Western Courier

Originally posted by

John K.

Jason: The federal government HAS enacted this sort of legislation with respect to race and national origin. If it doesn't have the power to do so, the Supreme Court has not yet stated so. Which brings me to my second point:

Bob Zuley: The point is that the government HAS enacted hate crimes statutes protecting certain characteristics, but not sexual orientation. I would be less concerned if we had no hate crimes statutes at all, but to have some and to specifically exclude sexual orientation as a protected class is just the kind of anti-gay bigotry that you denounce in the second part of your comment. And make no mistake, the only reason sexual orientation is not included is due to anti-gay bigotry.

Since the federal government is most certainly NOT going to repeal its current hate crimes statutes, it must enact the Matthew Shepard Act.

Jason: One more thing: DON'T blame this on the Democratic Congress. If the president did not threaten a veto, it would have passed the Congress easily. The only reason it failed was because of the attempt in the Senate to attach it to the Defense Spending Bill which House Democrats also feared would lead to a Bush veto of the ENTIRE bill (Bush WOULD choose anti-gay over pro-military). Even though Bush's dangerous attitude would have become even more apparent, the at times idiotic public would then believe him when he blamed the House Democrats for not supporting the troops by passing a Defense Spending Bill, even though he is the one who vetoed it. Democrats were faced with the choice of passing a bill that would get vetoed and then possibly losing their majority, and any real hopes of passing the bill, because the public doesn't understand what's going on, or waiting and hoping to get the job done a little later. It's a close call, but BUSH put them in that position; it's not their fault.

Originally posted by

John K.

Jason: One more thing: DON'T blame this on the Democratic Congress. If the president did not threaten a veto, it would have passed the Congress easily. The only reason it failed was because of the attempt in the Senate to attach it to the Defense Spending Bill which House Democrats also feared would lead to a Bush veto of the ENTIRE bill (Bush WOULD choose anti-gay over pro-military). Even though Bush's dangerous attitude would have become even more apparent, the at times idiotic public would then believe him when he blamed the House Democrats for not supporting the troops by passing a Defense Spending Bill, even though he is the one who vetoed it. Democrats were faced with the choice of passing a bill that would get vetoed and then possibly losing their majority, and any real hopes of passing the bill, because the public doesn't understand what's going on, or waiting and hoping to get the job done a little later. It's a close call, but BUSH put them in that position; it's not their fault.

Originally posted by

Alouiscious

QUOTE:
"When hatred of a group of people begets violence or other criminal action, it becomes a hate crime. It does not matter if the crime is based on race, religion, sexual identity, disability, age or gender: Hate is hate. If our government can't protect us from this form of terrorism, who can?"

The framers of the 14th amendment and equal Protection clause Scholars disagree with your assessment unfortunately.

On the first hand, only discrimination based upon race, gender, disability or acts, omissions that prevent access to another fundamental right by a state actor is protected under the constitution. Further, these were considered because there were years of data collected that firmly established the discriminatory acts/omissions or practices.

It has not, and I repeat for those who are slow on the uptake... it has NOT, N - O - T been conclusively proven that sexual identity is genetically linked, or that certain humans have a biological predisposition towards aberrant sexual identity -- don't take offense at the word "aberrant" it describes frequency in an environment, not character or absence of virtue.

and Secondly, many peer-reviewed articles are now appearing that, at a minimum, infer that GLBT lifestyles are are just that: a choice driven, not biologically linked, way of conducting oneself. Extending constitutional protection could have the real effect of granting undue benefit based upon a verbal claim, and "Poisoning the well" for "live" equal protection claims. Not to mention that reports of individuals claiming to be homosexual or one of the other, formerly 'deviant,' sexual identifiers show that the population is not nearly as large as thought, lessening the need for federal intervention.

See the following for stats on the "nature v. nurture" debate over sexual identity: "Retrospective Self-Reports of Changes in Homosexual Orientation: A Consumer Survey of Conversion Therapy Clients," is a study by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D. and Richard W. Potts, M.A. of 882 homosexually oriented individuals who have experienced a degree of change--published in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Reports in June 2000.

Originally posted by

John K.

Joe: It can stand on it's own in the Congress; that is, it can get a majority in both houses, but REPUBLICANS in the Senate can filibuster it, requiring 60 votes (not exactly "the will of the majority" that anti-gays love to talk about), and a REPUBLICAN president refuses to sign it anyway. My only point was that it's certainly not the Democrats' fault, as you suggested. Don't change the subject on me.

As far as attaching irrelevant sections to bills, why don't you ask the Republicans that have caused me not to be able to play poker on the internet because they attached a ban to the Port Security Bill at midnight on the last night of the session. I must say, the tactic made me extremely mad at the time, but what's good for the goose.

Originally posted by

Congress

they didn't attach it to the defense bill to try to sneak it in...they attached it in an attempt to get the administration to not pass the bill that gets our troops the things they need. Politics plain and simple.

Originally posted by

What about Clinton?

I do believe Clinton vetoed this legislation at least once in 1999 and I think there may have been another similar veto during his tenure. Damn Republicans...wait...I mean Democrats.

Originally posted by

What about Clinton?

I do believe Clinton vetoed this legislation at least once in 1999 and I think there may have been another similar veto during his tenure. Damn Republicans...wait...I mean Democrats.

Originally posted by

What about Clinton?

I do believe Clinton vetoed this legislation at least once in 1999 and I think there may have been another similar veto during his tenure. Damn Republicans...wait...I mean Democrats.