 |
          
  |
|
|
Harry
Reid (D-NV) has filed on the Department of Defense funding bill which contains
the dangerous hate (thought) crimes expansion legislation. This means that the full Senate could vote
very soon on dangerous hate crimes legislation that threatens religious freedom
and the constitutional principle of “equal justice under law.” It’s also an insult to our brave troops
fighting overseas to sneak such controversial social engineering into troop
funding legislation.
Call
both
your senators today and urge them to vote against hate crimes!
Also,
sign FRC’s petition against hate
crimes.
HT:
FRC
While
the nation is consumed with health care “reform” and the war in Afghanistan,
Congress today snuck through special “protections” for sexual orientation in
the Department of Defense funding bill. Once
the Senate approves this bill, sexual orientation will be a protected status
under Federal hate (thought) crimes law.
The AP
reports.
Such
hate crimes legislation threatens religious freedom because it could be used to
prosecute motives, and it threatens the principle of “equal justice under law”
because it creates special protections based solely on sexual behavior.
See
how your representative
voted on hate crimes expansion (NOTE: a “yes” vote is against hate crimes
expansion and a “no” vote is for expansion).
Congressman
Mike Pence (R-IN) spoke out
against the shameful tactic of attaching such controversial social policy to an
essential Defense funding bill (which our troops in Afghanistan desperately
need). See the video here.
The
Telegraph reports. Americans should
take a look at this article before they insist on letting the government run
the health care industry.
Richard
Cohen explains. Excerpt:
The real purpose of hate-crime laws is to
reassure politically significant groups -- blacks, Hispanics, Jews, gays, etc.
-- that someone cares about them and takes their fears seriously. That's nice.
It does not change the fact, though, that what's being punished is thought or
speech. Johns is dead no matter what von Brunn believes. The penalty for murder
is severe, so it's not as if the crime is not being punished. The added
"late hit" of a hate crime is without any real consequence, except as
a precedent for the punishment of belief or speech. Slippery slopes are
supposedly all around us, I know, but this one is the real McCoy.
hat
tip: FRC
On
Thursday, July 16, the Senate voted on an amendment by Sen. Leahy which added
dangerous and unnecessary hate crimes legislation to a Department of Defense funding
bill. See how
both your senators voted on adding this hate crimes amendment to defense
spending legislation.
Thank
your senators if they voted “No,” and if they voted “Yes” respectfully share
your disappointment. You should also
keep this vote in mind the next time your senators face reelection.
UPDATE: Here's the vote tally. Follow the link to see the vote details.
Senate
Vote on the Leahy Amendment (S.A. 189) to add hate (thought) crimes legislation
to the Dept. of Defense funding bill
July 16, 2009
Full Results
|
|
|
Yeas
|
|
Nays
|
|
PRES
|
|
NV
|
|
Republican
|
|
5
|
|
28
|
|
—
|
|
7
|
|
Democratic
|
|
57
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
2
|
|
Independent
|
|
1
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
TOTALS
|
|
63
|
|
28
|
|
—
|
|
9
|
As the New
York Times reports, the Senate has passed into law dangerous hate crimes
legislation into a Defense Department funding bill. Excerpt:
The Senate has agreed to expand the
definition of hate crimes to those committed because of a victim’s sexual
orientation and gender identity as part of a Pentagon policy measure that is
becoming a magnet for tough social issues.
Ironically,
President Obama has threatened
to veto the bill because it sets aside funding for the new state-of-the-art
F-22 Raptor fighter jet.
FRC
explains why “hate crimes” laws are a threat to religious freedom.
The
Caucus blog of the New York Times reports.
Excerpt:
Senate Democrats said on Monday that they
would seek to broaden the federal hate crimes law to protect victims of attacks
based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disabilities.
To lift the chances of passage, Democrats
said the legislation, known as the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act,
would be attached as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill – a
must-pass measure.
Senator
Orin Hatch (R-UT) published a helpful analysis
and criticism of the hate crimes bill in The Spectrum. Excerpt:
The House passed a hate-crimes bill on
April 29, and a similar bill has been introduced in the Senate. Both would
create a new federal crime for willfully causing bodily injury (or attempting
to do so) because of the victim's actual or perceived "race, color,
religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or
disability." A person unfamiliar with the hate-crimes debate reading these
provisions would likely respond by asking, "Wait, isn't that already a
crime?" At that point, they'd officially be one step ahead of the
proponents of these bills.
. . .
Both bills introduced this year would also
expand the definition of a hate crime to cover offenses motivated by a victim's
"gender identity."
At best, this legislation unnecessarily
intrudes on the efforts of state governments and creates crimes that are
impractical, if not impossible, to prosecute. At worst, it would be
unconstitutional.
Also, while both bills ostensibly prohibit
prosecution for any activities that are protected by the First Amendment, the
fact that they punish certain motives on the basis of political and social
viewpoints calls their constitutionality into question.
Read
Hatch’s full
analysis here.
Robert
Knight explains. Excerpt:
Among its many defects, the proposed
federal hate crimes bill virtually ensures that some defendants will face
double jeopardy, whatever the outcome of their cases. It all depends on the
whims of the folks occupying the Attorney General’s office, who may want to
score political points at a defendant’s expense.
The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention
Act (S. 909) now before the Senate, establishes “thought crime,” violates equal
protection by making some victims more important than others, elevates “sexual
orientation” and “gender identity” to be equivalent to civil rights categories
like race, and greatly expands the federal role in criminal law.
In short, it’s a grab bag of ways to
violate genuine constitutional rights while addressing a non-issue. There is no
compelling evidence that bias-motivated crimes are not being handled properly
and perpetrators punished.
Keep
reading the full
article here.
The
President of the Family Research Council submitted
excellent testimony to a recent Senate committee held to discuss hate
crimes legislation. Excerpt:
Hate crime laws force the court to guess
the thoughts and beliefs which lie behind a crime, instead of looking at the
crime itself, in order to prosecute and convict someone of a hate crime.
Violent crimes are already punishable by law. "Hate crime" laws put
the perpetrator's thoughts and beliefs on trial. Hate crime laws are tantamount
to federally prosecuting "thought crimes." The Family Research
Council believes that all crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of
the law, and that every violent crime has some form of hate behind it. All
around the country, crimes are being prosecuted in the state justice systems.
American justice is being done. There is simply no need for a federal hate
crimes law.
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., sent a
letter to key leaders in the religious community asking them to oppose the
bill.
"Please tell your congregation this
legislation is not about 'hate' (all violent crimes are hateful); it is about
taking away your freedom to speak and preach biblical truth," DeMint
wrote. "It will take away your right to say that some things are wrong. We
need millions of Americans to call and email their Senators, especially Democrat
Senators who are pushing this legislation."
OneNewsNow
reports. Excerpt:
"The crimes that took place [Tiller
murder and Holocaust Museum shootings] have absolutely nothing to do with the
content of the hate crimes bill, which only really is focusing on the special
treatment and special privileges of protection to be granted to people because
of their homosexuality or transsexual status," he contends.
Dacus adds that "the bill is not about
providing equal treatment -- it's providing unequal treatment," which he
believes is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States
Constitution.
"The hate crimes bill accomplishes
nothing except to intimidate and silence legitimate, peaceful opposition to the
never-ending demands of the gay and transsexual activists," he concludes.
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
The commission [U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights], not known for being on the side of social conservatives on policy
issues, has an ally in Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. He pointed out that hate-crimes
legislation fundamentally changes the idea of equal justice under law to
arbitrary justice based on the race, religion or sexual orientation of the
victim or the criminal.
"It really forces our courts and our
judges to begin to anticipate what people were thinking when they committed a
crime, rather than whether they committed the crime or not."
But he said the worst part of the
hate-crimes bill is it could restrict free speech, "because if a pastor
stands up and preaches that the Word of God says that homosexuality is wrong,
that pastor could be accused of hate speech and could even be accused or
charged with inducing someone to commit a crime against a homosexual."
Urge
your member
of Congress to oppose hate crimes!
Also, visit FightHateCrimes.com
to find out how you can help oppose this dangerous threat to religious freedom
and “equal justice under law.”
Click here
to view the Democrat press conference in support of hate crimes.
CitizenLink reports. The following excerpt quotes Ashley Horn of
Focus on the Family Action:
"As we've seen in other nations where
such laws are passed, they can have a chilling effect on the free speech of
those who would simply share from the Bible God's views on issues such as
homosexuality," she explained. "Hate-crimes laws are unnecessary in a
civil society like ours based on the rule of law.
"All crimes are hate crimes," she
added, "To give special status to certain groups of people allows courts
to reach beyond punishing people for the illegal acts they commit and judge
them for what they may or may not be thinking as they commit those acts."
Our
sources on the Hill assure us that Congress will try to push hate crimes
through before the August recess. Hate
(thought) crimes are a tool of legitimizing sexual deviancy and offering
special legal benefits based on sexual behavior. It also poses a serious threat to religious
liberty and “equal justice under law.”
Call
your
representative today and urge him or her to vote AGAINST dangerous and unnecessary
“hate crimes” legislation!
The Southern
Voice reports. Apparently proponents
of expanding hate (thought) crimes protections to “actual or perceived” gender
identity and sexual orientation are concerned about conservative backlash to
dangerous hate crimes legislation.
According to the homosexual activist group HRC, hate crimes legislation
could be sneaked into other legislation as an amendment. This hate crimes bill would endanger
religious liberty and also violate the constitutional principle of “equal
justice under law,” and must be opposed by vigilant and active citizens.
Matt
Barber explains. Excerpt:
This underscores the fact that all
hate-crimes laws, both state and federal, inarguably advance
"unequal" protection of the laws. This flies in the face of the 14th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
There
is grave concern over how proposed legislation designed to reauthorize funding
for the State Department would promote the homosexual agenda on marriage and hate
crimes and could lead to promoting abortion world-wide. The bill would mandate special benefits for
homosexual members of the Foreign Service and Peace Corps and for their “domestic
partners.” It would also establish other
pro-homosexual policies, and could even lead to the promotion of abortion as a “woman’s
right” as part of American foreign policy.
CitizenLink also
reports.
Please
contact both
your senators today and urge them to oppose the hate crimes bill (S. 909)!
Dangerous
hate (thought) crimes legislation will soon be
considered in the Senate Judiciary and then the full Senate. Expanding hate crimes to include “actual or perceived
gender identity or sexual orientation” would allow the government to prosecute
people for their thoughts opening up dangerous threat to religious freedom,
free speech, and “equal justice under law.”
And
if that wasn’t bad enough, it appears that pedophilia and many
other disturbing practices could be considered “sexual orientations” protected
by hate crimes law.
Our
friends at FRC have a website where you can get involved to fight hate crimes.
Contact
your senators today!
Reuters
reports. And CitizenLink reports
on how the bill establishes a special legal status for homosexuals. Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) voiced
his concerns that the bill “could have a chilling effect on the religious
expression and the religious freedom of millions of Americans.”
See
how your representative voted on this dangerous bill here.
Thanks
to all who contacted their representatives on this issue! Stay involved as this bill now heads to the
Senate.
David
Limbaugh explains. Excerpts:
Homosexual activists aren't easily
deterred. Unable to persuade even the people of California to change the
definition of marriage to legitimize their lifestyle, they're resorting to a
backdoor approach to accomplish the same thing: pushing federal hate crime
legislation while few are paying attention.
…
“…I think the main purpose of this bill is
to demonize and criminalize thought, especially the politically incorrect
belief that homosexual behavior is either abnormal or sinful. It is to make an
emphatic societal statement that this belief constitutes "hate" and
possibly to lay the groundwork for outlawing speech expressing this belief,
including from the pulpit.”
 Today the House Judiciary Committee considered dangerous hate crimes legislation which would add additional penalties to crimes based on the motivation of the criminal. This legislation poses a serious threat to religious freedom and equal rights.
AdvanceUSA staff attended or watched much of the hearings today. Democrats on the committee claimed the bill posed no threats to religious freedom because the bill only deals with violent crime, and compared the move to include sexual behavior as a protected status similar to the protections against crime motivated by race. Republicans pointed out the nebulous nature of many of the categories labeled in the legislation, and made the case that the bill would take action against “thought crimes” because it adds penalties based solely on the perpetrator’s perceived motivation.
Several amendments were proposed which would have attempted to clarify the definitions, speak the truth about the nature of the bill, or try to mitigate the danger to religious freedom and free speech. These substantive amendments were rejected.
The House Judiciary Committee postponed a vote on the hate crimes bill until 10:00am Thursday (April 22). If the bill passes committee, which is likely, concerned citizens will need to contact their representatives and urge them to oppose any expansion of hate crimes.
Matt
Barber explains why the hate crimes legislation now in the House Judiciary
Committee is so dangerous. Excerpt:
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and Rep. Mark Kirk
(R-IL) have quietly re-introduced the federal thought crimes bill, H.R. 1913,
the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. As has proved to
be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the
direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling “hate speech” laws. It
represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law
– morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual
lifestyle. The bill is expected to be marked up Wednesday before the full House
Judiciary Committee.
Concerned
Women for America has issued a
helpful press release on the dangerous hate crimes legislation being considered
by the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow.
It shows how the hate (thought) crimes bill would create a “caste system
of victims,” with some being more equal than others.
OneNewsNow
also reports on the danger this bill holds for religious freedom.
 The Christian Post reports that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has announced that the House Judiciary Committee will consider dangerous “hate crimes” legislation that would endanger religious freedom and would create special rights based solely on sexual behavior. Such hate crimes constitute punishing people for their thoughts and should rightly be called “thought crimes.”
CitizenLink reports on one specific example of a Christian being persecuted for holding traditional Christian views on homosexuality under the guise of hate prevention. A Christian in Britain lost his job for answering truthfully about his personal beliefs regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Excerpts:
A charity worker has been suspended after telling a colleague about his Christian beliefs on homosexuality, the London Times Online reported.
…
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said the incident highlights what's beginning to show up in America.
"Where laws granting special rights to homosexuals bump into religious freedoms and freedom of speech, religion and speech lose," he said. "Christians are being bullied into silence simply for voicing disagreement with the homosexual agenda."
Call your representative today and urge him or her to oppose any expansion of hate crimes legislation, especially when based on homosexuality or “transgender orientation.”
Correction: This article originally indicated that Rep. Frank was a member of the House Judiciary Committee. This is incorrect. He is not a member of the committee, but is a co-sponsor of the legislation and was likely one of the first to announce that the bill would be considered in committee.
AdvanceUSA
has learned that liberal groups have begun pushing for so-called “hate crimes”
legislation which would create special privileges based on sexual behavior,
violate the constitutional principle of “equal justice under law,” and would
pose a subtle threat to religious freedom since “hate crime” and “hate speech”
laws have often been used to prosecute Christians for lovingly proclaiming
Biblical truth regarding sexuality. It is
possible that hate crimes legislation could be discussed in Congress soon after
the Easter recess.
Call your
representative and both
your senators and urge them to oppose any legislation that expands hate
crimes laws!
The
Hill reports that the US Congress will soon be facing legislation designed
to undermine the traditional definition of marriage and offer special unequal
privileges based solely on sexual behavior.
Alan
Sears of Exodus International explains.
Excerpt:
No sooner had he finished speaking of his
fellow Americans in his inaugural address as a people who “have chosen hope
over fear [and] unity of purpose over conflict and discord” than his staff
posted, on the White House Web site, a virtual declaration of war against those
who oppose the demands for special rights and privileges by those who engage in
homosexual behavior.
Daniel
Herbster reporting
Citizens for Community Values of
Indiana is one of the many great organizations in our nation fighting to
protect family values and to oppose pornography and sexually oriented
businesses. I had the opportunity to
interview Patrick Mangan, the Executive Director of CCV of IN, about his work
enabling people to take back their communities.
DH: Patrick, I’ve enjoyed getting to know you and your
organization better over the last few months, so it’s a pleasure to introduce
you to our readers here at AdvanceUSA Blog.
I’ve seen first-hand how your work affects the state of Indiana and
especially my home town of South Bend.
Tell our readers what kinds of issues Citizens for Community Values
works on?
PM: Well our mission is to protect men, women, and
children from the misinformation of sexual activists, and the harms of sexual
addictions, sexual predators, sexually oriented businesses, materials harmful
to minors, broadcast indecency, and the porn/sex industry in all of its forms,
by promoting the principles of the Judeo/Christian ethic which is the
foundation of our nation.
Our vision is to empower concerned citizens and
community leaders to significantly reduce sexual exploitation, promiscuity, and
abuse in Indiana and beyond by:
Daniel Herbster reporting
Did you know that legislation could be
passed in your state or on the national level that would allow cross dressers
or even sexual offenders to use women’s restrooms? The state of Colorado recently passed such a
law in the misguided desire to prevent “discrimination” against
“transgendered” individuals. AdvanceUSA interviewed
Jim Pfaff (who now works for Americans for
Prosperity) back in April about his work at the Colorado Family
Institute. We’ve decided to touch base with him again about Colorado’s
Senate Bill 200 and how it could be a grim harbinger of things to come
nation-wide.
DH: Senate Bill 200, recently signed by Colorado Gov. Bill
Ritter, claims to protect against “discrimination.” Do you think that is
true?
JP: It really doesn't protect
anyone from discrimination. The legislation was intended to protect
homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals from so-called
discrimination. But really no such discrimination existed. The proponents of
the bill claimed that there were a multitude of homosexuals being
systematically discriminated against, but we looked at the numbers and found
out that at best approximately 175 cases of such discrimination were ever brought
forward. And of those, less than 3 to 4% had any validity to them. On the other
hand, we maintain that this bill actually will have the effect of imposing by
government Fiat a new form of discrimination against those of sincere religious
belief. And as I said in our previous interview, one example we have is a
Christian couple in Albuquerque New Mexico who owned a photography company and
was hauled into a civil rights court because they refused to take pictures of a
lesbian same-sex commitment ceremony based on their sincerely held religious
belief. We believe many more cases like this will begin to emerge here in
Colorado, and in our opinion this bill therefore does nothing to protect anyone
from discrimination and, to the contrary, will likely cause new forms of
discrimination.
DH: What are some of the scary implications of this
bill? What could happen as a result of its passage?
JP: Well, the first and the
most scary application of this bill is the fact that based on the wording of
this law, any man, for example, can of legal right to enter a woman's restroom
by merely stating that he perceives himself to be a woman. That's the first and
most concerning aspect of this new law. But secondly, as I stated before, this
bill could be used to discriminate against people of sincere religious belief
became merely refuse to appropriately accommodate homosexuals, bisexuals and
transgendered individuals based on a sincerely held religious belief.
DH: Is there a push to enact this kind of legislation on the
national level or in other states?
As this NPR article demonstrates, when “gay
rights” and religious liberty conflict, religious liberty usually loses. This is an important fact to emphasize as gay
couples are now obtaining marriage licenses in California.
A few examples cited by NPR:
A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered
to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been
sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned
its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with
same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in
California.
A psychologist in Mississippi who refused
to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a
doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose
his pending case before the California Supreme Court.
And then there's the case of a wedding
photographer in Albuquerque, N.M.
CitizenLink reports. If the dangerous “hate (thought) crimes” and
ENDA legislation now in Congress gets passed into law, we could see similar
persecution in the United States.
Daniel Herbster reporting
 Exodus International is the largest network of former homosexuals in the world and assists local ministries around the world in helping people overcome same-sex attraction and the homosexual lifestyle through a relationship with Christ. They also use their unique expertise to speak out on important cultural and societal issues. I’ve had the opportunity to work with members of Exodus on a number of occasions so it’s great to be able to interview my friend Randy Thomas who is Vice President of Exodus. The following is my interview with Randy.
DH: Randy, how long has Exodus been in existence and how did it get started?
RT: In 1976, sixty-two ministry leaders met in California to talk about their efforts to help those dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction and how they, as independent ministries, could network to help one another in this effort. The vision and name for Exodus was born out of obvious parallels that could be drawn from the Children of Israel leaving Egypt and entering the Promise Land. These visionaries had the accurate view that being “gay” should not be the only option for those with same sex attractions. They knew that our “Promise Land” was the knowledge of and relationship with Jesus Christ. They knew that there was so much more to life than what a gay ideology was offering and so they developed the network we now know as Exodus. Thirty-three years later our network has over 200 member agencies across North America who reach thousands of people seeking help. We are also affiliated with other ministries around the world who offer this perspective on homosexuality to a world hungering for positive alternatives.
Sixty-two people cast a vision that has now helped millions of people and educated millions more about biblical sexuality.
DH: One of the tenants of our modern, politically correct culture holds that sexual orientation is inherent and unchangeable but “gender identity” is unfixed and can change. Do you think this is true, and how does Exodus’s unique perspective relate to this issue?
RT: Recently I wrote on my personal blog a post called “The Transgender Double Standard.” In it I shared, ‘It’s always astounded me how willing some in the gay activist community are to celebrate someone surgically altering their body to “become” who they perceive to be internally. Yet when I determine I want to reorient my sexual orientation, which does not require drastic surgery or body altering drugs, according to those same activists, I am the one doing damage to myself and others by simply holding to a particular worldview that brings me contentment and sexual reorientation. The transgendered are applauded for radically altering their bodies while I am scolded for holding the belief that I would be happier living out who I truly am regardless of my past life as a gay identified man. It¹s ok for someone to ignore what they were obviously born as, but for people like me - we are told being “gay” is genetic and should be embraced because we have no other option.’
This is a terrible conundrum for militant gay activism because their own moral relativism is being exposed. We were all created with free will. We all have the ability to define right and wrong for ourselves. The issue with moral relativism is that eventually it will prove out to be hypocritical because it is self based moral judgments instead of God¹s creative intent which is unchanging. Sixteen years ago I decided that maybe God’s intent for my sexuality and identity just might be beyond my own seemingly logical conclusions. I started to question everything in life and attempting to live out my identity and sexuality in accordance with my faith. My identity has completely changed in that I am not a “gay” man anymore. I am a Christian. I will hopefully be known as a man of God. My sexual orientation has shifted a great deal as a byproduct of my pursuing purity and holiness.
Notice I said shifted. I am not above temptation and if temptation happens, I know why and what to do about it. Regardless, homosexuality does not have the power to determine who I am or how I steward my sexuality.
DH: Would you mind telling us about your background and how you came to work at Exodus?
CitizenLink warns us
of this serious and dangerous issue.
Hate crimes legislation is misguided and a very real threat to religious
freedom and “equal justice under law.”
Our
friends on the Hill informed us yesterday that the House and Senate conferees
working on the Department of Defense authorization bill have removed the
dangerous and unrelated hate (thought) crimes extension language. The
Associated Press reports
here. As The
Hill reports (subscription required):
House and Senate votes on the 2008 defense authorization
bill could be held as early as next week after conferees agreed Thursday to
strip from the bill a controversial provision extending hate-crimes protections
to gays.
This is an important victory for religious freedom, and
AdvanceUSA thanks all those who contacted their elected officials and voiced their
views.
This
article from Human Events explains the latest developments
regarding dangerous hate crimes legislation and its current status.
Excerpt:
The Massachusetts Democrat [Sen. Kennedy] smeared the
military to win votes for his “hate crimes” amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Bill for 2008. The ploy, unfortunately, worked. Sixty
senators supported his “hate crimes” amendment to the Defense Authorization
Bill, which is now in conference committee.
 Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr. voices his concerns with a
number of issues he sees as a threat to religious freedom. Doubtless the
ENDA bill and hate crimes legislation are clear and present dangers to free
religious expression, and the movement to
resurrect the discredited “fairness doctrine” is a blatant affront to free
speech. Read Jackson’s
full
column here.
For more
information on religious freedom click here or here.
The
Washington Blade (homosexual news publication) explains the
strategy of the “gay rights” agenda while offering critique to help
proponents obtain the ultimate goal of same-sex marriage. The article suggests a “incremental” approach
in which marriage and civil unions are not discussed until the public is
“ready.”
A
suggested plan of attack includes these stages of building in this order:
- Hate Crimes
- ENDA
- Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t
Tell”
- Permanent Partners
Immigration Act
- Civil Unions
- Repeal Defense of Marriage
Act and Overturn State Marriage Amendments
Click here
to read the full explanation.
Lawyer
and author Wendy Kaminer has a very helpful piece in the Wall Street Journal exposing
the dangers and misconceptions relating to hate crimes legislation now in
Congress. She also makes the case that
civil libertarians wary of government intrusion into personal rights should
support their social conservative cohorts in opposing hate crimes.
She
addresses the charge that the current hate crimes bill does not deal with
speech but only violent crime. She
explains this view but then concludes:
Still, distinguishing hateful bias crimes from other
hateful acts of violence punishes ideas and expression, no matter how
scrupulously the legislation is crafted. When someone convicted of assaulting
one woman is subject to an enhanced prison sentence or a more vigorous
prosecution because his assault was motivated by a hateful belief in the
inherent inferiority of all women, then he is being punished for his thoughts
as well as his conduct.
Hate
crimes should really be called “thought crimes” or “bias crimes” as noted here:
…without directly criminalizing speech, the proposed
Matthew Shepard Act (like other hate-crime laws) does effectively and
intentionally criminalize bias, when bias is shown to bear a direct
relationship to a violent crime.
The hate
crimes bill could also threaten the important constitutional principle
prohibiting “double jeopardy;” being prosecuted twice for the same crime:
But freedom of thought is not the only liberty at stake in
this debate. The Matthew Shepard Act would also subject defendants to double
jeopardy for a single offense. The bill expressly states that defendants
prosecuted in state court may be prosecuted for the same crime in federal
court, if federal officials determine that "the verdict or sentence
obtained pursuant to state charges left demonstrably unvindicated the federal
interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence."
She
concludes her piece noting that the killers of Matthew Shephard were tried and
convicted to the full extent of the law.
Matthew Shepard's killers were convicted of homicide and
kidnapping by the state of Wyoming
and are serving consecutive life sentences. His torture and murder remain awful
to contemplate, but civil libertarians ought not be squeamish about questioning
the consequences of the law that would bear his name.
How would
a hate crimes law have punished them any more?
For more
on hate crimes click
here or here.
The United States Senate voted this morning on an amendment to the Defense bill that would make hate (thought) crimes based on “perceived or actual sexual orientation or gender identity” a federal matter. Unfortunately the amendment passed by a vote of 60 - 39. Fortunately, there appear to be sufficient votes to sustain the veto the president has promised. To see how your senators voted see the vote chart below.
For more information on hate crimes click here or check the other blog posts in the hate crimes category.
Senate Cloture Vote on the Kennedy Amendment (S.A. 3035) adding federal hate crimes language to a war funding bill (60 votes needed to pass - PASSED)
September 27, 2007
Full Results | News Story
|
|
|
Yeas |
|
Nays |
|
PRES |
|
NV |
|
Republican |
|
9 |
|
39 |
|
— |
|
1 |
|
Democratic |
|
50 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
Independent |
|
1 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
TOTALS |
|
60 |
|
39 |
|
— |
|
1 |
 Startling new developments have arisen regarding the hate (thought) crimes bill. Today Sen. Harry Reid offered hate crimes legislation as an amendment to the Defense Department reauthorization bill. Because of the method he used to offer this amendment, it could be voted on as early as Wednesday but certainly by Thursday.
Please make every effort to call both your senators today and urge them to vote "No" on Senate Amendment 3035 (i.e. "hate crimes amendment") to the Department of Defense reauthorization bill!
Hate crimes laws are unjust, constitutionally questionable, and a subtle, yet very real, threat to religious freedom. For more information on hate (thought) crimes legislation check the AdvanceUSA home page or the hate crimes category at AdvanceUSA Blog.
To protect equal justice under the law and religious freedom, please call your senators today!
Sen.
Gordon Smith (R-OR) today tried to offer his hate
crimes bill as an amendment to the Department of Defense (DOD)
reauthorization bill. Fortunately, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was on hand to
object to the unanimous consent motion required to consider the amendment
“pending.” After this objection Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) stormed onto the
Senate floor vowing to get the hate crimes bill onto the DOD bill and said the
hate crimes bill related to military funding because it sought to combat
“domestic terrorism” supposedly aimed at homosexuals. Here is an excerpt
from Sen. Kennedy’s remarks:
I have every intention, with Senator Smith, at some time
of offering the hate crimes legislation. I know the question comes up why are
we offering hate crime legislation on a defense authorization bill? Well, the
answer is very simple. the defense authorization bill is dealing with the
challenges of terrorism and the hate crimes issue, to try and get a handle on
the problems of hate crimes, we're talking about domestic terrorism, domestic
terrorism.
Apparently
Sen. Kennedy thinks those who oppose the federal prosecution of suspected
thoughts and beliefs, who seek to uphold “equal justice under law,” and who
oppose granting special legal privileges to sexual preference, are terrorists
akin to Al-Quaida and the Taliban.
This
video tells the story of Joe and Helen Roberts in Britain who were given a stern
warning by police for politely voicing their opposition to the active promotion
of homosexuality by their local government. Their story is frightening
evidence of why hate crimes laws such as S. 1105 (now in the Senate) should not
be passed in America.
Though S. 1105 may or may not directly threaten speech in the pulpit (there is
still some debate among legal experts), hate crimes laws will no doubt lead to
the adoption of “hate speech” monitoring or laws which would directly obstruct
the rights of Christians to share biblical truth.
Hate
crimes laws also violate the principle of “equal justice under law” by
prosecuting criminals who commit the same crimes differently based solely on
perceived internal beliefs. For more information on hate crimes click
here.
Do you think
the federal government should be able to prosecute people for their
beliefs? Do you think some citizens should receive more legal protection than
others? All these things could happen if the Senate passes S. 1105, the
hate (thought) crimes bill. Senators Kennedy (D-MA) and Smith (R-OR) have
proposed adding this
legislation to the Defense Reauthorization bill (H.R. 1585, currently being
debated) as Amendment 2067.
Besides
the important “equal justice” concerns, there is reason to believe that hate
crimes laws such as S. 1105 could infringe on our cherished rights of
religious freedom as similar laws have been used to prosecute Christians for
proclaiming a Biblical perspective on homosexuality.
Call both your
senators today and urge them to vote “No” on Amendment 2067!
For more
information on hate crimes and this particular bill, check the hate crime
material on the AdvanceUSA home
page.
The High Impact Leadership Coalition (a coalition of black religious leaders) has just released this exceptional advertisement that seeks to awaken people to the very real dangers of hate (thought) crimes legislation. Stopping “hate crimes” sounds like a noble goal but in actuality it would pose serious threats to religious freedom. Furthermore, the whole concept of hate crimes is inherently unjust and unconstitutional because if violates our cherished principle of “equal justice under law.”
Thought crimes bills are a clear and present danger to constitutional principles and religious freedom. For more information on thought crimes click here or visit AdvanceUSA’s religious freedom page.
Note: The current hate crimes bill (S. 1105) is now in the Senate, but it is unclear when the Senate will actually consider the legislation. AdvanceUSA will be watching carefully for any further developments.
Ken Blackwell offers
his insightful perspective on the hate crimes bill recently passed by the
House. The Senate is now faced with the bill and is expected to consider it this year, perhaps within the next month or two.
| | |