Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Obama Urges Action On Hate Crimes Bill

Jim Burroway

April 28th, 2009

The White House has released this statement:

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON H.R. 1913, THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF 2009
This week, the House of Representatives is expected to consider H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.  I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance – legislation that will enhance civil rights protections, while also protecting our freedom of speech and association.  I also urge the Senate to work with my Administration to finalize this bill and to take swift action.

The House is expected to debate and vote on the bill Wednesday. The Human Rights Campaign urges everyone to call their representative and ask them to vote for the bill’s passage.

Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduced the hate crimes legislation in the Senate. Co-sponsors include  Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Arlen Specter (R D-PA).

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Elliot
April 28th, 2009 | LINK

I knew there was a reason I supported him. :)

staci
April 29th, 2009 | LINK

He needs to get rid of DOMA!!!

Greg
April 29th, 2009 | LINK

Obama is not perfect; however, does anyone think that McCain/Palin would have supported this? Actually they would have issued support for DENYING civil rights protections for LGBT citizens. So pleased the EVIL GOP has been neutered…

John
April 29th, 2009 | LINK

Swell. Now what about DADT?

Mark C
April 29th, 2009 | LINK

Obviously, there’s a lot of ground to cover, but I’m pleased as punch Obama’s put his weight behind this bill. Let’s hope fair-minded politicians vote in favor this time – and are in the majority!

Jason D
April 29th, 2009 | LINK

careful, Mr. President, you’re coming dangerously close to fulfilling a campaign promise.

I love that in historic moment, when a president actually supports this type of legislation, first thing on some people’s minds is : What about x,y,z?

No recognition of the significance of his support, just “what about x, y, z?”

XYZ are also important. Are you people going to see that Wolverine movie and yell at the screen “What about The Boy From Oz?!”

Priya Lynn
April 29th, 2009 | LINK

I’m with you Jason D. One thing at a time. The hate crimes bill isn’t passed yet, get that done and then worry about x, y, and z.

Timothy Kincaid
April 29th, 2009 | LINK

Hmmm… Specter’s sponsorship could have made it unilaterally bipartisan.

just a thought.

Mark F.
April 29th, 2009 | LINK

Well, I have to dissent on this one. I believe the Federal government lacks the Constitutional authority to pass this legislation (it’s properly a state matter under our Federalist system) and I object to treating a violent crime as either more or less serious because it was motivated by anti-gay animus.

Also, the notion that continually upping the prison sentences for violent crimes prevents more of them is dubious. I would prefer our criminal justice system be more oriented to restitution than punishment, in any case.

Jason D
April 30th, 2009 | LINK

Mark, I don’t think you quite understand what a hate crime is. It’s a double whammy. It’s two crimes. The first crime is a vehicle to committing the second crime — which is always intimidation/harassment/assault on the person for their race/gender/relgion/sexual orientation.

Grafitti is not a hate crime, but grafitti on a synagogue that says “Die Jews Die!” is a hate crime.

Deric
May 8th, 2009 | LINK

Why do “Hate Crimes” not include Blacks victimizing whites, or homosexuals vandalizing and attacking Christians and churches?

Why are these liberal ideals so very one-sided and hypocritical?

The remainder of this comment has been deleted due to multiple violations to our comments policy — JB

Deric
May 8th, 2009 | LINK

This comment has been deleted due to violations to our comments policy. — JB

Jim Burroway
May 8th, 2009 | LINK

Deric,

You are raising a false argument. Hate crimes do include Blacks victimizing Whites, etc. If you don’t believe me, then just look at the FBI’s official statistics on hate crimes. There you will see 871 anti-White hate crimes reported in 2007. You will also see 59 anti-Protestant hate crimes, 65 anti-Catholic gate crimes, and even 27 anti-heterosexual hate crimes — even though the last category isn’t protected by current law.

But the proposed law would change that. Because when the law says “regardless of race,” it means regardless of race. And when it is changed to read “regardless of sexual orientation” it will mean that too. It will protect everyone’s sexual orientation, including yours.

Before you spout false arguments, you really should become more informed. And as for the rest of your comments that I deleted, it’s clear you came here not to debate, but to spew file epithets. That isn’t allowed here. Please acquaint yourself with our Comments Policy before commenting further.

Timothy Kincaid
May 8th, 2009 | LINK

Why do “Hate Crimes” not include Blacks victimizing whites, or homosexuals vandalizing and attacking Christians and churches?

They do.

Why is pedophilia being downplayed and called “Adult-Child sex” and condoned by the left as “natural” and “necessary?”

It isn’t. Ever.

Deric, you are all worked up but you have all your facts backwards. You remind me of the old Gilda Radner skits on Saturday Night Live. Her charater, Emily Lattella, would get confused and rant and rave over the wrong facts.

Here’s a classic:

Chevy Chase: Here with an editorial reply is Miss Emily Lattella.

Emily Lattella: What’s all this fuss I keep hearing about violins on television? Why don’t parents want their kids to see violins on television? I thought the Leonardo Bernstein concerts were just lovely, now, if they only show violins on television after ten o’clock at night, the little babies will all be asleep and they won’t learn any music appreciation. They’ll learn to play guitars, and bongo drums and go to Africa and join these rock’n roll outfits and they won’t drink milk! I think there should be more violins on television and less game shows, it’s terrible the way…

Chevy Chase: Um, Littella, that’s Violence on television. Not violins.

Emily Lattella: Oh, well that’s diffrent. Never mind!

Deric
May 8th, 2009 | LINK

“Pedophilia is NEVER condoned by the left?”

“Adult-Child sex” is promoted by the left…

If the following is considered “inflamitory” or non-facutal, they are not my words but the words of Liberal Professors and writers:

Robert Stacy McCain, of the Washington Times, in her expose “Endorsment of Adult-Child Sex on the Rise” wrote:
A 1998 “meta-analytic” study [referring to the Rind Report] … argued, among other things, that “value-neutral” language such as “adult-child sex” should be used to descript child molestation if it was a “willing encounter”

San Francisco State University professor Gilbert Herdt, coauthor of the 1996 book “Children of Horizons: How Gay and Lesbian Teens Are Leading a New Way Out of the Closed,” said in an interview with the Dutch pedophilia journal “Paidika” that “the category ‘child’ is a rhetorical device for inflaming what is really an irrational set of attitudes” against sex with children

In 1999, in the Journal of Homosexuality, Mirkin wrote that not all sex with children should be put into the same category. “According to the dominant formulas,” he writes “the youths are always seduced. They are never considered partners or initiators or willing participants even if they are hustlers.” “Though Americans consider intergenerational sex to be evil, it has been permissible or obligatory in many cultures and periods of history.”

Judith Levine’s book “Harmful to Minors” she states that “Sex is a wonderful, crucial part of growing up, and children and teens can enjoy the pleasures of the body.” – in her book she uses the term “Adult-Child sex” in place of pedophilia or child molestation or child rape. In an interview with “Newhouse News Service” regarding her book, she said “a sexual relationship between a priest and a youth ‘conceivably’ could be positive.” (see Furor Over Youth Sex Book,’ Associated Press [April 4, 2002] or http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/-4/print/main505422.shtml) http://www.upress.umn.edu/HarmfultoMinorsQandA.html

Is this not considered at least the “down toning” of child molestation?

Deric
May 8th, 2009 | LINK

Jim stated,

… But the proposed law would change that. Because when the law says “regardless of race,” it means regardless of race. And when it is changed to read “regardless of sexual orientation” it will mean that too. It will protect everyone’s sexual orientation, including yours.

What if a person is a sadomasochist, pedophile, or necrophiliac? Will the new “Hate-Crime” law protect them as well as any other “sexual orientation?”

Priya Lynn
May 8th, 2009 | LINK

Deric, Sexual orientation refers to people’s nature as gay, bisexual, or heterosexual.

Jim Burroway
May 8th, 2009 | LINK

Deric,

It’s time you stopped and took a deep breath — and stop raising strawman arguments. Nobody in the Obama administration (which is what this post is about) wants to “tone down” child molestation. Nobody in this forum or on this blog wants to “tone down” child molestation. In fact, nobody in the gay community with any real standing that I know of would even begin to suggest what you claim.

In fact, if you bothered to educate yourself a little, you would discover that homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia. If you don’t believe me, then maybe you should see what the experts have to say on the subject. Even some of our most ardent opponents will reluctantly concede the point — even if they, too, don’t quite have all the facts right.

According to the APA — and according to the law itself — sexual orientation is limited to the spectrum of heterosexuality-bisexuality-homosexuality. It has nothing to do with “sadomasochist, pedophile, or necrophiliac.” They are sexual paraphilias, not sexual orientations. Some of these paraphilias are also against the law, and nobody here advocates changing the law to “decriminalize” pedophilia, for example.

So in short, this bill and these policies have nothing whatsoever to do with pedophilia, or any of the other sexual paraphilias listed in the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

We welcome a diversity of opinion here, but we do expect opinions expressed in this forum to be based on some basis of fact. But what you are doing is spreading the same sort of blood-libel that has been spread against other stigmatized groups in the past. We do not allow that behavior, as documented in our comments policy. Since this is now the second time that I have called your attention to our comments policy — and it is clear you haven’t familiarized yourself with it — I am placing you on moderation until such time it is apparent you are willing to conduct yourself accordingly.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.