House adds sexual orientation to 'hate crimes'

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JGrubbs, Sep 14, 2005.

  1. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    In what is being characterized as an unexpected move, the U.S. House of Representatives today approved an amendment to a child-safety bill that adds "sexual orientation" to the federal "hate crimes" statute.

    The amendment to the Children's Safety Act – which, among other things, creates a national website for child sex offenders and stipulates that sex felons face up to 20 years in prison for failing to comply with registration requirements – was offered by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and passed 223-199. Thirty Republicans, 192 Democrats and one Independent voted to add the "sexual orientation" language, while 194 Republicans and five Democrats voted no.

    According an Associated Press report, current "hate crimes" law includes stiffer penalties for federal offenses when the attacker is motivated by the actual or perceived race, religion or ethnic background. The Conyers provision adds to that list sexual orientation, gender and disability.

    The House has been the chief obstacle in numerous previous attempts to expand federal "hate crimes" law, and Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest homosexual-rights group, told AP today's was an "incredibly historic vote" that could give momentum to similar action in the Senate.

    Robert Knight of Concerned Women for America was stunned the vote was taken with virtually no notice.

    "We had no notice that this was happening," Knight said in an e-mail announcing the action. "The only positive thing I can say is that this was a recorded vote."

    The bill itself was approved by a 371-52 vote in the House.

    A roll call of the Conyers amendment vote can be viewed on the House of Representatives website.

    Source: WorldNetDaily
     
  2. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,427
    Likes Received:
    72
    I object to the notion of "hate crimes," but part of me thinks that this might not be a horrible idea. I'm all for punishing criminals, and if this keeps criminals in prison, then there is at least some benefit.

    I just hope it doesn't cause anything other than that.
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    What does the amendment have to do with child safety? What exactly does the amendment state?
     
  4. SeekingTruth

    SeekingTruth
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    1
    It obviously has nothing to do with child safety. Just an other example of liberals and wimpy Republicans catering to the homosexual lobby.
     
  5. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    Terrible legislation, but in retrospect not unexpected. We are in a spiritual battle, and the enemy is very savvy and knowledgeable in the arena of sin.
     
  6. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is yet another expansion of the federal government into the area of criminal law the volume of which is already astronomical. Their original criminal jurisdiction was essentially over crimes that effected federal property or federal officials or were perpetrated against the nation. Crimes against persons were the exclusive domain of state law. There was never a reason for the “hate crimes” laws other than to expand federal control by “showing” that they – the Congress – were doing something about the “problem”. They just can’t seem to let the states handle their own affairs. The danger of this is that, if continued, all state law will be superseded by federal law. Once the laws are superseded then so will the agencies and agents that enforce them. We can look forward to a national police force.
     
  7. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Another victory for the radical left unless it is stopped in the Senate.
     
  8. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's pray that it is!
     
  9. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    The liberals?
    What?

    The GOP not only controls the House, but dominates it. That cannot be disputed. Notice the vote for the entire bill is considerably higher. Tom DeLay voted "yea," as did Henry Hyde. Would you consider either of them to be a "wimpy Republican?" Did you notice that Waters and Waxman voted "nay?"

    Regards,
    BiR
     
  10. SeekingTruth

    SeekingTruth
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    1
    The vote posted was not on the amendment in question, but on the entire bill. I would like to see the roll call vote on just the amendment. But if any Reoublican voted for the amendment, then in this instance, he/she is a wimp who has yielded to the homosexual lobby.
     
  11. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Don't forget, they knew that this was part of the legislation. Although they didn't vote for it initially, they voted for it when "the entire bill" passed.

    Regards,
    BiR
     

Share This Page

Loading...