w00t!! Excellent news!

Sep 27, 2007 15:27

The U.S. Senate has passed the Matthew Shepard act ( Read more... )

homosexuality, bisexuality, politics

Leave a comment

spookycat4 September 27 2007, 20:09:29 UTC
OK, I have to confess. I'm not a fan of this. Not, because I think it's OK to bash homosexuals, because I don't. I think it's disgusting. But, I have to say, that "hate" crimes legislation of all types bothers the hell out of me. I just don't think the reason you hit someone in the face, or drag them behind a pickup, or stomp their head, should matter.

To me, if I kill someone in a robbery, and someone else kills someone in a gay bashing, we're both despicable, and the dead person is just as dead. I don't think Matthew Sheppard should matter less than the teacher robbed and murdered last year in the mall 2 miles from my house, but I don't think he should matter more either.

Kim

Reply

sara_merry99 September 27 2007, 20:15:36 UTC
I believe that the impulse to enact anti-hate crimes legislation came about because in some jurisdictions hate crimes were getting pursued with less vigor than other kinds of crimes. Not all jurisdictions, by any means, but enough that allowing entirely local standards to prevail meant that some crimes based on racial, religious or other forms of hate were not getting investigated.

Sot it's not that Matthew Shepard should matter *less* than the teacher murdered near you last year--but he should matter the same *everywhere in the country*--whether conservative Wyoming or liberal Massachusetts. And that takes a federal law.

Does that make sense?

Reply

high_striker September 27 2007, 21:28:59 UTC
I think it makes sense ( ... )

Reply

sara_merry99 September 28 2007, 14:24:12 UTC
What we truly need is a justice system that automatically looks at everyone as a human being, and no more than that; not by their race, creed, or sexual orientation.

Amen, sister!! But we can't have that until society as a whole is able to look at everyone as a human being, not as part of a group...and while we're making strides, that's going to be a long time coming.

Reply

high_striker September 28 2007, 14:57:06 UTC
Actually- I'm one of those guys that law would protect.

Which is actually part of why it makes me uncomfortable. Because while I want to be treated as an equal to everyone else, I *don't* want the law to put me above anyone else. Even the thought that such a thing *could* happen makes me uncomfortable.

I don't want the system to coddle me anymore than another person just because I'm gay. Which is why I don't understand why other groups actually like programs like the ones I listed. I'd hate to think that I had simply been chosen over someone else because I was in a minority group- it'd piss me off actually. I want to be chosen because of who I am, and what I can do (for whatever I'm trying to do, be it get into a different college, or applying for a job etc.)

*sigh* But I'm fairly patient, so waiting for our country to get on the right track shouldn't be too painful overall. Even though I think if any of our politicians (be it Republican or Democrat or Independant) had *and* used common sense... well it'd come a lot faster. :)

Reply

sara_merry99 September 28 2007, 15:47:31 UTC
Actually- I'm one of those guys that law would protect.

As am I (I'm bi).

I want to be treated as an equal to everyone else, I *don't* want the law to put me above anyone else. Even the thought that such a thing *could* happen makes me uncomfortable.I can understand that. I definitely can ( ... )

Reply

high_striker September 28 2007, 16:28:46 UTC
I do realize that this and programs like affirmative action aren't even close to being the same thing, but special laws for specific groups always make me somewhat wary. I am glad that it should have positive effects though.

As for the dancing... well, only if you want your toes stepped on every few seconds. :)

Reply

sara_merry99 September 28 2007, 16:34:50 UTC
I've got tough toes! (And I'll be stepping on yours too, so it all works out. :D )

Have a great day!

Reply

spookycat4 September 27 2007, 23:23:49 UTC
If they'd passed a federal law to make crime x,y, or z, illegal, I'd be in favor of it. But, I have a problem with the federal government determining that if criminal A commits crime x, because he didn't like something about the victim, it's a federal crime; but if criminal B does the same exact thing because he wanted the victim's money, it's not a federal crime ( ... )

Reply

sara_merry99 September 28 2007, 14:38:33 UTC
But, I have a problem with the federal government determining that if criminal A commits crime x, because he didn't like something about the victim, it's a federal crime; but if criminal B does the same exact thing because he wanted the victim's money, it's not a federal crime.I understand that. But, seriously, historically in some jurisdictions, crimes against minorities were *not* thoroughly investigated by the local police. This was a way for the federal government to make sure that *all* crimes, whether motivated by money or hatred, were investigated. A crime being a "federal" crime doesn't mean it's worse than a "state" crime. It just means that the "federal police" (usually the FBI, but not always) investigates it rather than the "state police" (or "local police ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up