Working For Equality In Washington, D.C.
Thursday, July 16, 2009 at 01:40AM Two of three major equality measures are working their way through Congressional discussions in Washington -- The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill and the matter of repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of gays and lesbians in the military. Eliminating the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) is the third measure, which in addition to eventual Congressional attention is being challenged in the Courts by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It would be great if New Hampshire joined that action, and I have sent a letter to Governor John Lynch requesting that he consider doing that.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is strong on both issues. He pointed out this past week that sign-ups in the military are down, and "...we shouldn't turn down anybody that's willing to fight for our country, certainly based on sexual orientation." That should make sense to everyone -- regardless of political philosophy.
Senator Reid also says he supports at the least an 18-month moratorium on enforcing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The thought is that while that moratorium is in place, the policy will change. President Barack Obama recently advocated eliminating the ban, and recognizes the need for creating a consensus to do so since in most of this country there is still considerable legal discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Congress is also considering an expansion of the federal definition of "hate crimes" to include those committed against victims on the "basis of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disabilities." Senator Reid spoke on that issue accompanied earlier this week by Judy Shepard, the mother of Matthew Shepard, who was tied to a fence, beaten, tortured, and killed by two men inWyoming a decade ago. He was a 21 year old University of Wyoming student at the time. Hate crime legislation, in effect in numerous states, allows for prosecutors to add to the severity of charges and thus the sentence when the crime is committed against a person because of his or her characteristics, such as race, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation or identity.
Two excellent movies are available about Matthew Shepard, including "The Matthew Shepard Story," a 2002 television movie, and "The Laramie Project, a play turned into a 2002 movie. Although a bit more "Hollywood" than documentary, "Hate Crime," (2005) is a drama that should convince any doubter about the value for such legislation. All are available through Amazon, or I will loan a copy. "The Matthew Shepard Story" is even available on YouTube in broken 10-minute pieces.
Reader Comments (9)
Indeed, it could result in people such as myself, who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, being afraid, if not unable to voice our opinions if they run counter to those of the open-minded, liberal progressive school of thought.
All that is needed for that is to control our money and our lives and to curtail the ability to talk about it.
Write your congressmen and tell them NO on allowing the government to decide who gets health care and who doesn't, NO on a cap and trade "global tax" to redistribute the wealth ala Al Gore's global governance, and NO on 'hate crimes' bills which are merely a way to SHUT the rest of us up if we are so lucky to survive the first two perfidies.
Yeah Jim, where is the outrage on the 4x deficit spending?
Where is the outrage on the lack of transparency?
Not allowing bills to be read?
Sending more soldiers overseas for a new surge?
The appointment of czars who want to poison our waters and curtail our reproductive rights?
... I could go on but you get the picture don't you?
I don't think we have any trouble in NH with abuse of gays.. live and let live.
We don't need this legislation. It's much too Orwellian.
Violence is violence and must be punished no matter what the motive is.
The government is supposed to have very few powers, among them are protecting our lives... and the others are protecting our property, period.
These powers do not include deciding if what one thinks or says is illegal.
Hate crimes laws don't affect free speech. One can still say their hateful comments under hate crimes laws. Certainly hate crimes laws don't affect political speech. We have a Constitution that protects that.
However, if while committing a crime of violence they are doing so because of a particular hate toward the characteristic of the person they are injuring -- i.e., hate of that race, religion, nationality, or in this case, sexual orientation or gender identity, then the hate crimes statute is applied and the charge by the justice department can be higher than it otherwise would be, as would the resulting penalty.
When one is committing a crime against a class of people, they are not only causing injury to the person they are attacking; they are creating fear in many people, which is often their objective. Lynchings in the South in years gone by are a reminder of the impact of such hate crimes.
Law enforcement personnel and prosecutors in those states that have hate crime statutes, including New Hampshire, have been careful to use their statutes wisely, and in those cases where they should be applied.
*******************************************************************************************************
So was Himmler's Gestapo, at least at first
We have a president who admitted when he ran for state office that policies SHOULD consider race and that race SHOULD be a factor when hiring or admitting to a school.
That is not equality Jim. As long as people are looked at for good or bad based on the color of their skin and not merit of their character there is no equality, there is only racism.
He said "One can still say their hateful comments under hate crimes laws". So you see he already assumes some things are already hate speech before he's even heard them. Who died and left you boss?
He also stated: "However, if while committing a crime of violence they are doing so because of a particular hate toward the characteristic of the person they are injuring -- i.e., hate of that race, religion, nationality, or in this case, sexual orientation or gender identity, then the hate crimes statute is applied and the charge by the justice department can be higher than it otherwise would be, as would the resulting penalty."
Once again, how do we know it's really due to 'hate' or if it's just what usually motivates crime, MONEY?
For example, I just heard a clip of a TV show where people were decrying the fact that some of us complain about the money that Obama's wife spends on sneakers, and her 26 attendants who are paid for on our dime while the rest of us have to eat tuna fish and are on the verge of being thrown out of our homes.
The commentator's response was that these complaints were PROOF, yup, PROOF POSITIVE I tell you that it's due to REAL RACISM!
"They just can not believe a black woman is first lady" he asserted. What a load of dog poo-poo!
So you see this is why I'd rather not have others, especially not the government, deciding FOR ME what motivates a criminal to commit a crime.
You're overstepping the bounds of government and heading down the slippery slope of the Orwellian totalitarian state. I guess when it suits you as a special interest that's just OK with you.
Huge Chavez would be proud.