

Where is it written that people get treated equally during sentencing? It would be nice, but as it stands, there are guidelines and with or without hate crime legislation, one person gets 5 years for murder, another gets 20, a third gets life, a fourth gets the death penalty.

If your problem is with guidelines, then deal with that.

This deals with the issue of crimes that have several components to them. We already have instances where we have a crime that is AGGRAVATED by other circumstances. There is assault and battery, and aggravated assault and battery. There are first, second and third degree murder charges. Nobody has ever had a problem with this before. It's only now that race, sex and orientation have been brought up that components to a crime suddenly "offends" some people.

Tell that to the guy that was beaten within an inch of his life in New York a few weeks ago specifically because He was gay. Most do realize its bad, some do it anyway.

OMG - barf. He hasn't done one damn thing since he got in office that is going to help this country. He is just as egotistical as all the other presidents and all he is concerned about is his presidency. He doesn't care about any one in this country except your vote. Can you get your head up there any further?

Right, winelover, and McCain was the better candidate. LOL!

A poetic statement it from a great president just starting to come into his own as the leader of this country.

You're joking right? What in the hell has Obama done to make him "GREAT"? And be VERY SPECIFIC, citing accomplishments, and the Nobel doesn't count because he didn't do @!$%# to deserve it.

this country will be in a far better place after Mr. Obama's influence.

This country won't be a country when Obama is done.........................

Dylan923

This country won't be a country when Obama is done.........................

You are right because people like you who want to destroy it just to see him fail.

You are right because people like you who want to destroy it just to see him fail.

take your accusations about me and shove 'em where the sun don't shine mister. Personally, I'd rather see Obama succeed than fail, but i don't think it's going to happen, I simply don't feel he's the right guy for the job.

As for me wanting to destroy this country, I served in VietNam as a United States marine, getting my ass shot at so you could have the right to make moronic statements like this one, so until you've picked up a rifle and stood watch in a combat zone, shut the @!$%# up.

That is what so funny about people on the Far Right Wing. You will make statements with no facts to support them. Then you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

I spent 4 years in the USAF and 25 years in Law Enforcement protecting you right to say what you believe no matter how profane or ridicules it is.

That is what so funny about people on the Far Right Wing. You will make statements with no facts to support them

I have done nothing but give an opinion, if you don't like it then too bad, how's that?

Thanks for your service in the Air Force, but being in law enforcement doens't protect my right to say what I believe, soooooooooooooooooo, did you have to get that in there to try and one up me for being a Marine in VietNam or what?

If someone infringes on your right to say what you believe, who ya gonna call, Law Enforcement.

If you had read post #4.10 posted at 7:52 am. That was the second time I had written it. I am not so petty as to need "one up" someone. If you don't know that Law Enforcement Officer's protect your right to free speech who are you going to call when some tries to stop you.

If you don't think that is true stand in the middle of a Klan rally and shout I love Black people and Obama is the best President ever or go to Harlem and shout I hate Black people. Please take a video camera I would really love to see what happens.

If someone infringes on your right to say what you believe, who ya gonna call, Law Enforcement.

No, I'm gonna call my lawyer not the cops. Or don't you understand the difference between civil violations and criminal violations?

After you spend $500.00 for your lawyer to tell you it is your word against theirs. I think you will need a Police report to support your claim.

Don't preach to me about the law, you were a COP not a lawyer........................

And you were/are neither. So you really don't know what you are talking about.

Don't make assumptions, they'll always bit you in the ass, I'll graduate from law school in March, it'll be my thrid degree sooooooooooooooo.

Ya wouldn't call the military either, so what is it again that you did and BAD1V didn't?

If you say so. Or are you as you say "Trying to one up me."

No soldier gives any of us the right to speak our minds. We were given that by our constitution. Don't you EVER forget that.

AIDS research gets 16 times the amount of federal funding that all cancers combined do, because of the political lobby of the gays

May I remind you winelover, that first of all AIDS is not a gay disease. And if it makes any sense to you, the political lobby of the gays as you are referring to it is lobbying for all who have AIDS. I can tell you that the majority homosexuals are not selfish.

Gays also know that the rest of you have rights and most of you have been enjoying them without any resistance from malicious groups. All we want is to be treated the same...unfortunately it is you that is having a problem with handling the truth.

If AIDS gets 16x more funding (that can't be right, can it?), that is wrong. More people will die this year from cancers, including Gays.

I would like to see a legitimate link to back up your statement wine. And I mean an actual source not some political blog but a governmental or scientific site.

I just did some quick research. (Others please add yours...)

[John] STOSSEL [on ABC's 20/20] : (Voiceover) We all do. But what surprised us, and what the AIDS and breast cancer lobbies may not want you to know, is that among killer diseases, breast cancer and AIDS aren't even near the top of the list. Breast cancer is eighth, AIDS 17th. Yet AIDS, with its $1.8 billion NIH budget, gets the most money. The number-one killer, heart disease, last year got half a billion dollars less. Per patient, the disparities are even greater. Last year AIDS got $2,400 per patient from NIH, breast cancer $230, heart disease just $108. Parkinsonís: $78. And diabetes, which last year killed more people than AIDS and breast cancer combined, just $28. Congressman Ernest Istook has been trying to even out the research grants, without success.

Hey, I believe in gun rights, too. The Bush administration taught me that dems need to stay armed.

However, how does that have anything to do with this discussion? We are talking about ONCE an attack has occurred. I'm not really sure why republicans are supporting murderers and rapists and crying that these poor criminals will have to do a little extra time.

I find that sickening, how soft you all are on crime.

Wouldn't it be better to prevent the attack in the first place?

It would be nice to prevent all crimes. but since we can't, we have courts.

That's what gun rights are all about. PREVENTING the crime. Gun carriers thwart 2.5 million crimes a year, most of the time by just flashing a weapon. But, liberals prefer to clean up after the damage has been done.

The Spirit,

For someone like myself who's often accused of being a liberal, I have plenty of guns and would never shy away from using one of them when needed. Nor do I think our government will ever take our gun rights away.

Dramafied

How can you not love this President.

Oh I can come up with a few reasons.

...and that would be just your opinion...we all have them don't we.