And just who would be prosecuted in Janet Folger's version of a perfect world?
Janet Folger is going all out against the recent hate crimes legislation that passed through the House of Representatives. Even after losing that fight, she is bringing her hysteria to the Senate fight:
Janet Folger of the ministry Faith 2 Action says the hate crimes bill passed by the House is aimed at pastors or anyone else who has the "audacity" to disagree with the homosexual agenda. "Mike is standing at a football bar, or he's standing at a restaurant, watching a game," she posits; "Bruce comes out of the restroom, and he's touching up his makeup. He's a cross-dresser with red-nail polish and a five o'clock shadow. He comes out and hits on Mike. Maybe he puts his arm around him or maybe he brushes or puts his hand through his hair."
The average man would "maybe want to push off such unwelcome advances," Folger observes. However, she warns, "That, if you touch him, is a hate crime.
I think it's safe to assume that girlfriend has lost her damned mind.
But let's look at Ms. Folger for a second. She is so intent on stopping what she sees as Christian persecution, that I have to wonder just how she feels about other forms of persecution under the law.
In 1998, Folger voiced her opinion on the now defunct sodomy laws:
Forrest Sawyer, substituting as host of ABC's Nightline on July 30, moderated a debate between Andrew Sullivan, editor the New Republic and Center for Reclaiming America Director Janet Folger, who engineered the ad campaign. Sullivan asked repeatedly whether Folger supports laws allowing imprisonment for having sex with someone of the same gender. After Folger gave several non-responsive answers, Sawyer pressed, "Ms. Folger, forgive me. He is asking the direct question, 'Do you support laws that advocate the imprisonment of people who engage in homosexual behavior?'" Folger answered, "I guess if you're looking at sodomy laws, there are sodomy laws on the books that I very much support."
In other words, while Folger now feels that hate crimes legislation will lead to Christians being unfairly jailed for voicing their opinions, she obviously felt that it was not a problem for gays and lesbians to be jailed for private sexual behavior that heterosexuals also partake of.
Now there are those who would correctly say that her comments about sodomy laws were over 10 years ago and that her opinion could have changed.
As far as I know, Folger has not said whether or not she feels the same way.
I personally think that someone should ask her.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
More lies about ENDA courtesy of Janet Folger
Janet Folger must be trying to win a special award for distortions. Case in point, her take on the recent controversy that Republican presidential candidate Tommy Thompson caused during a recent debate:
Then Thompson had a right answer for the loaded question about the freedom of conscience – at first. Asked if a private employer should be able to fire a homosexual because of their homosexual behavior, Thompson said yes; however, the next day on CNN, he retracted it . . .
Folger distorted the question given to Thompson. This is what was actually said:
Thompson was asked by the moderator: “If a private employer finds homosexuality immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?”
Therein lies the distortion. No one asked Thompson about behavior. He was asked about orientation.
Janet Folger is lying again. It is starting to become a common occurrence for her.
She is slyly inferring that ENDA will deal with sexual behavior rather than sexual orientation. The two are not the same:
I am gay - that is a sexual orientation.
I am typing this blog - I am engaging in any type of sexual behavior, be it gay or straight.
Phrasing the discussion over ENDA as one of sexual behavior rather than orientation seems to be the game plan the anti-gay industry wants to follow. It is an old one for them.
The following transcript of Robert Knight (formerly of Concerned Women for America) sparring with commentator Bill O’Reilly on The O’Reilly Factor is an example of this. This transcript is included in my upcoming book:
O’REILLY: Let me stop you there. Hold it. If a guy’s in a workplace [and] he gets fired because the boss doesn’t like gays, you think that should be legally allowed?
KNIGHT: I don’t think that’s what’s happening in the workplace. People are more likely to be hired [because they’re gay].
O’REILLY: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I just asked you a very direct question.
KNIGHT: Do you have any evidence of [people who were fi red for being homosexual]?
O’REILLY: I don’t have any evidence. It’s a hypothetical. If a boss fires somebody because [he’s] gay, should that be allowed?
KNIGHT: Well it depends on what brought that to his attention. If he brought gay pornography into the office.
Knight's words (and Folger's for that matter) show the psychological game the anti-gay industry tries to play on us when it comes to our jobs.
They seem to be saying "gays wouldn't have a problem with being fired for their orientation if they would just shut up about it."
It's a cruel point of view that not only exploits stereotypes but also tells lgbts to put themselves on a different standard than straight employees. While heterosexuals freely talk about their lives and the progression of their families, we are supposed to shut up and isolate ourselves in a bubble.
Two years ago at my job, my boyfriend sent me a dozen roses to commemorate Valentine's Day. When my co-workers asked about them, was I supposed to lie? Too bad because I didn't. If they didn't want to know who sent me the roses, they should have not asked.
A young lady who worked in my building received roses from her boyfriend. She was upfront as to who sent them to her. She didn't have to lie. Why should I?
Across America, many gay couples are raising children. Why shouldn't they be able to put pictures of families on their desks? And even if they don't have children, why shouldn't gay couples be able to put pictures of their significant other on their desks? Heterosexuals have that right and so should we.
See these are the things we are speaking of when we express the need for ENDA, not lies like the following voiced by Concerned Women for America member Matt Barber:
Imagine, if you will, a 280 lb linebacker who likes to wear a dress and high heels and lipstick, you know comes to church wanting a job at the front desk as a receptionist and they turn him away because they don’t feel that that represents their values or the image that they’re trying to hold at that church, under ENDA they could be held accountable for discrimination against that individual
It is one thing for the anti-gay industry to believe that gays have no concept of family or monogamy but it is an entirely different thing for them to try to force that image on us.
We should reject that mental prison every chance we get.
Janet Folger must be trying to win a special award for distortions. Case in point, her take on the recent controversy that Republican presidential candidate Tommy Thompson caused during a recent debate:
Then Thompson had a right answer for the loaded question about the freedom of conscience – at first. Asked if a private employer should be able to fire a homosexual because of their homosexual behavior, Thompson said yes; however, the next day on CNN, he retracted it . . .
Folger distorted the question given to Thompson. This is what was actually said:
Thompson was asked by the moderator: “If a private employer finds homosexuality immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?”
Therein lies the distortion. No one asked Thompson about behavior. He was asked about orientation.
Janet Folger is lying again. It is starting to become a common occurrence for her.
She is slyly inferring that ENDA will deal with sexual behavior rather than sexual orientation. The two are not the same:
I am gay - that is a sexual orientation.
I am typing this blog - I am engaging in any type of sexual behavior, be it gay or straight.
Phrasing the discussion over ENDA as one of sexual behavior rather than orientation seems to be the game plan the anti-gay industry wants to follow. It is an old one for them.
The following transcript of Robert Knight (formerly of Concerned Women for America) sparring with commentator Bill O’Reilly on The O’Reilly Factor is an example of this. This transcript is included in my upcoming book:
O’REILLY: Let me stop you there. Hold it. If a guy’s in a workplace [and] he gets fired because the boss doesn’t like gays, you think that should be legally allowed?
KNIGHT: I don’t think that’s what’s happening in the workplace. People are more likely to be hired [because they’re gay].
O’REILLY: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I just asked you a very direct question.
KNIGHT: Do you have any evidence of [people who were fi red for being homosexual]?
O’REILLY: I don’t have any evidence. It’s a hypothetical. If a boss fires somebody because [he’s] gay, should that be allowed?
KNIGHT: Well it depends on what brought that to his attention. If he brought gay pornography into the office.
Knight's words (and Folger's for that matter) show the psychological game the anti-gay industry tries to play on us when it comes to our jobs.
They seem to be saying "gays wouldn't have a problem with being fired for their orientation if they would just shut up about it."
It's a cruel point of view that not only exploits stereotypes but also tells lgbts to put themselves on a different standard than straight employees. While heterosexuals freely talk about their lives and the progression of their families, we are supposed to shut up and isolate ourselves in a bubble.
Two years ago at my job, my boyfriend sent me a dozen roses to commemorate Valentine's Day. When my co-workers asked about them, was I supposed to lie? Too bad because I didn't. If they didn't want to know who sent me the roses, they should have not asked.
A young lady who worked in my building received roses from her boyfriend. She was upfront as to who sent them to her. She didn't have to lie. Why should I?
Across America, many gay couples are raising children. Why shouldn't they be able to put pictures of families on their desks? And even if they don't have children, why shouldn't gay couples be able to put pictures of their significant other on their desks? Heterosexuals have that right and so should we.
See these are the things we are speaking of when we express the need for ENDA, not lies like the following voiced by Concerned Women for America member Matt Barber:
Imagine, if you will, a 280 lb linebacker who likes to wear a dress and high heels and lipstick, you know comes to church wanting a job at the front desk as a receptionist and they turn him away because they don’t feel that that represents their values or the image that they’re trying to hold at that church, under ENDA they could be held accountable for discrimination against that individual
It is one thing for the anti-gay industry to believe that gays have no concept of family or monogamy but it is an entirely different thing for them to try to force that image on us.
We should reject that mental prison every chance we get.
Monday, May 07, 2007
The Emperor Continues to Wear No Clothes
Fresh from last week's battle over hate crimes legislation, the anti-gay industry continues to lie about the bill. Apparently they are determined to claim that the bill will try to hinder Christians from preaching against homosexuality no matter how many times their lies have been refuted.
Chief among them is African-American minister Harry Jackson. Jackson, if you remember from last week, led a group of black ministers in a press conference opposing the bill.
What it amounted to is a group of black folks willing to exploit their status as past victims of discrimination for some face time.
Today, a column by Jackson appeared in the Christian Post. It's the usual amount of claptrap and lies he pushed last week.
However, in the midst of his nonsense, he said something that makes sense of a surreal level:
A growing number of black church goers are aghast that their most powerful institution is being undermined by a handful of autonomous, self-appointed leaders. The black church is the most legitimate grass roots movement in our community. Unfortunately, its voice has not been heard in this debate.
Mr. Jackson, if the black church's voice is not heard in this debate it is only because it has allowed itself to be silent. Too many black churches focus on tithing and minsterial hooping disguised as praise.
That's right. I said it. Too many black churches have members content on dancing in the aisles and shouting about how much they are "praising God" while the problems affecting our community continue unabated.
Fresh from praising and paying their ten percent, some of church members go home and cheat on their husbands, beat their wives, and take drugs.
While other members play an emotional game with themselves because they have been programmed not to embrace their God given gay or lesbian orientation.
Then come next Sunday, they get to do it over again.
Meanwhile, black ministers like yourself get fat on faith based initiatives and move to the front of the arena hogging up media attention.
If the black church is aghast, as you put it, by autonomous self-appointed leaders, then it should take more of an effort to push those self-appointed leaders like yourself aside and start focusing on the issues that affect our community.
Heads up on ENDA
Don't forget to contact your U.S. Senator about hate crimes legislation. The battle is not over yet.
Meanwhile, the anti-gay industry is gearing up to fight ENDA.
I am personally looking forward to this fight more than that of hate crimes legislation.
In fighting hate crimes legislation, the anti-gay industry had somewhat of a ground to stand on, albeit shaky ground.
With ENDA, they don't.
This is what they are claiming about ENDA:
ENDA loosely defines "sexual orientation" as "homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality," and also includes "gender identity," defined as "the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth."
For those who don't recognize this argument, it is a continuation of the ones they used against hate crimes legislation.
They seem to have replaced the hate crimes legislation will allow these nasty things to be protected line of argument to the ENDA will allow these nasty things to be protected line of argument.
Talk about lack of originality but fear tactics rarely do involve originality.
I am surprised they are not using this argument seen here.
As you can see, this argument has holes so big you can ride a truck through them, including the distortion of Robert Spitzer's study on sexual orienation (why do they always use that one.)
I wonder if Concerned Women for America and the rest of the anti-gay industry will focus on the scale down argument or use that larger one. Either way, it wouldn't surprise me.
Fresh from last week's battle over hate crimes legislation, the anti-gay industry continues to lie about the bill. Apparently they are determined to claim that the bill will try to hinder Christians from preaching against homosexuality no matter how many times their lies have been refuted.
Chief among them is African-American minister Harry Jackson. Jackson, if you remember from last week, led a group of black ministers in a press conference opposing the bill.
What it amounted to is a group of black folks willing to exploit their status as past victims of discrimination for some face time.
Today, a column by Jackson appeared in the Christian Post. It's the usual amount of claptrap and lies he pushed last week.
However, in the midst of his nonsense, he said something that makes sense of a surreal level:
A growing number of black church goers are aghast that their most powerful institution is being undermined by a handful of autonomous, self-appointed leaders. The black church is the most legitimate grass roots movement in our community. Unfortunately, its voice has not been heard in this debate.
Mr. Jackson, if the black church's voice is not heard in this debate it is only because it has allowed itself to be silent. Too many black churches focus on tithing and minsterial hooping disguised as praise.
That's right. I said it. Too many black churches have members content on dancing in the aisles and shouting about how much they are "praising God" while the problems affecting our community continue unabated.
Fresh from praising and paying their ten percent, some of church members go home and cheat on their husbands, beat their wives, and take drugs.
While other members play an emotional game with themselves because they have been programmed not to embrace their God given gay or lesbian orientation.
Then come next Sunday, they get to do it over again.
Meanwhile, black ministers like yourself get fat on faith based initiatives and move to the front of the arena hogging up media attention.
If the black church is aghast, as you put it, by autonomous self-appointed leaders, then it should take more of an effort to push those self-appointed leaders like yourself aside and start focusing on the issues that affect our community.
Heads up on ENDA
Don't forget to contact your U.S. Senator about hate crimes legislation. The battle is not over yet.
Meanwhile, the anti-gay industry is gearing up to fight ENDA.
I am personally looking forward to this fight more than that of hate crimes legislation.
In fighting hate crimes legislation, the anti-gay industry had somewhat of a ground to stand on, albeit shaky ground.
With ENDA, they don't.
This is what they are claiming about ENDA:
ENDA loosely defines "sexual orientation" as "homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality," and also includes "gender identity," defined as "the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth."
For those who don't recognize this argument, it is a continuation of the ones they used against hate crimes legislation.
They seem to have replaced the hate crimes legislation will allow these nasty things to be protected line of argument to the ENDA will allow these nasty things to be protected line of argument.
Talk about lack of originality but fear tactics rarely do involve originality.
I am surprised they are not using this argument seen here.
As you can see, this argument has holes so big you can ride a truck through them, including the distortion of Robert Spitzer's study on sexual orienation (why do they always use that one.)
I wonder if Concerned Women for America and the rest of the anti-gay industry will focus on the scale down argument or use that larger one. Either way, it wouldn't surprise me.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Thursday, May 03, 2007
My flyers - a work in progress
While posting on the hate crimes legislation vote, I have also been working very hard to complete the editing of my book.
And I have been working on advertising flyers.
The flyer to the left is the first of four. It is a work in progress that you can click on to see a larger version of. Tell me what you think.
Also, don't leave without reading my take on today's hate crimes legislation vote if you haven't already.
Relatively pleased about today's vote
By a vote of 237-180, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill adding lgbts to categories of protected classes under national hate crimes legislation.
President Bush has threatened to veto this bill.
I am very happy about the first situation and not at all displeased (nor rather shocked) by the second situation.
Let's be real: The only reason why so many opposed this legislation was because lgbts were included. That is the single reason for all of the controversy, opposition, and lies.
The anti-gay industry believes that anything that positvely affects gays and lesbians is something they should oppose, whether it be hate crimes legislation or gay/straight clubs in high schools.
Unfortunately there is a large group of people willing to blindly believe their accusations or pass along their lies.
This is witnessed through the flurry of last minute calls to legislative offices by people claiming that this legislation will curtail free speech, even though this notion was not true.
And let's not forget our "commander guy-in chief."
George Bush is a piss poor president who got us into a bad situation in Iraq. His approval rating is low and his administration is rife with scandal from the Attorney General to his adviser Karl Rove.
He has no choice in the matter but to act in a way that will appeal to his base.
But please note that in his statement threatening to veto the legislation, he did not mention any accusation regarding free speech, jailing pastors, weird sexual hang-ups; several things that the anti-gay industry trumpeted as an excuse to oppose hate crimes legislation.
Nor did their lies make any dent with the Congressional support that the legislation had, which means that all James Dobson, Lou Sheldon, Andrea Lafferty and company succeed in doing was to demonstrate how much they are willing to lie.
To paraphrase a character in the movie Anne of A Thousand Days, just how long can they use the "nasty, filthy, diseased homosexual" excuse before it comes a habit for them?
And seeing that their lies and hysterical attempts to stop hate crimes legislation played out to a larger audience this time, how long will it be before Americans see them as the hysterical fear mongerers that they are?
So I look at what happened today as a pivotal victory in a huge war and I would ask that those wanting lgbt equality not to get upset or frustrated at the threat of a Bush veto.
I read various anti-gay industry press releases congratulating and thanking Bush on his threat to veto the hate crimes bill. I think they are too quickly celebrating.
If Bush does veto this bill, they have won a Pyrrhic victory, that is if they want to call it a victory at all.
I say we work to give them more of these "victories."
Let's not stop pushing for what is ours.
On to the Senate hate crimes legislation and then to ENDA!
By a vote of 237-180, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill adding lgbts to categories of protected classes under national hate crimes legislation.
President Bush has threatened to veto this bill.
I am very happy about the first situation and not at all displeased (nor rather shocked) by the second situation.
Let's be real: The only reason why so many opposed this legislation was because lgbts were included. That is the single reason for all of the controversy, opposition, and lies.
The anti-gay industry believes that anything that positvely affects gays and lesbians is something they should oppose, whether it be hate crimes legislation or gay/straight clubs in high schools.
Unfortunately there is a large group of people willing to blindly believe their accusations or pass along their lies.
This is witnessed through the flurry of last minute calls to legislative offices by people claiming that this legislation will curtail free speech, even though this notion was not true.
And let's not forget our "commander guy-in chief."
George Bush is a piss poor president who got us into a bad situation in Iraq. His approval rating is low and his administration is rife with scandal from the Attorney General to his adviser Karl Rove.
He has no choice in the matter but to act in a way that will appeal to his base.
But please note that in his statement threatening to veto the legislation, he did not mention any accusation regarding free speech, jailing pastors, weird sexual hang-ups; several things that the anti-gay industry trumpeted as an excuse to oppose hate crimes legislation.
Nor did their lies make any dent with the Congressional support that the legislation had, which means that all James Dobson, Lou Sheldon, Andrea Lafferty and company succeed in doing was to demonstrate how much they are willing to lie.
To paraphrase a character in the movie Anne of A Thousand Days, just how long can they use the "nasty, filthy, diseased homosexual" excuse before it comes a habit for them?
And seeing that their lies and hysterical attempts to stop hate crimes legislation played out to a larger audience this time, how long will it be before Americans see them as the hysterical fear mongerers that they are?
So I look at what happened today as a pivotal victory in a huge war and I would ask that those wanting lgbt equality not to get upset or frustrated at the threat of a Bush veto.
I read various anti-gay industry press releases congratulating and thanking Bush on his threat to veto the hate crimes bill. I think they are too quickly celebrating.
If Bush does veto this bill, they have won a Pyrrhic victory, that is if they want to call it a victory at all.
I say we work to give them more of these "victories."
Let's not stop pushing for what is ours.
On to the Senate hate crimes legislation and then to ENDA!
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Hate Crimes Legislation Distortion Awards
Tomorrow will be a historic vote in the House of Representatives about adding lgbts to hate crimes legislation.
I thought that I would take time out to honor those who went far and beyond the call of duty to distort the law. I want to do this today because I may not be in a celebratory mood tomorrow.
How the anti-gay industry behaved in their zeal to defeat hate crimes legislation is not new on their part. During the 1993 hearings on gays in the military, they stooped to scaring people with Paul Cameronesque lies about gay and lesbian sexual habits.
This time, however, things were different.
Because of blogs, every lie they told was dissected and refuted. So lgbts can take comfort in the fact, regardless of how tomorrow's vote may turn out, that more Americans have seen the anti-gay industry for what they truly are and not the upstanding Christians they have claimed to be.
Now, onto the awards:
Except for in a few cases, I have already documented these lies in past blog postings so I don't feel the need to reference all of them. However, if anyone wants me to link any information I have to its original source, just ask.
Best exploitation of a religious image - The Traditional Values Coalition for their flyer featuring an image of Jesus. According to this flyer, Jesus would be prosecuted for "hate crimes" if lgbts are added to the categories protected under the legislation. The organization claimed this even though the legislation explicitly speaks against violent actions, not speech and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality.
Best lie told about hate crimes legislation - The Tradtional Values Coalition for their distortion of Congressman Louis Gohmert's question during the House Judicial Hearing last week.
As I chronicled in yesterday's post, Lou Sheldon sent out an action alert claiming that the legislation could cause pastors to get arrested if the said pastor preached against homosexuality and a member of his congregation went out and committed a crime against an lgbt.
This is what Sheldon said in his action alert:
Congressman (Louis) Gohmert asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?”
This is the actual quote that Sheldon distorted:
". . .if a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister"
Special sell-out award - Ministers Harold Jackson and the other black ministers who held a press conference opposing the legislation. They claimed that the legislation would lead to pastors not being able to preach against homosexuality.
This is a lie. The legislation covers violent action, not speech.
Let me be clear on the fact that Jackson and company did not get this award because they oppose hate crimes legislation. They were chosen because they used the same fear tactics that white racists used to deny African-Americans their rights under law. Just like white racists made wild claims against integration, Jackson and company made wild claims against the hate crimes legislation. What's more, my cynicism tells me that Jackson and company were fully aware that what they were saying were lies:
White racists - we can't integrate because it will lead to mixing of the races. Black men will have sex with white women and that will lead to mongrelization. Both races will suffer.
Harold Jackson and the black ministers - We can't add lgbts to hate crimes legislation because it will lead to pastors not being able to preach against homosexuality.
If there is any difference in these claims, someone please let me know.
Best exploitation of current events/i.e. tragedies to stop hate crimes legislation
- Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Matt Barber of the Concerned Women for America. Both of these folks tried to link the tragedy at Virginia Tech to their view of hate crimes legislation.
Tony Perkins - "Under this legislation, the crimes at Virginia Tech, which some are calling one of the deadliest rampages in U.S. history, would not be punishable to the level of these so-called "hate crimes." If the House approves H.R. 1592 and the Senate follows, a homosexual would have more federal protection under the law than the 32 victims of last week's massacre."
Matt Barber - "The FBI's latest statistics show that there were zero 'hate crimes' murders committed against homosexuals or those perceived to be homosexual in 2005; yet we already know of thirty-two so-called 'hate crimes' murders committed against perceived 'rich kids' in a single day. But under H.R. 1592, those 'rich kids' would shamefully be denied the same protections and justice as homosexuals. The whole 'hate crimes' concept really places logic and reason on its head"
Best distortion of the name of the hate crimes legislation- Tie - The Traditional Values Coalition - Cross Dressing Bill or Drag Queen Bill
Janet Folger and Faith2Action - Jail Grandma Bill
The Sexy Award - the attempt by the American Family Association to link hate crimes legislation to all sorts of freaky sexy behavior. It was a matter of time before someone got nasty:
Donald E. WildmonFounder and Chairman
May 1, 2007
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.
A message from Chuck Colson
Dear XXX,
Please take the time to read the enclosed article by Chuck Colson. Click here.
This law does not define "sexual orientation," leaving open the definition of the term. To see all the behaviors covered by the term "sexual orientation," please click here. Warning! This listing is offensive.
There is still time to make your voice heard. Please call your representative in Washington today. The vote is scheduled for this Thursday. Tell him or her that you strongly oppose the Hate Crimes Act. Mr. Colson rightly refers to it as the Thought Control bill.
You can reach your representative at 202-224-3121. Please ask your friends to call also.
Thank you for caring enough to get involved.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and ChairmanAmerican Family Association
Y'all can click if you want to but I wouldn't recommend it. Where in the hell did they find this stuff?
Donald Wildmon, Chuck Colson - you both need Jesus!
The obedient sheep award - To all of the so-called "pro-family" web pages and blogs who repeated anti-gay industry lies (especially Sheldon's distortion of the Congressman's quote) verbatim without reading the legislation in question.
The "you are a hypocrite and you know it but most of all, God knows it" award - To all of the web pages and blogs who repeated anti-gay industry lies about hate crimes legislation even after reading the actual legislation. You know who you are and most of all, God knows it.
For those of you who want success tomorrow in getting hate crimes legislation passed, don't forget to contact your legislators and inform them that people calling in against the legislation are being misled. And tell them to vote for the legislation because it the only fair thing to do:
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Hate is neither a Democratic nor an American Value. Hate crimes involve the purposeful selection of victims for violence and intimidation based on bias against their perceived attributes. These crimes are distinguished from, and go far beyond, mere expression of belief. They materially and unacceptably interfere with the full participation of all Americans in the fundamental liberties enjoyed in our democratic society.
As Americans, we must take a strong stand against violence committed against our neighbors for simply being themselves. The purpose of our government, first and foremost, is to protect all of our citizens - whether they are black, disabled, Christian or gay. While a random act of violence against any individual is always a tragic event, violent crimes based on prejudice have a much stronger impact because the motive behind the crime is to terrorize an entire community. These hate crimes chip away at the very foundations of our democracy - that all citizens are created equal and are afforded the same freedoms and protections. House Passage of HR 1592 will send the powerful message that the Democratic Party stands for tolerance and inclusion, and is opposed to prejudice in all its forms.
Why the Law Is Needed. There's a reason why the bill has been supported by 31 state Attorneys General and the leading law enforcement organizations - because, despite progress toward equality in almost all segments of our society - hate crimes continue to spread fear and violence among entire communities of Americans and law enforcement lack the tools and resources to prevent and prosecute them. In 2003, the FBI announced that there were more than 9,000 reported hate violence victims in the United States - almost 25 victims a day, or approximately one hate crime every hour. Since 1991, the FBI has received reports of more than 113,000 hate crimes.
What the Law Will Do
Protects First Amendment Rights. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act protects the First Amendment rights of the accused by prohibiting the introduction of evidence of association or expression to prove that a crime has been committed, unless it specifically relates to the offense. The legislation does not punish, nor prohibit in any way, name-calling, verbal abuse or expressions of hatred toward any group, even if such statements amount to hate speech. It covers only violent criminal actions. During proceedings on the bill, the Judiciary Committee explicitly noted that nothing in this legislation would prohibit the lawful expression of ones deeply held religious beliefs. To further ensure that there was no ambiguity on this point, an additional amendment offered by Rep. Davis, was adopted by voice vote at markup explicitly stating that conduct protected under the 1st Amendment free expression and free exercise clauses was not subject to prosecution.
Expands Protected Crimes. It is time to bring hate crimes law into the 21st century. The current federal law, enacted nearly 40 years ago, limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to incidents directed against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin - but only when the victim is targeted because he/she is engaged in a federally protected activities, such as voting. The legislation broadens this provision to cover all violent crimes motivated by race, color, religion, or national origin when the defendant causes bodily injury, or attempts to cause bodily injury through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device.
Extends Existing Protections to More Americans. HR 1592 expands current law to prohibit the same conduct, if such conduct were motivated on the basis of the victim's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability under a wider range of federal jurisdictional circumstances than federally protected activities. The federal government - through decades of civil rights and criminal law-has a history of combating crimes based on prejudice. HR 1592 merely expands the current law to include groups that have historically been affected by violence. This legislation sends a strong and clear message that hate crimes will not be tolerated and brings more uniformity and fairness to existing law.
Assists Local Law Enforcement. State and local authorities currently prosecute the overwhelming majority of hate crimes and will continue to do so under this legislation. The special attention that these crimes require can stretch local law enforcement officials beyond their capacity. Thus, the major focus of the bill is allowing the Federal government to provide crucial federal resources to state and local agencies to equip local officers with the tools they need to prosecute hate crimes. The legislation also authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to state and local law enforcement agencies that have incurred extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.
Requirements for Federal Prosecution. The bill ensures that the Federal prosecution of hate crimes is limited to cases that implicate the greatest Federal interest and present the greatest need for Federal intervention. Only in specific, limited instances will the Federal government prosecute crimes under this Act. Furthermore, the bill requires certification, by the Attorney General or other specified high-ranking Department of Justice official, prior to prosecution. The certifying individual must have ''reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant.'' The certifying individual must also have consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that one of the following situations is present:
(1) the state does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
(2) the state has requested that the Justice Department assume jurisdiction;
(3) the state does not object to the Justice Department assuming jurisdiction; or
(4) the state has completed prosecution and the Justice Department wants to initiate a
Broadens the Collection of Important Statistics. HR 1592 would amend the HCSA to require that the FBI collect statistics on gender and gender identity-related bias crimes, as well as juvenile victims and offenders. Under current law, such statistics are collected on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disability.
Supporters of the bill
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act has broad public and bipartisan support. The Act was introduced on March 20, 2007, by Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Mark Steven Kirk (R-IL), Barney Frank (D-MA), Christopher Shays (R-CN), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and Mary Bono (R-CA), with 137 cosponsors. Earlier versions of the bill have passed both houses of Congress in recent years, only to fall victim to partisan politics.
In fact, the Bill is supported by thirty one state Attorneys General and over 280 national law enforcement, professional, education, civil rights, religious, and civic organizations. Such notable associations and individuals who support the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act include: National Sheriffs' Association; International Association of Chiefs of Police; National District Attorneys Association (NDAA); Presbyterian Church; Episcopal Church; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR); National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); National Council of La Raza (NCLR); Human Rights Campaign (HRC); Parent's Network on Disabilities.
The Act also receives strong support by the majority of Americans. According to a new poll conducted by Peter Hart Research Associates, three in four (or 73 percent) of voters favor strengthening hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity and to give local law enforcement the tools they need to prevent and prosecute these violent acts based on bigotry.
Examples of Crimes Not Covered by Current Law
Targeted for disability, Linden, TX
Billy Ray Johnson suffered severe permanent brain damage after an attack where he was left unconscious in a trash dump. Four white men lured Billy Ray, a mentally challenged African-American man, to a cow pasture where they harassed him with racial insults and beat him unconscious. The four men escaped any felony criminal charges. Billy Ray Johnson suffered serious brain injuries from which he will never fully recover. A Texas jury recently awarded Billy Ray $9 million in civil damages to cover his future medical needs. (April 21, 2007, Chicago Tribune)
Targeted for gender identity, Twin Falls, NE
Brandon Teena, 21, was raped and later killed by two friends after they discovered he was biologically female. After the rape and assault, Teena reported the crime to the police, but they called Teena "it" and did not allow his deputies to arrest the two men responsible. Five days later, on Christmas Day 1993, the two men found Teena and shot and stabbed him to death. The movie "Boys Don't Cry" was based on Teena's story.
Targeted for sexual orientation , Austin, TX
Four men attacked a gay man heading home from a gay bar. The attackers forced him to sodomize himself with a sex toy at knife and sword point while they recited biblical passages condemning such acts. Then, the attackers beat and robbed him. (Daily Texan via University Wire, August 4, 2005)
Tomorrow will be a historic vote in the House of Representatives about adding lgbts to hate crimes legislation.
I thought that I would take time out to honor those who went far and beyond the call of duty to distort the law. I want to do this today because I may not be in a celebratory mood tomorrow.
How the anti-gay industry behaved in their zeal to defeat hate crimes legislation is not new on their part. During the 1993 hearings on gays in the military, they stooped to scaring people with Paul Cameronesque lies about gay and lesbian sexual habits.
This time, however, things were different.
Because of blogs, every lie they told was dissected and refuted. So lgbts can take comfort in the fact, regardless of how tomorrow's vote may turn out, that more Americans have seen the anti-gay industry for what they truly are and not the upstanding Christians they have claimed to be.
Now, onto the awards:
Except for in a few cases, I have already documented these lies in past blog postings so I don't feel the need to reference all of them. However, if anyone wants me to link any information I have to its original source, just ask.
Best exploitation of a religious image - The Traditional Values Coalition for their flyer featuring an image of Jesus. According to this flyer, Jesus would be prosecuted for "hate crimes" if lgbts are added to the categories protected under the legislation. The organization claimed this even though the legislation explicitly speaks against violent actions, not speech and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality.
Best lie told about hate crimes legislation - The Tradtional Values Coalition for their distortion of Congressman Louis Gohmert's question during the House Judicial Hearing last week.
As I chronicled in yesterday's post, Lou Sheldon sent out an action alert claiming that the legislation could cause pastors to get arrested if the said pastor preached against homosexuality and a member of his congregation went out and committed a crime against an lgbt.
This is what Sheldon said in his action alert:
Congressman (Louis) Gohmert asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?”
This is the actual quote that Sheldon distorted:
". . .if a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister"
Special sell-out award - Ministers Harold Jackson and the other black ministers who held a press conference opposing the legislation. They claimed that the legislation would lead to pastors not being able to preach against homosexuality.
This is a lie. The legislation covers violent action, not speech.
Let me be clear on the fact that Jackson and company did not get this award because they oppose hate crimes legislation. They were chosen because they used the same fear tactics that white racists used to deny African-Americans their rights under law. Just like white racists made wild claims against integration, Jackson and company made wild claims against the hate crimes legislation. What's more, my cynicism tells me that Jackson and company were fully aware that what they were saying were lies:
White racists - we can't integrate because it will lead to mixing of the races. Black men will have sex with white women and that will lead to mongrelization. Both races will suffer.
Harold Jackson and the black ministers - We can't add lgbts to hate crimes legislation because it will lead to pastors not being able to preach against homosexuality.
If there is any difference in these claims, someone please let me know.
Best exploitation of current events/i.e. tragedies to stop hate crimes legislation
- Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Matt Barber of the Concerned Women for America. Both of these folks tried to link the tragedy at Virginia Tech to their view of hate crimes legislation.
Tony Perkins - "Under this legislation, the crimes at Virginia Tech, which some are calling one of the deadliest rampages in U.S. history, would not be punishable to the level of these so-called "hate crimes." If the House approves H.R. 1592 and the Senate follows, a homosexual would have more federal protection under the law than the 32 victims of last week's massacre."
Matt Barber - "The FBI's latest statistics show that there were zero 'hate crimes' murders committed against homosexuals or those perceived to be homosexual in 2005; yet we already know of thirty-two so-called 'hate crimes' murders committed against perceived 'rich kids' in a single day. But under H.R. 1592, those 'rich kids' would shamefully be denied the same protections and justice as homosexuals. The whole 'hate crimes' concept really places logic and reason on its head"
Best distortion of the name of the hate crimes legislation- Tie - The Traditional Values Coalition - Cross Dressing Bill or Drag Queen Bill
Janet Folger and Faith2Action - Jail Grandma Bill
The Sexy Award - the attempt by the American Family Association to link hate crimes legislation to all sorts of freaky sexy behavior. It was a matter of time before someone got nasty:
Donald E. WildmonFounder and Chairman
May 1, 2007
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.
A message from Chuck Colson
Dear XXX,
Please take the time to read the enclosed article by Chuck Colson. Click here.
This law does not define "sexual orientation," leaving open the definition of the term. To see all the behaviors covered by the term "sexual orientation," please click here. Warning! This listing is offensive.
There is still time to make your voice heard. Please call your representative in Washington today. The vote is scheduled for this Thursday. Tell him or her that you strongly oppose the Hate Crimes Act. Mr. Colson rightly refers to it as the Thought Control bill.
You can reach your representative at 202-224-3121. Please ask your friends to call also.
Thank you for caring enough to get involved.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and ChairmanAmerican Family Association
Y'all can click if you want to but I wouldn't recommend it. Where in the hell did they find this stuff?
Donald Wildmon, Chuck Colson - you both need Jesus!
The obedient sheep award - To all of the so-called "pro-family" web pages and blogs who repeated anti-gay industry lies (especially Sheldon's distortion of the Congressman's quote) verbatim without reading the legislation in question.
The "you are a hypocrite and you know it but most of all, God knows it" award - To all of the web pages and blogs who repeated anti-gay industry lies about hate crimes legislation even after reading the actual legislation. You know who you are and most of all, God knows it.
For those of you who want success tomorrow in getting hate crimes legislation passed, don't forget to contact your legislators and inform them that people calling in against the legislation are being misled. And tell them to vote for the legislation because it the only fair thing to do:
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Hate is neither a Democratic nor an American Value. Hate crimes involve the purposeful selection of victims for violence and intimidation based on bias against their perceived attributes. These crimes are distinguished from, and go far beyond, mere expression of belief. They materially and unacceptably interfere with the full participation of all Americans in the fundamental liberties enjoyed in our democratic society.
As Americans, we must take a strong stand against violence committed against our neighbors for simply being themselves. The purpose of our government, first and foremost, is to protect all of our citizens - whether they are black, disabled, Christian or gay. While a random act of violence against any individual is always a tragic event, violent crimes based on prejudice have a much stronger impact because the motive behind the crime is to terrorize an entire community. These hate crimes chip away at the very foundations of our democracy - that all citizens are created equal and are afforded the same freedoms and protections. House Passage of HR 1592 will send the powerful message that the Democratic Party stands for tolerance and inclusion, and is opposed to prejudice in all its forms.
Why the Law Is Needed. There's a reason why the bill has been supported by 31 state Attorneys General and the leading law enforcement organizations - because, despite progress toward equality in almost all segments of our society - hate crimes continue to spread fear and violence among entire communities of Americans and law enforcement lack the tools and resources to prevent and prosecute them. In 2003, the FBI announced that there were more than 9,000 reported hate violence victims in the United States - almost 25 victims a day, or approximately one hate crime every hour. Since 1991, the FBI has received reports of more than 113,000 hate crimes.
What the Law Will Do
Protects First Amendment Rights. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act protects the First Amendment rights of the accused by prohibiting the introduction of evidence of association or expression to prove that a crime has been committed, unless it specifically relates to the offense. The legislation does not punish, nor prohibit in any way, name-calling, verbal abuse or expressions of hatred toward any group, even if such statements amount to hate speech. It covers only violent criminal actions. During proceedings on the bill, the Judiciary Committee explicitly noted that nothing in this legislation would prohibit the lawful expression of ones deeply held religious beliefs. To further ensure that there was no ambiguity on this point, an additional amendment offered by Rep. Davis, was adopted by voice vote at markup explicitly stating that conduct protected under the 1st Amendment free expression and free exercise clauses was not subject to prosecution.
Expands Protected Crimes. It is time to bring hate crimes law into the 21st century. The current federal law, enacted nearly 40 years ago, limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to incidents directed against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin - but only when the victim is targeted because he/she is engaged in a federally protected activities, such as voting. The legislation broadens this provision to cover all violent crimes motivated by race, color, religion, or national origin when the defendant causes bodily injury, or attempts to cause bodily injury through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device.
Extends Existing Protections to More Americans. HR 1592 expands current law to prohibit the same conduct, if such conduct were motivated on the basis of the victim's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability under a wider range of federal jurisdictional circumstances than federally protected activities. The federal government - through decades of civil rights and criminal law-has a history of combating crimes based on prejudice. HR 1592 merely expands the current law to include groups that have historically been affected by violence. This legislation sends a strong and clear message that hate crimes will not be tolerated and brings more uniformity and fairness to existing law.
Assists Local Law Enforcement. State and local authorities currently prosecute the overwhelming majority of hate crimes and will continue to do so under this legislation. The special attention that these crimes require can stretch local law enforcement officials beyond their capacity. Thus, the major focus of the bill is allowing the Federal government to provide crucial federal resources to state and local agencies to equip local officers with the tools they need to prosecute hate crimes. The legislation also authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to state and local law enforcement agencies that have incurred extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.
Requirements for Federal Prosecution. The bill ensures that the Federal prosecution of hate crimes is limited to cases that implicate the greatest Federal interest and present the greatest need for Federal intervention. Only in specific, limited instances will the Federal government prosecute crimes under this Act. Furthermore, the bill requires certification, by the Attorney General or other specified high-ranking Department of Justice official, prior to prosecution. The certifying individual must have ''reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant.'' The certifying individual must also have consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that one of the following situations is present:
(1) the state does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
(2) the state has requested that the Justice Department assume jurisdiction;
(3) the state does not object to the Justice Department assuming jurisdiction; or
(4) the state has completed prosecution and the Justice Department wants to initiate a
Broadens the Collection of Important Statistics. HR 1592 would amend the HCSA to require that the FBI collect statistics on gender and gender identity-related bias crimes, as well as juvenile victims and offenders. Under current law, such statistics are collected on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disability.
Supporters of the bill
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act has broad public and bipartisan support. The Act was introduced on March 20, 2007, by Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Mark Steven Kirk (R-IL), Barney Frank (D-MA), Christopher Shays (R-CN), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and Mary Bono (R-CA), with 137 cosponsors. Earlier versions of the bill have passed both houses of Congress in recent years, only to fall victim to partisan politics.
In fact, the Bill is supported by thirty one state Attorneys General and over 280 national law enforcement, professional, education, civil rights, religious, and civic organizations. Such notable associations and individuals who support the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act include: National Sheriffs' Association; International Association of Chiefs of Police; National District Attorneys Association (NDAA); Presbyterian Church; Episcopal Church; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR); National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); National Council of La Raza (NCLR); Human Rights Campaign (HRC); Parent's Network on Disabilities.
The Act also receives strong support by the majority of Americans. According to a new poll conducted by Peter Hart Research Associates, three in four (or 73 percent) of voters favor strengthening hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity and to give local law enforcement the tools they need to prevent and prosecute these violent acts based on bigotry.
Examples of Crimes Not Covered by Current Law
Targeted for disability, Linden, TX
Billy Ray Johnson suffered severe permanent brain damage after an attack where he was left unconscious in a trash dump. Four white men lured Billy Ray, a mentally challenged African-American man, to a cow pasture where they harassed him with racial insults and beat him unconscious. The four men escaped any felony criminal charges. Billy Ray Johnson suffered serious brain injuries from which he will never fully recover. A Texas jury recently awarded Billy Ray $9 million in civil damages to cover his future medical needs. (April 21, 2007, Chicago Tribune)
Targeted for gender identity, Twin Falls, NE
Brandon Teena, 21, was raped and later killed by two friends after they discovered he was biologically female. After the rape and assault, Teena reported the crime to the police, but they called Teena "it" and did not allow his deputies to arrest the two men responsible. Five days later, on Christmas Day 1993, the two men found Teena and shot and stabbed him to death. The movie "Boys Don't Cry" was based on Teena's story.
Targeted for sexual orientation , Austin, TX
Four men attacked a gay man heading home from a gay bar. The attackers forced him to sodomize himself with a sex toy at knife and sword point while they recited biblical passages condemning such acts. Then, the attackers beat and robbed him. (Daily Texan via University Wire, August 4, 2005)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)