In an article on World Net Daily as of the 21st, Kennedy was attempting to attach an ammendment that would make speaking out against homosexuality a crime to The Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 and before that the Child Safety Act .
After a failed attempt at passing "hate crimes" legislation, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., is trying to attach an amendment favored by homosexual-rights activists to another bill, an activist group warns.Tom Perkins as quoted in the article states:Kennedy sought to pass the controversial legislation – adding "sexual orientation" to the hate-crimes law – through the "Child Safety Act," but this time the vehicle is "The Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005," which deals with federal criminal procedures, says Concerned Women of America.
"It is shocking that a bill designed to protect children from sexual predators is now being used to protect the sexual preference of homosexuals."More recently he has attempted to attach it to the Sex Offender Bill and some are concerned that this may prevent this bill from passing.
A fight over federal hate crimes legislation could torpedo Sen. Orrin Hatch's push to strengthen the nation's sex-offender registries and clamp down on sex crimes.Basically, if this was passed many of the comments that have been made in JA's post Letter to Dad and my subsequent post about my Paper Outline would be considered hate crimes if they had been made in a public setting. This would be the case even as something that was overheard in a conversation, and could result in serious jail time for the commentator.
The Senate Judiciary Committee gave quick, unanimous approval to Hatch's bill Thursday, clearing its way for consideration by the full Senate.
But Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said he plans to try to attach language to a bill that would require tougher sentences, provide federal assistance and offer grants to prosecute hate crimes - those motivated by hatred for a race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
So much for the right to religious freedom and the freedom of speech.
Posts
6 comments:
I'm sad to say that we are way ahead of you. Here in Canada that has already been added to the hate crimes legislation. Add to that, homosexual marriage is legal here. Stating my belief could wind me up in jail, couldn't it?
We think alot of our children here too. A pedofile can write detailed accounts of child sex and the court rules that because he wrote it, it has a level of artistic merit. Also our age of sexual consent here is 14!!
Canada, what a wonderful place to live!
Yeah, i had heard about that happening. That was a couple of years ago wasn't it? I had also read that a number of pastors had been arrested for stating that the Bible condemns homosexuality.
Lawsuits have resulted for sure. If you're curiosu about where things are in Canada, and where they are liekly heading for the States, go to
http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/social/issue_viewer.asp?Issue_Summary_ID=24
Well George Orwell was right..it's the Thought Police at it again. Assuming 3% of the population (gays) think there is some advantage in getting married, why stop them. Of course they will be subjected the marriage penalty on their taxes, a 55% divorce rate and more fun for attorneys with pre-nups, post nups, custody battles, and settlements. The question is: does gay marriage help or hurt anyone or anything?
Actually, if you'd bother to research this more than just reading it in some fundie online rag, you'd find that it's not anti-gay speach that's up for being criminalized, it's hate speach criminalization that's under discussion. Your opinions (as expressed here and on JA's blog) don't advocate violence against gays (as far as I can tell), so they wouldn't be constrained. Hate speach is speach that deliberately incites hatred or violence against a group based on race, ethnicity, gender and (if the proposed legislation passes) sexual orientation. Your comments would remain perfectly legal.
I don't actually think hate speach should necessarily be outlawed. I would rather society punish the deed than the word or thought, and keeping you from saying what you think doesn't change what you think.
Your opinions (as expressed here and on JA's blog) don't advocate violence against gays (as far as I can tell), so they wouldn't be constrained.
According to your opinion. If however a gay person were to read the same thing and decide that they were offended by it and that it was anti-homosexual, they could press charges saying that they felt descriminated against. Thus the offense is in the eye of the beholder.
Post a Comment