Bush mentioned this last night on the debate.
What does he mean?
How does he think gays want “special rights”?
To me, special rights means getting a half hour longer for lunch, or getting a free day off of work with pay.
Gays don’t want “special” rights!
hmmmmm
I don’t know what was in the bill they were referring to. I believe GWB alleged the same. ‘Special Rights’ is a term built from protected class status that many gay-right bills seem to pursue. Special rights would mean, if I kill a homosexual vs. killing a heterosexual, the punishment would be worse for killing the homosexual if done because I hate homosexuals than for killing a heterosexual woman because I hate women. The opposition feels that there should be no difference in my punishment for either of the above offenses.
Not to say that motive doesn’t matter in the criminal system, but the line of reasoning is that a killer should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Motive effects the charge under which a violator is prosecuted and also effects the maximum sentence. The law, pursuant to the beliefs of those in opposition of special rights, should be stringent enough to punish those who violate it no matter who the offense is against.
Wrong again, JAG. There is already a federal hate crimes law that mandates maximum sentencing for crimes against gender, race, and ethnicity. If you do kill a heterosexual woman because you hate women, your crime will indeed be prosecuted as a hate crime. The gay rights movement simply wants to add sexual orientation to the existing litany of hate crimes.
A touch naive? If this were really the case, then we would have no need for hate crimes laws. But there are regions in this country where intolerance and hatred of members of certain groups is more tolerated than others, so prosecution to the full extent of the law is virtually impossible short of federal intervention.
MR
A little off, JustAnotherGuy. In the context of the debate last night, Bush talked about “special rights” in terms of discrimination, not hate crimes. (as regards Bush take on hate crimes, could he have mentioned the death penalty more?!)
“Special rights” is how many on the conversative side of American politics refer to anti-discrimination protection for homosexuals. While the term is misleading, as discussed below, it is at least consistent with mainstream conservative beliefs, so I don’t think it is a code word for homophobia.
“Special rights”, as used by conservatives, is what we lawyers call protected classes. There are several, with varying degrees of protection - racial/ethnic minorities, women (somewhat less protection, though not much difference these days), illegitimate children, etc. Government action which has a disproportionate impact on members of a protected class undergo “strict scrutiny” by the courts - they must be based on a compelling state interest, and must be narrowly tailored to accomplish only that compelling state interest, and not have unnecessary collateral impact on the protected class in question.
This protected class status is really what conservatives are talking about when they say special rights. It is misleading, because the federal courts, not Congress, has created these protected classes in their 14th Amendment jurisprudence. At the moment, homosexuals, while not a protected class, enjoy “enhanced rational relation” protection - a status a bit too nebulous at this time to effectively define here.
The second part, prohibition of discrimination by private parties, is legislated by Congress. At the moment, such antidiscrimination laws prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, and religion (am I missing any?). Currently, discrimination based upon sexual orientation is not prohibited under federal law. IMO, to call including sexual orientation on this list would not grant homosexuals “special rights”. The current protections protect the majority as well as the minority - for example, a black-owned business cannot refuse to hire someone because they are white.
Sua
The legislation GWB referred to was a rider to the Department of Defense Authorization Bill that would have offerd Federal anti-discrimination protection to LBGT people. The Senate Armed Services committee stripped the rider from the DoD Authorization bill on October 5 by an 11-9 vote.
In 1994, Congress passed the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act, which was included as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. The Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act increased sentencing by about one-third when a crime is proven to have been a hate crime. This applies only to hate crimes committed on the basis of race, religion, and ethnicity, but not sexual orientation. It is still open season on gay people in the US.
What JAG may not know is that thugs who commit crimes against LBGT folk have traditionally been acquitted or given a light sentence, usually time served and probation. Check out this list of crimes committed against gay people.
The theme is not “special rights,” it’s equal protection.
What really annoyed me, vanilla, is how Bush contradicted himself. I’m getting these quotes from the transcript of the debate printed in today’s New York Times.
First Bush said, “I’m not for gay marriage. I think marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman…”
Then a few minutes later, Jim Lehrer asked, “Do you believe, in general terms, that gays and lesbians should have the same rights as other Americans?”
Bush: “Yes. I don’t think they ought to have special rights. But I think they ought to have the same rights.”
Well, which is it? The right to marry is not a “special” right and should be extended to all.
**vix ** it’s not necessarily a contradiction to say “I believe that marriages should be between a man and a woman” and “I’m in favor of gays having the same rights as everyone else”
as a female, I have the “right” to marry a man. If I were lesbian, I would STILL have the “right” to marry a man.
by the way, this in NO way should be misconstrued into a defense of Bush, his policies, his positions, his words, his haircut, his sniveling, his candidacy, his…
SuaSponte said:
No, but they could discriminate against someone with three heads (although that might fall under the ADA). Or, they could discriminate based on behavior, as many of them are beginning to do: “No smokers need apply”; “We are a drug-free workplace.” By “special rights,” conservatives basically mean giving homosexuals the right to sue if they are discriminated against based on that trait, as you said.
So, by “no special rights,” they are trying to place homosexuals on the same level as “everyone else” while not allowing them protection from discrimination because of one major identifying and divisive characteristic. I wasn’t around during the civil rights era, so I don’t know if the “special rights” banner was used to justify discrimination against blacks.
It just seems to me that most federal legislation should be passed with the intention of solving a practical problem, as opposed to laying down lofty principles. If there is a pattern of discrimination against a particular class, protect that class explicitly, if need be. Saying that there should be no “special rights” for a particular class seems to be denying that there is a problem. And there is.
[hijack]
Does anyone else feel that there is something wrong with defining a “hate crime” as such? To what end does this legislation serve?
Scenario 1: I am white. My mugger is white. He attacks, beats (perhaps shoots) and steals my money.
Scenario 2: I am black. The rest is the same.
Does the white guy have less of a reason to feel victimized because of racial similarity?
Aren’t all crimes, regardless of motivation, still crimes? Who cares if I punched a guy because he tried to kiss my wife, or tried to kiss me? I still punched him.
frustrated
[/hijack]
I was glad to see Bush come out as anti-gay last night, because we need to know what the Republicans really think (Cheney, maybe because of his gay daughter, came off as more gay-friendly than 99% of Republicans).
I was disgusted to see both Bush AND Gore so smug about having signed the anti-gay so-called “Defense of Marriage” act.
And by the way, that anti-discrimination law Gore was speaking of covers gay men and women, but NOT the transgendered, who are the “red-headed stepchild” of the gay rights movement.
wring:
sigh
I guess he (and many others) must see it that way. It just makes me sad.
yea, ** vix ** it’s the smug answer all right.
sigh.
** wrath **, of ** course ** they’re still crimes, but your analogy is flawed.
try this:
YOu say something rude to your brother in law. He takes offense, then takes up a steel pipe and hits you with it several times.
vs.
You are walking down the street. Some stranger sees you, decides that although he doesn’t know you, he doesn’t like you because he thinks that you have an IQ of 140. So, he takes up a steel pipe and hits you with it several times.
The issue is that in a “hate crime” some one is targeted for something out of their control, the motive is sensesless as well as repugnant. When the mugger hits you to steal from you, we abhor it, but we ** understand ** the motivation.
Does that help?
“Wrong again, JAG.”
Differing beliefs and opinions are the reason we have two Political Parties and a forum called ‘GREAT DEBATES’. You should lean towards discussing rather than arguing right or wrong. It is much easier for me to look at and evaluate your point of view when you don’t start out with an attack, and thus I view every following comment on the defensive.
Very similar to the differing tactics taken between the candidates in Debate 2 vs. Debate 1.
“There is already a federal hate crimes law that mandates
maximum sentencing for crimes against gender, race, and ethnicity. If you do kill a heterosexual woman because you hate women, your crime will indeed be prosecuted as a hate crime. The gay rights movement simply wants to add sexual orientation to the existing litany of hate crimes.”
Okay then, because I kill a white heterosexual male who works in a laundro-mat because I hate white heterosexual males who work in laundro-mats, that is somehow less important a murder than if I killed a homosexual because I hate homosexuals.
quote:
The law, pursuant to the beliefs of those in
opposition of special rights, should be stringent enough to punish those who violate it no matter who the offense is against.
“A touch naive? If this were really the case, then we would have no need for hate crimes laws.”
I believe that was GW’s point, we don’t need any hate crimes law if the law is followed. His point throughout the debate is that the federal government should use it’s influence over local governments, but not take over the judicial arm of the entire country.
EVE “I was glad to see Bush come out as anti-gay last night, because we need to know what the Republicans really think (Cheney, maybe because of his gay daughter, came off as more gay-friendly than 99% of Republicans).”
Now if Eve were to kill me because I am registered as a Republican and must therefore be anti-gay, she should only be punished by the local State law. If Bush killed her because she is gay and he hates gays, then Bush should under Hate Crimes Law, be punished more than Eve.
If we wish to discuss right and wrong… I have trouble seeing that as ‘right’.
Wrath, there’s a bit of a distinction you’re missing. No “protected class” has any application unless it’s part of the motive for a crime. In your scenario, under both current and proposed law, skin color makes no difference. But if you were black and your assailant was a white supremacist of the most radical type who was convinced that he had the right to rob you because you were black, then the hate crimes law would pop in.
I trust you can see the difference in an assault against a person who happens to be gay by someone who has no clue as to the fact vs. a case of “gay-bashing” – and I suspect that you would agree with most of us that there is a clear difference between a victim happening to fall into a protected class and a victim who was a victim because he was in the protected class. Some jurisprudence needs to be done on determining motive under Hate Crimes Acts (Federal and something like 30 states) and more would be needed if additional classes are added to the list, but that’s secondary to the thesis.
And to the best of my knowledge, there is no gay advocate calling for the rights of gays (inclusive of Lesbians in this paragraph) to marry people of the same sex – they’re calling for the state laws to change so that anybody can marry anyone they wish regardless of sex. The fact that only gays would be likely to take advantage of this right to marry someone of the same sex is not a legal question – just as David B. has exactly the same rights as a Jehovah’s Witness to do evangelism, though he’s unlikely to take advantage of those rights.
{SIGH}
That pretty much sums it up for me.
Esprix
JAG, Wrath Gore gave a good answer to the “hate crime” special status last night. I don’t have a copy of the transcript (link anyone?) so I’m going to try a paraphrase and demonstrate it.
When Byrd was killed in Texas, blacks throughout the country were horified, and understandably so. Why? A crime of that nature was not directed at a lone individual, but at a group of people. Remember lynchings? It’s the same thing, leaving a black man hanging from a tree was a message to other blacks. It’s terrorism.
A good example of this was this mornings terrorist attack against the Navy destroyer. It wasn’t an action aimed merely at that particular ship, but against America. A hate crime is similar, but to a smaller degree.
Thanks guys, but…
At what point does the NEED to know WHY the crime was committed come in?
The crime is still a transgression of an existing law. It seems like a white supremist is entitled to hate (blacks, gays, Japanese, whatever) not matter how “wrong” it is. If the supremist then hits a guy over the head with a pipe, THEN a crime is committed. Does it REALLY matter that he hated the guy? The crime is committed whether he hated him or wanted his money. It’s still a trangression of an existing law.
OR… does defining the crime ADDITIONALLY as a hate crime simply make the victim feel better?
still not clear
“There is already a federal hate crimes law that mandates maximum sentencing for crimes against gender, race,
and ethnicity. If you do kill a heterosexual woman because you hate women, your crime will indeed be prosecuted as a hate crime. The gay rights movement simply wants to add sexual orientation to the existing litany of hate crimes.”
Sudden lightbulbs…
Why wasn’t this done in the Byrd case?
Sticky, sticky. Two of the Byrd killers indeed received the death penalty. Bush had lied/was wrong/made a mistake when he claimed that all three were. One was given a life sentence. In the state that executes more prisoners than any other.
When Byrd’s family tried to persuade Bush to add sexual orientation to the state hate crimes bill, he let it die in committee. Such is his commitment to hate crimes legislation.
MR