Comments

I can only hope the President vetoes this misguided and absolutely unnecessary legislation.

Increasingly, American judges have made references to legal opinions in other countries when writing their own opinions. Many of us fear those foreign opinions are having an undue influence on opinions.

You are absolutely correct, Ms. Fitzsimmons. It's part and parcel of the same trend. The proponents of this legislation are parroting what has steadily crept into European criminal codes. For those of you who think this isn't the forerunner of thought control, witness what has happened in Britain, where signs are now posted with the Orwellian slogan: "Racism is a crime!" Tell me that's not thought control. And to the extent you are inclined to agree with the sentiment and are comfortable with the liberal definition of racism, what if the bad guys come to power and invert the definition to include *your thoughts?*

The religious angle should not be overlooked as you say, Mr. Olsen. But don't rely too much on our nation's great fortune to have the First Amendment (I do not mean that sarcastically). Look at the Patriot Act, for example, and its erosion of constitutional protections in the name of national security. Or witness the absence of such protections for what the administration calls enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay. Or the ridiculous and illogical twists and turns by members of the judiciary beginning with Earl Warren in "interpreting" the Constitution to arrive at their desired result. Simply put, there is NO NEED for this legislation and the corresponding loss of freedom it entails. That, my good man JohnW, is real, and realized, fascism.

What's really striking about the FRC's response to this bill via the Jesus "Wanted Posters" is their complete Biblical illiteracy...

Christ never speaks of homosexuality in the Gospels. Not once.

I'm actually beginning to wonder just how much power these sexual orientation people who this law is written for have. Every time I pick up the paper or watch the news it is women who serial killers are doing in, or women and children who are abused, raped, kipnapped, murdered or just disappear; it is older people who are being killed in their homes, having their bodies stuffed in barrels, mugged as they come out of their homes; and, male drug types killing other male drug types. Those of other religions (do you mean Muslims) and homosexuals are not having this happen to them daily and certainly not in a volume to deserve a special law. These laws are to give special priviledges to homosexuals who are all about how to do their sex and nothing else. Why are laws being written about how to do sex and not to protect those who really have violence put upon them. And why can't you say what you want any more in this country, I was taught in school this country was all about free speech and that you certainly can protest something you don't believe in and proclaim what you do believe in. Let's start passing laws like rape charges don't have a time limit as rape is real violence not verbal assault. Why are women, children and old people lower than homosexuals, that's what the laws being passed are really saying. I mean someone who kills a baby or child gets only seven years or three years for not committing a hate crime just murdering a baby or child. Please, let's get some common sense in this country or get rid of those making these laws. We are not living in Canada or Europe. Remember, billions have left those lands BECAUSE OF the laws they were forced to live under to come to the U.S. to be free to protest or talk or think differently than the person standing next to them and especially from having their thoughts being controlled by governments. This law separates homosexuals from normal people and declares them different by law and announces the law considers them different because of how they do sex. Actually when you think of it why would homosexuals even want this law with that kind of announcement to the world.

I would like to know how many people have actually looked at the law before forming an opinion. I apologize, but I do get offended when I percieve that my fellow Christians base their perspectives on the baised media instead of the objective law. We should demonstrate to the world our interest in understanding before acting, rather than being prejudiced without attempting to educate ourselves. Our God gave us our brains to use, and there's no fear in my heart that I will ever find knowledge to contradict Him.

From what I have read, (and correct me if I am wrong), hate crimes increase the punishment of people WHO HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME, if the evidence suggests that the crime was committed on the basis of discrimination.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN that a person who preaches his/her beliefs can be punished, regardless of whether that person seems to be discriminating. Preaching is not a predicate crime. It is up to the court to determine whether a group is involved in "ethnical intimidation" or "rioting."Yet, with no overt hostility, the court will likely not hold anyone guilty. The police may, in their discretion, arrest someone, but the court will not uphold the charges if there has been no crime.

Please, is this what the law says? If so, then I disagree with the posters who say this law will interfere with my 1st Amendment rights. If I do not engage in a crime, then the court cannot punish me, regardless of the fact that I publicize my beliefs.

That's a very simplistic understanding of the law and the way it operates, Miriam. Don't forget that the USSR, the Peoples Republic of China, Nazi Germany, etc., etc., etc. had laws too. It's the way in which they're enforced that's the key. Yes, I've read them and there's absolutely no need for them. All you hear by proponents are a couple of anecdotal examples of clearly vicious crimes perpetrated on a gay or transgendered person. Bad stuff happens to folks everyday in this country, despite laws that have the ultimate penalties. You trust those who enforce the law way too much when you say that as long as you don't commit a crime, well, then you'll be okay. I guess that's what the Duke LaCrosse players thought too, huh?

Maybe some of you would feel different about the hate crimes legislation if you had actually met the murder victim. Andrew Anthos was beaten to death in Detroit because he was gay. He was not a gay rights activist; his sole political passion was to light the dome of the Michigan State Capitol Building in red, white and blue. The killer is still at large. He may have killed before and he may have killed again. It's a shame that Bush is going to veto the hate crimes bill. Too many of our leaders cave in to the extremist groups. To me, Andrew was not an anecdote. He was a human being.

An utterly emotional and completely non-sensical argument, amykay. Would the existence of this law have made a difference to the killer? Would Andrew Anthos still been alive? Maybe it gives survivors some catharsis, but he's still dead and would have been so with or without this misguided law. Is cartharsis an adequate altar on which to sacrifice our freedom?

It's not wider application of the law that I'm against -- it's the hate crimes law itself!

The problem I have with any law and especially with this law is the labeling of people, classifying their importance in this culture and making one persons life more valuable than another like the Nazis did. Sentences should be the same for a killer no matter who or for what reason he/she kills. Sorry, I'm not a extremist group, just a female and people are killed for various reasons every day. And, there's something people forget, homosexuals are men with the strength of men. If anybody has a better chance against a killer another man does. It's women, children and older people who need extra protection because it's unfortunately men who abuse and kill with such physical ease and on a daily basis at that.

The concern about free speech in several of these responses makes me thankful to God that we have the ACLU to protect and litigate our rights to free speech. All Christians should give a tithe of our tithe to the ACLU.

Divercity, I agree-we need to get back to a constitutional democracy in our country before it's too late. All americans, liberal, moderate, or conservatives, need to realize our government is getting way off track with things like a crazy never-ending "war on terror", no more habeus corpus, torture of prisoners, and a president who doesn't realize that "we the people" are the deciders, not him.
Check out Bruce Fein's new website - www.americanfreedomagenda.org. He is a true conservative. If there were more like him and Ron Paul in the republican party, I'd vote republican.

The ACLU was founded by a bunch of communists. I highly recommend you check them out further, before you decide they are worthy of your tithe. And no, I am not kidding about the communist part.

It's really a sad thing. Its the beginning of a world world church, and alot of it is because of people like Fred Phelps that claim to be Christians, when in fact they go directly against Jesus's teachings.

Fred Phelps actually lives in my home town, so I get to see him alot, with all the kids and adults holding signs showing pornagraphic homosexual material for everyone to see. And calling everyone "fags". And it's a complete mockery of Christianity. The devil is using these people as pawns to destroy our religion in the world.

Good thing the good guys win in the end. =) Happy end of the world comming about!

I have to agree with you Nancy regarding the foundations of the ACLU. ANYONE who even does an ounce of research into the ACLU will clearly see that the ACLU has VERY deep communist connections and values. This fact is a matter of public record and open quotes from the ACLU's presidents are available supporting, encouraging and advocating communism. I highly encourage anyone considering the "ENDORSEMENT" of such an ANTI-AMERICAN group to DO YOUR RESEARCH!