Friday, October 30, 2009
Pat Robertson Lies About Hate Crimes Act
Pat Robertson flat out lies to his audience on The 700 Club. Again. Via Crooks & Liars:
His basis for opposing the law, however, is completely detached from reality. For instance, Robertson argues:
Robertson: You know, there’s a law – what about a law that says it’s a federal crime to attack somebody because of his religious beliefs? Not a chance!
Robertson seems completely unaware that in fact religious bias is one of the categories of bias crime covered by hate-crime laws -- and it has been from the very start, since these laws were first enacted on the state level in the early 1980s!
Hint to Pat: Religion was covered as a bias category from the start because Jews have long been some of the most common victims of bias crimes. For instance, in the FBI's hate-crime statistics for 2007, some 1,400 of the nation's 7,600 or so reported bias crimes were of the "anti-religion" category; of those, some 118 were varieties of anti-Christian bias.
Indeed, he needs only read the text of the the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act to see that religion is one of the categories of bias it covers:
“(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—
It's not even surprising anymore, is it?
Labels: 700 Club, hate crimes act, liars, Matthew Shepard Act, Pat Robertson, religion
In Battle Over Gay Marriage, Timing May Be Key
Gay Marriage Lawsuit
To the Editor:
Re “In Battle Over Gay Marriage, Timing May Be Key,” by Adam Liptak (Sidebar column, Oct. 27):
The pivotal exchange in one of the lawsuits now challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage shows that the opponents of gay people’s freedom to marry still can’t give a real answer to the key question posed in yet another court by yet another judge: “What would be the harm of permitting gay men and lesbians to marry?”
The anti-gay forces’ lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, replied, “Your Honor, my answer is: I don’t know ... I don’t know.” Mr. Cooper eventually told the judge that the government should be able to exclude gay couples from marriage in order “to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions.”
But even Justice Antonin Scalia, no friend of equality for gay people, wrote in Lawrence v. Texas: “What justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution’? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.”
The reason smart lawyers like Mr. Cooper don’t give a better answer to why marriage discrimination should be allowed to continue is that there isn’t one.
Evan Wolfson
Executive Director
Freedom to Marry
New York, Oct. 27, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
U.S. list of hate crimes expands
U.S. list of hate crimes expands
OBAMA PRAISES GAY RIGHTS LAW
By Margaret Talev
mtalev@mcclatchydc.com
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed the first major piece of federal gay rights legislation, a milestone that activists compared to the passage of 1960s civil rights legislation empowering blacks.
The new law adds acts of violence committed against people because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender to the list of federal hate crimes.
Gay rights activists voiced hope that the Obama administration would advance more issues, including legislation to bar workplace discrimination, allow military service and recognize same-sex marriages.
Jump to the rest of the Bee article here
SAUL LOEB AFP
The sisters of a black man slain in Texas and the mother of a gay man killed in Wyoming appear with President Obama at the bill signing.
Fred Karger sent a message to the members of Californians Against Hate.
The attorney general now challenges the Yes on 1 group to open its records.
Portland Press Hearld
By TREVOR MAXWELL, Staff Writer
October 29, 2009
PORTLAND — The state can compel the National Organization for Marriage to disclose the identities of donors who contributed to its effort to repeal Maine's gay-marriage law, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
Judge D. Brock Hornby ruled that Maine's reporting requirements for ballot question campaigns do not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as claimed in a lawsuit filed last week by the National Organization for Marriage.
Bolstered by the ruling, Maine's attorney general challenged the advocacy group Wednesday night to make its records public before next week's vote on Question 1.
"We are not going to give them legal advice. We trust that their legal counsel will advise them to comply fully," said Attorney General Janet Mills. "The court has ruled that it is in the public interest to do so, and the law couldn't be clearer.
"I would hope that they would file before the election," Mills said. "Why not? What is there to hide?"
The National Organization for Marriage, a Virginia-based nonprofit corporation, has contributed about $1.6 million to the political action committee Stand for Marriage Maine, which is leading the fight to repeal the same-sex marriage law. That's more than half the total raised for the campaign so far.
On Oct. 1, the state Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices voted 3-2 to investigate the fundraising practices of the National Organization for Marriage. One concern is whether the group has violated state law by not registering as a "ballot question committee" and by withholding its contribution records.
State law requires any individual or group that raises or spends more than $5,000 to influence a ballot question vote to disclose contributors who gave more than $100 for that purpose.
Last week, the National Organization for Marriage sued the ethics commission and several state officials in federal court, arguing that Maine's ballot question law is unconstitutional and that individual donors have the right to anonymity in referendum campaigns.
The group asked for a temporary restraining order that would have let it operate outside of the state's reporting requirements while the lawsuit was pending.
Judge Hornby heard arguments on Monday from Josiah Neeley on behalf of the National Organization for Marriage; Assistant Attorneys General Phyllis Gardiner and Thomas Knowlton represented the state.
While a final resolution of the lawsuit is at least several months away, Hornby's order on Wednesday denied the request for a temporary restraining order, and said the National Organization for Marriage is not likely to succeed on any of its claims.
Hornby said Maine's ballot question law approaches, but does not cross, the line between essential transparency and protection of an individual's free speech.
"Maine is entitled to conclude that its electorate needs to know, on an ongoing basis, the source of financial support for those who are taking positions on a ballot initiative," Hornby wrote in his 32-page ruling.
"I conclude that the state's interest to provide this information to voters is 'not only compelling but critical' to the proper functioning of the system of direct democracy," Hornby wrote, quoting from a similar case in California in which the National Organization for Marriage is a plaintiff.
It is unclear what the organization's response will be to Hornby's ruling.
Two lawyers representing the group in the Maine case did not return calls seeking comment on Wednesday.
Brian Brown, the organization's executive director, also could not be reached.
Maine's ethics commission is scheduled to take up the issue on Nov. 19. Members are expected to discuss the scope of the investigation.
Regardless of the investigation, Mills said, Hornby's ruling should send a clear message to the National Organization for Marriage and other national advocacy groups that have an interest in Maine ballot questions.
"This is an excellent day for the Maine citizenry," Mills said. "This decision stands for the proposition that the people have a right to know who is behind either side of any issue that is on the ballot."
Staff Writer Trevor Maxwell can be contacted at 791-6451 or at:
tmaxwell@pressherald.com
--------------------
To reply to this message, follow the link below:
http://www.facebook.com/n/?inbox%2Freadmessage.php&t=1186831323866&mid=153588fG2c4faed8G2f2793bG0
another quote of the day
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
todays best blog comment
Tony Perkins: Why Spend Money On LGBT Seniors? Gays Don't Live That Long Anyway
A few days ago it was announced that the Department of Health & Human Services has authorized a $250K grant to establish the National Resource Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Elders. That's a meager amount by federal standards, to be sure, but an important and unprecedented recognition of LGBT seniors.But staying true to evil form, the vile Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says it's a waste of money because homos don't live long enough to become senior citizens.
Apparently, our nation is never too broke to advance a radical social agenda. The agency released a statement on the Center last week, saying its purpose would be to "help community-based organizations understand the unique needs... of older LGBT individuals and assist them in implementing programs for local service providers..." In the release, HHS regurgitates the Left's propaganda to justify the waste, claiming that "1.5 to 4 million" LGBTs are age 60 and older. In reality, HHS has no idea how many LGBT seniors exist. No one does! The movement is only a few decades old, and people who are 80- or 90-years-old didn't grow up in a culture where it was acceptable to identify with this lifestyle. Of course, the real tragedy here--apart from the unnecessary spending--is that, given the risks of homosexual conduct, these people are less likely to live long enough to become senior citizens! Yet once again, the Obama administration is rushing to reward a lifestyle that poses one of the greatest public health risks in America. If this is how HHS prioritizes, imagine what it could do with a trillion dollar health care overhaul!Repulsive.
Labels: bigotry, Family Reseach Council, feds, gay seniors, liars, Tony Perkins
courtesy of JMGYay!
| ||
Quote of the Day
"If Dick Cheney can support marriage, so can every Senator. So can every Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative. Equality should know no bounds, and we must not rest until we have marriage in all fifty of these United States."
- Senator Charles E. Schumer
Tell Congress to pass The Uniting American Families Act!
Started by: Xavier Von Otwell
The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA, H.R. 1024, S. 424) is a U.S. bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships.
Every year, thousands of same-sex couples are separated or live in constant fear of being stopped by officials who demand to see documentation and threaten detention. In some cases, same-sex partners face prosecution by the Immigration and Naturalization Service - including hefty fines and deportations. U.S. citizens are sometimes left with no other choice but to immigrate with their partners to a country with more fair-minded immigration laws.
The UAFA was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on May 8, 2007 by New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). There are currently 118 cosponsors of this bill in the United States House of Representatives.
The UAFA was introduced in the United States Senate on May 8, 2007 by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). There are currently 18 Cosponsors of this bill in the United States Senate.
By writing your lawmakers today, you bring us one step closer to equal immigration rights, so citizens can sponsor their same-sex partners for immigration!
Help Congress get the message loud and clear: America supports passage of the Uniting American Families Act!
No more separation. No more deportation. No more fear!
http://www.immigrationequality.org/
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/uafa_0508
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moQu4tuVdyo
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Quote of the Day
""If marriage were outlawed, only outlaws would have in-laws.""
and
""Marriage is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important" 3.1415..."
The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bil
Dear Friend:
The Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill will at long last become law. Last week, the Senate agreed to final passage of legislation that included the Matthew Shepard hate crime provision, and President Obama is expected to sign it into law. This law will strengthen the ability of federal, state and local law enforcement to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.
Hate crimes are particularly offensive because they are propelled by bias, ignorance and bigotry. These crimes do not just inflict harm on one victim, but they also instill fear in entire communities. And no person – simply because of who they are – should ever have to live in fear.
Earlier this year, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. It adds gender, sexual orientation, disability and gender identity to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes laws. The measure also provides additional federal support to state and local authorities investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.
It has been more than 10 years since the senseless and brutal death of Matthew Shepard, and I look forward to watching President Obama sign this much-needed legislation into law.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator