October 22, 2009
Hate Crimes Law Sucks

The Congress passed a law that, when signed by President Obama, will make ia a federal crime to assault someone because of their sexual orientation or "gender identity."

The "Human Rights" Campaign said, "We now can begin the important steps to erasing hate in our country."

A few thoughts.

First, you cannot end hate through legislation.

Second, government has no business even trying to get people to stop hating. That's none of its business. Literally. Indeed, its duty is to protect our right to hate, and our faculties that lead us to whatever opinions we might have, including hate.

Third, this law is unconstitutional by the Tenth Amendment. I find it astonishing that anyone thinks this needs to be a federal law, which is utterly insulting to the state legislatures, which are, in fact, perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether this should be a crime.

Fourth, this law also runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment right to due process. In our judicial system, motive and intent are two different things, and motive is not a crime. This law makes it a crime. That is why people, correctly, compare it to Thought Police. Some say, but this is different, because the result of the crime is to intimidate a whole class of people; but if that is the case, then you need to show that the person had intent to produce that result ... else you really are just punishing motive, which we don't do. Laws like this are really an end run around the prosecution's burden of proof.

I would be perfectly willing to support a (state) law that said someone intending to, through a violent act, terrorize or intimidate a group of people, is committing a felony. But that would require evidence, which -- despite being constitutionally required -- is an unattractive prospect to many. So instead, they just tell us that some for assaulting people are worse than others, and get around that pesky "evidence" thing. And we're supposed to just nod in approval, because if you don't, well, you are a dirty hatemonger.

It's a sad day in America, that we incorrectly think we need such a paternalistic law, and that we are willing to toss aside civil liberties to get it.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Posted by pudge at October 22, 2009 03:30 PM | Email This
Comments
1.
Certain hate is authorized by the government while other hate is criminalized and people can't even see where this leads.

Hell, certain hate is *paid* for by the government.

Posted by: Gary on October 22, 2009 03:42 PM
2. Equal protection under the law is shot...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 22, 2009 03:50 PM
3. Dan, they say, "well, everyone is protected equally, because it is a crime to assault heterosexuals for their sexual identity too."

But this, to me, smacks of the logic Texas offered in Lawrence (also a gay rights case), where they said, "there's no discrimination against gays, because sodomy is illegal for heterosexuals too."

This law is for protecting gays and other minority "sexual identites," which does raise concerns about equal protection, because it protects only CERTAIN minorities ... and minorities, frankly, which do not have a significant history of institutional discrimination in the general public, not like racial and religious minorities, and women.

So you get two kids. One is fat, one is gay. They are both beaten up for their respective characteristics. One is a federal crime, the other is not. That's pathetic, IMO.

Posted by: pudge on October 22, 2009 04:00 PM
4. #3, right pudge, and it's not equal protection for either the perps or the victims in your scenario.

Posted by: Gary on October 22, 2009 04:08 PM
5. @3: This law is for protecting gays and other minority "sexual identites," which does raise concerns about equal protection, because it protects only CERTAIN minorities ... and minorities, frankly, which do not have a significant history of institutional discrimination in the general public, not like racial and religious minorities, and women.

No significant history of institutional discrimination? I'm trying to wrack my brain to think of how you can say that when (u)SP is teeming with anti-R-71 folks.

Posted by: demo kid on October 22, 2009 04:16 PM
6. I think "Third" is questionable: Federal and state governments both have police powers and can create and enforce laws within their jurisdiction, as long as Congress can create the law. You would want to focus on the section of the Constitution that describes what laws Congress can make (and the modifying amendments), not the 10th amendment. General Welfare Clause applies. We can agree that the government does have a "legitimate interest" in discouraging particularly arbitrary violence based on just minority status -- that's police power.

"Fourth" focuses on the Fifth Amendment: Due process of the law means, effectively, "rule of law." If someone is tried in a court and convicted of a hate crime, they are not arbitrarily punished. You say statue links those motivations with the intention to intimidate minority groups, but that is simply political argument made by backers of the law and not an actual constitutional philosophy. (We've already illustrated the legitimate state interest above.)

The statue does not require the prosecution to illustrate the intent to intimidate, just the motivation. That motivation would have to be illustrated with more than just "thought" to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution would need evidence and a burden of proof. For this reason, it's hard to characterize those convicted as guilty of just a "thought crime."

The outlawing of "non-perpetrated" crimes exists in statue: "Conspiracy to...," "Intent to..." "Motives" exist casually in the difference between murder and manslaughter. Or, first and second degree murders. Different charges -- different statues -- apply frequently based on motives. Motives certainly factor into sentencing.

Wisconsin v. Mitchell dismisses any First Amendment arguments that might come up following this comment -- and addresses much of the motives question I waxed on in the previous paragraph.

Perhaps hate crime legislation is wrong because it does constitute a thought crime, which you feel legislatures should not create laws about. As far as I can tell, however, this law is certainly Constitutional.

Posted by: constitutional law on October 22, 2009 04:35 PM
7. demo kid: No significant history of institutional discrimination?

... not like racial and religious minorities, and women. Correct.

There should be a HUGE burden of evidence to demonstrate why we are creating a new special protected class. And there isn't sufficient evidence.

With minorities, we had, you know, slavery and many other things. With women, no voting and other rights. Religion is a little different in that it's never had such discrimination in our history, but it was explicitly protected by the Constitution, too, and we have seen all over the world how religious differences can result in atrocities.

What is there for gays? There's the military. What else? Oh right, the big M. Marriage. But no one has a right to have their social unions recognized by government, and almost every civil right you get in marriage can be gotten without marriage (with a few important exceptions, yes).

While there's cause for complaint here, the level of institutional discrimination -- and I didn't clarify I meant *by government* -- is not nearly the same as these other groups, and not only that, but it's getting better for gays all the time (and rapidly!).

I think protected classes should only exist to aid in righting significant wrongs that government helped cause, and that the perpetuation is significantly resulting from what happened through government. And I don't see that here.

And the reason I think that is sorta obvious from what else I've said: you need a damned good reason to override the public interests presented in the Constitution.

Posted by: pudge on October 22, 2009 04:36 PM
8. So, if you shoot someone dead because of their color, are they somehow deader than they would be if you shot them for some other reason?

More racial and left wing pandering. NO crime is acceptable, REGARDLESS of motivation, and a double standard in law such as this is sickening on its face.

Posted by: hinton on October 22, 2009 04:53 PM
9. Here is a very small selection of individuals who have been beaten, raped, and murdered because of their sexual orientation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people#State-sanctioned_violence

Information like this is very easy to find. I find it astonishing that there are still people who refuse to acknowledge the existence of both institutional discrimination against LGBTs and fatal homophobic violence. One need only look to our own military to find a contemporary example or to the fact that in many states there are no legal prohibitions against discriminating against gays and lesbians in employment, housing, and other areas. Historically, gay men and lesbians have been imprisoned (sodomy laws), tortured by being unwillingly subjected to experimental shock therapy, and fired from a broad spectrum of employers including both local, state, and federal governments. Your claim that these men and women have not confronted these and other forms of discrimination is woefully inaccurate. You are simply wrong on the facts.

Posted by: Kevin on October 22, 2009 05:01 PM
10. Kevin: 9. Here is a very small selection of individuals who have been beaten, raped, and murdered because of their sexual orientation

What is this intended to show? It doesn't address a single one of my expressed concerns with the soon-to-be-law in question.


I find it astonishing that there are still people who refuse to acknowledge the existence of both institutional discrimination against LGBTs and fatal homophobic violence.

No one did either of those things here. Please actually read the discussion you are commenting on.


One need only look to our own military to find a contemporary example or to the fact that in many states there are no legal prohibitions against discriminating against gays and lesbians in employment, housing, and other areas.

Also no legal prohibitions against discriminating against fat or ugly people, or Yankees fans.


Your claim that these men and women have not confronted these and other forms of discrimination is ...

Nonexistent. I made no such claim. You didn't read what I actually wrote. You are simply wrong on the facts.

Posted by: pudge on October 22, 2009 05:32 PM
11. "constitutional law", you need a lesson in constitutional law.

Federal and state governments both have police powers and can create and enforce laws within their jurisdiction, as long as Congress can create the law.

The question -- obviously -- is whether the Congress has the right to create the law in question. It doesn't.


You would want to focus on the section of the Constitution that describes what laws Congress can make (and the modifying amendments), not the 10th amendment.

No; my point in citing Amendment X is that there IS NO section of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to make this law.


General Welfare Clause applies.

No, it does not. The first part of Article I, Section 8, does not GRANT powers, it DESCRIBES the following powers. James Madison -- the foremost authority on the interpretation of the Constitution -- was quite clear on this. I can give you many quotes.


Due process of the law means, effectively, "rule of law." If someone is tried in a court and convicted of a hate crime, they are not arbitrarily punished.

No, you're confused again. The Congress does not have the right to make anything a crime it wishes to. Even the ACLU has opposed previous hate crime legislation for due process concerns: they complained about a provision in the statute that would allow evidence of hate as evidence of hateful motivation. All I am saying is that hateful motivation is not evidence of intent to cause damage any more than the damage caused when someone beats up a fat person, an ugly person, a Republican, a Democrat, a Yankees fan, and so on.


You say statue links those motivations with the intention to intimidate minority groups, but that is simply political argument made by backers of the law and not an actual constitutional philosophy.

Then it is what I said: it is punishing motive, which is Orwellian thoughtcrime.


We've already illustrated the legitimate state interest above.

We've already demonstrated that you haven't.


The statue does not require the prosecution to illustrate the intent to intimidate, just the motivation.

Yes. That is the problem I described. We do not, in our society, consider motivation as the element of a crime.


it's hard to characterize those convicted as guilty of just a "thought crime."

Not at all. Literally, that is what it is: you are punishing them for their specific motivation, their specific thoughtm instead of what they intended to do, and did.


The outlawing of "non-perpetrated" crimes exists in statue: "Conspiracy to...," "Intent to..." "Motives" exist casually in the difference between murder and manslaughter. Or, first and second degree murders. Different charges -- different statues -- apply frequently based on motives.

No, you are conflating motive with intent. All of that is intent-based, not motive-based.


Motives certainly factor into sentencing.

Yes, for the *same crime,* but this creates a different crime based on motive, which is wrong, and only rarely (and always wrongly) done.


As far as I can tell, however, this law is certainly Constitutional.

Right, but you don't understand what Article I, Section 8 says.

Posted by: pudge on October 22, 2009 05:32 PM
12. You need to look at the silver lining to this... Since whites (like me) will soon be a minority, all this special legislation will apply to me -- right???

Posted by: ronin on October 22, 2009 05:35 PM
13. Perhaps some of the folks commenting here about "hate crimes" can cite one single case of where blacks beating the heck out of a white person have been taken to court for a "hate crime".

It never happens. African Americans get a pass from the dominant leftist culture for any kind of abhorrent behavior because of "hundreds of years of opression".

And what is the result? African Americans rob and kill and have babies out of wedlock at a higher porportion than any other group of Americans. Watch your local news any weekend. Thanks a lot, LBJ.

Liberals know this and apparently it's just fine with them. Do you ever see them mount the slightest protest about the violent African American community, which is a national tragedy that kills young blacks at a rate far higher than they were killed by racists in the past. Does one wonder who are the real racists in this country. I'd say it's liberals who deliberately use African Americans as nothing more than a permanent voting base.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 22, 2009 05:42 PM
14. I want someone to show us a single case where we NEEDED a hate crime law. Where it would have prevented a crime, or where the lack of it has prevented prosecution or stiff punishment.

Posted by: pudge on October 22, 2009 05:46 PM
15. I will repeat what I wrote above: "We can agree that the government does have a 'legitimate interest' in discouraging particularly arbitrary violence based on just minority status -- that's police power."

Article I would apply regardless of that 10th Amendment. If your third point were true, the law would be Unconstitutional under Article I, not the 10th Amendment.

"General Welfare" would certainly not apply here, I miswrote. I meant "Commerce Clause" with its very broad modern interpretation. Further, Congress does have power under the 14th Amendment to legislate toward equality.

There is case law on Article I that we can pore over. We can look around us and find criminal statues in U.S. Code: Murder is a federal crime, for example. I really do not intend to argue over whether that the federal government can criminalize behavior.

I think on balance, this law would survive a Constitutional challenge on whether Congress can make the law under its jurisdiction.

More interesting to me are your due process claims. I don't feel you have substantiated them. Wisconsin v. Mitchell purposefully did not address due process claims. If they were egregious, why not -- and why wouldn't future cases get writ of cert. on this claim?

Due process exists -- you have a trail, with evidence, and a jury deciding a case. There is no bar from considering motive a separate but conjunctive crime. (This "conjunctive" element makes the crime more than a thought crime, as well.)

"Yes, for the *same crime,* but this creates a different crime based on motive, which is wrong, and only rarely (and always wrongly) done."

Wisconsin v. Mitchell backs my analogy, and is the most relevant case to what we are discussing.

Posted by: constitutional law on October 22, 2009 05:59 PM
16. "Perhaps some of the folks commenting here about 'hate crimes' can cite one single case of where blacks beating the heck out of a white person have been taken to court for a 'hate crime'."

"It never happens."

In fact it does. The case Wisconsin v. Mitchell which I have discussed in this comments thread is an instance of exactly what you discussed.

Posted by: constitutional law on October 22, 2009 06:01 PM
17. Slavery Party Failed Abortion wrote:

No significant history of institutional discrimination? I'm trying to wrack my brain to think of how you can say that when (u)SP is teeming with anti-R-71 folks.

Then you support polygamy? Three or more adults deciding to get married? Why not - are you that much of a bigoted "monogamist" that you must enforce your morality on everyone else?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 22, 2009 06:10 PM
18. Assaulting someone is already a crime.

So for Progressives, it's about making that which they hate, a crime. How long before they censor Fox News and Talk Radio. In their view, holding conservative ideas is a thought crime.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 22, 2009 06:14 PM
19. I could not agree more pudge. Hate crime legislation is just something leftist phonies think shows they "care" about all the groups they pander to in order to get elected.

In reality they destroyed the African American community in the 1960's with welfare legislation. It made liberals feel less guilty.

Anyone can read the truly awful statistics since the children of welfare created single moms became teenagers in the late 1970's.

Even Obama, who despite leftist mythology was never poor in his life, refuses to actively deal with the killing horror that exists in African American communities in every major city.

Do leftists really give a darn? I don't see any evidence that they do.

No they are more focused on going after Fox News.

They are everything I say they are. Truly not nice people at all. Do they act like socialists always have done?

Not exactly difficult to notice, is it?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 22, 2009 06:18 PM
20. To bad y'all only went part of the way.

In some civilized regions, they have laws that make ALL assaults crimes.

Posted by: Larry Sheldon on October 22, 2009 06:22 PM
21. That's what is so ridiculous Larry. All assault crimes are illegal.

But leftists decided to come up with this "hate crime" nonsense.

It's just overkill that they believe panders to their voting base.

Big city liberals. Don't you love them?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 22, 2009 06:34 PM
22. "constitutional law": I will repeat what I wrote above: "We can agree that the [federal] government does have a 'legitimate interest' in discouraging particularly arbitrary violence based on just minority status"

You can repeat it all you want, but it's not true. I do not agree, at all. It is not legitimate, because it literally has no authority granted to it to make such laws.


Article I would apply regardless of that 10th Amendment.

Except that Article I does not apply. Nothing in Article I grants the power to make this law. I defy you to show me where it does.


If your third point were true, the law would be Unconstitutional under Article I, not the 10th Amendment.

No, it would be both. Madison saw the Tenth Amendment as redundant, but what it does say is Congress cannot make laws that the Constitution doesn't grant it the power to make. So by saying something violates the Tenth, I am just saying, it is not in Article I (or elsewhere in the Constitution).


I meant "Commerce Clause" with its very broad modern interpretation.

Oh come on. This has nothing to do with commerce, obviously, and you certainly seem bright enough to know that without me telling you. That doesn't make sense EVEN UNDER the very broad modern interpretation of the Commerce Clause.


Further, Congress does have power under the 14th Amendment to legislate toward equality.

No, it certainly does not. What it says is that no person shall be denied "the equal protection of the laws." Which we have with, or without, this law, obviously. Worse, this law contributes to inequality of the laws by creating special protections for certain characteristics, such that assault on a person for being gay is a federal crime, and the same assault on a person for being fat is not.


There is case law on Article I that we can pore over.

None of it relevant to my point, which is about what the Constitution might say.


We can look around us and find criminal statues in U.S. Code: Murder is a federal crime, for example.

Usually, no, it is not. And most of the times it is, are also unconstitutional (such as murder for hire, for example, a statute that is a clear violation of the Constitution).


I really do not intend to argue over whether that the federal government can criminalize behavior.

But you did.


I think on balance, this law would survive a Constitutional challenge on whether Congress can make the law under its jurisdiction.

That is also irrelevant to my point. I am talking about what the Constitution says, not what the Supreme Court says.


Due process exists -- you have a trail, with evidence, and a jury deciding a case.

Again: if the law is meant to punish intent, then it fails due process, because no evidence is required to show that the crime (intent to terrorize or intimidate) actually happened. You say it is not meant to do that, that the only "intent" being punished is the intent to assault. So I said, if that's the case, then it is, literally, thoughtcrime legislation: we do not generally have statutes against motives in this country, because we don't punish people for what they THINK, for WHY they do things, but, rather, what they DO, and what they INTEND.


There is no bar from considering motive a separate but conjunctive crime.

Other than respect for basic human liberties that recognize thast people have the right to think whatever they want. Period.


(This "conjunctive" element makes the crime more than a thought crime, as well.)

No, it doesn't.

Posted by: pudge on October 22, 2009 06:38 PM
23. It's already against the law to assault a gay person, or someone with unusual "gender identity" issues, a fat person, a christian, a jewish person, a pimply person, an ugly person, an attractive person, someone with red hair etc.

And that's what wrong with this lame new law. It's really a political favoring of a group. Because it was already against the law to assault.....anyone.

Posted by: Michele on October 22, 2009 07:22 PM
24. Yes, this law sucks and if anyone had any stones, they would challenge the unconstitutionality in the Supreme Court. Republicans - are you going to give us a reason to support you ?

This article by Michael Barone sums up what this Administration is about;

Michael Barone locates Barack Obama squarely in the brass-knuckle Chicago style of politics:

That's governance, Chicago style. The head of government is friends with the heads of every big business, lobby and union, and together they make decisions on how everyone else will live. Those on the inside get what they want. Those on the outside -- well, they get what the big guys want them to have. That's life in the big city. ...

[I]t appears to be the way that Barack Obama, who once aspired to be mayor of Chicago, has decided to run his administration.

We can see that nowhere better than on the health care issue. Over the spring and summer, the White House door has been wide open to lobbyists from health care businesses. The doctors' lobby has gotten promises that physician payments won't be knocked down too much. In return, they are expected to lobby for whatever bill the congressional Democrats come up with.

The pharmaceutical firms' lobbyist, former House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, has gotten assurances that his clients' business model won't be wrecked any more than it already has been by stringent regulation. In return PhRMA is running TV ads for health care reform.

The health insurance companies were on board, too. Until, that is, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus presented his bill requiring them to cover anyone who applies but exacting only small fines from healthy individuals who decide not to buy insurance until they get sick. Since this looked like a quick road to bankruptcy, the health insurers' lobby commissioned a study that pointed out, correctly I think, that the Baucus bill would increase the cost of insurance to those who already have it. ...

So the health insurers have been denounced by White House spokesmen and Democratic congressional leaders as foul fiends and gougers of working families. Prominent Democrats have been talking about revoking insurance companies' exemption from the antitrust laws (granted so that small firms would have access to data needed to compete with the giants). Translated into Chicagoese: Nice little insurance company you got there. Too bad if something happened to it.

The same treatment is being given to Fox News, which according to White House spokesmen, "is not a news organization." "Other news organizations, like yours," Obama consigliere David Axelrod told ABC News, "ought not to treat them that way."

In other words, when Fox breaks the news that the White House green czar is a self-proclaimed "Communist" or that operatives of pro-Obama ACORN have been aiding and abetting child prostitution, other news outlets should spike the story. ...

Maybe Obama thought everyone in Washington would be his great friend. Having encountered un-Chicago-like dissent and disagreement, he has responded with classic Chicago brass knuckles. We'll see how far this kind of thuggery gets him.

So far, actually, Obama's thuggery doesn't seem to be faring too well. Scott Rasmussen finds his "approval index" at a frigid -13. The worst news for Democrats is that among those who are both independent and likely voters, only 18 percent strongly approve of Obama's performance while 42 percent strongly disapprove. Obama's bullying tactics don't seem to be playing well outside the hard-left Democratic base.

Posted by: KDS on October 22, 2009 07:27 PM
25. In other words, when Fox breaks the news that the White House green czar is a self-proclaimed "Communist" or that operatives of pro-Obama ACORN have been aiding and abetting child prostitution, other news outlets should spike the story. ..."

And they do over and over. Much of what the left does is simply not covering stories they find to be contrary to their march towards socialism.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 22, 2009 07:40 PM
26.
Here we go ago again!

More Clinton era homosexual AGENDA insanity! When will it ever end for good?

Much like the previous poster Dan had stated - all this country (DEMS when they're in power that is) keeps doing is government giving these homosexuals more LEGALIZED Pedophile rights to keep exploiting young kids and their young minds! Pretty pathetic crap if you ask me!

When is the last time you saw a Wash DC Congressional Law or Bill passed that totally protected Senior Citizens say from violent crimes (ie: home invasion robberies, fraud plots, swindles, etc etc), or for matter from Bernie Madoff type Ponzi Scams? How about a Wash DC Congressional Law/Bill that totally protected a woman's rights against Rape making it a Death Penalty to violate any woman from such a demeaning and hideous act? I could go on and on and on with sensible examples that SHOULD be on the Federal books, and very CLEAR & CONCISE at that - as to the language and content of that Law/Bill.

I myself stopped some of the insanity that is always associated with the DEM Party when it comes to these sick homosexuals, and their just as sick homosexual AGENDA with Capitol Hill every time the DEMS get back into power.

I finally had had enough with the way Obama tended to be leaning (with the homosexuals that is) - as far as even more homosexual insanity once he bought into the Office. That coming even after all those lunatic DNC SURVEY mailings I was constantly getting in my mail early to mid 2008 to NO END!

They couldn't call me anymore, as I finally took my phone # off my CA registration file after finding out it had been included and updated there! What a mistake that was having even included it to start with. Won't ever make that mistake again!

Not only did I tell that warped "Howard - the homosexual loving - Dean" where he could stick his constant pre-election DEM Surveys - that kept coming like every week in my mail, but I also took it a step further - that is - being totally disgusted with the DEM Party in general.

I finally said - "enough is enough", and pulled (cancelled) my being a registered DEM after some 39 years! I also wasn't very polite with my language content, using some choice 4-letter words in the process, and as to why I was doing so in the first place - after some 39 years that is.

I really gave the DEM DNC regional office - where I live - some pretty FIRM "family value reasons" why I was leaving their DEM Party for good - that in faxing them my signed resignation. Namely - their constant love for homosexuals being at the top of their political "TO DO LIST" every 4 years! I never supported their love of homosexuals in the least, nor for that matter any part of "their own" warped homosexual AGENDA period once they got into power again! As far as I was concerned the DEM Party was just going down the proverbial crapper as fast as you could flush them.

I love being part of winning team - just not this one anymore!

And NO - I'd never even consider being a scum sucking GOP either! That one is a no-brainer in case you are one!

I'd rather just be an unregistered voter any day - then to be called a DEM! Much more peaceful that way to me, as now I can focus on something a lot better then all this weirdness coming out of Wash DC again. Esp coming at the hands of Obama this time around. Bad enough I have to keep hearing the same DNC platform crap every year about Abortion Rights and Pro Choice to no end "this and that", but to have to listen to all this homosexual crap on the front burner as well - NO WAY!

To say that I'm overjoyed to hear that "Teddy - braindead - Kennedy" is now gone for good - well - that's an understatement in itself to say the least. Unfortunately we still have Kerry to put up with as well. I'm sure he'll take over in MA where "Teddy boy" left off - homosexual weirdness wise that is! Never cared for that Kerry/Lieberman ticket either, as look as where Lieberman went a few years later and where he is today (LA LA land that's where!). Talk about a flip/flop loser! Of course look at what we were stuck with for 8 years on the flip side of the GOP coin. Even worse!

Kerry got an earful from me as well - when he ran his failed campaign, as I couldn't stand his Pro-homosexual love of their AGENDA either! Took all the focus off the real issues at hand, and basically gave that election to those 2 retarded GOPS that thankfully are now dead and gone as well (in a manner of speaking that is). That goes double for the now past worthless Teddy Kennedy who kept pushing his warped Pro homosexual values on the DNC and the DEM Party in general, as well as that of Caroline Kennedy and that of their warped state of MA. Pretty pathetic to say the least!

Same as that of the Bill Clinton era where he was manipulated by the homosexual AGENDA to change the Military standing on homosexuals serving in silence. Same like that of "Newt - the fruit - Gingrich's" warped homosexual sister pushing her AGENDA on Capitol Hill as well during that same Clinton Era!

I don't know what it is about the damn DEMS, and their constant sucking up to these pathetic homosexuals the way they always do every 4 years, but with me at least - it had come to a complete halt. Enough was enough!

If we could only ship all the USA homosexuals over to China in a handbag (or better yet to Hell in a handbag!) it would be a blessing in disguise! Let them deal with more of the same crap that it now looks like is even seeping into their woodwork over there as well.

It's one thing to constantly b i t c h about foreign terrorists both here and abroad trying to blow things up and take so many good USA lives with them as a result, but at the same time to let these SICK homosexuals push their SICK terrorist-like AGENDA through our own Congress here in the USA - it's just unheard of. When will this INSANITY stop?

I was just plain fed up with always being stigmatized as being a part of a Political Party (DEM) that didn't hold my "family values" at the top of their election list, as well as being in Office list as well - as it were. Who would ever want to be part of a Political Party that just constantly sided with warped homosexuals, and their just as equally warped AGENDA? Not me that's for sure!

That goes triple for all that/the ludicrous homosexual marriage crap as well. When that WARPED crap started hitting the fan that was the turning point indeed, as I could see that once "that once Sacred Institution of marriage being between a MAN & WOMAN" was attacked - like it was by the homosexuals - that nothing was left that wouldn't be polluted with their SICK AGENDA! Was I right? YOU BET I WAS! Look where it is today…..sad to say the least, but now the damage has been done, and nothing is off limits with these SICK homosexuals! They won't be happy until they change/destroy the 10 Commandments as well.

I'd really like to see the day that Congress passes a bill that guarantees and protects all Heterosexuals the right to not be bothered by these sick homosexual retards and their homosexual AGENDA advances in any way, manner, or form. That being said - if they do then they get the crap beat of themselves! Fair play if you ask me!

As it stands now they just get to hide behind even more Federal Laws set up to give them even more room to operate under the Radar while again spreading their AGENDA filth even further! Go figure huh?

Why should we have to waste taxpayer's dollars just to protect homosexual Pedophiles? After all - that's all they are anyway just to start with.

Truth hurts doesn't it?

You bet it does!

Posted by: onlyinamerica on October 22, 2009 08:22 PM
27. as a matter of fact, violence among homosexual men is common......

and as a matter of fact,there is increasing violence by homosexuals towards heterosexuals.....

matthew Sheppard going into a cowboy bar to buy drugs and get a boyfriend and getting killed for his efforts by two drugged out losers is not nearly as horrific as two gay men tying a 12yo boy to a bed and sexually torturing him for an entire day, until he died....but most won't know his name, because, you know, we can't talk about those things...

Posted by: lee on October 22, 2009 08:35 PM
28. as a matter of fact, violence among homosexual men is common......

and as a matter of fact,there is increasing violence by homosexuals towards heterosexuals.....

matthew Sheppard going into a cowboy bar to buy drugs and get a boyfriend and getting killed for his efforts by two drugged out losers is not nearly as horrific as two gay men tying a 12yo boy to a bed and sexually torturing him for an entire day, until he died....but most won't know his name, because, you know, we can't talk about those things...

Posted by: lee on October 22, 2009 08:35 PM
29. What exactly is a "cowboy bar" lee?

You don't have any stereotypes, do you?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 22, 2009 09:05 PM
30. @7: What is there for gays? There's the military. What else? Oh right, the big M. Marriage. But no one has a right to have their social unions recognized by government, and almost every civil right you get in marriage can be gotten without marriage (with a few important exceptions, yes).

The criminalization of their relationships certainly counts, as does systemic discrimination by government. (Gays being considered a security threat simply because of their orientation counts.) Atrocities against gays during World War II were not pretty -- pink triangles are now used as a symbol for gay rights because of their use to mark gays in Nazi concentration camps. Gays who are exposed in many African and Middle Eastern countries are killed, sometimes with official government sanction. Now, even if the US never officially delved into the mass murder of gays, there have been plenty of examples where systematic and sometimes even official harrassment existed.


@17: Then you support polygamy? Three or more adults deciding to get married? Why not - are you that much of a bigoted "monogamist" that you must enforce your morality on everyone else?

Sleazy. Don't you have anything better than a straw man? Nice to see that you have to lie and defame to get what you want.


@26: Wow. The ChiCom Traitor was merely foul, but I don't think I've ever read anything more vile and pathetic on (u)SP than what you just wrote. Congratulations! You are the single most pathetic example of a human being I've seen in a long time.

Posted by: demo kid on October 22, 2009 09:11 PM
31. @7: What is there for gays? There's the military. What else? Oh right, the big M. Marriage. But no one has a right to have their social unions recognized by government, and almost every civil right you get in marriage can be gotten without marriage (with a few important exceptions, yes).

The criminalization of their relationships certainly counts, as does systemic discrimination by government. (Gays being considered a security threat simply because of their orientation counts.) Atrocities against gays during World War II were not pretty -- pink triangles are now used as a symbol for gay rights because of their use to mark gays in Nazi concentration camps. Gays who are exposed in many African and Middle Eastern countries are killed, sometimes with official government sanction. Now, even if the US never officially delved into the mass murder of gays, there have been plenty of examples where systematic and sometimes even official harrassment existed.


@17: Then you support polygamy? Three or more adults deciding to get married? Why not - are you that much of a bigoted "monogamist" that you must enforce your morality on everyone else?

Sleazy. Don't you have anything better than a straw man? Nice to see that you have to lie and defame to get what you want.


@26: Wow. The ChiCom Traitor was merely foul, but I don't think I've ever read anything more vile and pathetic on (u)SP than what you just wrote. Congratulations! You are the single most pathetic example of a human being I've seen in a long time.

Posted by: demo kid on October 22, 2009 09:11 PM
32. billy bob crouton

not to point out how ridiculous you are again, but blacks have been charged w/ hate crimes. two of them just in the last year in the northwest. you should maybe try google before opening your mouth and spouting ridiculous lies.

hate crimes legislation doesn't provide protection. it allows prosecutors to add additional time to sentences. just as using a gun allows a prosecutor to do the same. to argue that all crimes are hate crimes is a complete misnomer and ridiculous.

onlyinamerica - you really hated kennedy? and were a registered democrat for 39 years? was knowing the democratic platform too difficult, mentally, for you? by your bigoted and hateful speech i am pretty sure you've always been a conservative - it's in their M.O. it looks like your 'family values' in spite, judgement and lying.

btw, straight, married evangelicals are pedophiles too.

Posted by: mike on October 22, 2009 09:18 PM
33. Yes I will agree with you demo kid that was a truly nasty rant that I will not support.

However, you have done lots of name calling that you ought to be embarrased about as well.

Are you willing to admit that in the spirit of honest discussion?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 22, 2009 09:24 PM
34. mike says, " but blacks have been charged w/ hate crimes. two of them just in the last year in the northwest"

Name them and cite your sources. Sure, you could be right. Why do I doubt you can back up your claims?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 22, 2009 09:30 PM
35. demo kid: The criminalization of their relationships certainly counts

As no such thing exists, no, it doesn't count. Their relationship is not, in any way whatsoever, criminalized. What is disallowed is a CIVIL CONTRACT that represents their relationship.


... as does systemic discrimination by government.

... which in regard to the military I've already mentioned. What else?


Atrocities against gays during World War II were not pretty ...

And also not the result of institutional discrimination by the U.S. government.

Posted by: pudge on October 22, 2009 09:37 PM
36. mike: hate crimes legislation doesn't provide protection. it allows prosecutors to add additional time to sentences.

Right, which violates due process.


... just as using a gun allows a prosecutor to do the same.

Nope. Possessing a gun during the commission of a crime goes to additional intent, not to motive. The hate crime law doesn't go to intent, only to motive. A very different thing.


... to argue that all crimes are hate crimes is a complete misnomer and ridiculous.

To argue that someone should get extra punishment for beating up YOU because you're gay, than ME because I'm short, is ridiculous.

Posted by: pudge on October 22, 2009 09:39 PM
37. jesus christ, bill. is google that hard for you? facts too difficult to come by?

two juveniles in pdx last june were charged w/ oregon version of hate crimes legislation (pdx tribune). there have been charges in l.a. wilmington and baltimore - i checked 3 papers on google in 2 seconds. you're the one that lied blacks have never been charged with hate crimes.

stop the lies, billy. it's pathetic. you doubt my truth because you've been misled by fox, drudge, et al to believe that only conservatives have a monopoly on facts.

Posted by: mike on October 22, 2009 09:41 PM
38. Nice job of not being able to provide a simple link to back up what you say mike.

Your are confirming everything I know about the left. The expected comments about fox and Drudge. Can't you people at least have an original thought? It's always the same tired talking points. Surprised you didn't throw in a few comments about Bush, Cheney, Halliburton and the Iraq war for good measure.


Do you not ever lay in bed wondering if you leftists are not simply drones that haven't the capacity of individual thought? Leftists always make these references without a single clue what they are talking about.

Are you not a truly biased individual? Most leftists are and they somehow are convinced they are open minded people.

You most certainly are not.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 22, 2009 10:03 PM
39. bill,

a. i don't think you've ever provided a link to back up any of your false claims.

b. here is the link since you're too dumb/lazy to figure out google (i even provided you the source): http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=121355387311981300

you still have yet to prove you've an 'individual thought' and everything you type seems to be verbatim from the fox news/worldnutdaily feed. coincidence? i doubt it. do you even bother to read any newspapers? or do you like being told what to think?

please stop lying. it is rather sad and pathetic

Posted by: mike on October 23, 2009 12:13 AM
40. Slavery Party Failed Abortion wrote:

Sleazy. Don't you have anything better than a straw man? Nice to see that you have to lie and defame to get what you want.

What's sleazy about it, and why is it a strawman? Is polygamy not a valid expression of one's sexuality? Are you saying you discriminate against consenting adults who wish to express their sexuality (or even their religion) in such a way?

SPFA, are you an intolerant bigot? Seems like it to me! You want one set of laws for unions of two people only, and want to deny the free expression of unions of more than that.

Please explain why we should allow same sex marriages but deny three-or-more party marriages. Explain why the former is OK and tolerant and the latter is not acceptable.

When you get done choking on your own hypocrisy, you can then apologize for your charges of a sleazy strawman.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 23, 2009 12:25 AM
41. Dan, isn't it fun watching these people simply flip out when they have to actually deal with facts?

I wonder how I might find "worldnutdaily".

The more we beat these goofs to a pulp the nuttier they become.

I enjoy it because I am so tired of them as I think most reasonable people are. It is more than worth giving them back the same treatment they've given us for years. Being nice to them doesn't work. Hitting them in the face does.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 23, 2009 04:02 AM
42. First off the writer's disgraceful conduct in screwing around with the name of the Human Rights Campaign shows the deep pro-bigotry bias here.
Secondly, this law is not about "ending hate." It is about ending violent assaults which are being blown off by law enforcement and courts because of bigotry.
This doesn't violate the Consitution in any way, and in fact that states choose NOT to prosecute these crimes, in violation of the constitutional promise of equal protection, is part of the reason this law is needed.
It is a bald-faced, and intentional, lie to claim there is no need for evidence in these cases. They hold EXACTLY the same standards as any other crime for courts, evidence, conviction by jury, ect.
If you think hate crimes, violent assaults based in bigotry, are a "civil right" then you don't have a clue what the words mean.

Posted by: Daddo on October 23, 2009 04:21 AM
43. #39 mike can you provide any evidence that those African Americans you cite in your link were actually convicted of "hate crimes"?

Of course they were not. And you knew it when you posted.

Show me evidence to the contrary and I will happily apologize. Decent reasonable people actually acknowledge when they are wrong. I don't see that ever from leftists.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 23, 2009 04:37 AM
44. Thanks for the article to prove my points pudge.

Posted by: TruthInWords on October 23, 2009 05:21 AM
45. Daddo, would you say African Americans beating the daylights out of white kids was "bigotry".

Of course you will not. Yet that happens every day in cities all over the country and you know it.

I am so sick of you cowards that haven't the courage to discuss real issues.

Take a walk down 23rd Avenue and Cherry any evening and you might get it. If you are lucky enough to not have your head blown off by some thug. Or perhaps you'll just sink deeper into your denial of reality.

Young African American men die on the streets every single day and nobody seems to give a damn. You don't hear a single word from liberal politicians, or Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or anyone. Are they blind? It just makes me sick.

Their liberal policies created this tragedy. You'd think they would be the first people to attempt to solve it. Have they?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 23, 2009 05:31 AM
46. Vote the filthy homo loving bastards out.

Posted by: joebandmember on October 23, 2009 05:58 AM
47. Daddo: First off the writer's disgraceful conduct in screwing around with the name of the Human Rights Campaign shows the deep pro-bigotry bias here.

Howso? HRC does not stand for human rights. They stand only for people with minority sexual preferences. This isn't bigotry, it's a fact. I put part of their name in quotes because that part of their name is intentional deceit.


Secondly, this law is not about "ending hate."

Shrug. The HRC said it was.


It is about ending violent assaults which are being blown off by law enforcement and courts because of bigotry.

Nonsense. First, it won't prevent a single assault, therefor, it won't end assaults. Second, assaults are not being blown off by law enforcement or courts. If they were, then they would have found one of THOSE to name the bill after, instead of naming it after Matthew Shepard.


This doesn't violate the Consitution in any way ...

Yawn. I gave several ways it does, and you didn't rebut a single one of them. I can only guess as to why you didn't; my best guess is that you don't understand the arguments, but you are so emotionally attached to the law that you reject them out of hand anyway.


... and in fact that states choose NOT to prosecute these crimes, in violation of the constitutional promise of equal protection, is part of the reason this law is needed.

As I already demonstrated, a law that specifically sets out to protect a certain class of people DOES violate the constitutional promise of equal protection. That's part of my point. This protects gays, but not midgets, fatties, and uglies.

Further, the (false!) notion that states are not prosecuting these crimes does not in any way justify federal action. The Constitution does not say "the powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States ... unless the states choose not to exercise those powers." There's no expiration clause on the Tenth Amendment.


It is a bald-faced, and intentional, lie to claim there is no need for evidence in these cases.

I never said that. You utterly misunderstood my argument. What I said is that if the "crime" being punished is intent to intimidate/terrorize/etc., then no evidence is being required for THAT crime, which therefore violates due process. I never implied or stated that no evidence was required for the assault itself.

And if intent to terrorize/intimidate is not the point, then we're talking literal thoughtcrime: the punishing of motives, rather than actions and intent, which is anathema to the American system.


If you think hate crimes, violent assaults based in bigotry, are a "civil right" ...

No one said that. What I said is that your MOTIVE in performing an act is a civil right. Your INTENT in performing an act is not protected, but your MOTIVE is. They are two completely different things. MOTIVE is not an element of the crime, INTENT is. MOTIVE is WHY you do something, and is protected by the First Amendment. INTENT is WHAT you mean to do, and is not.

This law either punishes motive, in violation of the First Amendment, or it punishes intent, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Your choice.

Posted by: pudge on October 23, 2009 06:20 AM
48. As for equal protection under the law, our President terms the men who wrote the Constitution "our so-called founders".

What do you expect?

Posted by: Gary on October 23, 2009 06:48 AM
49. Cruchon@13 blustered, "Perhaps some of the folks commenting here about 'hate crimes' can cite one single case of where blacks beating the heck out of a white person have been taken to court for a 'hate crime'. It never happens."

When Mike said it did, he doubted there were sources. When Mike provided sources, he said they weren't convicted. Of course conviction is determined by a jury of one's peers, not the liberal system that Cruchon decries.

I don't dream of persuading Cruchon of anything; he's not here to learn. I just wanted to point out what he's about.

Posted by: Bruce on October 23, 2009 07:43 AM
50. Pudge@47 claims, "MOTIVE is WHY you do something, and is protected by the First Amendment."

Wow -- talk about finding new rights! I didn't see that in my copy of the First Amendment. Maybe Bush amended it when I wasn't paying attention?

Seriously, I can understand the pros and cons of including motive as an element in a crime, but how exactly is it precluded by the First Amendment?

Posted by: Bruce on October 23, 2009 07:54 AM
51. @40: When you get done choking on your own hypocrisy, you can then apologize for your charges of a sleazy strawman.

Nah... I don't apologize to slime like you. Argue the point, instead of going off on a tangent. Saying that a gay couple forming a household should have some of the same rights as straight couples doing exactly the same thing has NOTHING to do with polygamy, and you haven't proven why.

Posted by: demo kid on October 23, 2009 08:53 AM
52. Couples do not have "rights". Our "so-called founders" spoke of individuals.

Posted by: Gary on October 23, 2009 08:57 AM
53. @52: They also said that only "men" were created equal.

Posted by: demo kid on October 23, 2009 11:21 AM
54. @ 52- re: Rights- Exactly right Gary.

As for "hate crime laws", they're also stupid because they're not applied across the board. The killing of Christopher Kime during Mardi Gras by a group of punks was, one could argue, was a hate crime. Yet, because the punks were black and Kime and the woman he was protecting were white, it wasn't prosecuted under the 'hate crime' statute. These kinds of stupid laws are formed by politically correct imbeciles shaping laws to fit the flawed constructs of their ideology.

Posted by: Rick D. on October 23, 2009 11:32 AM
55. Exactly Rick D. Bringing that hypocrisy up makes leftists angry.

It ought to cause them to pause for some honest reflection about their ideology.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 23, 2009 12:53 PM
56. @54: The killing of Christopher Kime during Mardi Gras by a group of punks was, one could argue, was a hate crime.

Please. Unless you can prove that EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT of white-on-black crime is treated as a "hate crime", that comparison is irrelevant.

@55: It ought to cause them to pause for some honest reflection about their ideology.

At least I have one. Shouting at kids to get off your lawn doesn't really amount to an ideology, more of just a general bitterness with the world.

Were you just not hugged enough as a child or something?

Posted by: demo kid on October 23, 2009 01:49 PM
57. All you have to do is read the nastiness, folks.

I get the movie reference: "Get off my lawn". Demo kid uses it all the time, apparently when he becomes frustrated. Charming individual, isn't he?

Ironically, we had a nice young kid who was visiting from China mow my grass this summer.

Making leftists blow their stacks? More than illustrative of what kind of people end up on the left.


Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 23, 2009 02:34 PM
58. "You can repeat it all you want, but it's not true. I do not agree, at all. It is not legitimate, because it literally has no authority granted to it to make such laws."

A "legitimate state interest" is a requirement to exercise police power, not an exercise in whether Article I is satisfied. Every law by any jurisdiction passed must have a "legitimate state interest." That is plainly satisfied by this law: The state can decide that it does not want minority groups to be assaulted based solely on their minority status.

"Oh come on. This has nothing to do with commerce, obviously, and you certainly seem bright enough to know that without me telling you. That doesn't make sense EVEN UNDER the very broad modern interpretation of the Commerce Clause."

Violence and intimidation have nothing to do with commerce? You could argue that effectively. In fact, the Violence Against Women Act was ruled unconstitutional when the US argued that it was protected under the Commerce Clause. So perhaps you make a good point and we could see an Article I challenge succeed.

Your claims about Due Process being violated are more fascinating, certainly. Through the Fourteenth Amendment, this would make state hate crime laws unconstitutional as well. That would be landmark. We'll explore this below.

"No, it certainly does not. What it says is that no person shall be denied 'the equal protection of the laws.' Which we have with, or without, this law, obviously. Worse, this law contributes to inequality of the laws by creating special protections for certain characteristics, such that assault on a person for being gay is a federal crime, and the same assault on a person for being fat is not."

The fifth section of the Fourteenth Amendment reads that Congress can make laws to enforce equal protection. Federal antidiscrimination laws have been upheld on these grounds. The Voting Rights Act, as well. It would be a landmark finding to rule that homosexuals are a protected class so I find it unlikely.

"if the law is meant to punish intent, then it fails due process, because no evidence is required to show that the crime (intent to terrorize or intimidate) actually happened."

Proof, as with any charge in a trial, is required to demonstrate the motive and intent. If evidence cannot be presented that the intent was to attack someone specifically because they were a minority, then someone should not be convicted of that crime.

The goal posts of "terrorize or intimidate" are not statue but political arguments. These could be used to justify a "legitimate state interest" but not be relevant in terms of due process claims.

Your premise in this sentence cannot be accepted. I think you might have an Article I case, but due process doesn't seem relevant to me. Why not argue that the First Amendment protects your right to think or believe whatever you want while beating someone?

"we do not generally have statutes against motives in this country, because we don't punish people for what they THINK, for WHY they do things, but, rather, what they DO, and what they INTEND."

We have statues that have upheld constitutional challenge which are based solely on motive: Antidiscrimination laws.

"Other than respect for basic human liberties that recognize that people have the right to think whatever they want."

That would be the First Amendment argument. Wisconsin v. Mitchell established that hate crimes legislation survive First Amendment arguments.

"(This "conjunctive" element makes the crime more than a thought crime, as well.)

No, it doesn't."

I'm afraid it does, per
Wisconsin v. Mitchell. Hate crimes legislation simply increases the sentencing guidelines/requirement of a given crime. One cannot be convicted of a hate crime independently of the assault or murder.

Your Article I/"10th Amendment" point I have reconsidered. You may be actually making a good point here. But in terms of "thought crime" or violation of the rule of law, I'm don't believe you have an argument. Due Process is satisfied, since there is a burden of proof to demonstrate the crime contrary to your statements. The First Amendment is satisfied since it "permits the admission of previous declarations or statements to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent, subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like."

"Constitutional law" is not reading the constitution and having a set of core beliefs as to its meaning. It means following case law and what the interpretation of the constitution that holds standing in our nation is. That is the difference between personal beliefs and law. I am not talking about my personal beliefs, but what the law is.

Gary wrote this: "Couples do not have 'rights'."

Yet the Court found we as individuals have a constitutional right to marriage under Loving v. Virginia.

Posted by: constitutional law on October 23, 2009 02:50 PM
59. SPFA,

Nah... I don't apologize to slime like you.

I can feel the love - such tolerance and acceptance from you!

Argue the point, instead of going off on a tangent. Saying that a gay couple forming a household should have some of the same rights as straight couples doing exactly the same thing has NOTHING to do with polygamy, and you haven't proven why.

OK, here's the point: in much of the world (the Middle East, SW Asia, Africa, indigenous tribes across the globe) polygamy is an accepted - and in fact, expected - means of marriage. A man is expected to take multiple wives and they are to each produce children.

However, here in puritanical America, we have decided that marriage can only be a single man and a single woman. We not only reject the concept of two men or two women, but of more than two parties altogether. Even though there are examples throughout history and today that support the cultural existence of polygamy.

Thus, why do you insist that we "decouple" the concept of gay marriage from polygamy? Isn't your position (gay marriage is OK, polygamy wrong) as arbitrary and capricious as the position you rail against (gay marriage is not OK)?

Seriously, there's nothing off on a tangent here. You fall back on a "moral imperative" position relative to why we must accept gay marriage - equal rights. Yet you are unwilling to extend that to other historically and contemporary marriage relationships, notable polygamy.

So come on, SPFA, you tell me why you want to descriminate against Muslims? Against, much of SE and SW Asia? Heck, even Hong Kong - that bastion of British imperialism - recognized legal polygamy until the early 1970s! Currently 1/3rd of the world actively accepts and recognizes polygamist marriages, including Australia and the UK.

If we're going to use your basis about equal rights, then why do you limit the rights of a certain class of people based upon what you feel is right? What gives you the moral, ethical, and legal basis to your position?

Then try to justify your position in the face of polygamy. And how your arbitrary cutoff of rights is different than the position you assail.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 23, 2009 04:00 PM
60. Nice work Dan. You just made every leftist who reads this site's head explode.

The last thing liberals want to do is confront Muslims and how they live. They are far more interested in railing against "right wing fundamentalists", or "right wing extremists". Or Fox news.

They conveniently ignore a culture that in many countries denies women basic rights. Leftists aren't bothered a bit.

Instead they waste their time screaming about some ancient war memorial that has a cross.

A bigger group of hypocrites perhaps cannot be found.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 23, 2009 04:48 PM
61. Dan@59, it's true that polygamy is accepted in some cultures. However, there's no evidence that some people are naturally polygamous in the same sense that some people are naturally gay. I suppose this is arguable in that there is some evidence that polygamy is more natural than monogamy for humans, but again, there's no evidence that this discriminates against a class of people's nature. Polygamy is a choice; homosexuality is not (of course homosexual behavior is, but the underlying sexual preference is not).

That's the moral and ethical basis for treating homosexuality differently from polygamy.

Posted by: Bruce on October 23, 2009 04:57 PM
62. Bruce,

There are quite a few researchers who claim that polygamy is hard-wired into our brains. The science is not settled, so to speak...;) And the fact that polygamy is EXTREMELY prevalent in indigenous tribes hints at the fact it's not just the ability to support all the wives, but a biological urge to have many.

But you make an interesting point:

Polygamy is a choice; homosexuality is not (of course homosexual behavior is, but the underlying sexual preference is not)

IF we accept that statement as true, then cannot we - as a society - decide rightfully and correctly that restricting behavior is acceptable? We can ban/restrict actions, regardless of their biological urges?

If the answer is yes, we can restrict actions independent of their biological source, then the concept of hate crimes should be anathema to all! And the rejection of the idea of gay marriage should be supported and not attacked as homophobic or evil or bigoted, since we have already agreed that actions can be restricted, regardless of their biological source.

If the answer is no, then when we have an activity that is biologically compelled, such as polygamy very well may be, or even pedophilia with mentally ill people (where the impetus is clearly biological - mental illness), then how can we restrict the actions taken? Clearly, we cannot for we agreed that actions based on biological impulses are sacrosanct.

Thus we come back to the conundrum: how can we logically conclude that it is wrong to exclude marriage of homosexuals, yet right to exclude marriage of more than two? Both are equally capricious and arbitrary, and thus charges of bigotry or homophobia are not just hypocritical but actually, I would proffer, evil.

How does this relate to hate crimes? Extend, if you will, your statement about restricting actions of biological origin. I submit that fear of differences is inherently biological in basis! It may be reinforced or overcome with cultural training, but innate within each of us is the fear of the different, the unusual.

Essentially: fear is a biologically based reaction that develops in the first year of life. Fear, in fact, is hard-wired into our brains.

As a world traveler, I see reaction to me based strictly on my physiology; just this morning, 45 minutes ago (I am in Shanghai right now), as I walked to the corner grocery store, I passed many small children - infant to 3 years old - out in the morning with their grandmothers.

EVERY child simply stares at me. I am 6 feet tall, 300 pounds, broad shouldered (size 64 jacket), red beard, and quite caucasian (Irish and German). In no way am I ever mistaken for someone of Chinese descent! And a large portion of those children will run or hide when I wave or smile at them - they are afraid of the gentle giant.

Even the niece of my general manager was terrified the first dozen times we met. It was not size; those Chinese men as large as me (and they are few, but still present) did not scare her at all. Neither do beards. It is the pale skin on something so large that does it (she has overcome her fear, and now loves to ride on uncle Da Mao's (big cat) shoulders, high above the crowds).

This is a pattern I have seen around the world, in all cultures. There is an innate fear in the youngest, who have not been culturally conditioned, to fear what looks different. I submit this is a biological impulse that is overcome with cultural conditioning! Yet biological it is, as the youngest around the world express such reactions.

Therefore, if we do accept behaviors that are based on biological foundations, should we not accept racism and fear of others who look different (the disabled, infirm, fat, short) without restriction? Would that not be congruent with the position of allowing homosexual marriage because the action is based on biology?

If so, then how can we square "hate crime" laws? For if the impetus behind the crime is biologically based, then how can we punish such an action? It's "hard-wired" so to speak...

And if we decide that such punishment should happen anyway, then why not ban homosexual marriage?

The two are inextricably entwined and cannot be logically separated; if you support hate crime laws on the basis of culturally based fear, then you must accept polygamous marriages on that same basis. We are clearly restricting a cultural norm for half the world's population!

Yet if we grant homosexual marriage and exclude polygamous unions because of the biological-basis argument, then we cannot allow hate crimes because they very well may be, too, biologically based.

So the question remains: how can we claim that homosexual marriage is a right, polygamous marriages are wrong, and hate crime laws are sound and just? The three positions are completely at odds with each other, and cannot logically co-exist.

Such a nut to crack! Now if you will excuse me, it is time to take my morning shower; it's going to be hot here today in Shanghai, probably 82-85, and the sun is already quite strong, with the skies a lovely pale blue... A wonderful Saturday awaits!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 23, 2009 05:37 PM
63. The Democrats pretend to protect their beloved special groups, but also side up with Muslim extremists who would exterminate those same groups.

I wonder if those same groups will ever figure out that the Democratic party elite consider them to be expendable.

Posted by: JoeBandMember on October 23, 2009 05:44 PM
64. At #63, I think these groups are beginning to figure it out.

Once they realize that leftists are merely 20% of the population but have been dominating political discourse for 40 years they are finished.

Couldn't happen fast enough as far as I am concerned.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 23, 2009 06:45 PM
65. Dan@62: If you can't distinguish morally between allowing two people of the same sex who love each other and wish to spend their lives together to be recognized legally and morally in the same way as people of different sexes, and someone who commits a violent crime against someone out of hatred of that person's long-victimized race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., then I feel sorry for you.

We restrict behavior that injures other people. Sure, there are gray areas, like drug usage, and maybe even polygamy. But you've picked two extremes and argued that, because they're both types of behavior, if one is legal, the other should be legal. I think you're smarter than that.

Posted by: Bruce on October 23, 2009 08:33 PM
66. #65 - They are allowed to do the same thing in a civil union. WTF is the hangup about gay marriage vs. civil unions ? They will get the same kind of benefits. Symbolism and what else ? Do tell and try to enlighten.

Posted by: KDS on October 23, 2009 09:35 PM
67. "You can ahte all you want. The minute you hurt someone for it, your going to jail -- where you can stew in your own juices forever for all I care"

Unless you are African American in which case liberals give you free license to murder, rape, and beat up people. Read the news any weekend? It ought to turn your stomach and wake you up. I'm talking about people dying. That's the fact. You just want to spew liberal nonsense as you always do "lucy".

Is that how justice works, "headless lucy"? You bet, in your twisted world that is exactly how it works

African Americans die needlessly on our city streets every weekend due to your idiotic liberal social programs which have been absolute failures. You cannot care less.

Don't play these games with me. I've seen the ugliness your dumb programs have caused and the amazing amount of needless deaths.
I have lost wonderful people I cared about to the street violence that idiotic liberal welfare programs spawned. Single moms, absent fathers. Don't tell me liberals didn't do this to African Americans. I've been there and seen it for myself. It breaks my heart what you nitwits have done.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 23, 2009 11:13 PM
68. "constitutional law": A "legitimate state interest" is a requirement to exercise police power, not an exercise in whether Article I is satisfied.

That is why I referenced the Tenth Amendment: it explicitly references an additional requirement for what is a legitimate state interest, for the federal government: that it falls under a constitutionally delegated power. Otherwise -- whether or not it is a state interest -- doing anything about it is an illegitimate use of power.


Every law by any jurisdiction passed must have a "legitimate state interest." That is plainly satisfied by this law

Only if you can show where it falls under a constitutionally delegated power.


The state can decide that it does not want minority groups to be assaulted based solely on their minority status.

Only if you can show where it falls under a constitutionally delegated power.


Violence and intimidation have nothing to do with commerce?

Not inherently, obviously, no, they don't. Most violence and intimidation have nothing to do with commerce. And again, "intimidation" is not a crime at issue here ... unless you want to throw out the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, because there is no requirement, in the law in question, to provide evidence of intimidation.


Your claims about Due Process being violated are more fascinating, certainly. Through the Fourteenth Amendment, this would make state hate crime laws unconstitutional as well.

IF the law tries to punish "intimidation" or somesuch without actually demonstrating that it occurred or was intended, then it is an obvious due process violation. If it only tries to punish motive, then it is punishing thoughtcrime. Neither of these is acceptable in a free society. (And saying motive is only a crime if coupled with a violent act doesn't make a bit of difference ... it's still criminalizing feelings, even if only in certain contexts, which is still thoughtcrime, and in a free society, I don't take "thoughts can only be crimes in certain contexts" to be comforting.)


The fifth section of the Fourteenth Amendment reads that Congress can make laws to enforce equal protection.

Equal protection OF THE LAWS. That does not mean all people are treated equally in all things, it means that when it comes to the law, everyone gets equal treatment, as both criminals and victims.

In this case, actually, hate crime statutes create an INEQUALITY for the criminals: someone who hates gays and commits violence against them is treated unequally to someone who hates bald people and commits violence against them.

But victims of crime have equal treatment under the law now, as it is already a crime to assault ANYONE. What that means is that if gays were being assaulted without prosecution, the feds could step in and fix it. But that is not happening.


Federal antidiscrimination laws have been upheld on these grounds.

Yes, exactly, where it is shown that there is unequal treatment under the law, and thus a legislative remedy is warranted. There is no such thing demonstrated here that justifies hate crime laws.


Proof, as with any charge in a trial, is required to demonstrate the motive and intent.

Except that motive is not an element of a crime. It can neither prove guilt nor innocence, and is itself not a crime or a statutory enhancement to a crime ... except in the case of things like hate crime laws, and other thoughtcrime laws.


If evidence cannot be presented that the intent was to attack someone specifically because they were a minority, then someone should not be convicted of that crime.

No, you are once again conflating intent and motive. Motive is to be inclined to attack someone because you hate them. Intent is to decide to attack them, regardless of the reason. So there really is no such thing as "intent to attack someone because they are a minority."

To go back to your initial example about First and Second Degree Murder ... neither takes motive into account at all. It's all about what you intended, when you intended it, and how you took action to carry it out. Intent is all about the criminal mind, about your plot, about your decision to commit a criminal act and the steps you take to accomplish the goal. It has nothing to do with WHY you did it ... that's motive.

Except, of course, that hate crime laws create this mostly unique -- and Orwellian -- situation where motive is now a necessary element of the crime.


Why not argue that the First Amendment protects your right to think or believe whatever you want while beating someone?

I did.


We have statues that have upheld constitutional challenge which are based solely on motive: Antidiscrimination laws.

Yes, and those are similarly -- usually -- wrong. Antidiscrimination laws only make sense as a limited and temporary action to help right societal wrongs created by institutional, government-backed, discrimination that have held a group of people back and prevented them from having the same opportunities for success as the rest of society.

For example, discrimination against blacks was backed by government for a century after slavery. This significantly wronged a whole class of people for generations, holding them back, and simply ending government discrimination would not be enough to undo the wrongs, so it made sense to make discrimination based on color illegal for everyone, not just the government.

That is an extraordinary step, that takes away the First Amendment rights of EVERYONE. But most believe it is justified given the extraordinary circumstances.

But there is no such situation for gays. It's not remotely in the same ballpark. Gays can be -- and are -- as successful as anyone else. There is literally no NEED for antidiscrimination laws for gays, and so we are taking away everyone's First Amendment rights for literally no reason.


I'm afraid it does

No, it doesn't.


The First Amendment is satisfied since it "permits the admission of previous declarations or statements to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent, subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like."

That is completely irrelevant to my point. My point is not that what you believe or feel cannot be used against you, it is that what you believe or feel is not legitimately a crime, nor an element of a crime.


"Constitutional law" is not reading the constitution and having a set of core beliefs as to its meaning.

Mostly, yes, it is. As Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter said, the touchstone of constitutionality is what the Constitution says, not what the Supreme Court has said about it.


It means following case law and what the interpretation of the constitution that holds standing in our nation is.

Except where said caselaw and interpretations are wrong and should be overturned.

Posted by: pudge on October 23, 2009 11:22 PM
69. headless lucy: They are not trying to end hate ...

Shrug. They said they were. I was just quoting them. I have to think you're wrong, if I take them at their clearly expressed words.


... just punish people who act upon their hate.

Why not similarly punish people who act on ANYTHING that leads to harming others? Why single out "hate"? It makes no sense.


You can ahte all you want. The minute you hurt someone for it, your going to jail -- where you can stew in your own juices forever for all I care.

Again ... why single out "hate" as your target? Literally, it makes not a jot of sense.

If you really cared about equal protection of the laws, you would equally protect ALL victims of assault with a deadly weapon, and equally punish ALL perpetrators of assault with a deadly weapon.

Posted by: pudge on October 23, 2009 11:26 PM
70. Bruce,

I see you completely missed the point; what is the basis for your bigotry regarding polygamist unions? Why is it morally acceptable to leave such a union an illegal act, but it is morally unacceptable to not support homosexual marriage?

As far as hate crimes, if you cannot see that a hate crime law is essentially a "thought crime", then you really are being obtuse. Hate crime laws necessarily punish thought; it matters not what you did, but simply what opinions you hold surrounding your actions.

I fear you are dodging the crux of the matter, and that is just what is the moral basis for a hate crime. Why are thoughts to be punished?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 24, 2009 08:03 AM
71. @59: Again, you're avoiding the point! If you feel that a large class of people is being neglected because they can't marry multiple people, that's fine... you spearhead that campaign. I'm sure you'll get a lot of support from your tolerant brethren.

However, recognizing the rights of gay couples who are already forming households does not alter the notion of recognizing two people. A right to inheritance by gay couples doesn't involve sorting out what happens if there are two surviving partners and not just one. It's recognizing the same basic relationship, except without gender attached.

But hey, why don't we twist this around? Shouldn't any couple, gay or straight, be required to prove that they have children before they get rights under marriage? I mean, if you're talking about households as the most effective means of raising children, why give childless couples any rights whatsoever? Any straight man and woman can get married and get those benefits... why should I have to pay for tax breaks for them if it doesn't benefit children? They can just go out and get powers of attorney, inheritance rights, etc. by hiring an attorney and filling out legal paperwork, right?

Posted by: demo kid on October 24, 2009 10:16 AM
72. Dan@71, I'll throw that right back at you: Why is it moral to restrict marriage to a man and a woman? Why not allow gay marriages, polygamy, man+horse, etc.?

But that is a ridiculous question. Society can and should and will make choices about what sort of unions should be recognized. Morality is part of that decision. And I know gay people in committed loving relationships and it is immoral to deny them marriage like my wife and I have just because they are gay.

I don't believe that anyone is drawn to polygamy in the same way. But if you do, then fine, argue for polygamous marriages as well.

Posted by: Bruce on October 24, 2009 10:29 AM
73. demo kid: recognizing the rights of gay couples who are already forming households does not alter the notion of recognizing two people

Sure, but when you do so by claiming that DISALLOWING recognition of homosexual unions violates their rights (to equal protection or whatever), then you should be prepared to answer the question of, "what about these other people and their rights?"

If you can't or won't, you come off as a someone who doesn't believe in the rights you're talking about, but only cares about the ends rather than the means, and it undermines your argument for gay marriage.


Shouldn't any couple, gay or straight, be required to prove that they have children before they get rights under marriage?

No. There's no reason for that. You saying so demonstrates a misunderstanding of the arguments for exclusively heterosexual marriage.


I mean, if you're talking about households as the most effective means of raising children, why give childless couples any rights whatsoever? Any straight man and woman can get married and get those benefits... why should I have to pay for tax breaks for them if it doesn't benefit children?

If nothing else, most couples won't know they can't have children until after they get married, so you're quite obviously not making sense.


They can just go out and get powers of attorney, inheritance rights, etc. by hiring an attorney and filling out legal paperwork, right?

Sure. But why bother?

Look, the reason marriage is recognized by government is because marriage existed. That is how most of common law has come about. We had (heterosexual) couples who joined together for cultural, economic, religious, and family reasons. So government recognized those unions, to provide a legal framework for those expressed and implied contracts, for the benefit of society at large.

We don't make law that way anymore. We are now deliberative and explicitly (rather than implicitly: judges looking at what the norm is instead of majorities voting their views) democratic. So if we are going to reconize a new type of union, it is through either the democratic process, or through recognizing a right that either has always existed, or that we've now invented.

The latter is dangerous and wrongheaded. And don't compare it to miscegenation, because it's not the same thing: marriage has always been recognized between different races. It's had different levels of social acceptance, but it's always been marriage and has been viewed as such, where as homosexual marriage has not even (until recently by some) been seen as marriage at all. The word mostly never applied to such unions.

So there was no right to gay marriage, and it's obviously (from my perspective) wrong to invent a new right. That leaves us with what Washington did: passed a law. But that doesn't mean people have to agree with that law, and just as the legislature has a right to pass this law, the people have the right to reject it.

What I am saying is that recognition of marriage has always been two things: a. based on what the PEOPLE already democratically accept (implicitly or explicitly), and b. otherwise completely arbitrary. There's no right to marriage recognition for anyone.

So all that to say this: if you are saying that we do not HAVE to recognize gay marriage, that whether or not we do so is arbitrary, and that there's no Right or Wrong answer, then yep ... you don't have to justify a lack of defense of polygamy. But if you do it based on the "right" of gays to marriage, you do.

Posted by: pudge on October 24, 2009 10:42 AM
74. Bruce: Why is it moral to restrict marriage to a man and a woman? ... But that is a ridiculous question. Society can and should and will make choices about what sort of unions should be recognized. Morality is part of that decision.

Correct, so who are you to condemn the Reject R-71 folks?


And I know gay people in committed loving relationships and it is immoral to deny them marriage like my wife and I have just because they are gay.

So it is wrong for religious people to make arbitrary laws based on THEIR view of morality, but OK for you to do so? Odd.

Posted by: pudge on October 24, 2009 10:46 AM
75. @30,

"Gays who are exposed in many African and Middle Eastern countries are killed, sometimes with official government sanction."

What the hell has that to do with the US? And you criticize others about straw man arguments. Look in the mirror scarecrow.

Posted by: The Truth on October 24, 2009 12:37 PM
76. Ref: Shanghai Dan and his "thoughts" (pun intended)!

Amongst other reasons you cite that polygamy should be accepted since it may be natural (hard-wired) and you claim tribes do it etc. etc.

Did I get 2 of your reasons right?

All/most religions historically have treated women badly. Chattel anyone?

All/most civilizations have treated those that are "different" (republican code word for Obama) badly?

So I am assuming you don't have the courage to say that women should not be equal (vote tc.) and that civil rights laws are bad. After all these things are hard-wired too it seems?

Or maybe you secretly do? But i doubt you will have the courage to do a Barry goldwater...and even if you think civil right laws impinge on your liberty to discrimiante...how do you feel about having women as equals? You probalby don't have the courgae to do a Goldwater on thate woman thing? Even barry peed on rollign things back for women. Sure, sure we are legislating morality?

And I am assuming you want to deny women abortion and impose your morality on them. But hey that is not legislating morality is it?

And you talk about hypocrisy....

Here is why you are so angry (and your don't realize this) --- you want your country back, don't you? (wink, wink, code, code)...bring out the sheets with the holes....


Posted by: Flamethrower on October 24, 2009 01:23 PM
77. On plygamy in 1/3rd of thw world and Uk/Australia.

UK & Australia do not allow a polygamous marriage and it is illegal to enter into one. However, they recently did allow "recognition" of polygamous marriages if conducted in a foreign jurisdiction that permits it. Pretty much like some states in the US (on mixed race marriages) a few years back. Remember those good old days Dan?

Rereading what you wrote I cannot claim a "false hood" on your part but it was definitely misleading. Entering into polygamy in Uk/australia is illegal as of today.

Posted by: Flamethrower on October 24, 2009 01:41 PM
78. Flamer: So I am assuming you don't have the courage to say that women should not be equal (vote tc.) and that civil rights laws are bad. After all these things are hard-wired too it seems?

Um ... he was making a point. He was not saying polygamy should be allowed, he was saying that "excluding gays from marriage is immoral" is not a good reason unless you're also going to use that to allow incest and polygamy.

And your argument is ridiculous anyway ... you're saying that if ALLOWING LIBERTY that hurts no one should be allowed, therefore we also should allow liberty that explicitly DOES hurt someone else ... ? It's nonsense on its face. But you're also offering that argument against something Dan isn't actually saying.


Or maybe you secretly do? But i doubt you will have the courage to do a Barry goldwater...and even if you think civil right laws impinge on your liberty to discrimiante...

Yes, more people should have the courage to stand up for the Constitution and liberty as Goldwater did. Goldwater was right. I don't know what you think that has to do with Dan, though ... you're not making any sense.


And I am assuming you want to deny women abortion and impose your morality on them. But hey that is not legislating morality is it?

Actually, in fact, it's not legislating morality anymore than denying women the right to kill their born children is. If you believe the life in the womb has the same rights as born children and should be treated as such -- and nothing in our founding documents or shared moral history says we shouldn't, and, in fact, some of it says we should -- then you are required to reject abortion-on-demand as a legal act, just as you are required to reject murdering born children ... unless you are a hypocrite, or completely inconsistent.

This is, of course, no different from abolishing slavery: abolitionism was primarily a movement from the religious right, just as the pro-life movement is today, that said that we as a society do not have the right to diminish the human rights of someone else.

If you are wondering if I am comparing abortion to slavery, well, not so much ... abortion is much worse. There's a hierarchy of rights: our existence implies our right to life; our right to life implies our right to liberty (to do what wish with our life); our right to liberty implies our right to property (to enjoy the fruits of our liberty).

Socialism takes away our right to property, denying our right to liberty. Slavery takes away our right to liberty, denying our right to life. But abortion actually takes away our right to life directly.

Posted by: pudge on October 24, 2009 02:09 PM
79. SPFA wrote:

If you feel that a large class of people is being neglected because they can't marry multiple people, that's fine... you spearhead that campaign. I'm sure you'll get a lot of support from your tolerant brethren.

So you admit you like to neglect and discriminate against folks based on their sexual orientation. Cool, just so that's out there.

However, recognizing the rights of gay couples who are already forming households does not alter the notion of recognizing two people.

Only if you eliminate gender, of course... Right now, we do not recognize a same-sex couple as a marriage. So you want to change that, arbitrarily without considering three people.

A right to inheritance by gay couples doesn't involve sorting out what happens if there are two surviving partners and not just one. It's recognizing the same basic relationship, except without gender attached.

How about the right to inheritance by a single parent and her multiple children. How is this any different at all, other than your admitted bigotry towards multiple partner unions?

why should I have to pay for tax breaks for them if it doesn't benefit children?

And those tax breaks are? Do a quick Google search for "marriage penalty" and you'll see it's pretty much a penalty, especially hitting the working poor.

They can just go out and get powers of attorney, inheritance rights, etc. by hiring an attorney and filling out legal paperwork, right?

Yes they can. And you insist that multiple partner unions do the same.

Fundamentally, SPFA, why do you want to treat polygamist unions different from other unions? Why do you want to discriminate against them? You haven't addressed that at all; you choose to discriminate against a large section. There are more muslims and mormons in the US than there are LGBT people (about 3% compared to about 2.5%). You want to extend marriage for the LGBT and deny that same extension to muslims and mormons.

You dodge the question, consistently. Why do you feel it is OK to discriminate against polygamist unions?

Bruce wrote:

Why is it moral to restrict marriage to a man and a woman? Why not allow gay marriages, polygamy, man+horse, etc.?

I use a moral guide based on that antiquated, hated book called the Bible. As such, I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Society can and should and will make choices about what sort of unions should be recognized. Morality is part of that decision. And I know gay people in committed loving relationships and it is immoral to deny them marriage like my wife and I have just because they are gay.

But apparently society is NOT allowed to decide, since when society decides to NOT extend marriage, homosexual marriage proponents attempt to use the courts or other means to countermand the will of society (open votes). Can you name one time where - in a State-wide vote - homosexual marriage won? Where has homosexual marriage been sanctioned by society, not by judicial or executive fiat?

Seems you only want to allow society to decide its choices when they align with your interests. Otherwise society be damned, it's what you want.

I don't believe that anyone is drawn to polygamy in the same way. But if you do, then fine, argue for polygamous marriages as well.

So your choice to discriminate against polygamist unions is simply a feeling, no firm standing.

Again, you have not answered the question (even though you "threw it back" at me): why is it moral to support homosexual marriage but not polygamist unions?

Flamethrower,

After you apologize for slandering me as a wanna-be KKK member we can talk.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 24, 2009 03:41 PM
80. RCW 49.60.040:

(26) "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity. As used in this definition, "gender expression or identity" means having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth.

This was passed by the Washington legislature last year, and expands definitions to included gender expression and identity for hate crime prosecution in Washington. I personally think this is great, because it is saying that while people can hate, we as a community feel that using that hate as a motivating factor in a violent crime produces more harmful community consequences than that crime alone.

(I did not read all the comments--there were many--so I apologize if this is a repost).

Here is the link: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.60.040

Posted by: Peter on October 24, 2009 04:37 PM
81. Peter: This was passed by the Washington legislature last year

Unfortunately.

it is saying that while people can hate, we as a community feel that using that hate as a motivating factor in a violent crime produces more harmful community consequences than that crime alone.

No, it doesn't say that all. It only covers CERTAIN TYPES of hate.

And it is an absolutely horrible thing to tell a victim of violent crime that was motivated by something else. You are, explicitly, telling them that what happened to them is not as serious as what happened to someone else, JUST BECAUSE of the motive of the person who did it.

It violates the 14th Amendment requirement for equal protection of the laws, and is, literally, instituting thoughtcrime.

Posted by: pudge on October 24, 2009 04:47 PM
82. Will liberals now do something about their hate of conservatives?

I doubt it.

Posted by: Lew Waters on October 24, 2009 08:52 PM
83. liberals don't hate conservatives.

they just are disgusted by their inability to grasp truth or reality. facts don't matter, ypocrisy is ok, if you are a conservative.

Posted by: mike on October 24, 2009 10:52 PM
84. Mike wrote:

hypocrisy is ok, if you are a conservative.

Mike, do you support "legalizing" gay marriages? Do you support "legalizing" polygamist marriages?

Your fellow liberals here can't rectify those two positions, seems to me the hypocrisy - unacknowledged even when staring them straight in the face - is on the left.

But you do know how to hurl insults and invectives!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 24, 2009 11:25 PM
85. Ref: Shanghaidan

Actually this is an interesting site and it seems it is "shanghai dan" holding court with his "superior logic" with a bunch of others.

As my moniker "flamethrower" says my objective was to throw flames. Whatever gives you the idea I want a foodfight (you called it "talk") with you? I don't find your logic as anything but simplistic and trivial...clearly biased though. Hence my conjecture that you don't really know how you truly feel.

I agree you have not given me any explicit reason on this borad for the KKK thing.

So i made some leaps -- I assume you see Limbuagh as a non-racist. I assume you see Jackson. Sharpton et al as racist. I assume you have the usual "conservatives are victims of liberal media" whine, etc. etc.

I am curious where you think all the ex-KKK guys have gone politically. All joined the Ds and are called Byrd? No actually most listen to Limbaugh today. It has just become tough for them to use the "N" word and do their "sheet thing" so they suffer and seath by being victims of media etc.


Posted by: Flamethrower on October 25, 2009 11:27 AM
86. Pudge@82 writes, "You are, explicitly, telling them that what happened to them is not as serious as what happened to someone else, JUST BECAUSE of the motive of the person who did it."

No-- certainly not explicitly, and not even implicitly. You are telling them that what happened to society is more serious, and therefore will be punished more severely. For the same reason -- though the analogy is not perfect, as I'm sure you'll point out -- the punishment for assaulting/killing a police officer is greater than for assaulting/killing another person, yet the what happened to the victim is the same in either case.

Posted by: Bruce on October 25, 2009 01:53 PM
87. Pudge- You are normally good at citing sources for your claims, albeit then spinning them with nonstandard definitions and logic. But you haven't backed up your claim that "MOTIVE is WHY you do something, and is protected by the First Amendment." I'm truly interested in why you think this is protected.

Posted by: Bruce on October 25, 2009 01:58 PM
88. "The First Amendment is satisfied since it "permits the admission of previous declarations or statements to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent, subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like."

That is completely irrelevant to my point. My point is not that what you believe or feel cannot be used against you, it is that what you believe or feel is not legitimately a crime, nor an element of a crime."

My quote was from Wisconsin v. Mitchell which has established precedent that this type of law is at least Constitutional on free speech/due process grounds at the state level. You can refer to that decision to determine why case law has ruled that hate crimes are not a thought crime.

I think then burden would be on you to prove why this decision was inept as you're arguing that the Court has ruled incorrectly.

Posted by: constitutional law on October 25, 2009 03:00 PM
89. Flamer,

Crawl back to your hole. You add nothing but hate to the conversation. Expected of someone from a liberal bent, though - when no facts exist, or no logical recourse to rebut a statement, you resort to slander and hate.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 25, 2009 03:05 PM
90. Dan@80, you misunderstand the role of state supreme courts that have required gay marriage. They have not done so because they like the idea; they have done so because they are doing their job of interpreting their states' constitutions.

It is true that the people of a state don't always agree with the consequences of their constitutions (and the same is true at the federal level); that's precisely why constitutions are more revered, and harder to change, than laws. So while in a narrow sense you're right that the people don't (yet) support gay marriage, in a broader sense they do support their constitutions. And you may not agree with how these courts are interpreting their constitutions, but someone has to decide what interpretation will hold legal authority.

As for gay marriage and polygamy, my point was that limiting marriage to a man+woman excludes a lot of people from marriage just because of their nature, and without a compelling interest in excluding them. Neither of those problems is true of laws against polygamy. Of course a "compelling interest" is subjective and you (and most courts) disagree with my interpretation. However, the principle of this test is widely accepted as a part of constitutional law, and the interpretation with respect to gay marriage is changing rapidly for a variety of reasons. So you are, alas, on the wrong side of history here.

Many people have articulated the distinction between gay marriage and polygamy better than I can. The first results I found in Google and Bing were:

http://www.slate.com/id/2138482 http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/27026.html

I encourage you to read these. I often read far-right links that I find on this board to understand where people are coming from; I hope you want to keep your mind open as well.

Posted by: Bruce on October 25, 2009 03:08 PM
91. Flamer: I don't find your logic as anything but simplistic and trivial

I don't find your logic.


I agree you have not given me any explicit reason on this borad for the KKK thing.

So you admit you were lying. Keep it up and I will ban you from my posts.


I assume you see Limbuagh as a non-racist

He isn't a racist, clearly. No one who has followed him for years -- except for people with a political agenda against him -- believes he is a racist.


I assume you see Jackson. Sharpton et al as racist

Those two are either racists or they race-baiters, clearly (not sure which is worse, though I lean heavily toward the latter).


I assume you have the usual "conservatives are victims of liberal media" whine

Why? It is a fact that the mainstream news media leans markedly to the left, and is significantly biased against the right in its reporting at times (as the 2008 elections proved beyond any doubt); that doesn't make anyone a victim, though.


I am curious where you think all the ex-KKK guys have gone politically.

Most of them are dead, in fact. Maybe someone should tell you how these things called "years" and "calendars" work so you can figure this out for yourself.


No actually most listen to Limbaugh today.

Shrug. Lots of people listen to Limbaugh, including many liberals. By your (lack of) logic, that would make those liberals members of the KKK!

Posted by: pudge on October 25, 2009 04:40 PM
92. "constitutional law": My quote was from Wisconsin v. Mitchell ...

... which doesn't magically make it relevant to my point. It's still not. Your quote was about using evidence to prove motive, and I am talking about making motive into a crime. Two different things.


I think then burden would be on you to prove why this decision was inept as you're arguing that the Court has ruled incorrectly.

Incorrect. You've not cited any part of that decision that says what you are saying it says. Simply saying a case backs you up is not actually making an argument; you have to actually show what the case says that backs you up. You've not done so, which is why I've not bothered to respond to your continued mentions of the case: you've not actually presented an argument.

Posted by: pudge on October 25, 2009 04:44 PM
93. Bruce: No-- certainly not explicitly, and not even implicitly.

False. It is explicit. That is precisely what the law says.


You are telling them that what happened to society is more serious

False. Nothing happened to society.


the punishment for assaulting/killing a police officer is greater than for assaulting/killing another person

That is because a police officer actually is there to protect ME, and if you kill him, you therefore harm ME. Completely different and inapplicable.


I'm truly interested in why you think this is protected.

I am truly interested in why you think that what I *think* is not protected. There is no freedom more fundamental to humanity, other than the right to draw breath.


Bruce: Dan@80, you misunderstand the role of state supreme courts that have required gay marriage. They have not done so because they like the idea; they have done so because they are doing their job of interpreting their states' constitutions.

False. They are making up things that don't exist in their state constitutions in order to undemocratically reach their preferred outcome. California and Massachusetts both did this.

That said ... you're not helping your argument. The ONLY REASON California and Massachusetts said that gay marriage must be honored is because of the notion of equal protection, which -- applying the SAME LOGIC found in the legal reasoning justifying forcing gay marriage to be legal -- must also legalize incestuous marriage, and probably polygamy too.

demo kid was on the right track here, and you are not: if gay marriage is going to be legalized WITHOUT opening the door to incest and polygamy, it must be through an arbitrary democratic process (such as here in Washington) and not through the courts.


As for gay marriage and polygamy, my point was that limiting marriage to a man+woman excludes a lot of people from marriage just because of their nature, and without a compelling interest in excluding them. Neither of those problems is true of laws against polygamy.

Nope. The latter is arguably just as true for anti-polgyamy laws, and the latter is arguably true for both or neither.


Of course a "compelling interest" is subjective and you (and most courts) disagree with my interpretation.

There is at least as much "compelling interest" in restricting unions to two people as there is for restricting unions to heterosexual couples. If you can say it is OK to restrict the former, then how can you condemn anyone who believes it is OK to restrict the latter? What makes your morals superior to anyone else's? I thought you were AGAINST legislating morality and religion. I guess that's only when it is someone else's morality?

Yes, there is a different difference between two and several, and hetero and homo. But it's still an arbitrary difference, either way you slice it. If gay marriage is mandated via equal protection, then I can't see how polygamy can be excluded (and I've read the arguments ... they are the same type of arguments, like "not natural" and "it's not a healthy relationship" etc., that are used against gay marriage, which make the respondents into silly caricatures of gay marriage proponents).

That said, since it is so different, it's why I talk about incest instead of gay marraige: it's a better argument because not only does every argument that applies to gay marriage also apply to incestuous marriage, but most people find it really icky, which makes it a harder thing for gay marriage proponents to reconcile. I'm mean that way.


However, the principle of this test is widely accepted as a part of constitutional law

Simply saying "compelling interests" is question-begging. The question is specifically what are those interests, and are they compelling enough to deny rights to individuals. You've offered no compelling interests ... and certainly I've never heard of any compelling interests that are any better than the ones against gay marriage. Protecting people from themselves ("oh, those poor women") certainly isn't a compelling government interest ... and we could apply the same logic to rejecting gay marriage. And so on.

Posted by: pudge on October 25, 2009 05:05 PM
94. Shanghai and pudge

ref: Expected of someone from a liberal bent, though

Actually I have always voted R so far --- all Eyman initiatives, 2 times Bush, Riechert etc.

I always thought the R party was for individual stuff, fiscal discipline etc. Guess what? Obama's eelction has shown the party in a different light to me and today I have no home.

Also, I am a person of color and when a D realizes I lean right they always discrimnate agaisnt me --- and you realize wht they are all bout then. They treat me like Clarence Thomas or Condoloeezza Rice or some such pariah.

So I have no love for either side today. I don't feel/think like a D in my mind but I am also turned off by what I have heard from R in 2009 and so I am truly adrift.

As far as the other baiting things...here goes:
1. ref: Most of them are dead, in fact

Yes, but their kids have imbibed lots of stuff.

2. ref: Limbaugh is not a racist but Sharpton, Jackson are race baiters

Actually all 3 are racist and race baiters. Here (little green footballs) is a right wing website that I sort of like and find racism free...here they document partial stuff said by limbaugh

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34938

3. ref: I lied about shangahi

I did not. I speculated that maybe shanghai feels this way. An dyou know what shangahi acted repsonsibly and admirably and did the right thing. So hats off.

All the best with your site. It is decent.

Posted by: Flamethrower on October 25, 2009 05:58 PM
95. Flamer: I always thought the R party was for individual stuff, fiscal discipline etc.

Much moreso than the Dems, yes, but it has never been that way: the party has always been a mixture of moderates and liberals, and conservatives. Even in our Presidents, like Nixon much more to the left, and Reagan to the right.


Guess what? Obama's eelction has shown the party in a different light to me ...

What light would that be? If you're saying the party is racist, you're full of crap. If you're saying it's too far to the left ... well, yeah, the GOP usually is. It takes a lot of work to get them to move to the right so we can get someone like Reagan elected.


Yes, but their kids have imbibed lots of stuff.

So because former KKK people had kids, that means ... what the hell are you talking about?


Actually all 3 are racist and race baiters

False.


here they document partial stuff said by limbaugh

NONE of which is racist. At all. Mentioning someone's race is not racist, you know.


I did not. I speculated that maybe shanghai feels this way.

Nonsense. You falsely accused him of thinking anti-miscegenation laws were good. You lied about him.

Posted by: pudge on October 25, 2009 06:15 PM
96. Bruce,

you misunderstand the role of state supreme courts that have required gay marriage. They have not done so because they like the idea; they have done so because they are doing their job of interpreting their states' constitutions.

No, they made up rights that weren't in there to begin with. In this thread you and the other liberals have said we should accept society's rules regarding this, but apparently that falls apart when society rejects what you want - then the courts reign supreme.

If it's a right that already exists, then why do the States have such a hand-wringing time over it? Simply declare it as such (the legislatures could formally recognize it) and go forward on that basis alone.

And it hasn't been consistent, given CA with their SC upholding Prop 8.

As far as the references, the Slate article starts with a completely arbitrary basis - jealousy. I know plenty of jealous people with just one spouse, and I know a few who have working (for 15+ years) open marriages. Apparently stereotyping is what we will base the claim on?

Likewise the Inde Gay Forum post - it similarly uses specious grounds to dismiss polygamist marriages, in this case that it is "oppressive to women". Yet what of the Mosuo, a Chinese ethnic group that is polygamous AND matriarchal? How is that oppressive to women - they run the entire show and have multiple husbands? It's a 2,700 year old culture here in China, and shows no sign of falling away.

Look, I'm not arguing that polygamy is good or homosexual marriage is bad. I AM arguing that it is just as arbitrary and capricious to say "marriage is between a man and a woman only" as it is to say "only two people can get married; three or more cannot".

There are dozens - hundreds - of societies functioning today where polygamy is the norm, rather than the exception. Jealous husbands and wives are universal, in cultures that practice polygamy as well as those that restrict it.

And I'm sure the irony was NOT lost on you where both the Slate and IndeGayForum authors call on the Bible to provide evidence that "polygamy is bad"; that same book that also says homosexual relations are abhorrent! I guess it's pick-and-choose time?

So, no, you haven't shown your point at all. It would be a lot easier for you to just say "it's this way because I believe so" and acknowledge that you support restricting the rights of a minority than to keep up the charade. Your position - homosexual marriage good, polygamist marriage bad - is entirely inconsistent and as arbitrary as the position you oppose (marriage between one man and one woman only).

In other words, you're just as bigoted and hateful as those you scorn, for you too draw a dividing line with no basis other than "I think it's right".

That's the difference between most conservatives and liberals; The conservatives will admit their biases and prejudices and bigotry, and tell you so up front. The liberals will deny, deny, deny and accuse others of the very thing they are guilty of.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 25, 2009 09:02 PM
97. I hate "Hate Crimes". I am such a hater.

It's just a crime. We don't need "hate" designation. We need penalties and enforcement.

Posted by: True Blue on October 26, 2009 11:02 AM
98. I hate "Hate Crimes". I am such a hater.

It's just a crime. We don't need "hate" designation. We need penalties and enforcement.

Posted by: True Blue on October 26, 2009 11:02 AM
99. I hate "Hate Crimes". I am such a hater.

It's just a crime. We don't need "hate" designation. We need penalties and enforcement.

Posted by: True Blue on October 26, 2009 11:02 AM
100. Conservatives (republicans) are ill-educated, whiny, welfare dependent, perpetually-pregnant, entitlement-oriented, unpatriotic, middle-aged white men and basically should be relocated from this exceptional country (which is like a shining hill!)....so spake Rush Limbaugh


Ill-educated
 Not one of the top-10 college (some say it was top 25) towns voted for R
 No ivy league academic department has a majority which votes R
 We (Rs) have a monopoly on high school dropouts and community colleges and jesus people

Whiny
 Look mom everyone is a liberal and being mean to us ---the press, Hollywood etc.
 Why don’t u (Rs) make your own movies and have NYT/WAPO equivalent….too stupid?

Welfare-dependent
 Red states (OK, AL, MS etc.) have net tax inflows from blue states
 People who vote R are poor
 Clearly if you are educated you make more money and most educated people don’t vote R

Perpetually-pregnant
 Sarah Palin and her family

Entitlement-oriented
 So what if I couldn’t finish college or maybe my skills are outdated or I am just not that smart or maybe I don’t work that hard as those Chinese and Indians
 Hey but I am entitled to a job ---- I am middle-aged, white, male

Unpatriotic
 Look ma there is Cheney and Rumsfeld…both were peeing in their pants and hiding (under the table) during the Vietnam war
 But now they are chicken hawks like me (R)…look we helped kill 5000+ Americans by lying to congress in Iraq to impress Bush’s daddy

Exceptional
 Look ma what all America invented --- tech companies, movie companies etc.
 And aren’t all these things you (Rs) claim make America exceptional from blue state; Aren’t google, appleetc. all left?
 Look ma we in the reed states invented the rope and confederate flag!

Relocated
 No country will take us
 Ok maybe you should be on a reservation in a red state

And yes this is what Limbaugh says/implies about blacks all days and Rs don’t think it is racist. Just like Buckley was not a racist for wanting segregation and opposing civil rights, till he flip-flopped neither is Limbaugh or a typical Republican for that matter. A monkey just flew from my butt!

Posted by: Flamethrower on October 26, 2009 12:14 PM
101. Finally look at pudge and shangahi
 Both live in seattle, a liberal town b’coz red places are too stupid to create jobs
 Both are middle aged white males
 Both were not smart enough to get a job at microsoft/google (they are in tech)
 Both live off the largesse of liberals from tech companies


I am done with your site….

Posted by: Flamethower on October 26, 2009 12:16 PM
102. Flamer: And yes this is what Limbaugh says/implies about blacks all days

False. Most of what you wrote is false, and it's false that Rush says all those things about black people.


Finally look at pudge and shangahi

OK.


Both live in seattle, a liberal town bcoz red places are too stupid to create jobs

Actually, neither of us live in Seattle. I don't live in King County, even, and Shanghai Dan lives in China, I believe. And I am employed by a company in California (with the office I work out of in Michigan), so it's not about the jobs at all: I work from home. I could live in any state I wanted to, and keep the same job I've got now. Heck, I could live in a van down by the river. It doesn't matter to my job, as long as I can get broadband.


Both are middle aged white males

I am not middle-aged. Most definitions of middle-aged start at 40 or 45, and I am in my 30s.

Also, I am not white. I have a fairly ruddy complexion, and in the summers, I can get darker than many Hispanics. I've often been compared in appearance to various Middle Eastern terrorists.

Not sure why you think that matters, but OK.

Both were not smart enough to get a job at microsoft/google (they are in tech)

Shrug. I have had offers to apply to Google. I have lots of colleagues (former coworkers, friends, etc.) who work there. I wouldn't work at Microsoft unless they paid a ton of money. Probably not Google either, frankly, since they don't let people telecommute, generally, but they are a decent company. There's quite a few perks, but not enough to woo me.

Actually, my company just bought a company comprised entirely of people who left Microsoft to strike out on their own. Being at a big company isn't the pinnacle of one's career; usually, it's a stepping stone (one I've skipped).


Both live off the largesse of liberals from tech companies

No, I earn my money. You see, I provide services to them, and they pay me in return. It's a foreign concept to you, I know, but it works well for many of us.

Posted by: pudge on October 26, 2009 01:01 PM
103. Flamer,

You are the epitome of hate. You are a liberal through-and-through. I'm surprised Pudge hasn't banned you yet, and your inane ramblings making up lies about him and me.

Pudge wrote:

Heck, I could live in a van down by the river

You a motivational speaker on the side? :)

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 26, 2009 02:46 PM
104. Dan, I let most people establish themselves as liars before I take action. If he continues along those lines, his future posts will be removed.

And (*cinching up my slacks*) yep!

Posted by: pudge on October 26, 2009 02:54 PM
105. I have to say this is an insulting bill, an affront to American values, and clearly unconstitutional. It effectively gives preferential treatment to specific groups of people. So if a straight white guy like me gets beat up it's "sorry, you are not jewish, black, native american, female, gay, or any of the other categories so it's just a 'regular' crime. Now if you had been one of those, we could have thrown the book at your attacker." Utterly ridiculous. How this makes sense to people I don't know.

Before people label me as some staunch repub, I'm not. I'm a libertarian who actually voted for Obama (after McCain picked up that idiot Palin) and 100% for freedom of people to live their lives in any orientation they like. What is not cool is making laws specific to ANY group of people.

The above point is spot on. This makes motive a crime. Hopefully the supreme court strikes this down.

Posted by: Lee on October 28, 2009 02:05 PM
106. @Bill C: Unless you are African American in which case liberals give you free license to murder, rape, and beat up people. Read the news any weekend?

Unless you are African American in which case liberals give you free license to murder, rape, and beat up people. Read the news any weekend?

I see you agree, by your words, that ALL AA's are free to murder, rape and beat up people! AWESOME that pudge did not condemn you for your "observations".

Posted by: TruthInWords on October 28, 2009 05:15 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?