Stop Drinkin' The Haterade
The Human Rights Campaign has released a video produced in conjunction with an upcoming Cindy Lauper tour called "True Colors," which is promoting gay rights.
I can somewhat understand arguments against the whole notion of hate crimes legislation, however, if we are going to have them, there is no reason sexual orientation (a way of life that causes much hatred) should not be protected along with religion or race. Whether this will have an actual effect on the amount of hate crimes against gays or lesbians? I'm not too optimistic, but they should at least be included in the law.
You can check out The Flypaper Theory for some of the more ridiculous arguments made against this piece of legislation.
2 comments:
The reason that crimes against people and property where the motive is - in part or in whole - based on the victim's race, religion, and/or sexual orientation should be treated distinctly is because of the fact that they are distinct crimes.
The moral equivalency argument ("all crimes are hate crimes . . . why do you get more protection because of your sexual orientation, etc.") is as unpersuasive and invalid as the "thought police"/"criminalizing jesus" argument. The effect of these crimes extend beyond the individual victim by serving to intimidate an entire community of people. Would anyone actually argue - as a matter of legal intent or basic common sense - that the painting a swastika on a synagogue is really nothing more than property damage/vandalism?
The arguments offered today against hate crimes legislation are the exact same arguments offered against anti-lynching legislation that was ultimately defeated each time in the Senate by the southern filibuster boys. Between 1890 and 1952, 200 bills were proposed, 3 passed the House, and 7 Prsidents petitioned for such a bill, yet none passed through the Senate. The Senate ultimately apologized for this shameful moral failure in 2005.
Motive and intent can, should, and do affect the kind of sentence needed to protect society and this is what we have always recognized as the difference between first-degree murder and manslaughter. Intent and motive can be the difference between 5 years and the chair. To argue moral equivalence is just idiotic. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes desccribed this basic tenet of the law: "Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked."
I have yet to see one intellectually honest and persuasive argument against the current "hate crimes" legislation.
Here is what our new senator has to say about the legislation.
May 29, 2007
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
Nashville, TN XXXXX-XXXX
Dear XX. XXXXXX,
Thank you for taking the time to contact my office to share your concerns about S. 1105, the upcoming hate crimes legislation. Your input is important to me, and I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts.
As you know, S.1105 was introduced in the Senate on April 12, 2007. This bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. If S. 1105 should come before the Senate for a vote, I will not support it.
Thank you again for your letter. I hope you will continue to share your thoughts with me over the next six years.
Sincerely,
A
Bob Corker
United States Senator
Initials/ds
Post a Comment