HR 1913 CONGRESSIONAL INSANITY UPDATE:
Hat tip to Atlas Shrugs, quoting U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a “hate crimes” supporter, as saying:
This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘Philias’ and fetishes and ‘ism’s’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule…”
Homosexual activists aren’t easily deterred. Unable to persuade even the people of California to change the definition of marriage to legitimize their lifestyle, they’re resorting to a backdoor approach to accomplish the same thing: pushing federal hate crime legislation while few are paying attention.
(T)he House Judiciary Committee has already approved Barney Frank’s bill, H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The full House is expected to vote on the bill April 29, and various liberal groups, from gay activists to liberal religious organizations, are engaged in a full-court press to get this bill passed.
The bill would make it a federal crime to willfully cause bodily injury to someone (or to attempt to do so with firearms or explosives) because of his or her actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
Not only is there little constitutional justification for the federal government to legislate in this area, but also the bill further impinges on state sovereignty by subjecting people to criminal liability for acts for which they’ve already been acquitted under state criminal systems.
As others have noted, the bill also violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by codifying the notion that certain groups of citizens, such as homosexuals, are entitled to greater legal protection than others, such as, say, older ladies.
(T)he main purpose of this bill is to demonize and criminalize thought, especially the politically incorrect belief that homosexual behavior is either abnormal or sinful. It is to make an emphatic societal statement that this belief constitutes “hate” and possibly to lay the groundwork for outlawing speech expressing this belief, including from the pulpit.
(As an example of where this could lead), New York City authorities ordered the removal of billboards – citing an anti-harassment ordinance – that displayed various biblical versions of Leviticus 18:22, such as the New International Version’s rendering, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” Staten Island Borough President Guy Molinari reportedly publicly condemned the language in the displayed verse as “mean-spirited” and “hate speech.”
Irrespective of your opinion on homosexual behavior, it is a distortion of the English language to say that it is hateful to believe it is somehow abnormal or even sinful. One can disapprove of behavior without hating those engaging in it; indeed, the Bible exhorts Christians to love, not hate. One can oppose hate crime legislation or same-sex marriage without being a homophobe….
If you want to witness a clinic in “hate,” watch the YouTube video of homosexual celebrity blogger Perez Hilton excoriating Miss California, Carrie Prejean, for courageously offering her opinion under loaded questioning that marriage should be between a man and a woman, a belief shared by a clear majority of people in her state. This man proudly called Prejean vile names and might have single-handedly caused her to lose the Miss USA title.
Now, that’s an example of direct harm inflicted on one because of her beliefs. It is often not opinionated heterosexuals doing the hating, harassing, thought-control intimidation and speech chilling these days, but militant homosexual activists.
Lovers of free speech and free exercise of religion should awaken to the relentless effort of radical homosexual activists to validate their lifestyle by demonizing, criminalizing and silencing those who disagree with them.
The following comments from Congressman Louie Gohmert, a former judge, came across my email box from Human Events today. Better than anything else I’ve read about H.R. 1913, this shows the fascist and anti-First Amendment nature of this ‘hate crimes’ bill.
As noted by Human Events, this shows “what happened when House Republicans tried to amend the bill so it did NOT OFFER PROTECTION TO PEDOPHILES. Take the time to read it… the sheer absurdity of what Gohmert describes will make your skin crawl.”
“‘When we tried to get the term sexual orientation narrowed down to where it didn’t include something like a pedophile… that was voted down on party lines… there are about 30 different types of sexual orientations, and they can include exhibitionism and voyeurism or things that are so offensive such as pedophilia or necrophilia. The problem is that the supporters of this bill did not want to exclude any of those and even voted down the amendment that would have excluded pedophilia.'”
“Gohmert pointed out the absurdity of the legislation as written which would warrant the prosecution of a woman under the federal hate crimes statues if she hits a flasher with her purse after he exposed himself to her. Exhibitionism is a protected sexual orientation under this bill.
“‘The one who did the flashing committed a local misdemeanor,’ Gohmert said. ‘The one who hit with the purse singled him out because he’s an exhibitionist, and therefore she has now committed a federal hate crime and is looking at felony time.'”