posted May 07, 2009 07:24 PM         

Further, your contention that I'm making comparisons between pedophile behavior and consensual sex between consenting adults is nonsense.

And, before you spit out the word Homophobia, you better learn what it means.

Homo...the genus of bipedal primates that includes modern humans

Slang for homosexuals

Phobia...a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

Anyone who believes I have a fear of humans, including homosexuals is barking up the wrong tree. Definitely barking up the wrongest possible tree.

Pedophiles are covered in the language of the proposed legislation....Period. There is not one reasonable person who would say Pedophilia is NOT A SEXUAL ORIENTATION. None.

As for you katatonic; what is it about the 14th Amendment you don't understand. It's written in plain English so understanding it's meaning is not rocket science. The 14th Amendment is crystal clear in it's meaning so why don't you get it?

posted May 07, 2009 07:46 PM         

quote:

---

Pedophiles are covered in the language of the proposed legislation....Period. There is not one reasonable person who would say Pedophilia is NOT A SEXUAL ORIENTATION. None.

---

Well, try representing a battered pedophile in front of a judge under the pretense that your client was subject to hate crimes as described under this bill, and see if the judge and jury agrees that pedophilia is protected under the wording of "sexual orientation." I bet you won't get many takers. I would bet you get a unanimous opinion contrary to yours. I also bet that no case in legal history has given pedophilia protection under a statute using the term "sexual orientation." (You won't even find pedophilia or talk of age difference if you look up the definition of "sexual orientation." No psychiatrist or psychologist is going to back your putting pedophilia under that lable. Sexual orientation isn't of a questionable definition. It has specific meanings.)

posted May 07, 2009 07:54 PM         

Homophobia (from Greek homós: one and the same; phóbos: fear, phobia) is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality, homosexuals,[1][2][3] or individuals perceived as homosexual. Some definitions lack the "irrational" component.[4] Homophobic is the adjective form of this term used to describe the qualities of these characteristics, while homophobe is the noun form given as a title to individuals labeled with homophobic characteristics. Homophobia was first used with its modern meaning in 1972, although it was coined in the mid-1950s. It has been criticized as a pejorative against those with differing value positions, with several researchers proposing alternative words to describe prejudice and discrimination against gays and lesbians. The term "internalized homophobia" is used to describe a prejudice against one's own homosexuality.

edit...but the comparison by preference is in your text. Preference is one thing predilection is another

posted May 07, 2009 09:29 PM         

this is why i don't side with conservatives, as much as i disagree with a lot of democratic choices, it seems like conservatives always take the worse case scenario, blow that out of proportion and sell it to whoever is buying. you almost had me jwhops.

posted May 07, 2009 10:21 PM         

quote:

---

This is mis read by the OP most likely because of a very virulent form of homophobia

---

Interesting enough, a couple I know said they believed gays of all kinds (including lesbians) were much more likely to molest children. I pointed out that the vast majority of women--who are very rare compared to men--who do after minors almost always went after a boy, not a girl. And that as a runaway I met all kinds of people cruising for sex and kids who ran away from sexual abuse, and nearly all of them, be the child, tween, or teen a boy or a girl who was molested or in search of as a target for molestation, the common theme was that the vast majority doing the abuse were men. The rare women involved typically acted as intermediaries (like a pimp) or enabling someone else to do the abuse. That is, if they wanted to fear for children, they should fear men, gay AND straight, not lesbians (*).

What was interesting is that they thought my saying this was very rude, but that their stating--without basis, or at least not sharing it with me--that gays & lesbians are most prone to it was somehow ok. Go figure.

(*I don't mean to assert that all, or even most, men are a menace to children. I figure that most of them aren't. I'm not counting like someone 20 being into someone 16, which I count as something very different, btw. I was just making a point about how silly it seemed to me that they blame gays and lesbians for child molesting when I was a runaway around many sexually abused kids and where many men cruised for sex from minors, to blame gays & lesbians for it.)

posted May 07, 2009 10:57 PM         

Do you realize how absurd that argument is?

We have laws to protect people from being killed. And those laws would be PUNISHMENTS for killing people. You can't PREVENT a crime before it happens in most situations. Our police forces do not follow people around like bodyguards to prevent possible murders. LAWS are created to PUNISH people for committing crimes and, more importantly, TO DISCOURAGE the crime in the first place.

Why aren't all equal crimes treated equally? Why does Joe Schmoe deserve a greater penalty FOR THE SAME CRIME that someone else committed? If someone vandalizes my car for sh*ts and giggles and someone vandalizes my neighbor's car because he's gay ... why does his attacker get a worse punishment than mine?

Don't you see how that places more value on one victim over another? On not just their things but their well being and their very lives?

Sorry but hate crime laws were enacted to provide SPECIAL PROTECTIONS FOR SOME, THROUGH DISCOURAGEMENT BY MORE SEVERE PUNISHMENT, FOR THE SAME CRIME COMMITTED AGAINST SOMEONE ELSE.

And it's just BS.

And, uh, btw. It is assinine to do anything but consider the worst possible scenarios when laws are worded so broadly. Because it isn't going to be the same people in charge forever. You have to be able to think ahead and wonder how someone else, perhaps even someone who is not quite as nice as you'd like to think your current leaders are, would be not only willing but able to abuse those laws as they are currently written.

One example would be the Patriot Act. Didn't support it under Bush, don't support it's expansion under Obama. And the same reason applies. It's too broadly worded.

posted May 07, 2009 11:55 PM         

"The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia."

Eleanore

I'm not for giving special protections, special treatment or special rights to anyone in our society which are not extended to every citizen as a matter of law.

Did you know politicians have voted themselves special rights, special retirement plans, special health care not to mention they have also voted themselves special protections with extra punishment for anyone who dares touch them...a hate crimes bill to protect the political class.

posted May 08, 2009 01:01 AM         

quote:

---

Sorry but hate crime laws were enacted to provide SPECIAL PROTECTIONS FOR SOME, THROUGH DISCOURAGEMENT BY MORE SEVERE PUNISHMENT, FOR THE SAME CRIME COMMITTED AGAINST SOMEONE ELSE.

And it's just BS.

---

You should read in the bill the place at which this bill is to be referenced (bottom of thread page 2). This act is not a first response to a crime. It's a LAST response to a crime after all the prosecution is done. If it still appears that a hate crime aspect of the case wasn't addressed, and gets recommended to be addressed, then this bill can come in to play. As such, I think this bill sufficiently stays out of the way of equal protections.

quote:

---

If someone vandalizes my car for sh*ts and giggles and someone vandalizes my neighbor's car because he's gay ... why does his attacker get a worse punishment than mine?

Don't you see how that places more value on one victim over another? On not just their things but their well being and their very lives?

---

I don't see it as placing more value on one victim over the other. Both perpetrators find justice. Both victims also find justice. I view it as simply an addition criminal charge. If you can make the case that the attack on your car was because you are a woman, then you are indeed equally "protected" under this bill.

quote:

---

It is assinine to do anything but consider the worst possible scenarios when laws are worded so broadly.

---

posted May 08, 2009 03:28 AM         

If you car was vandalized by teens for a laugh, or by an angry ex, that wouldn't qualify. But if a group you belonged to was slurred ("Fags die," "blacks go back to Africa," "God hates witches," "Christians suck," etc), then it would. This doesn't have to mean you're a gay or a woman or a minority. If it was meant to intimidate ALL whites, men, or Christians, then it would count as a hate crime, just as it would if the attack was meant to inspire terror in the gay, black, or Jewish communities.

posted May 08, 2009 09:22 AM         

And it's just BS....acoustic

Someone plug acoustic's brain into the convenience outlet, he's out of juice.

Each and every criminal statute is designed to provide protection against something ...from murder on down to property crimes by punishing the offending behavior.

Now, O'Bomber and democrats need to repay the homosexual lobby which funded their campaigns and voted for them...with a bill to give homosexuals, including Pedophiles, "Special Protections".

This bill is unconstitutional on it's face because it sets up a circumstance where people are not equal before the laws.

Further, it violates every premise of jurisprudence by stating the feds can get involved and charge a state resident for a "hate crime" after that person has undergone a state trial which resulted in a verdict the feds don't like...or, after a state prosecutor has looked at the evidence and decided to charge for the actual crime but not as a hate crime..then, the feds can put that person through a second trial.

Now, what I'd like to see is some justification for including homosexuals, including pedophiles in a federal statute which gives them "Special Protections" but doesn't give any protection to US military personnel who are attacked..because they're wearing the military uniform of the United States.

What is it about homosexuals that makes them MORE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAWS and MORE DESERVING OF SPECIAL PROTECTIONS than ordinary US citizens?

posted May 08, 2009 11:38 AM         

on the face of it your argument that the same crime should have the same punishment makes all the sense in the world. and i certainly agree that we cannot rely on the right personalities being in charge of the execution of bills like this.

but it is not essentially a protection bill at all, but a bill designed to state loud and clear that hate crimes are by definition antithetical to the whole fabric of this country. and whoever said it is really an anti-terrorism bill is right. it is an attempt to make clear that terrorism is not just something indulged in by muslim suicide bombers, but by citizens on each other. when you single out a group or members of the group for punishment BECAUSE they believe/do/look somehow inferior to you, or threatening to you, you are practicing terrorism. there is a qualitative difference between mindless vandalism and even the same action taken to "teach you a lesson".

this bill is saying it's not okay to do what the nazis did. or the klan. that NO group can be singled out for persecution by any individual or group (whether or not under "cloak of law"). it is meant to forestall that impulse between individuals and in society at large.

it also covers the "real" terrorists, people who come into this country to carry out hostile actions because we are "infidels" or whatever other reason they might choose.

technically i would think that a lot of petty vandalism cases could actually come under the umbrella of this bill in that many are basically taking out their resentment on someone who is perceived to have more than they need.

as you mentioned, the bill is WAY broadly worded and could do with an overhaul. but there is a difference between hate crimes and other crimes. this is the other side of the "we will be fair" policy conservatives think too wussy to have any effect. it says, we as a nation will not carry out hate crimes (torture/discrimination under the law) but we will not tolerate ANYONE who does.

yes, it is an attempt to bring gays under the protection of the law - and gaybashing is a fact of our modern life - but more than that it is an attempt to extend that protection to ALL groups. in that sense it is an anti-profiling law. the wording is meant to amplify those of the 14th, which mentions race religion and creed but as we know a lot of hated groups don't fall under those categories.

and yes, jwhop, i think it also protects the military personnel you feel are threatened by that homeland security memo. they are also a group and to be protected from hate crimes by individual OR STATE. in fact it applies to anyone taking the law into their own hands or assuming that any member of ANY group is beneath the protection of the law.

posted May 08, 2009 11:45 AM         

quote:

---

Now, O'Bomber and democrats need to repay the homosexual lobby which funded their campaigns and voted for them...with a bill to give homosexuals, including Pedophiles, "Special Protections".

---

That's an utter lie.

quote:

---

This bill is unconstitutional on it's face because it sets up a circumstance where people are not equal before the laws.

---

Victims are equal under this law. Criminals are not. Who cares about criminal inequality as long as they're getting fair trials?

quote:

---

Further, it violates every premise of jurisprudence by stating the feds can get involved and charge a state resident for a "hate crime" after that person has undergone a state trial which resulted in a verdict the feds don't like

---

Untrue:

‘(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--

‘(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
‘(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
‘(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or

quote:

---

Now, what I'd like to see is some justification for including homosexuals, including pedophiles in a federal statute which gives them "Special Protections" but doesn't give any protection to US military personnel who are attacked..because they're wearing the military uniform of the United States.

---

Once again, it's not a "special protection." It's a supplemental protection, which will only come in to play if certain state-determined conditions are met.

posted May 08, 2009 12:08 PM         

Go on your own fools errands. Judges do not make criminal complaints. Prosecutors make criminal complaints and judges oversee the proceedings of trials. If there is a law on the books forbidding certain activities judges cannot dismiss charges based on those unlawful activities. To do so would be judicial malpractice and the judge's ruling would be overturned on appeal. Wake up.

'Pedophile Protection Act' stirs 200K letters to Senate
Congressman: 'Hate crimes' would 'break' Constitution
Posted: May 08, 2009
12:35 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh

The "hate crimes" plan pending in the Senate that has been dubbed the "Pedophile Protection Act" would "break" the U.S. Constitution if adopted and enforced, according to an Arizona congressman. And citizens are expressing their concern by dispatching hundreds of thousands of letters to senators.

U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., was interviewed today on WND columnist Janet Porter's radio program for the Faith2Action Christian ministry.

"They have to necessarily break the Constitution for this bill to have any effect," Franks said.

The audio of his interview is embedded here:

WND has reported multiple times on the developing legislation – a plan that failed under President George W. Bush when he determined it was unnecessary and most likely unconstitutional.

An analysis by Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst with Liberty Counsel, said the proposal, formally known as H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill in the House and S. 909 in the Senate, would create new federal penalties against those whose "victims" were chosen based on an "actual or perceived… sexual orientation, gender identity."

Americans, meanwhile, are bombarding members of the Senate with their opposition to the "Pedophile Protection Act"

Porter organized the effort to utilize reduced rates for individual letters delivered by Fed Ex to individual senators in bulk quantities. Overnight letters not only have more impact, but can be assured of delivery in time to impact pending legislation.

More than 2,000 people have utilized the procedures and more than 200,000 letters have been dispatched to members of the Senate.

In part, the letter says:

"I am writing to urge you to do all in your power to oppose passage of S.909, also known as 'The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.'

"Passage of this bill by the U.S. Senate would be reckless and irresponsible not only because of the 'chilling effect' it would have on First Amendment-guaranteed rights to free speech, but also because it would provide, for the first time ever, special legal protections for pedophiles and other sexual offenders.

"If there was ever a time for the Senate to stand and fight with a filibuster, that time is now. We are calling for members of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, to stop S. 909.

"While the bill's supporters have very effectively framed the bill as one that will protect victims from criminal acts, the bill actually has very little to do with protection. Indeed, if the bill's drafters and supporters are to be believed, the bill only becomes relevant after a criminal has committed an already illegal act," Akers wrote.

"On closer analysis, the bill does not merely provide stiffer penalties for certain crimes but, rather, represents a substantive and fundamental shift away from the American ideas of free speech and God-given immutable equality and toward the European ideas of state approved speech, state endorsed morality, state-given egality," he said.

Foremost, the bill simply ignores the 14th Amendment requirements that all citizens be protected equally, providing special protections for homosexuals and others with alternative sexual lifestyle choices, he said.

"The additional criminal fines and prison sentences that would be created by H.R. 1913 are based not on whether the defendant intended to commit the act but on whether the defendant considered the victim's membership in the preferred class in choosing the victim. In other words, because penalties already exist for those who commit criminal acts, H.R. 1913 serves only to punish individuals for the beliefs, opinions, or convictions held at the time an act is committed," he said.

"As such, HR 1913 does not punish criminal intent, but criminalizes thought," he said. "Under the H.R. 1913, the speech of a criminal defendant and the mere membership of the defendant in a given group may be used as evidence of his or her biased motive."

Franks told Porter he hopes there will be a filibuster in the U.S. Senate and that would leave time so "the American people can be educated as to what the effects of this bill will be."

He said such criminalization of thought is "unprecedented in federal law."

"Fundamentally, the whole purpose and essence of America is that we hold these truths to be self-evidence: that all of us are created equal," he said. "That sounds redundant but we probably should say it more; we seem to forget it so quickly."

He said the division of society into different groups of people will only foment hatred.

Matt Barber, also of Liberty Counsel, wrote in a commentary, "Not only is this legislation constitutionally dubious on First Amendment grounds, and a prima facie violation of Fourteenth Amendment required 'equal protection of the laws;' it also flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment, which explicitly limits the federal government's authority in such matters to those powers delegated by the U.S. Constitution."

"To illustrate the point, one need look only to the most famous supposed 'hate crimes' victim of all, Matthew Shepard, who, as it later turned out, was killed during a robbery for drug money gone awry.," he wrote. "This fact notwithstanding, the left continues to disgracefully politicize Shepard's memory by claiming he was murdered simply for being 'gay.' … The bizarre irony is palpable. The two thugs who killed Shepard are currently serving life sentences for their crimes – and rightfully so – in the complete absence of any discriminatory and unnecessary 'hate crimes' legislation," he said.

During arguments in the House while the plan was being adopted, lawmakers pointed out the representatives were voting for protection for "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association."

Porter cited the amendment offering from Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, in committee that was very simple:

The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia.
But majority Democrats refused to accept it.

Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, then explained what it means:

There are only 242 crimes where there is actually some – truly – an assault, and we just rejected an amendment to including pedophilia from being a part of this protected class. Do you realize what that means?

If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class. There are other protected classes in here. I mean simple exhibitionism. I have female friends who have told me over the years that some guy flashed them, and their immediate reaction was to hit them with their purse. Well now, he's committed a misdemeanor, she has committed a federal hate crime because the exhibitionism is protected under sexual orientation.

I know my friend said that we have a definition in the law, but there is nothing in this bill that references the definitions in the Hate Crimes Statistical Act…it's not there. We asked that it be added so we could get a specific definition. It is not there.

And having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words. The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) … it could include Urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they've committed a misdemeanor, you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong.

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a "hate crimes" supporter, confirmed opponents' fears, saying:

This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'Philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule…"

President Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual advocates, appears ready to respond to their desires.

"I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," he said.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97460

posted May 08, 2009 01:41 PM         

Hahaha That judge you consider wrong...in view of your vast legal knowledge ...is a former Appellate Judge.
I know that eventually you'll get around to figuring it all out that an Appellate Judge is an Appeals Court Judge elevated to that position because of their knowledge of the LAW.

posted May 08, 2009 02:16 PM         

Maybe what we should do is recount what you can't do:

- You can't find a definition that puts pedophiles under the umbrella of "sexual orientation"

- You can't find any legal precedence for pedophilia being protected under a law containing the phrase "sexual orientation"

- You can't prove that this is some kind of administration payback to the gay community

- You can't prove that this will allow the Federal government to meddle in local legal affairs

posted May 08, 2009 03:17 PM         

Only nuts believe anyone has to prove a negative. Laws are interpreted by Judges based on "legislative intent". Alcee Hastings expressed the intent of brain dead democrats to cover Pedophiles when he said..."all of these 'Philias' and fetishes and 'ism's'..." You lose again acoustic.

Maybe what we should do is recount what you can't do:

- "You can't find a definition that puts pedophiles under the umbrella of "sexual orientation"...acoustic

The impeached federal judge Alcee Hastings included Pedophiles under "sexual orientation". You lose another acoustic.

- "You can't find any legal precedence for pedophilia being protected under a law containing the phrase "sexual orientation"..acoustic

This bill has yet to be passed and if people with an ounce of logic and reason have their way, it will never be passed. So, at best acoustic, your comment is "premature". Another loser argument.

- "You can't prove that this is some kind of administration payback to the gay community"..acoustic

"On the legislative front, Solmonese expects Congress to take up hate crimes legislation first. HRC previously called on Obama to work with Congress to pass hate crimes legislation within the first six months of his administration.
"

""Solmonese said he still thinks it’s possible for Obama to sign the measure within the six-month timeline."

"Well we will see if all the time and money the glbt community gave to Obama and the dems will pay off. I hope it does. If not, there are no excuses. They have total power now. And a filibuster should be no problem. Both GOP senators from Maine are liberal enough to vote to allow a vote!" http://www.queerty.com/are-federal-hate-crime-laws-a-done-deal-20090413/

Another of your arguments up in flames. Obviously, O'Bomber and democrats are paying back the gay community for their campaign contributions and votes. Vote buying at it's very best.

- "You can't prove that this will allow the Federal government to meddle in local legal affairs"..acoustic

The bill itself says the feds can meddle in prosecutions of state residents...if they don't like the outcome of verdicts or if state prosecutors don't charge as the feds would like to see. Another dead bang loser for you acoustic.

"You've been wrong on everything in this thread." acoustic

Hahaha
You must be living in your little bubble world of unreality again acoustic. Turn on the fans and blow the fog away.

posted May 08, 2009 03:57 PM         

quote:

---

Laws are interpreted by Judges based on "legislative intent".

---

And how is legislative intent figured out? Precedent. Not by amendments that were rejected for reasons of being redundant. That's retarded. Either Gohmert is an idiot, or he's trying to spin, either way he's promoting a falsehood. He knows the precedent already set, which is how legislative intent is and will be determined.

quote:

---

This bill has yet to be passed and if people with an ounce of logic and reason have their way, it will never be passed. So, at best acoustic, your comment is "premature".

---

What's that? You still can't find precedent?

quote:

---

The bill itself says the feds can meddle in prosecutions of state residents...if they don't like the outcome of verdicts or if state prosecutors don't charge as the feds would like to see. Another dead bang loser for you acoustic.

---

It says no such thing as I'VE ALREADY PROVEN by posting the text of the terms under which the Fed can get involved.

posted May 08, 2009 06:08 PM         

You didn't prove a single point as far as I can tell, and the only one that might be justifiable is the paying back of the gay community, though I don't personally view the House passing a bill as Obama paying them back.