Family, marriage and you individual faith are all that can help fix what is broken in America- (I care less if it is Judiasm, Maoism, Muslim or Christian—-just a personal faith in something BIGGER that you or your ego or perceived intellingence and superiority over everyone else!)

Just did some more in-depth fact checking, and the bill S.909 itself does not specify consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality – but the Hate Crimes Statistical Act of 1990, a federal statute, makes that distinction. I guess there might be a very minor chance to argue that S.909 should have specified that more clearly… but I don’t think it would be too difficult for a prosecutor to prove that the Hate Crimes Statistical Act statute would directly affect the law written by the bill S.909.

But, if someone wants to say that Rep. King’s amendment was an attempt to do that, I will note that it was an extremely poor way to go about it. A better way would have been to write an amendment that clearly ties S.909 to the Hate Crimes Statistical Act’s definition of sexual orientation. In fact, by specifying ONLY pedophiles, such an amendment would then implicitly make the allowance for people with other sexual disorders (necrophelia, bestiality, incest, etc.) to successfully argue that their disorder is actually a sexual orientation, and therefore possible to be protected under hate crimes legislation – King casts too narrow a net in his amendment, so narrow that I tend to believe that his motivation was purely political (believing that the democrats would vote it down, giving a nice, prepackaged soundbyte to his republican cohorts), as opposed to actually wanting to improve the bill.

From what I’ve read of the bill, and which has been pointed out previously, is that this bill does not create “protected classes” of people – it essentially covers everyone from violence perpetrated upon them because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. As an example, a straight person will not receive a harsher sentence for killing a homosexual because he is a homosexual, when compared to a gay person killing a heterosexual because he is heterosexual – by the language of this bill, both crimes should be prosecuted to the same extent, with the same possible sentences.

Also, the bill spells out that “sexual orientation” is CONSENSUAL homosexuality or heterosexuality. Pedophelia when practiced (whether physical sexual acts, or obtaining of pedophilic pornography) is at it’s core a NON-CONSENSUAL act. Why? Because children have not reached the age of consent – it doesn’t matter if the pedophile says that “the child wanted me to do this, so it’s OK”, because the child does not legally have the ability to make that decision. The question of pedophiles being protected under this bill is simply a political ruse, an argument designed to give a dwindling political party something of a toehold against the waning of their power.

As far as “hate crimes” in general, I go back and forth on the idea, but what I’ve come to is that it all depends upon what it will take to “prove” a hate crime. If a prosecutor can simply point out that the defendant is ‘x’, and the victim was ‘y’, therefore it’s a hate crime, then yes, this bill is problematic at best, and shouldn’t become law. But, if a prosecutor must prove certain factors to a stringent requirement, particularly that the reason why the victim was attacked was because he was ‘y’ AND FOR NO OTHER REASONABLE MOTIVE, then I can support this bill. It comes down to the reasons why these types of acts are perpetrated – lynchings of black people were not only meant to kill the individual because of his skin color, but also to terrorize and “send a message” to the black community. Name the grouping of race, color, sexual orientation, religion, etc., and they are covered equally under this bill – there are no “protected” classes. But, for me, the real question is how will such a law be implemented within our judicial system.

Main Entry: ori·en·ta·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌȯr-ē-ən-ˈtā-shən, -ˌen-\
Function: noun
Date: 1839
1 a: the act or process of orienting or of being oriented b: the state of being oriented ; broadly : arrangement, alignment
2 a: a usually general or lasting direction of thought, inclination, or interest b: a person’s self-identification as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual

Main Entry: pe·do·phil·ia
Pronunciation: \ˌpe-də-ˈfi-lē-ə, ˈpē-\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
Date: 1906
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
— pe·do·phil·i·ac \-ˈfi-lē-ˌak\ or pe·do·phil·ic \-ˈfi-lik\ adjective

Glynis
Comment posted April 30, 2009 @ 9:20 am
Doug, how do you know that “God DOES love the Homosexual, but abhors their sin.”. Does God speak to you? Jesus said nothing like about abhorring homosexuality in the Bible.

Jesus the Son is GOD. That is identified in 1John, and other places. So I’m afaid that you have to actually read the Bible, Old & New Testament before you spread more confusion, and lose souls… In the Old Testament, GOD the Father, was speaking; He said Homosexuals will be punished (Sodom & Gomorrah was an example)Homosexuals will never see life, they will burn. Thats why Christians are hated because we speak truth due to reading it all, and not reading just what we want to read.

OK I’ll play. Actually I had no intention to revisit this small-time site, except I failed to close my browser session when I signed out yesterday. I will not be coming back as I have better things to do with my time than arguing on the internet. But nonetheless, I’ll answer you this one time.

Ha! Call me a douche… whatever. A douche is a personal cleanser, and if my job is to cleanse this discussion of ignorance, then fine. At least I had the courage to use my real name. You aren’t hurting my feelings any. In fact, you are making this too easy.

Are you truly so dense that you would reveal, on a public forum, that you don’t know the difference between motive and intent? Seriously. Because, there is a difference you know. I’ll break it down so a child can understand.

Intent is what establishes a charge’s degree. Example: A drunk driver kills an innocent pedestrian. This is manslaughter, rather than first or second degree murder. The murder wasn’t planned ahead of time. The killer did not set out to kill the pedestrian, but rather it was an ancillary result of the offense of DWI. Just thought I’d clear that up. I really wish I didn’t have to spell this out for you, but I’m glad to do it as part of the “douching” process.

As far as H.R. 1913 goes, I can’t show you anywhere in particular where free speech is abridged within the text of the bill, because it isn’t there. And that is precisely the point. The bill is worded in such a vague way, that we are really left at the mercy of the interpretation of the law. The summary of the bill reads: “To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.” It is the last phrase “and for other purposes” that makes my blood run cold.

Again, what is the point of this law? If you perpetrate a violent act against someone for ANY reason, it should not matter why. If you pre-meditated murder, it is first degree whether or not it was pre-meditated because the person was a black man, or a white man that slept with your wife. The murder was premeditated! It should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Where this law becomes a threat to free speech is, that it defines a crime based upon what someone thinks. It is saying, if you think a certain way about your victim, that you will have a more severe punishment than if you had not thought that. That’s what is scary.

This bill is the first step off of the slippery slope to no first amendment rights. Is that what you want? What happens when another extreme, right-wing crazy gets into office, and your liberal kookist ideas are deemed “intolerant”? You can’t have it both ways. Just because I don’t like the fact that a person believes differently than I do, doesn’t give me the right to legislate away their right to say it.

And no, I don’t listen to Rush or Hannity. But you must, since you seem to know what it is they are saying. There are still those of us who are free thinkers in this country, and aren’t spoon-fed our information by the media. Actually, it is possible for an intelligent person to extrapolate the consequences of this bill without the help of talk radio.

At any rate, I realize it is hard for the Obamatrons to critically think through these types of scenarios. It is even harder for you guys when you don’t have the truth on your side. You have to be more creative and use smoke and mirror tactics to try and hoodwink the average person into doubting their own basic common sense. Pathetic.

And to Erica, nothing is more anti-intellectual than pugilist atheism. Face it, your religious philosophy of evolution died with the mapping of the human genome in 1999. You’re just a little late to the party. Sorry. Hello, it’s a software program!!! Raise your fist at the Bible all you want, but contrary to what you stated, the Bible, actually has archaeological and historical provenance. So “do your research”. Feeble-minded, hit-and-run attacks on the Bible are quite frankly, laughable and lame, and have nothing to do with this discussion. You can no more prove there is no God than I can prove there is. So save it. It all boils down to statistical probabilities. You just need to do the math.

You know what math is?

I’m sorry if I seem a bit pissed. I’m a middle-aged, bleach-haired punk rocker, and I still have a bone to pick with state-control. So yeah, I resent this bill and it’s nanny-state intrusion.