Stealth Homosexual ‘Hate Crimes’ Bill Passes House Of Representatives

[buffalo]

Stealth Homosexual ‘Hate Crimes’ Bill Passes House Of Representatives

• September 22, 2005 – * While the nation’s attention was focused on the Judge John Roberts confirmation hearing and on aiding victims of Hurricane Katrina, pro-homosexual forces in the U.S. House of Representatives snuck through a pro-homosexual hate crimes bill by attaching it to legislation designed to protect children from sexual predators.

Democratic Congressman John Conyers (MI) attached as an amendment, the homosexual hate crimes bill known as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act to the Children’s Safety Act (H.R. 3132) last Wednesday. See how your Congressman voted: GovTrack: H.R. 3132: Children’s Safety Act of 2005 Pro-family groups had no prior notice that this was happening.

** The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to consider child protection or anti-pedophile legislation similar to H.R. 3132, the Children’s Safety Act in the next two to three weeks. We are urging you to contact your two U.S. Senators and ask that they oppose the inclusion of any hate crime language to this legislation. Capital Hill switchboard number is 202-224-3121.****

The Children’s Safety Act will create a national website for sex offenders and stipulates that sex felons will face up to 20 years in prison for failing to comply with registration requirements.

But the hate crimes law will add “sexual orientation,” “gender,” and “gender identity” to federally protected categories. “Gender identity” is code for transgenders (individuals who think they are the opposite sex, cross-dressers, or drag queens.)

more…

Write your Senator here - tell them not to support this bill and why.
**

 

[soulspeak23]

[
But the hate crimes law will add “sexual orientation,” “gender,” and “gender identity” to federally protected categories. “Gender identity” is code for transgenders (individuals who think they are the opposite sex, cross-dressers, or drag queens.)

](http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2441)

So, what this means is that you think that it’s ok for these people to get beat up or killed in the streets because they are different? Don’t misunderstand me, I am not trying to put words in yuor mouth. But to try and fight this legislation because it includes the above mentioned people seems to me that you’d have no problem with them being beaten or killed. That doesn’t sound like a very Christian act. And as for sweeping things under the rug, look further into the legislation. It also includes a clause stating the anyone being arrested or even merely detained by ANY federal agency will have DNA collected from them to contribute to a nationwide DNA database. So that means, a federal agent sees you simply walking down the street, doesn’t like how you look and stops you, has the right to take blood, hair, saliva, etc. samples from you. How’s that for freedom?

 

[buffalo]

soulspeak23:

So, what this means is that you think that it’s ok for these people to get beat up or killed in the streets because they are different?

All citizens have current protection under the law. Why do we now need special classes?

 

[Guar_Fan]

buffalo:

Why do we now need special classes?

In the United States it is routine to make distinctions based upon intent - whether the murder was premediated or accidental, whether the person was drunk etc.

Hate crimes laws seem to be simply a variation on that that theme.

 

[Jabronie]

soulspeak23:

So, what this means is that you think that it’s ok for these people to get beat up or killed in the streets because they are different? Don’t misunderstand me, I am not trying to put words in yuor mouth. But to try and fight this legislation because it includes the above mentioned people seems to me that you’d have no problem with them being beaten or killed. That doesn’t sound like a very Christian act. And as for sweeping things under the rug, look further into the legislation. It also includes a clause stating the anyone being arrested or even merely detained by ANY federal agency will have DNA collected from them to contribute to a nationwide DNA database. So that means, a federal agent sees you simply walking down the street, doesn’t like how you look and stops you, has the right to take blood, hair, saliva, etc. samples from you. How’s that for freedom?

Hate crimes make the punishment greater if

a) The victim is of a special “protected” class

AND

b) The attacker doesn’t like that specific class

So it basically says that some victims lives are worth more than others and that that punishment is greater if the attacker has a certain belief (homosexuality is wrong, for example.)

It should be considered unconstitutional, but what do I know?

 

[soulspeak23]

Jabronie:

Hate crimes make the punishment greater if

a) The victim is of a special “protected” class

AND

b) The attacker doesn’t like that specific class

So it basically says that some victims lives are worth more than others and that that punishment is greater if the attacker has a certain belief (homosexuality is wrong, for example.)

It should be considered unconstitutional, but what do I know?

You have a very valid argument and I agree with most of it. However, does that mean that because you (not specifically you, just generally) don’t like someone for some aspect of thier person, that you have the right to attack them for it? Absolutley, you ahve the right to an opinion, but no one has the right to violence. Now, I fully understand that there are completely random acts of violence, based upon nothing at all but the attackers rage, and I think that those people should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I also think that a group of people who have repeatedly been targeted for such violence should be protected. If there was a wave of attacks on nice little church going ladies, I would support legislation protecting them. Its simply a form of (hopefully) detterrant so that perhaps these attackers will think more before they simply go and kill someone. Weighing a heavier sentence is meant to keep these crimes from happening in the first place. And I don’t think that anyone can argue with me wanting less crime all around.

 

[buffalo]

soulspeak23:

You have a very valid argument and I agree with most of it. However, does that mean that because you (not specifically you, just generally) don’t like someone for some aspect of thier person, that you have the right to attack them for it? Absolutley, you ahve the right to an opinion, but no one has the right to violence. Now, I fully understand that there are completely random acts of violence, based upon nothing at all but the attackers rage, and I think that those people should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I also think that a group of people who have repeatedly been targeted for such violence should be protected. If there was a wave of attacks on nice little church going ladies, I would support legislation protecting them. Its simply a form of (hopefully) detterrant so that perhaps these attackers will think more before they simply go and kill someone. Weighing a heavier sentence is meant to keep these crimes from happening in the first place. And I don’t think that anyone can argue with me wanting less crime all around.

Do you really believe that if someone committed a violent crime against me because I was ugly, the heavier sentence would make them less likely to do it? I don’t think so!!!

 

[soulspeak23]

buffalo:

Do you really believe that if someone committed a violent crime against me because I was ugly, the heavier sentence would make them less likely to do it? I don’t think so!!!

So then what exactly upsets you so much about this legislation? The fact that it includes gays and gender identity or just the “special priveledges” part?

 

[buffalo]

soulspeak23:

So then what exactly upsets you so much about this legislation? The fact that it includes gays and gender identity or just the “special priveledges” part?

All of the above. Our laws already protect every citizen? Years ago this same hate speech/crimes was directed against non English speaking immigrants. I do not see any laws on the books that put you in jail for saying dumb polack or mic or deigo, or you get an extra 10 years because you killed a polack.

 

[soulspeak23]

buffalo:

All of the above. Our laws already protect every citizen? Years ago this same hate speech/crimes was directed against non English speaking immigrants. I do not see any laws on the books that put you in jail for saying dumb polack or mic or deigo, or you get an extra 10 years because you killed a polack.

Well, as long as you seem to hate everyone equally, I guess you’re ok. So what is the only acceptable population in this country for you? White, rich and catholic? And no one should have special rights? And everyone should be equal and the same? Well, guess what, that is not, nor has it ever been, the case in America. Certain groups must be afforded certain priveledges at certain times so that we can get closer to the ideal of having everyone be equal. Or do you still think that African Americans should be slaves?

 

[buffalo]

soulspeak23:

Well, as long as you seem to hate everyone equally, I guess you’re ok. So what is the only acceptable population in this country for you? White, rich and catholic? And no one should have special rights? And everyone should be equal and the same? Well, guess what, that is not, nor has it ever been, the case in America. Certain groups must be afforded certain priveledges at certain times so that we can get closer to the ideal of having everyone be equal. Or do you still think that African Americans should be slaves?

I love everyone equally. In this land of freedom and opportunity everyone is afforded the same constitutional rights, with the exception of the unborn. Failures of groups or individuals to live up to the constitution does not mean it needs to be updated to appease.

 

[soulspeak23]

buffalo:

I love everyone equally. In this land of freedom and opportunity everyone is afforded the same constitutional rights, with the exception of the unborn. Failures of groups or individuals to live up to the constitution does not mean it needs to be updated to appease.

So, you’re saying that homosexuals are not living up to the constitution, or the criminals that are beating them to death? If it is the former, then I would love to see the article that references homo- or hetero- sexuality.

 

[buffalo]

soulspeak23:

So, you’re saying that homosexuals are not living up to the constitution, or the criminals that are beating them to death? If it is the former, then I would love to see the article that references homo- or hetero- sexuality.

Not at all. I meant that if any one group is oppressed in this country it is because of the failures of men, not necessarily the law. So if a homosexual tries to advance the “gay” lifestyle he is still protected by the constitution. I do not hate him, but I most certainly do not support his lifestyle and I hate his actions. His agenda is an affront to me and my family and I will oppose him where I can. The hate speech laws also aim squarely at religion. In Philadelphia recently a number of people were arrested for reading the Bible aloud on a street corner. The verses read were anti-homesexuality. This means that their free speech rights were trampled in order to grant special status to “gays”.

In the case of the immigrants they were hated for their ethicity. Yet they were not afforded a special citizen class.

 

[2perfection]

buffalo:

All citizens have current protection under the law. Why do we now need special classes?

well. if citizen A has x1% chance of being beaten up, but person B has x1% + x2% due to identification (correct or erroneous), then X2% indicates a systematic abuse above and beyond that suffered by other citizens.

Special classes are created when dealing with bashing because special classes pre-exist. the law reflects nothing more than the reality.

opposing hate-crime bills it at worse wicked, at best misinformed.

 

[buffalo]

2perfection:

well. if citizen A has x1% chance of being beaten up, but person B has x1% + x2% due to identification (correct or erroneous), then X2% indicates a systematic abuse above and beyond that suffered by other citizens.

Special classes are created when dealing with bashing because special classes pre-exist. the law reflects nothing more than the reality.

opposing hate-crime bills it at worse wicked, at best misinformed.

Hypothetical:

If I murder my wife because of my hate after she has an affair why doesn’t she get this special status? Why isn’t my crime more punishable because of a hate crime?

 

[soulspeak23]

buffalo:

Hypothetical:

If I murder my wife because of my hate after she has an affair why doesn’t she get this special status? Why isn’t my crime more punishable because of a hate crime?

Because the murder of your wife is a one time deal. Persons who are repeatedly sought after for violence, should be protected. I agree with 2perfection. When a group is being sought after more than another group, it goes to try and protect that group more.

 

[buffalo]

soulspeak23:

Because the murder of your wife is a one time deal. Persons who are repeatedly sought after for violence, should be protected. I agree with 2perfection. When a group is being sought after more than another group, it goes to try and protect that group more.

You are right in that I can only murder my wife once. And most likely a person will only get one chance to murder a “special”.

Now I am willing to bet that there are more wive’s murdered every year by their husbands than their are homosexuals. Based on this they should get a higher class and more protection.

 

[Chris7]

Poor Buffalo, you haven’t come to grips with the fact that we as a society are required to forfeit our rights, values, morals, and anything else the special interest groups want to take us to task over.
I am angry that homosexuality pervaded the church and the heirarchy turned a blind eye to it. I know the gays wisely sidestepped this connection as they were more than happy to have everyone refer to the priests as pedophiles but what do you call male on male? Why the abhorence for the priests, because they’re priests? Priesthood is a vocation whereas we are told homosexuality is a lifestyle. Therefore, these predators within the church chose homosexuality as their preferred lifestyle. No different than had they’d have chosen CPA, nurse, activist, etc. as their vocation. Can’t have it both ways folks as uncharitable as that sounds. So I guess this whole church scandal thing isn’t really a scandal after all but rather just a bunch of fellows embracing the lifestyle they’ve chosen. Clears it up for me!

 

[Guar_Fan]

Chris7:

Priesthood is a vocation whereas we are told homosexuality is a lifestyle.

No, homosexuality is a personal characteristic, not a lifestyle… Its the same as being white doesn’t mean you have chosen a white lifestyle.

 

[MikeinSD]

buffalo:

All citizens have current protection under the law. Why do we now need special classes?

If you don’t like additional punishment for hate crimes, don’t try to beat up gay men or lesbians.Don’t do the crime, don’t do the time.