ChristiansUnite Forums

Hate crimes bill put on Pentagon measure 
Predicted to fail in negotiations with House or by presidential veto

The Senate attached hate crimes legislation to a must-pass Pentagon spending bill Thursday, but opponents predicted it ultimately would fail either in negotiations with the House or by presidential veto.

"The president is not going to agree to this social legislation on the defense authorization bill," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "This bill will get vetoed."

Nonetheless, the Senate agreed by voice vote—with no dissenting votes—to attach the hate-crimes provision to a pending defense authorization bill that designates billions of federal dollars to the Defense Department and the Iraq war.

Writing violent attacks on gays into federal hate crime laws is an appropriate add-on to legislation funding the war, Democrats argued, because both initiatives are aimed at combating terrorist acts.

"The defense authorization is about dealing with the challenges of terrorism overseas...This (bill) is about terrorism in our neighborhood," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, the chief Democratic sponsor. "We want to fight terrorism here at home with all of our weapons."

Agreed the Republican co-sponsor, Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith: "We cannot fight terror abroad and accept terror at home."

That's a stretch, not to mention a heavy-handed maneuver that "hijacks" a bill that includes a pay increase for troops in wartime, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

"I think it's shameful we're changing the subject to take care of special interest legislation at a time like this," Cornyn said on the Senate floor.

Other Republicans complained that states should remain the chief prosecutors of such crimes, as in current law.

"Absent a clear demonstration that the states have failed in their law-enforcement responsibilities, the federalization of hate crimes is premature," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who proposed instead a study of the matter in a separate amendment.

Attaching hard-to-pass legislation to must-pass bills is a well- established strategy used by lawmakers of both parties, no matter who controls the chamber. Success means forcing squeamish lawmakers to technically vote for controversial policies embedded in massive spending bills—then hold them accountable at re-election time.

The White House has contended that state and local laws already cover the new crimes defined under the hate crimes proposal and that there is no need to provide federal sanctions for what could be a wide range of violent crimes.

The hate crimes amendment, which passed as a stand-alone bill in the House this year, is especially tempting for majority Democrats because of Bush's weakened, lame-duck status and some support for the measure among Republicans.

But given Bush's veto threat against the provision, it seemed headed for a familiar fate. The Senate in 2004 attached similar legislation to the same authorization bill, but it was stripped out in negotiations with the House.

Republicans were careful not to attack the intent of the legislation, focusing instead on what they said was the "non-germane" nature of the amendment to the overall spending bill.

"There may be a time and place for a hate crimes discussion, but it is certainly not now when national security legislation is being held up," said Senate Republican Conference Chairman Jon Kyl of Arizona. "Forcing a vote on the so-called hate crimes amendment shows an utter lack of seriousness about our national defense."

Retorted Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J.: "For some, it never seems to be the right time or the right place."

Under current federal law, hate crimes apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin. Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction only if the victim is engaged in a specific federally protected activity such as voting.

The House bill would extend the hate crimes category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability and give federal authorities greater leeway to participate in hate crime investigations. It would approve $10 million over the next two years to help local law enforcement officials cover the cost of hate crime prosecutions.

Federal investigators could step in if local authorities were unwilling or unable to act.

Kennedy, Smith succeed in tying 'hate crimes' measure to DoD bill

A pro-family activist in Washington, DC, is decrying the Senate's passage earlier today of a bill that would federalize the prosecution of so-called "hate crimes."



By a 60-39 vote, the Senate passed a controversial amendment to the Defense Authorization bill sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts). The Kennedy amendment expands hate crime law to include crimes motivated by gender, "sexual orientation," or disability of victims.

Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America (CWA), argues that Kennedy's legislation is not germane to a bill funding the Iraq war -- and that it demonstrates the senator's "disdain" for the U.S. military.

It angers Barber that the Massachusetts lawmaker "would hold our soldiers hostage" with the defense spending bill by attaching what he describes as a "totally unrelated, dangerous" hate crimes amendment. "[He's trying] to force President Bush's hand," says the CWA spokesman, "and the president has signaled that he will veto this bill because they are trying to attach this very dangerous amendment."

Calling it "a sad day in the Senate," Barber explains the legislation creates a two-tiered justice system that elevates one class of citizens based on their chosen sexual behavior. "That is, on its face, a violation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the laws," he notes.

Secondly, he believes, the amendment puts America on the "slippery slope." "Similar laws have been applied ... around the world as a hammer really against the First Amendment, against free speech," Barber says, "and this sets the table and creates a situation where Americans' [right to] free speech and freedom of religious expression is in harm's way."

Senators Kennedy and Gordon Smith (R-Oregon) argued the amendment would help "fight terrorism at home." Opponents such as Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) argued the measure was "constitutionally dubious" at best. A similar "hate crimes" measure passed the House in May.

If President Bush does not veto this bill then Christians will be persecuted simply for quoting scripture.

I pray that President Bush will veto this bill. It is a sad day for America. Imagine a pastor getting arrested for reading Scripture from the Bible that condemns homosexuality?

It has happened in other countries I was watching something on TBN where a pastor was fined, and jailed for reading Scripture from the Bible that homosexuals consider to be hate crimes.

Yes it is happening in many places around the world. It has happened in many places throughout Europe and not to long ago even in Canada.

Kennedy 'humiliates' soldiers
to further homosexual rights 
Claim military rife with 'bigotry' used to justify
hate-crimes amendment to defense spending bill

Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Gordon Smith, R-Ore., have trashed the collective reputations of millions of U.S. military service members in order to advance their "hate crimes" legislation, which would make it a crime to utter a negative opinion about homosexuals or their lifestyle, a pro-family group says.

The U.S. Senate yesterday approved an amendment by Kennedy and Smith to install in federal law a ban on such expressions of religious and personal opinion. The amendment was added to the Department of Defense Authorization bill, which is needed to keep funding worldwide U.S. military operations.

"[The] senators humiliate[d] our brave men and women in uniform by alleging that America's military is a haven for bigots committing 'hate crimes'," said Wendy Wright, the president of Concerned Women for America.

"The Defense Authorization bill has been twisted to shamelessly smear our military. Alleged crimes by military members are already prosecuted, so the point of an amendment accusing military members of committing 'hate crimes' is to create the perception that America's military is rife with violent bigots," Wright said.

"It's extremely telling that Sens. Kennedy and Smith had to go back to 1992 to find an example to exploit (the already-prosecuted case of Navy seaman Allan Schindler) to claim that a federal law must be passed to address rampant bigotry in the military," added Shari Rendall, director of legislation and public policy for CWA.

"Sens. Kennedy and Smith are shamelessly impugning the character of our brave soldiers in an effort to push their agenda, forcing President Bush to veto legislation that is crucial to America's national security," she added.

The "hate crimes" plan has been afloat in Congress for a number of years, and in recent months had percolated to the top of the agenda for many representatives and senators who advocate for homosexuals.

To make the plan pertinent to the military spending plan, the senators cited the immediate need for such remedies in the military.

"As I have said in the past, the military is not immune to the scourge of hate crimes in our country. In 1992, Navy seaman Allen Schindler was brutally murdered by his shipmate Terry Helvey in Okinawa, Japan," Smith said.

The CWA noted that Smith neglected to add that Helvey was convicted of his crime and now is serving a life sentence in prison.

Kennedy's suggestion for a reason to support the "hate crimes" plan was a different case, in which a prosecution already has begun. Yet, he said, "We cannot let another day, really hours, go by without this legislation," the CWA said.

The Senate on a 60-39 vote added the amendment that expands hate crime laws to include crimes motivated by gender or "sexual orientation."

Opponents said the "hate crimes" plan ultimately will fail. "The president is not going to agree to this social legislation on the defense authorization bill. This bill will get vetoed," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

"I think it's shameful we're changing the subject to take care of special interest legislation at a time like this," added Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

Other senators argued that the federal government should continue to allow states to prosecute crimes.

"Absent a clear demonstration that the states have failed in their law-enforcement responsibilities, the federalization of hate crimes is premature," said Sen. Orrin hatch, R-Utah.

The White House already has expressed concern that there already are local and state laws that address such crimes, and the federal law is unnecessary.

The "hate crimes" rules were passed as a separate measure in the U.S. House this year, but Bush previously has indicated such a proposal would result in a veto.

The issue of such legislation has Christians, conservatives, constitutionalists and 1st Amendment advocates in the United States alarmed.

Said the CWA in an analysis of the plan: "We live in a world where even the Bible is being deemed 'hate' literature. Christians have already been jailed for upholding traditional morality in public places, and if hate crime laws proliferate, the freedom to speak one's mind will be limited to those who celebrate and promote homosexuality."

Already in the United States, Catholic Charities of Boston halted all adoption operations in the state after being told under Massachusetts' pro-'gay' nondiscrimination law, only agencies that placed children in homosexual-led households would get licensed by the state.

The www.StopHateCrimesNow.com website features the testimonies of those who have had first-hand experience with local so-called "hate crimes" laws in the United States. A 75-year-old grandmother describes how she was jailed for testifying about the Bible.

The CWA has cited several Canadian cases, where such legislation already is law. There Dr. Laura Schelssinger already has been rebuked and James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" and the late Jerry Falwell's "Old Time Gospel Hour have been warned after broadcasting their religious opinions about homosexuality.

Schlessinger's opinions about homosexuality violated the human rights provision of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' code of ethics, the nation's Broadcast Standards Council determined.

"It is the view of the Councils [two regional councils weighed in with the same verdict] that what the host may innocently describe as 'opinion' in fact and in law amounts to abusively discriminatory comment based on the sexual orientation of the identifiable group about which those statements were made," the organization concluded in censuring Schlessinger.

"It is the view of the Councils that the host's argument that she can 'surgically' separate the individual persons from their inherent characteristics so as to entitle her to make comments about the sexuality which have no effect on the person is fatuous and unsustainable," it added. "The sexual practices of gays and lesbians are as much a part of their being as the color of one's skin or the gender, religion, age or ethnicity of an individual."

"All that matters [under such plans] are the delicate feelings of members of federally protected groups," Michael Marcavage of RepentAmerica.com, has told WND. "Truth is not allowed as evidence in hate crimes trials. … A homosexual can claim emotional damage from hearing Scripture that describes his lifestyle as an abomination. He can press charges against the pastor or broadcaster who merely reads the Bible in public. The 'hater' can be fined thousands of dollars and even imprisoned!"

Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth, noted that in Canada and France both, legislators have been fined for publicly criticizing homosexuality. Three years ago, a Swedish hate crimes law was used to put Pastor Ake Green, who preached that homosexuality is a sin, in jail for a month.

"And recently, a British couple told how they were denied the chance to adopt because it was determined that their Christian faith might 'prejudice' them against a homosexual child put in their care," LaBarbera added.

In England, the CWA reported, Anglican Bishop Rev. Dr. Peter Forster of Chester was investigated by police for saying homosexuals "could and should seek medical help to 'reorient' themselves."

London Telegraph columnist Peter Simple then warned: "That the bishop should be threatened with prosecution for a perfectly reasonable, if debatable, suggestion will strike people still in their senses as a bad joke, a case of that stale old cliché, 'political correctness gone mad.' Unfortunately it is much more serious than that. Here are the unmistakable beginnings of state thought control."

Senate Attaches Hate Crime Legislation to Defense Funding Bill

Thursday , September 27, 2007

AP
ADVERTISEMENT

WASHINGTON —
The Senate on Thursday attached legislation to help states prosecute attacks on homosexuals to a bill funding the war in Iraq in an effort to force President Bush to sign it into law. Opponents, citing a Bush veto threat, predicted it ultimately would fail.

"The president is not going to agree to this social legislation on the defense authorization bill," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Nonetheless, the Senate agreed by voice vote — with no dissenting votes — to attach the hate-crimes provision to a pending defense authorization bill that designates billions of federal dollars to the Defense Department and the Iraq war.

The Democratic-controlled House passed the same hate crimes legislation as a stand-alone bill earlier this year despite Bush's veto threat. That makes a repeat of 2004, when the Senate passed a similar amendment to the same bill only to see it stripped out during negotiations with the Republican-led House, less likely this time around. President Bush, who says the bill is not needed, could then be faced with vetoing the vast defense authorization bill containing the same provision.

Bush believes that "all people should be protected from violent crimes," but that states have their own hate crime laws, many more strict than what is being proposed, according to White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

"We believe that state and local law enforcement agencies are effectively using their laws to the full extent they can," Perino said. She wouldn't comment on the prospects for a veto.

The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay college freshman who was beaten into a coma in 1998 in Laramie, Wyo. He died five days later.

Writing violent attacks on gays into federal hate crime laws is an appropriate add-on to legislation funding the war, Democrats argued, because both initiatives are aimed at combating terrorist acts.

"The defense authorization is about dealing with the challenges of terrorism overseas...This (bill) is about terrorism in our neighborhood," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, the chief Democratic sponsor. "We want to fight terrorism here at home with all of our weapons."

That's a stretch, not to mention a heavy-handed maneuver that "hijacks" a bill that includes a pay increase for troops in wartime, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

"I think it's shameful we're changing the subject to take care of special interest legislation at a time like this," Cornyn said on the Senate floor.

Other Republicans complained that states should remain the chief prosecutors of such crimes, as in current law.

"Absent a clear demonstration that the states have failed in their law-enforcement responsibilities, the federalization of hate crimes is premature," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who proposed instead a study of the matter in a separate amendment. That measure passed as well, 96-3.

Attaching hard-to-pass legislation to weighty bills is a well-established strategy used by lawmakers of both parties, no matter who controls the chamber. Success means forcing squeamish lawmakers to technically vote for controversial policies embedded in massive spending bills — then hold them accountable at re-election time.

The White House has contended that state and local laws already cover the new crimes defined under the hate crimes proposal and that there is no need to provide federal sanctions for what could be a wide range of violent crimes.

The hate crimes amendment is especially tempting for majority Democrats because of Bush's weakened, lame-duck status and some support for the measure among Republicans.

Republicans were careful not to attack the intent of the legislation, focusing instead on what they said was the "non-germane" nature of the amendment to the overall spending bill.

"There may be a time and place for a hate crimes discussion, but it is certainly not now when national security legislation is being held up," said Senate Republican Conference Chairman Jon Kyl of Arizona. "Forcing a vote on the so-called hate crimes amendment shows an utter lack of seriousness about our national defense."

Retorted Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J.: "For some, it never seems to be the right time or the right place."

Under current federal law, hate crimes apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin. Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction only if the victim is engaged in a specific federally protected activity such as voting.

The House bill would extend the hate crimes category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability and give federal authorities greater leeway to participate in hate crime investigations. It would approve $10 million over the next two years to help local law enforcement officials cover the cost of hate crime prosecutions.

Federal investigators could step in if local authorities were unwilling or unable to act.

Senate Attaches Hate Crime Legislation to Defense Funding Bill (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,298219,00.html)

Let's see, would a hate crime then be a church refusing to hire someone for being gay or transsexual?   I'm not seeing a lot of violent crime being committed against gays but maybe I'm not reading the right news sites. ::)

President Bush poised to make 'hate crimes' veto

The White House is reaffirming its plan to veto legislation that would federalize the prosecution of so-called "hate crimes."

Last week, the Senate voted to attach "hate crime" legislation to the Defense Authorization bill. The amendment, sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts), would expand hate crime law to include crimes motivated by gender, sexual orientation, or disability of victims. White House spokesman Tim Goeglein says it is "the height of irresponsibility" for senators to tie the hate crimes legislation to an important Pentagon spending bill.

"The president has said overwhelmingly that these are two separate issues -- that they should not be combined; and the president has reiterated his commitment to vetoing the hate crimes provision," says Goeglein. "So until it comes to the president either in two bills or in one bill, we will hold off getting a straight statement of administration policy. But we fully intend to see the Congress make a decision on this sometime in the next week to a week in a half."

With the exception of the hate crimes amendment, President Bush supports the must-pass spending bill. According to Goeglein, the White House thinks it is irresponsible to add a provision the president has already committed to vetoing to an "otherwise necessary bill."

The White House spokesman says he hopes the Democrats will move in the right direction and remove the amendment. Earlier this year, President Bush issued a veto threat against a stand-alone hate crimes measure that passed the House -- with the White House calling the measure "unnecessary and constitutionally questionable."