Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Virginia is for the Gutless

Virginia's Senator George Allen is a Republican who might be in the running for the Presidential campaigns of 2008. Last year he was one of 65 Senators who voted in favor of a bill that would have extended the federal hate-crime law to include offenses based on sexual orientation, gender and disabilities. This, of course, rubbed some people the wrong way. The guy's supposed to be a conservative, fer cryin' out loud, what's he doing protecting people from haters?

Well, he got some feedback, it sounds like, and has changed his mind -- he'll vote the other way if it comes up again:
Sen. George Allen, R-Va., after coming under fire from some social conservatives for a 2004 vote, plans to reverse course next time and oppose making hate crimes against gay people a federal offense.

"When it comes before the Senate again, he will vote against adding sexual orientation to federal hate-crimes statutes," Mike Thomas, Allen's state director, said yesterday. In 2004, Allen voted the opposite way on an amendment in the Senate.

"I wouldn't define it as a flip-flop," Thomas added.

Joe Glover, president of the Virginia-based Family Policy Network, was among those who pressed for a change. He told The Washington Times after Allen's 2004 vote that Allen "can count on us to expose him as a conservative fraud."

Allen is preparing to seek re-election to the Senate next year and may run for president in 2008.

"I think George Allen is taking note that you must first shore up your conservative base in the GOP if you want to win in Virginia," Glover said yesterday. Allen to reverse stance on crimes against gays

I am constantly amazed that this is how we run our country. We put the very most gutless people in charge, people whose sole skill is the ability to say whatever somebody wants to hear. It's our own fault, we have a choice, it's just ... amazing.

This story ran in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. They note, down in the article:
Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., and Allen were among 65 senators who voted yes on the controversial amendment in June 2004. It did not ultimately pass into law.

Warner was targeted in a Times-Dispatch advertisement yesterday. The ad by a coalition of groups asked people to urge Warner to vote against similar hate-crimes legislation the next time it comes up; Allen was not named.

Warner "appreciates hearing from his constituents on matters of concern to them," a Warner aide said last night.

So it appears some groups got together and actually bought an ad to tell Warner not to vote this way again, not to give protection to people based on sexual orientation.

The text of the ad tells you just what this is about -- there's a picture of a graveyard full of crosses (PS I'm curious, can anybody recognize that cemetery? If you know where that is, please tell us in the comments.):
Ever since the birth of America many have paid the ultimate price to defend the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. One of the most cherished of those freedoms is – equal justice under law for all citizens. But right now in Congress that very freedom is under attack.

The so-called hate crimes legislation currently in Congress will – for the very first time in our 200-plus years as a Republic – REVERSE EQUAL PROTECTION. “Hate crime” laws wrongfully elevate one class of people above other Americans . . . and punish crimes against them more harshly than the same crime against other victims. That’s not only unfair, it’s unequal justice. And that’s simply un-American.

The legislation is aimed squarely at people of faith, and others who share a deeply held belief that homosexuality and other sexual orientations are not a legitimate or legally defined minority . . . beliefs that are born both of religious conviction and practical experience. “Hate crime” laws have already been used to suppress freedom of religious speech in Philadelphia where eleven Christians – peacefully protesting at a homosexual event in October 2004 –
were handcuffed and jailed. If this “hate crimes” law is passed, the Federal Government will have begun the process of criminalizing the faith – and FREE SPEECH – of every American citizen, including those who have defended those freedoms at the risk of their lives. Call Senator Warner today – before he votes – to let him know the only sure justice for America is equal justice. Richmond Times-Dispath ad

There is also a picture of police hauling away "one of eleven peaceful protesters at a homosexual street festival" in October, 2004. The caption points out that "Eight charges were filed – three felonies and five misdemeanors – including ‘ethnic intimidation,’ the hate crimes category to which homosexuals were recently added."

The ad does not point out that all charges were dropped against the "peaceful protestors" who were videotaped by police being disorderly to the point of trying to start a riot. The reader is directed to Snopes.com, the urban-legend web site, for an objective reporting of details of the incident.

One last comment. I can understand opposing hate-crime laws in general, and this ad starts out that way. If you are serious about equal justice for all, and want to make an issue out of that, OK, I get it. But they tip their hand when they single out the sexual-orientation part. They don't want equal justice for all, they only want it for straight people.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read first then comment?
"Extreme Bias" - A Mental Disorder?
I Love This

The Post Is Following the Story

Kay 2898 check out the last couple of comments, you cannot miss them; I am the only one who does not sound gay.

Jim K.
Anon, the National Socialist Party is the American Nazis. If you want to say that the Nazis are leftists, I suppose you can, but you're on your own with that.

Jim check out the last couple of posts. I am still waiting on your explanation for the instructing kiddies in anal sex. Comment you made.

This is the person that CRC is fighting so hard to get on new CAC??????????

)snow white (and I bet you denied your gay )
2000 Australian twin study, Bailey read it and weep.

While this has nothing to do with our program here in MC- Scott Lively is a Holocaust revisionist - he should be ashamed, as should you for lying about the those who died at the hands of the Nazis. I doubt that you - anon- know much about the Holocaust from any "source" except from Mr. Lively- he misquotes and takes bits and pieces of others statements out of context. You do not respect those who died and suffered in the Holocaust- you try to use it to justify your own personal hatred of gay people. I don't need to present all of the real sources of information on the Holocaust- you would obviously never read any of them- since your beliefs are so firmly rooted in mistruth and hatred.
I guess Andrea is still under the Illusion that I am going to take her/his word on this. Got proof? No? Tuff! Your wawawawa, you just hate me that’s why you are being so mean. Does nothing for me I don’t care who you are, or what hurts your feelings. I have no interest in you. Get it? The Holocaust was about religious intolerance. So are you. So it does have something to do about MC and homosexuals preaching hate towards a religious group.

December 13, 2005 6:29 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Your rambling post means what???

December 13, 2005 6:40 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

your explanation for the instructing kiddies in anal sex

There was no comment made. as far as I know, the subject has never come up.


December 13, 2005 7:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kay you have no clue
Jim your lying you are calming you never made comments about teaching kids about anal sex? what the hell is TTF hear for?

December 13, 2005 7:43 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

There was once a discussion about students hearing the words "anal sex," but no one has ever discussed, as far as I can remember, "instructing kiddies in anal sex."

I could say the words "epistemology" to you. In fact, I just did. Is that the same as instructing you in epistemology?

If you think I'm lying about calming something, then please point us to the statements I made that prove your point. Or did I lie about calming things, like, speaking to you through the secret CIA implants in your brain?


December 13, 2005 7:50 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

(And I apologize to Andrear for that one.)


December 13, 2005 7:50 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

anonymous said,what the hell is TTF hear for?

To "here" you out I guess....

December 13, 2005 7:55 PM  
Blogger andrea said...

Anon- go the website for the US Holocaust Museum- they have plenty of information showing how your claims are lies. Of course, you won't- the truth means nothing to someone like you- who supports what is clearly Holocaust revisionism. I know what the Holocaust was about- I don't need a know-nothing bigot like you to try to tell me - or anyone else here- about the Holocaust. It's pretty clear nothing you have said has any basis in fact-you just spew a lot of nasty nonsense.

December 13, 2005 9:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's interesting to note that religion, which is a choice, is covered by the existing federal hate crime laws but people who have made that choice refuse to accept that people they think made a different choice and who face more physical, verbal and emotional violence on a daily basis are not entitled to the same protection.
I've never seen anybody in the U.S. attacked by people yelling, "F****ING CATHOLIC!" or "Hey Lutheran! Suck on this!" followed by a pelting by rocks. I've experienced both except "Catholic" and "Lutheran" were instead "Faggot" and this happened on suburban Baltimore streets in broad daylight.
One might say that removing religion from the federal hate crimes laws would make for equal protection under the law but anybody advocating that would be denounced as a hater and would be attacked from many sides.
I sometimes wonder what would happen if I were to set up a Church of the Queer and anybody could claim that they were a member thus when somebody was attacked by people yelling, "Faggot!" it could perhaps be prosecuted as a religious based hate crime...

December 14, 2005 2:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I've actually had the same thought. Religion is the only category of discrimination where voluntary thought and behavior is afforded protection. It's probably less about fairness than about preventing strife. Also, it's not really enforced much. Religious persecution is common in America. Indeed, some people seem to think persecuting religious people is required by the Constitution.

Interesting that you put homosexuality in the choice category though. You might be out of synch with the politically correct guard here.

December 16, 2005 11:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She did not say any such thing. Anonymous lied.

snow white

December 19, 2005 8:03 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home