In a segment that airs today, talk show host Ellen DeGeneras speaks about the murder of 15-year-old Lawrence King, who was killed by a classmate for being gay. Saying that “we must change our country,” Ellen urges her audience to “check on who you’re voting for” to see if they stand for gay rights:
A boy has been killed and a number of lives have been ruined. And, somewhere along the line the killer, Brandon, got the message that it’s so threatening, so awful, and so horrific that Larry would want to be his Valentine — that killing Larry seemed to be the right thing to do. And when the message out there is so horrible that to be gay, you can get killed for it, we need to change the message. Larry was not a second-class citizen. I am not a second-class citizen. It’s ok if you’re gay.
The big hurdle facing hate crimes legislation in the Senate as been overcome. In a 60-39 vote to proceed to adoption, the Senate approved the Kennedy amendment which adds sexual orientation, gender identity and disability to the existing hate crimes legislation.
Among the Republicans that crossed the aisle to move the legislation forward. (Roll Call here):
John Warner Richard Lugar Susan Collins Olympia Snowe George Voinovich Arlen Specter Norm Coleman Judd Gregg Gordon Smith (co-sponsor)
Kennedy then asked for a voice vote on the amendment and that subsequently passed.
The measure is part of the defense reauthorization bill, which is slated to go up for a vote in the near future.
As you might imagine, Diaper Dave Vitter voted no, as did Toe Tapping Larry Craig.
The murder of Michael Sandy in Brooklyn last year was heinous. A group of thugs arranged on the Internet to meet him for sex, then attacked Sandy, who fled into traffic on the Belt Parkway and was hit by a car. Four were involved, with the youngest assailant, who was only 17; he has since flipped on the rest of his friends.
Now one of the defendants, Michael Fortunato, is on trial for the murder and is claiming that he's gay, and that the rendezvous with Sandy was a ploy designed by Fortunato to out himself to his friends. This is sick BS. (NYT):
All along, homosexuality has defined the case. Prosecutors have used it as a sword, seeking heavier sentences for a hate crime.
As the trial began in Brooklyn Supreme Court yesterday, Mr. Fortunato’s lawyer, Gerald J. Di Chiara, sought to use sexual orientation as a shield. Without much explanation of how he planned to introduce this fact or turn it to his advantage, Mr. Di Chiara offered it to the jury in his opening argument. Not only was Mr. Fortunato gay, Mr. Di Chiara said, but so was the main prosecution witness, Gary Timmins, 17, who has pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in exchange for his testimony.
In fact, Mr. Di Chiara continued, Mr. Fortunato had planned to tell his friends of his sexual orientation on the night in question. Luring a gay man out to a secluded lot in Sheepshead Bay was part of that plan, Mr. Di Chiara said.
...Mr. Fortunato, he said, might have planned to smoke marijuana with Mr. Sandy as a means of testing his friends’ sentiments about homosexuality. Or, he said, perhaps Mr. Fortunato had wanted to swindle a gay man, to see how his friends reacted to a gay person. Or, he said, perhaps Mr. Fortunato had simply wanted to rob somebody.
According to the New York Daily News, investigators recovered a cache of homoerotic images and messages from Fortunato's computer.
If anyone had any doubt that the closet can kill, here we see the answer that blows doubt away. This young man thought that he could prove his machismo to his friends by fag-bashing and robbery. Nothing could be worse than being gay.
The prosecutor, Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi, said the plot was hatched by Fortunato, who told his friends, "You could always get a gay guy to meet you," and trolled a chat room called "Brooklyn Man 4 Man" for a victim. Fortunato boasted he had ripped off a gay man he had lured to a motel in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, she said.
Only when faced with additional jail time because of the status Sandy’s murder as a hate crime was Fortunato ready to come out of the closet. I seriously doubt that he would have told his friends that he was gay if they had been successful in simply robbing or beating up Sandy that night. The self-loathing obviously ran deep. In the end, this defense cannot possibly succeed in deflecting the fact that it’s a hate crime. As a reader aptly pointed out, the basis for the assignment of a charge of a hate crime is the intent of the accused, not the identity/orientation of the accused.
"Here's the unmentionable secret: Racism isn't that big a deal any more. No sensible person supports it. Nobody of importance preaches it. It's rapidly becoming an ugly memory." -- departing White House press shill Tony Snow, on an October 2003 edition of Fox News Sunday
Guess we'll have to retire that hoary one, huh? This comes from The Smoking Gun, which has the full arrest report up. It's hard to read the sickening charges.
A black West Virginia woman was sexually assaulted, stabbed, and tortured while being held captive by her white abductors, one of whom told her, "That's what we do to niggers around here." The 23-year-old victim was freed Saturday after cops responded to the home of Frankie Brewster for a "welfare check on a female that was reportedly being held against her will." When cops arrived, Brewster claimed she was the only one home, but then the victim limped to the door and said, "Help me." According to six harrowing criminal complaints, the woman, who apparently had been held for more than a week, had four stab wounds in her left leg, bruised eyes, and had been repeatedly sexually assaulted and humiliated. The woman told police that she was forced to lick Brewster's "toes, vagina, and anal cavity." Brewster's son Bobby forced the woman to eat dog and rat feces, according to one complaint filed in Logan County Magistrate Court. The victim, who is now hospitalized, was raped at knifepoint, choked with a cable cord, and had her hair pulled and cut during the ordeal.
No, there's no need for hate crimes legislation...none at all. Tell that to the family of Kenneth Cummings Jr., a Southwest flight attendant, who was killed by a man who believed he was doing God's work. (Houston Chronicle):
"I believe I'm Elijah, called by God to be a prophet," said 26-year-old Terry Mark Mangum, charged with murder June 11. " ... I believe with all my heart that I was doing the right thing."
Interviewed in the Brazoria County Jail Saturday morning, Mangum said he feels no remorse for killing 46-year-old Kenneth Cummings Jr., whom relatives described as a "loving" son who never forgot a holiday and a devoted uncle who had set up college funds for his niece and nephew. He worked at Southwest for 24 years.
Mangum, who described himself as "definitely not a homosexual," said God called on him to "carry out a code of retribution" by killing a gay man because "sexual perversion" is the "worst sin."
Mangum believed Cummings to be gay.
"I planned on sending him to hell," he said.
Cummings was stabbed with a six-inch blade, and his charred body was found near San Antonio on property owned by Mangum's grandfather.
While not everyone can agree on whether there should be hate crime laws, the fact is that if it's on the books, why shouldn't sexual orientation and gender identity be added to the list, which includes religion -- protection you won't see fundies ready to give up any time soon.
In fact, it's the religious zealots of the right, the usual suspects -- the Traditional Values Coalition, the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America and the rest of the professional persecuted "Christian" set, who like to hide behind homobigoted black pastors that are all-too-willing to be trotted out there. Take a look at this ridiculous video, from a recent rally on Capitol Hill.
Rusty Lee Thomas, who's mentioned in an earlier post, is seen bleating this winner:
"Yes, I dare state that there is a direct connection between the sins and crimes of abortion and the sodomite agenda and the Islamic terrorism that threatens our nation."
As expected, black pastor puppets are also prominently featured. Here's Rev. Johnny Hunter of the Life Education and Resource Network:
"Pastors not only have a right, but they have an obligation to state emphatically that according to scripture, a man or a woman should not perform a sex act with a person of the same sex...nor with a dog...nor with a snake...nor with a hamster or any other creature."
They know that they can quote Leviticus all day long if the measure is passed. The the ACLU has outlined how free speech will be protected, but no matter. That doesn't fill the coffers of the professional hate machine.
As far as the status of the hate crimes bill on the Hill is concerned, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act was recently attached as an amendment to the defense authorization bill. The latter was subsequently pulled from the floor in the Senate by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). It's unlikely to be reconsidered until September or October, according to the Washington Blade.
Although Reid is said to be committed to Senate passage of the hate crimes bill, his decision to delay action on the defense bill upsets the timetable that gay leaders and their congressional allies had set for successive votes this year in the House and Senate on both the hate crimes bill and ENDA.
...With a number of crucial appropriations bills waiting for Senate action, said the lobbyist, who spoke on condition that he not be identified, Reid and Senate Democratic leaders would have to juggle Senate business to accommodate an ENDA vote. He said concern by some Democratic senators from conservative states that an ENDA vote could hurt their chances for re-election in 2008 provides an incentive to put off an ENDA vote this year in the Senate.
Ah yes, we put those Dems in office and they are ready to stab us in the back. Thanks very much.
Regardless of your views on hate crimes laws, they already exist at the federal level and already cover the religious right. If they're going to exist at all, shouldn't they cover everyone, and not just the staff of the Family Research Council, American Family Association, and the men at the Concerned Women for America?
Today, Sens. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Gordon Smith, R-Ore., filed the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act(S. 1105) as an amendment for consideration to the Department of Defense reauthorization currently being debated before the U.S. Senate. The bill, commonly referred to as the “hate crimes bill,” could receive a Senate vote as early as today. The virtually identical House version of the bill passed overwhelmingly on May 3, 2007, with a bipartisan vote of 237 to 180 — with more than 20 Republicans voting in support of the bill.....
TheMatthew Shepard Act is supported by more than 290 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations. Some of those supporting organizations include the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 26 state attorneys general, the National District Attorneys Association, the NAACP, the Episcopal Church, the League of Women Voters, the YWCA of the USA and the United Methodist Church....
This legislation would help combat hate crimes across America by doing two important things: updating the federal hate crimes laws to include all Americans, and providing new resources and tools to assist local law enforcement in prosecuting these vicious crimes.
In addition to this year’s overwhelming, bipartisan vote in the House to support this legislation, both the Senate and House have voted in favor of legislation to combat bias-motivated violence in prior Congresses. Most recently, in the 109th Congress, the House of Representative approved its hate crimes bill as an amendment on a bipartisan vote of 223 to 199. House and Senate votes were held in the 106th and 108th Congress as well. In the 108th Congress, the Senate passed the measure by an overwhelming vote of 65 to 33, with 18 Senate Republicans voting yes, and the House approved it on a bipartisan vote of 213 to 186, with 31 Republicans voting yes.
You have to be a mighty big liar to make your way on to the pages of Snopes, the Internet's biggest "urban myth"-buster Web site. But the religious right, which wouldn't know Jesus or the Bible from a fat juicy donation to the GOP, specializes in the kind of un-Christian whoppers that make Satan himself blush. These folks think that if it doesn't involve bashing someone or some thing they hate, then it's just not God's work. And we wonder why so many die and have died in the name of religion.
What do the bigots at the Family Research Council have to say about this? I wonder if he read any of their lies and their hate before deciding to take his own life.
It seems we're finding that the religious right doesn't speak for the majority of Americans, the majority of Republicans, the majority of conservatives, or even the majority of Christians. Every group in America, Democrats and Republicans, Christians and non-Christians, Protestants, Catholics, and even self-described conservatives all give their majority support for the adding sexual orientation to the already-existing federal hate crimes law.
That's rather amazing data, especially since George Bush's staff is threatening a possible veto. (Is it any coincidence that that Bush's approval rating is at 28% and the percentage of Americans who oppose the bill is 27%? Bush is governing for only 27% of the American people, for the fringe of his own party.)
These results may be news to a lot of the media, and especially politicians in Washington, who give the religious right far more credit than they deserve. They are fringe extremists who don't even represent most Christians, let alone most Americans.
PRINCETON, NJ -- A substantial majority of the American public favors the expansion of federal hate crime legislation to include crimes against people based on their gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity....
A May 10-13, 2007, national Gallup Poll included two questions about federal hate crime laws. The first asked about the current federal law that covers hate crimes committed on the basis of the victim's race, color, religion, or national origin. Almost 8 out of 10 Americans say they support the current legislation....
The second question asks about the expansion of the hate crime legislation to include the victim's gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Support for the expansion is somewhat lower [68%] than support for the existing law, but still very substantial....
Much of the organized opposition to the expansion of the hate crime law has come from conservative religious groups, while the nation's top Republican leader, President George W. Bush, has suggested he will veto the legislation if it reaches his desk. But there is little evidence from these data to suggest that a majority of Republicans, conservatives, or more religious Americans are opposed to the new law.
Steny Hoyer and John Conyers just pulled a fast one on the GOP. The GOP has been refusing to support the hate crimes bill because it doesn't include members of the US Armed Forces and senior citizens. Conyers just rose and basically said, okay, I'll add them. The Republicans' response? Uh, no.
The Republicans have been railing for days about how this legislation doesn't cover our Armed Forces and senior citizens, and now that the Dems offer to put our Armed Forces and seniors in this legislation, the Republicans said no and affirmatively stopped the Democrats from doing it anyway.
That means the Republicans had no intent on helping our Armed Forces and seniors, on protecting them. It was just a stunt. The GOP leaders in Congress just got up and used our Armed Forces and seniors as political fodder when they had no intent on actually doing anything to help our Armed Forces and seniors.
How interesting is this. There already is a thought crimes law on the books - it protects members of Congress from you and me even threatening them. You go to jail for even saying something threatening to a member of Congress. Yet many GOP members of Congress are opposed to hate crimes laws covering ACTUAL VIOLENCE because they call those "special rights."
The only special rights I'm seeing is that some members of Congress are okay with actual thought crimes legislation protecting them, but they're not okay with violent crime legislation protecting me.
Typical Republican hypocrisy.
The law in question criminalizes threats to assault a member of Congress, and can be found in 18 U.S.C. SS 115(a)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. SS 115(b)(4). Yes, it's not only a "worse" crime if a member of Congress is punched than if your mom is punched, but it's actually a worse crime if a member of Congress is simply threatened with words than if your mom is actually punched in the face.
As the U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote tomorrow (Thursday) on H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, anti-gay extremist organizations have embarked on a desperate last attempt to derail passage of the bill. Marking a new low in politics, these groups have embraced the work of a known white-supremacist filmmaker, callously invoked the Virginia Tech massacre, blatantly lied about the congressional record and even used the name and image of Jesus Christ in vain....
In recent weeks, religious right leaders have been caught outright lying about the hate crimes bill: claiming that no federal hate crimes law yet exists (it does, has for 40 years and already includes them (i.e., people of faith)) and that the proposed amendment to the hate crimes law would criminalize hate speech (it does not). Some of these same leaders have also been caught disseminating the anti-gay works of a white-supremacist filmmaker. And just last week, the head of the Family Research Council invoked the Virginia Tech victims to argue against the hate crimes bill. Details of these incidents can be found below.
Its no surprise the religious right is so concerned about hate speech for them, hate appears to be a cottage industry, [Human Rights Campaign President Joe] Solmonese added. But they have nothing to fear. Even after the hate crimes legislation is passed, the religious right will continue to have the federally protected right to preach hatred from the pulpit and disseminate the videos of white supremacists.... [I]ts clear that the right wing understands that the tides are against them because their tactics to stop hate crimes legislation have become more desperate and disgusting each day. Instead of engaging in a civil debate on the merits of this bill, they have instead chosen to spread lies and embrace white supremacists and hate groups. It is unconscionable that these groups could use the memory of Virginia Tech, one of the greatest tragedies in American history, to twist and contort the truth about this bill.
Hmmm... not sure that saying that labeling civil rights law protecting African-Americans as "special rights" that leave out millions of Americans like you and me (their words) is the wisest argument the religious right Republicans should be making in opposition to the hate crimes bill. Check it out for yourself, from a Family Research Council email alert sent out today:
This [hate crimes] bill creates a caste system within American society where those who fit a certain category - ranging from race, disability, gender to sexual orientation and transgendered - would be seen as deserving special legal protection. The bill is most notable for the millions of Americans it leaves out, meaning if you or I are a victim of a violent crime - we matter less.
And as an aside, check out the blatant lie from the Family Research Council. The hate crimes law wouldn't cover people like them, they say. News flash - the hate crimes law on the books ALREADY covers people like them explicitly. Religion is a category already in the existing federal hate crimes law. The religious right Republicans' problem with the hate crimes law being debated and voted on in the House tomorrow is that their little special right would have to be broadened to include more people.
They are just such liars. Un-Christian, un-Christ-like, liars.
And really creepy sex at that. One of the lead religious right groups, the American Family Association, in addition to promoting a known hate group on its Web site (a group that is lumped together with neo-Nazis and the Klan in a report compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center), is now publishing on its site a list of what it calls "sexual orientations." The list is filthy, it's the kind of thing we would never publish on this blog under any circumstance. It's not child safe by any means, and the AFA's Web site should be banned by every child safety filter in the country (please report their site if you know how to do so). Basically, the AFA is flipping out that others groups in society, like gays and women and people with disabilities, will be included in the already-existing federal hate crimes law - a law that ALREADY covers the religious right. Yes, the religious "special" right doesn't want to share their special status under US law. So what is their latest tactic? To declare that the word "sexual orientation" in the proposed hate crime amendment will include sex with animals, feces and corpses (the following link is NOT work-safe - you can see their bizarre sex list here).
These people call themselves Christians. They're sick. Do check out the filth they published on their Web site. The religious right Republicans are simply obsessed with sex, obsessed with gays, obsessed with filth. They are simply obsessed.
The House will soon vote on whether other Americans deserve to be included in the federal hate crimes laws that already are on the books and already cover the religious right (current law covers race, religion and national origin). More on the law, and the liars opposing it, from HRC:
And big surprise, the religious right Christian Republicans have been caught LYING AGAIN in an effort to kill this amendment. What a surprise. The self-proclaimed voices of God breaking every commandment they can think of in order to promote their bigotry and their hatred.
Special place in hell for these homophobes. Ex-"American Family Association" attorney Joe Murray rips the religious right for their un-Christian level of hate. Joe's article is brilliant and difficult to excerpt, so here's a large chunk - read the entire thing:
A few weeks back, writing on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (LLEHCPA), a measure that would expand existing federal hate crimes law to include classes such as sexual orientation, gender and gender identity, this author noted that the type of debate emanating from those organizations laying claim to Christian morality was quite disturbing.
Specifically, concern was raised about the tone of the debate. Christian groups were sending out "action alerts" scaring supporters into believing that passage of the hate crimes bill, a piece of legislation that has clear First Amendment safeguards, would result in preachers arrested from the pulpit and Christians shipped off for an indefinite stay at the Hanoi Hilton....
Just when it was thought that the hate crimes debate had hit rock bottom, some pro-family organizations opted to capitalize on tragedy and politicize the deadly shootings at Virginia Tech to score political points.
"Under this legislation, the crimes at Virginia Tech, which some are calling one of the deadliest rampages in U.S. history, would not be punishable to the level of these so-called 'hate-crimes'," wrote Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council (FRC), in an email alert sent out to FRC supporters. Perkins' analysis, however, was far from over.
Explaining why the hate crimes bill is not good for America, Perkins wrote, "If the House approves H.R. 1592 and the Senate follows, a homosexual would have more federal protection under the law than the 32 victims of last week's massacre."
Words cannot describe how disheartening such a comment, from a man who champions the values of Christianity, is.
While parents, siblings, students and staff mourned the senseless killings of 32 members of the Virginia Tech community, Perkins thought it was an opportune time, and perhaps even an exercise of his Christian duty, to exploit the tragic situation to aid in the manufacturing of a "homosexual agenda." This is not only degrading to Virginia Tech and to the gay community, it clearly prostitutes any notion of family values.
And while many would hope that Perkins' actions are isolated instances of political prostitution, one would be wrong as the folks at TVC found it prudent to debase the image of Christ to make a political point.
TVC has produced a "wanted poster" in which Jesus Christ, wearing a crown of thorns, is wanted for violating the proposed hate crimes bill. Under "identifying remarks," the poster reads, "scars along forehead, in the hands and feet, & scar on side." The poster states that Christ is "wanted for revealing the truth about homosexuality in 'The Bible' and encouraging his followers not to offend God by committing such behavior."
Pushing aside the fact that such a poster is more rhetoric than reality, is it not disturbing to all people, Christians included, that a hatred of gays has led to using the image of Christ in a political poster? Is this not using the Lord's name in vain?
How could a group purporting Christian values denigrate the image of their, and my, savior, by placing Him in the same category as Willie Horton? When did it become acceptable to turn a man who preached "love thy neighbor" into a biblical billy club? Christ is a source of salvation, not spin.
This is how far separated Christian activists, possessed by a deep seeded hatred of homosexuals, have become from Christian principles. It is now deemed appropriate, and considering the source of such behavior, "Christian-like," for activists to pit gays against the victims of brutal slayings and make a mockery of Christ's image to defeat a secular hate crimes law.
Can one imagine if the ACLU had used Christ's image in such a fashion? But because a pro-family group has tarnished His image for political gain, there is deafening silence. This speaks volumes on how animosity towards gays has turned principle into politics.
The murder of Michael Sandy in Brooklyn last year was heinous. A group of thugs arranged on the Internet to meet him for sex, then attacked Sandy, who fled into traffic on the Belt Parkway and was hit by a car. Four were involved, with the youngest assailant, who was only 17; he has since flipped on the rest of his friends. 
