Let me highlight a few of the glorious statements thus far:
"In and of itself this law can be applied to speech. The nature of assault -- putting someone in fear of their safety -- what will that mean for someone preaching against homosexuality?... It elevates homosexuality to the same protective category as race. It's all part of the radical homosexual anarchist agenda" - Mathew Staver of the Liberty Counsel
In reference to the murder of Matthew Shepard, "We know that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay... the hate-crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills." - Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
Before I get into these statements, let me point out the 17 Democrats that voted "no," specifically Democratic Representatives Heath Shuler (NC- 11th District) and Mike McIntyre (NC- 7th District) because they represent my state, and the 18 Republicans that should be applauded for voting for the bill.
As to our friend Matt's comments, am I the only person not following his reasoning? I mean this bill specifically grants the ability to persecute someone who commits a crime on the basis of a protected status. I mean, does he think that these preachers are commiting crimes by preaching against homosexuality? Does the bill somehow state that preaching is a crime? Come on Matt, I know you can think better than that and your status as a spokesmen for a legal firm should be indicative of that. I mean if you were worried about that, then why is it that the KKK can go on preaching the hatred that they preach against individuals on the basis of race? I mean, they are not being charged with hate crimes when they are openly racist. Nor will this status, as recognized if this bill passes in the Senate, allow for the criminalization of individuals who are openly homophobic. It is when a crime is committed against that person (ex. murder) that this hate crime legislation is resourceful.
To the second part of the statement concerning the radical homosexual anarchist agenda. I mean, seriously? He seriously said that. Wow. Let us take a moment. How does lobbying for your political rights and anarchy remotely coincide? In fact, are the two not contradictory? To be a participant in the political process on one hand and then to be anti-government on the other. OOHHH Matt, what other fear tactics must you employ?
Now, to our dear Representative Foxx. I can understand that you might have been given false evidence from the news program you watched, but I mean as a member of the United States House of Representatives, should you not be looking more in depth at the issues at hand, especially when you are going to vocalize your opposition to it? Or is this statement just representative of the basis for your argument of opposition (i.e. ignorance). Granted, she did issue a formal "apology", but come on, regardless of the issue, is this blatant ignorance really what constituents seek in their ideal political representative?
In conclusion, the fear tactics as represented by Mathew Staver and the perpetuated lies/ignorance as represented by Foxx need to stop. It is completely counter to the issue at hand and is no basis on which this bill should fail in the Senate. People who are targeted as victims of crime because of some personal defining factor deserve to be protected, and legislation should respond appropriately to curb these discriminatory behaviors. When I am assaulted, I am the victim of assault. When I am assaulted because I am gay, I am the victim of both assault and a hate crime. As Judy Shepard highlighted on the Rachel Maddow show, victims of crime that is based on some defining factor of an individual deserve to be distinguished because it is not just a violent act against one person but is meant so as to threaten an entire group of people. The prosecution of such acts should be made to thoroughly reflect the multiple dynamics of these crimes.
And that is the spilt perfume!
No comments:
Post a Comment