The Silver Fox has hosted homosexuals on his show before. Like this time and that time. But last night he was sandwiched between two: Towleroad‘s Corey Johnson and columnist Dan Savage. Too bad it was marred by one of our own delivering some terribly misleading information.
The trio’s conversation — about how President Obama will use the Matthew Shepard Act to show how he’s committed to the queers — was worthwhile.
But let’s make one thing clear: In this segment’s opening package, hate crime survivor Todd Metrokin retold his brutal story outside a pizza shop. Telling that story is important. But Metrokin’s statement is misleading: “[Hates crimes laws] at least gives you a sense of safety, and that adds value.”
Hate crimes laws should not give LGBTs a sense of safety.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
They do not prevent anti-gay attacks. You think harsher punishments and federal funding for investigations factor into the mind of an attacker? They don’t. So don’t go around thinking Obama signing the Matthew Shepard Act makes you safer walking down the street. And nobody should be sending that message. Especially the gays. (Kudos to Dan to reminding viewers as much.)
Michael
Saw this last night and thought it was a good segment. I did think that Anderson was concentrating really hard to look like an impartial journalist…
Tom in COS
This may be a wildly inappropriate, but am i the only gay that thinks a ménage de quatre with those 3 men would be amazing?
AlwaysGay
Hate crimes legislation is important in getting more anti-gay hate crimes actually prosecuted as such. However most police departments willfully ignore charging anti-gay hate crimes as such because the victim is gay and they don’t care about justice being served FOR a gay person.
Obama has been rotten to gay people. Last year he went to Rick Warren’s church and said ON CAMERA he favored heterosexual-only marriage yet he wouldn’t be caught dead stating his disapproval of ballot initiatives against gay people ON CAMERA. He wrote a note last year against prop 8 and has done the same thing this year for Maine knowing these campaigns really can’t use the notes because they don’t have the impact seeing and hearing the President has on people.
I’ve been attracted to Dan Savage since I seen him years ago. He’s actually gotten hotter since. He’s the kind of man I’ve been attracted to since I was a child: cosmopolitan, smart, funny, thoughtful, and muscular.
Dominic
I am sorry, but when did these two become the spokesmen for the gay community. They both say that “The gay community wants this, and the gay community wants that.” Maybe I missed the meeting where we all decided exactly what we all wanted, but I personally don’t want one or two guys speaking for me.
extrabatteries
@dominic, agreed. since when does having a blog = civil rights leader? cant wave for the new wave of gen y civil rights leaders. baby boomer gays definitely had their capital squandered by gen x.
wondermann
I agree with Dominic. I was upset at Dan for that ridiculous statement about Hate Crimes not being one of the important issues.
That statement was horrible to hear and proves we have foolishness running wild in our community. We should be happy about the Hate Crimes bill passing.
And Dan, when did you win the title of Wonder Gay? Please, do not speak for me!
Cinci Chris
Well I guess as much as people want to hate on Gay, Inc., they do have their talking points down a bit better.
gay super hero
Hate Crimes legislation is pretty damn important and we shouldn’t underestimate it just because we need to put even more pressure on Obama. It means the authorities recognize that when someone is blindly attacked just because of their sexuality the purpose is to terrorize a whole community and target their way of life. Marriage is about personal fulfillment. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is about choosing a career. This is about life or death.
And let’s not forget that th law was passed twice before but did not reach the president’s desk because Bush wouldn’t sign it. This is undeniable progress.
Finally, living outside the US I can tell you that whenever the President makes another speech about gay rights it may all seem empty promises to gay americans but the impact around the world is huge. I call that leadership.
The Truth
This segment was full of lies. The truth is that the hate crimes bill was not passed by congress saying that they were for gay rights. No..it was shoved into the defense bill at the very last moment. This bill sent money to our troops to Iraq and Afghanistan and had to be passed. If it wasn’t they would not be able to function there. So don’t be claiming too much of a victory. MANY senators Republicans and Democrats were VERY unhappy that this was shoved into the bill and made it known that they did not like the hate crime bill but had to vote the defense bill in.
Yet Cooper just remotely forgets to mention that little item now doesn’t he!? Fair and balanced my ass! He is one of the most biased people I know. I can’t even call him a journalist because his work doesn’t prove that.
rudy
That this passed before and was vetoed by Bush is a needed reminder as to what elections are about.
Bill Perdue
It’s absolutely true that hate crime laws will not end violence against us.
That will happen when form a government that will begin arresting, convicting and jailing mormon, catholic, and protestant cult leaders like Obama bedmates Warren and Donnie McClurkin for inciting violence. And throwing away the key.
Nevertheless they’re an important tool in organizing our defense against violence. We can demand enforcement and if it’s not forthcoming we’ll know who the co-conspirators and accomplices are – the police and prosecutors.
Think of hate crimes laws as educational tools.
Bill Perdue
Rudy no 10 is wrong. The history is very clear. http://www.queerty.com/democrats-drop-hate-crimes-20071206/
The Matthew Shepard Hate crimes laws was passed by both houses of Congress in 2007 but was dropped by the Democrats so they wouldn’t appear too GLBT-friendly in the run up to the 2008 election, although that was never much of a danger.
Bush, who would’ve certainly vetoed them, never got the chance.
Dick Mills
In the short term, the assertion that hate-crimes protections will not lessen or eliminate anti-gay violence is true. But, it you look at the history of hate-crimes in the US, you will find the interesting correlation between enacted hate-crimes legislation, and the eventual lessening of hate-crimes against the protected minorities. It doesn’t happen over night, and hate-crimes will never go away completely, but over time, incidences of hate-crimes do decrease for protected minorities.
QueerToday.com
Thank you for this queerty. You’re absolutely right, and this is exactly why I wrote about how conflicted I was about this legislation. Not only does it not help prevent crime it is attached to war/occupation and weaponry spending.
PopSnap
@ Tom in COS
You’re not the only one. “Threesome” was in my head for the whole duration of that clip. -_-
Bruno
No matter how this law was passed or what the immediate efficacy will be, it is a huge step for us. If only for the reason that we can now point to it as proof that LGBT’s are all members of a suspect class which is discriminated against based on gender identity and sexual orientation. It is the first law on the federal level that recognizes this, and that is huge.
Hate crimes penalties may not stop the perpetrators out there right now, but eventually it will become more ingrained in people’s psyches that hating someone based on orientation or identity is wrong and punishable. It WILL prevent crimes in the future.
TikiHead
Dan Savage is such a god damned curmudgeon. Fuck off already, Dan.
Hate crimes put the bashing-murdering fuckers away for a more appropriate sentence. No more slaps on the wrists, I hope.
TikiHead
Basher in jail can’t bash anymore.
ricky
hate crime victim has no idea what hate crimes legislation means, film at 11.
rudy
No. 12 · Bill Perdue
Yes, you’re right – I repeated Savage’s memory slip.
Bill Perdue
Dick Mills: No. 13
I think the real correlation is between the decision of Native Americans and African Americans to physically defend themselves during the great civil rights battles of the 1960’s and later.
The self-defense program of Malcolm X, when it spread far and wide, was far more effective than all the liberal hand wringing and half assed efforts of the FBI and local law ‘enforcement’.
That had far more to do with slowing down the rate of hate crimes than all the laws ever passed.
Bruno: No. 16.
I wish you were right for the sake of the 25 or so LGBT folks who get bludgeoned, knifed, beatnen and burned to death every year. And for the thousands who report cases of extreme harassment and violcene. Ane the other thousands who don’t because they fear the police as much as the thugs. But I think you’re wrong.
These crimes won’t stop until the unending barrage of hate speech that emanates from temples, churches mosques and other cult centers week in and week out is itself declared criminal and prosecuted. When Jimmy Swaggart called for killing gay men http://www.spike.com/video/jimmy-swaggart-would/2650343 he should have been arrested. He wasn’t. And he wouldn’t be if he repeated it today.
Swaggart is different from the others in that he’s stupider. (Maybe he got paresis from all his muff diving expititions with female sex workers.) But the others, who say we’re not quite human, that we prey on children, that we’re not fit to marry, that we’ don’t deserve equality on the job are just as dangerous. Thugs catch on when they listen to Dobsdon, or Der Pope, or to Obama, who says that even ‘gawd’ doesn’t want us to get married.
When we get fundamental changes, when people are ready to change our society, then we can deal with all the causes of hate crimes and put a stop to them. In the meantime we should use them to defend ourselsves and to point out that it’s not just the thugs, its the cult leaders and politicians like Obama and Bush who pander to the haters. They’re accomplices in every hate crime that that occurs.
Alexander
It’s a step forward, but that’s it, a sign that things are moving in the right direction, albeit slowly. The fact that this is even news is shocking, this bill should have been passed years ago. It is criminal that America gives more protection regarding religion (which is a CLEAR choice) than sexuality, which is NOT a choice (at least according to the majority of Americans AND near-every medical association. Religion has it’s place, of course, but not as something that should dictate our ENTIRE legislative process.
extrabatteries
in addition to this, gays really should be getting behind gun rights laws.
terrwill
If the law gives one sub-human scumbag pause before he decides to beat the shit out of a Gay it is well worth it………..Plus its great seeing the rightwing-nutbags getting their panties bunched up even tighter…………..
cinnamonboast
Why are they always referred to as Landmark legislations when they always miss the mark and fall deep into the ocean? What are we kittens that need to protected from pit bulls, and I don’t think I mean Sarah Palin?
I guess I should say its great. I really do enjoy watching politicians scribble their signature into leather bound books atop big oak desks. That is exactly what I think of, to keep safe you see, when I’m out at night walking down a dark street….near a -church-
Brian
“Laws” don’t protect anyone. They simply punish bad behavior.
This was not passed with the support of the US Congress – the Democrats held “Defense Spending” hostage until this was added. Two-thirds of the Congress are still anti-gay.
There is a reason people hate homosexuals in the first place: beliefs. Traditional Christian beliefs. If you end those beliefs, you end the hate.
charlie82
Laws and legislation will never change hearts or minds. I have never agreed with this law for fact that all crime involves some kind of hate. Hate is a feeling; critics of this law have said it will criminalize thought or belief. No one should be punished for simply hating someone. Some one can be tried for a federal crime if they hate us, but our employer can still fire us? I know a lot of people who hate me and thats fine there entitled to there opinion but if they hurt me, they should be punished for there actions not there feeling towards me.
WillBFair
I think we should be asking for beefed up police protection in our communities. That would be more effective than after-the-fact measures. And it’s only fair, given that straights use massive resources for public schools, and marraige benefits, etc… We should get something for our tax dollars.
As for these two speaking for us, please. They’re both hot, which seems to be the main qualification for a queer leader. Even more than the rest of low mass culture, the gay community has yet to realize that leaders with brains and character would make stronger arguments, and be better role models, and create more effective strategies. So we’re stuck with the cheek bone set. Ho hum.
Scrufff
Love Dan Savage, if you haven’t yet, check out his weekly column. Not only is it informative but usually quite funny. Personally, he’s one of my heroes. We need more witty, articulate and telegenic guys like Dan Savage on our side. And he’s way sexy!
His column: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=2531572
Colin
uhhhh, what makes a sex columnist and a 25 year old kid who works for a blof qualified to speak on CNN? there aren’t more qualified voices to turn to?
tjr101
Who appointed Dan Savage as the spokes person for gay rights again? It’s so easy to appear as the noble one spouting off from a blog.
Hate Crimes legislation is significant and adds the LGBT community to the class of other groups in society that are protected under the law. Of Course there will still be hate crimes committed towards gays. If this makes the punishment more severe, so be it. It’s worth it.
Patrick Garies
@charlie82: The point is not simply that they hate you, but that their actions terrorize others in a group. For example, killing someone for revenge is different than killing someone because they’re gay because the latter instills fear in that group. In a sense, hate crimes laws are anti-terrorism laws.
As for the critics labeling this “thought crimes” law, this is nothing new. For example, if you intentionally run someone over with a car, you are charged with a more serious crime than if you ran someone over with a car because, say, your brakes give out or you were distracted. In all of those cases, the result is the same: you killed someone. However, the intent comes into play in determining what you should be charged with (if anything); intent determines if you are a murderer, negligent, or if circumstances were reasonably beyond your control.
Me
I, too, drool over Dan Savage (a man that only gets hotter with age) and he’s one of the few intelligent voices speaking for gays.
InExile
Dan Savage is one of the best speakers on lgbt rights we have. I would prefer Savage speaking about our issues instead of Joe Solmomese any day. Savage knows his issues and stands his ground against the most extreme right wing people while Joe Solmonese cowers and allows bigots to talk over him.
jason
The world operates at two levels: the legal system and the socio-cultural system. Even though the legal system has progressed, I can’t say the same about the socio-cultural system. At the socio-cultural level, there is still a ton of discrimination and hatred towards gay men in particular.
Katie
Corey and Dan are great spokepeople for the queer community–congratulations to both of you!
Robert, NYC
Bill, I thoroughly agree with all your points.
Brian, I doubt if hatred of gay people would be diminished that much if the religious cults weren’t in the picture. There are many atheists, non-jews, non-muslims and others who hate us and want to deny us full equality. I will concede though that the major cults are the culprits for the bulk if not all of the world’s institutionalized homophobia and that will continue as long as they exist. They feed on it, an evil force in the world unfortunately, for the most part if you look at their collective histories to the present day. I just don’t understand why it has such a grip on the American political system and why its tolerated by so many. It seems as if most politicians are afraid to confront them because their careers and accumulation of wealth are more important than doing the right thing. Why is it that American politicians in order to get elected need to declare their religious beliefs? I know of no other modern western society that behaves in this manner. It baffles me.
benlayvey
@ Extrabatteries: Hear, Hear! My partner and I have registered guns and encourage our friends to do the same. We always carry ours everywhere-I usually get away with it because he ranks high in the NYPD-There’s nothing like staring down the barrel of a gun to scare bigots [who think us naturally vulnerable preys] straight. And yes we’ve had to use them a couple of times-usually on thugs attacking the more effete members of our community. My advice: Get a gun, at least you have a fighting chance. For Julian and I, we’d rather go down in a blaze of glory.
PuddyKatz
Dan Savage writes a popular sex column. This does not make him an expert on law.
alicia banks
great news!
let’s give him a white chocolcate chip cookie
and as he eats it
remind him that hets get ILLEGALLY killed, raped and beaten daily!
i need some more chips in my equality!!!
naghanenu
Oh please..this law wont do jackshit…
People detest and despise gays with an almost inhuman passion. All they ll be is more careful..
When people stop treating gays like freaks then the hate will reduce.
McShane
It doesn’t really matter who says what if they’re wrong.
In the first place, in the short term, Congresses support on the side of the value of gay citizens well being is a sign up front that we are a protected class of people–in the same way that any citizen should be.
Secondly, there is no telling the ultimate effects of consequences given. E.g., if there were not significant results for rape charges, men would be attaching women all over the place. My guess is that amongst the criminal elinment there are not currently sopecial awards given people who attack minorities.
I say all of this with the caveat that if Gay people protected one another and took cxare of each other in the way tha they once did, e.g. in San Francisco, there would be minimal hate crimes at least in public places where gays blew whistles if attacked. It worked, when we had community values.
charlie82
@Patrick Garies: intent and motive play a role in any crime thats the point I was trying to make what I am trying to say is having a law that specifically makes the thought behind the crime a crime to me is not right. People are going to hate but when the hate becomes an action the action should be punished not the thought. People shouldn’t be punished because of how they feel. No we are not protected under law we still can’t be ourselves in the military, we can still be discriminated against and fired from our workplace and we are still discriminated against when reporting crimes committed against us. That is what needs to change. This wouldn’t have even passed if they hadn’t added it to another bill. How pathetically sad is it that a law that is supposed to protect people was added to a DEFENSE bill in order to pass?
extrabatteries
you have little or no education or understanding of crime and punishment; intent plays a major factor in punishment. further – there is nothing is pathetic about how the law passed. but i wouldnt expect you to understand, its very easy for people with a loose grasp of how the system works to do anything more than just bitch about how it looks from the outside. if you want to make a difference, your attitude is the place to start.
uhno
Criticizing and ridiculing commenters is way more fun!
@ Katie.
Man why did you have to be named Katie? Aren’t woman who talk with a baby’s voice named Katie?
But I bet you’re just a fag hag. Only a fag hag would tersely override reason to declare that spokespeople need congratulating. Its your gay best friend who does. The one who has to put up with you!
I bet you like cupcakes.
mark
It’s always so amusing when Anderson says “and what do the gays think?”
awkward! and worse kept secret on the planet.
charlie82
@extrabatteries: as a matter of fact I have had a lot of experience in the system. When I was 17 I was sexually assaulted and got to experience the system shitting me over because of my perceived sexual orientation so I have some what of an education on the “system”. And yes it is pathetic that this bill was attached to another in order to pass thats why they did it. I am not like most people I dont role over and accept things. I do this really moronic thing called thinking and I dont make for a very good American because I like to form my own opinion. This is nothing more than a crumb that most politicans will use in there next election “hey I helped in getting this signed into law” yay good for you but what about ENDA, DADT? I know exactly how the system works it doesn’t!
San Francisco Treat
All of you asserting that hate crimes legislation will not result in a reduction in hate crimes should read the data on the subject. You’re entitled to you opinions, but you should try to keep them informed! This bill is a historic victory built on many years of tireless effort from our community regardless of the tactic used to get 68 US Senators to vote for it.
We won! We should be proud.
extrabatteries
@charlie82: so you bitch about the system failures, and you bitch about when those failures are corrected? so what, in a few years enda, dadt and hate crimes will all be legislation. but if they dont pass the way that you like, you just keep on bitching? charlie, you reek of a larger problem, permanent victim, its time for you and a lot of the ‘community’ to realize where gays stand in america today. whats pathetic, is the need for lbgt fighting for lgbt rights to muddy the waters by acting like your PERSONAL full blown political ideals also have some crossover to the lgbt right movement. so what if edna passes attached to a moose hunting bill, or dadt is attached to a wildlife management bill. since when does the fight for lgbt rights come at an all encompassing or nothing 100% liberal agenda. lastly, charlie, thinking for yourself for the first time doesnt make you a unique snowflake, it is not a means in itself, your thoughts need to be cohesive, intelligent, and versed. actually questioning the status quo separated you from the bottom wrungs by one step – and so far your ‘opinion’ sounds like the dime a dozen blog responses churned out every second.
Robert, NYC
I don’t care if any part of equality legislation is attached to any bill, as long as it passes, that’s all we should care about. Would any of us bitch if marriage equality had been attached to it granting full federal recognition of same-sex marriage? I doubt it. We take whatever we can get by any method than sit back and do nothing but complain. Its not an ideal world.
Bill Perdue
No. 47 • San Francisco Treat – we got a new tool to help defend ourselves and it is a (smallish) victory. If Obama signs it. And if we use it to throw a searchlight of publicity on officials who treat violence against us with a wink and a slap on the wrist, which seems to be the norm.
When you say our opinions are uniformed? What can you cite that that proves that hate crimes are diminished by laws, assuming the cops and DA’s bother to prosecute and that the judge is leery of being seen as bigot.
Did the KKK stop riding because they were afraid of the FBI? Or was it because, like all bullies and bigots, they pissed their pants when armed self defense was introduced into the picture and when SPLC took them to civil court and grabbed their assets to compensate their victims?
What studies prove that laws limit hate crimes, or that they won’t be misused or ignored? What studies? What proof? What information? Put up or shut up.
Steve
I’m sorry but I can’t disagree with anything that Dan & Corey had to say.
I lived in Adams Morgan for 10 years and saw it go from an interesting, hip neighborhood into the hot spot for my peers in their 20-30s from the area’s colleges and suburbs. Unfortunately, “trendy” does not equate with “tolerance” and I was accosted on several occasions by my peers for being perceived as gay.
Now, the Matthew Shepard Act wouldn’t have changed any of it…and would have been a small consolation to my survivors if any of those altercations had turned violent and deadly but anti-discrimination laws at work, housing (I rented), and public accommodations (restaurants and such) and (later) domestic partnership laws had a direct effect on my life every day.
And I think it is high time we expand those protections nationwide.
Let me put it this way…what is more important after the bashing for the victim? 1) the crime has now become a federal offense with potentially extra resources and punishment or 2) that victim’s covered by their partner’s health insurance or that the victim–discovered to be gay because of the attack–can’t be fired and lose their health insurance–or the surviving partner receives social security benefits?
Dan is right…nice job…but there is more to do.
Now for all of those who think ENDA should have priority over DOMA, I’m in total agreement. But in the end, just as all similar laws have not ended racism, these laws will not end homophobia.
ChristopherJ
Dan Savage is a genius, so well spoken, and I love him
Eddie
ok well i saw this video and im wondering What the (F) is this dumb (F) asking strangers if they want some pizza?. I am a homosexual 26 yr old have been in a relationship since i was 18 with the same guy. Have tons of straight friends and everyone i come out to has always shook my hand in wow but state that they have so much respect for me. The problem with some gay people is that they have no respect for straight guys. I mean asking str8 strangers if they want some of your pizza is not just asking if they want pizza. I am ashamed to be gay when i see guys like this and if you asked me he deserved to have a shoe mark in his face. I am not supporting people who hate gays at all. And personally i am yet to have the day where a straight person decides to be verbally or physically abusive and im ready to teach someone a lesson about respect. But to get back on point alot of gay guys have no respect for straight females (hitting on their husbands or single straight dudes). To me it is only the right of a straight man to defend his space. My opinion. You can be gay, proud and out. But you have to respect yourself and respect that we live in a country where we are fighting for respect and how can we get respect if we dont give it. (TO ALL THE GAY PEOPLE READING THIS) I am not bashing my own kind. I love who i am. But lets grow up and act like adults and if you are acting out of line dont blame it on homophobia take responsibility for your actions. And learn to respect others and their comfort or lack of in regards to being around homosexuals. Maybe through respecting peoples space and changing the way 80% us act will allow society to change the way they see us at some point in time. (and yes i said 80%) Being gay man isnt about acting like you are a female, being overdramatic and throwing it in peoples face. Its finding someone of the same sex who you would enjoy spending your life with and doing so. Being sexually active and partying is a 18-25 yr old thing then its time to grow up. And thats the problem so many gays sad to say grow old and lonely because they got it all wrong they never settle down and prey on the younger generation of gay kids at nightclubs (its shamefull)BEING GAY IS= a lifestyle not a mental disorder. And i hope my community one day gets to understanding that and making better choices. So we can be respected.
Disgusted American
Eddie – Im sorry – ALL I heard from your long comment was,.. If a Gay offers a straight guy pizza..he somehow deserves to have his face stepped on…?
What I get from the story is the str8 guy probably gave him a weird/opnionated look…so instead of saying something “smart”to the str8 guy…he just said – “would lu liek a peice of pizza”? How does that – condone Stepping on anyones face? Would a man be justified steppingon a woman’s face – if she didn’t liek the look he her,then said…u wanna a peice of pizza? Its called just being a decent intelligent human being.
extrabatteries
@eddie: i fold all my cards. you are the biggest idiot at the table, you win. btw nice jobs bashing women while you were at it. ps i bet your boy toy is cheating on you. i know i would be.
Dubyel
Bill Perdue No. 12 – I found this comment very educational. I always wondered about the obsession with hate crimes legislation. Judges already have broad discretion to take the criminal’s motives into account when sentencing. I have a great distrust for any movement in the law that punishes thoughts. It’s just a short step to “hate speech” laws to limit the First Amendment. (You would probably favor those as well, wouldn’t you, since you already advocate forming a new government and abolishing the free exercise of religion?) Also, It made no sense to me to provide extra punishment for hate against certain groups and not for everybody. That’s what equal protection under the law is supposed to be all about. If we’re going to prosecute hate, and if we’re going to have equal rights, not “special rights”, then any person or group that is, or that perceives itself to be, the subject of hate should be able to presume hate in any crime against them and demand hate-crime prosecution. Speaking of which, it looks to me like you’ve got a lot of hate there yourself. If I were one of those religious groups or leaders you named, I would view your comments as hate speech. How would you like it if the FBI put you on a watch list. After all, hate crimes based on religion are already a protected class, (and there’s that potentially subversive forming a new government comment). Don’t you worry about the people that you might inspire and incite with your hate speech? Could you imagine how you would feel if the FBI showed up at your house to arrest you as a result of the foreseeable consequences of your comments if some church-burning anarchist nut job named you as his inspiration? Will you think twice and maybe censor yourself the next time you want to criticize specific religious groups or leaders? I always thought that’s what hate-crime laws were really about, silencing the opposition. But now you tell me that it’s not about the victims or criminals, or even silencing the opposition. It’s only about a tool to identify enemies in the system. That’s just a total perversion of what criminal laws are supposed to be for. However, thanks for admitting to the fraudulent motives of the hate-crimes movement and for enlightening me. Sleep well. After all, what are the chances you could actually inspire somebody to do something stupid?
Bill Perdue
^^^^
Nitey night.
Sleep tight.
Don’t let the altar boys bite.
Patrick Garies
@#56 Dubyel: Hate crime laws do not punish thoughts; they punish actions. The severity of the punishment is determined by intent just as the case would be if you drove a car over someone.
Using “intent” to determine the level of punishment is still not a “thought crime”, however. We don’t have mind-reading machines, so we can only base intent on actions. If you make anti-gay slurs while beating someone, that’s an action that can be used to judge your intent. That *action* is what is being used for terrorism purposes, not the thought (which can only be read by psychics).
If, on the other hand, you beat down someone gay because they were gay but there was nothing to indicate that that was the motive, obviously you could not be prosecuted under this law despite the disgusting thoughts. Again, your actions are the only things that are being judged under these laws. Thus, your freedom to think hateful thoughts is unabridged.
—
The “slippery slope” argument (“hate crimes” to “hate speech”) is really getting old. That argument is used repeatedly to justify opposing one thing without actually arguing against that thing; you’re arguing against the item down the “slope” instead of against the actual topic. Furthermore, you don’t even explain what will cause this move from X to Y (i.e., by identifying people advocating for Y, demonstrating past transitions from X to Y, etc).
When people start advocating for “hate speech” laws, make your thoughts known; however, that is not a reason to deny *hate crimes* laws which are something distinctly different.
—
Regarding equal protection, if this were an ideal world, I would probably agree with you, but it isn’t. We live in a world where majorities frequently trample minorities simply because they can, so minorities must be given *more* protection to compensate. Otherwise, you end up with a tyranny of the majority.
If you don’t think this is a good idea yet, consider that the First Amendment serves this purpose. It protects minority religions from majority religions, protects dissension from being suppressed by the majority, etc.
—
Regarding “hate speech” against anti-gay religious practitioners, these people are neither a minority nor an oft persecuted group. (When considering the term “minority”, think in terms of power, wealth, and entrenchment in addition to head counts.)
Furthermore, the “hate” is directed toward the hateful actions these people have taken whereas *their* hatreds are irrationally based on hate itself, mythologies, or other disinformation. I think there’s a considerable difference between denouncing someone who’s materially wronged you and persecuting a group of people for what amounts to “just because”.
These people instigated this and they’re now fanning the flames; when they start dousing those flames, the hate will stop. Asking groups being persecuted to stop the hating while the persecutors are still acting makes no sense.
And, as I mentioned before, “hate speech” and “hate crimes” are not the same thing yet you act as if they are with your “watch list” comment; you even speak as if you endorse thought crimes for those who oppose religion or government… which is a bit contradictory.
—
The purpose of laws are to help people, create a better society, and allow people to seek redress for misdeeds done. I think hate crimes do all of those things to varying degrees. If you have a better idea how one might better address failures in this arena, do tell. (I’d hazard a guess that your solution is “nothing is needed, the system already works” though.)
@#42 charlie82: As I said at the beginning of this post, “hate crimes” are *not* “thought crimes”.
—
While I also find it sad that we can and have to attach unrelated bills like this, I think that this is a reality that we have to live with barring bigger reform. That bigger reform would probably have to be in the form of a constitutional amendment limiting bills to one topic and a banning of filibusters at the very least.
It would also help if we didn’t have one of two major political parties having an anti-gay platform or more than half the senators representing States with anti-gay attitudes.
Until those things are dealt with, we either have to take things nice and slow waiting for majority acceptance (in every State) or a Supreme Court ruling or game the system like everyone else is already doing.
Drake
Dan Savage is not a political reporter, so why is someone who writes about fetishes and etiquette with ex-sex partners qualified to be a spokesperson for gays on national television?
charlie82
@extrabatteries; Laws and legislation do nothing to change the way people feel about the gay community. If someone does not like the fact that I am gay thats thats there choice. If someone physically hurts me for there hatred then try them for there action yes I know that intent and motive play a role in any crime but in order for this law to work it has to established and proven. I am not going to argue my point sense you seem to criticize anyone with a view different from your own. I’m not going to get excited because a law is passed it may look good on paper but its not going to change the hearts and minds of people who who do not like.
And by the way I dont consider myself a permanent victim I am a survivor, I go before the lawmakers and do everything I can to help others by using my voice. My opinions are based on my experiences and learning of the experiences of others. If you can present a valid argument to me I might not nessacarily change my mind but I would value your opinion.
Eddie
AHH oldbatteries and DUMB AMERICA: First off i never disrespected any female i just said i dont agree with gay guys acting like they are somehow in a battle of “whos the better female” I never disrespected females at all. (GO GET SOME READIN COMPREHENSION CLASSES AT YOUR LOCAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE. AND AS FAR AS YOUR COMMENT ON YOU KNOW MY PARNTER IS CHEATING ON ME. (YOU WOULD IF YOU WERE IN HIS SHOES, lol) wow. I FEEL U ARE JUST UPSET BECAUSE YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE ELDERLY PEOPLE WHO PREY ON YOUNG HOMOSEXUALS. I HAVE BEEN IN A RELATIONSHIP (WITH THE SAME MAN)SINCE I WAS 18 i am 26 years old now. (in the gay world that is rare) I AM A GREAT REPRESENTATION OF WHAT A HOMOSEXUAL YOUNG ADULT IS AND I DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK OF MY OPINION. I STAND MY GROUND. AND AS FAR AS “Disgusted American” and your dumb comment. clearly you dont understand my point but i will simplify it for you like if you were in 3rd grade. In the homosexual word there is a “secret code of actions” in which gays communicate with straights hiding behind the fact that it is basically “being polite with a secret agenda” and it gives them the right to enter a straight mans space and invade their confort zone because they will hind behind the fact that they were just being polite. AND I QUOTE “i thought it was a nice exchange” says the guy who got asaulted. lol. Dude stop encouraging this behavior because its unfair to straight men. ITS CALLED RESPECT and it all comes down to having “Social Order” (or for your better understanding Common Sense) “when does a straight guy go up to a married women who is sitting next to her husband and offers her pizza and things it’ll be a nice exchange?” haha. WOW. AND LAST TO GET IT CLEAR “i am in no way supporting violence” but naturally i am logical and i understand that change will have to occur after there is a lesson made. Ultimately i can poke at that gay guy and laugh that he got kicked in the face as brutal and (a) hole as i may seem. Because i know that a guy will learn that it is not right to be disobedient towards our laws on assault and he will go to jail teaching a few people a lesson. And the gay guy is going to remember to have respect and stay in the circle of “Social Order” where it is not ok to hit on straight men. He will set an example that i hope the gay community soaks up. WE ARE NOT THERE YET. BUT WE WILL BE THERE ONE DAY. (we will have respect and equality) but we cannot take 1 step forward and 5 steps back. It all comes down to giving the respect that we are asking for. (so in yes i do think its funny he got beat up cause it is his fault. Other people might not understand my point of view but i am a gay man and i know the secret language and the things gays do that is disrespectfull “in my eyes” and it frustrates me to see that so many of us fight for respect but others are asking for RIGHTS and have not yet aquired the only piece thats gonna get us there= “RESPECT”.
LAST to extrabatteries: i would like to encourage you to go get some Energizers for your brain and stick some in there you toy. In debating you have to “Analize” the situation and make sure that you agree with what is “fact” or what is remotely close to “common sense”.
extrabatteries
@eddie: cheers to that! now i think you are an even bigger idiot than the first time for wasting so much time trying to defend your stupid comments.
btw, who are you talking to? i stopped reading when i saw “No. 62 · Eddie”.
extrabatteries
@charlie82: i never argued laws change peoples opinions. i said laws punish intent, and also laws existing do have an impact versus a law not existing. and creation of a law can, has, and will have an effect society. no mr. impatient, it is not overnight, you will have to wait, and it will involve many other facots.
if you read more into it than that, its probably because you have an idea that i belon to some invisible group of ‘people attacking you’ and you decided what ‘those people’ think, regardless of what they said, meant, or implied. so go chase up another tree, im not fighting back against an argument i never made. that, and i dont argue, i state facts.
Robert, NYC
Eddie, don’t fall into the trap that gay relationships don’t last very long. I’ve been in one for seventeen years to the same man and both of us have been monogamous and we’re not even married or in any legal partnership. I have several friends in my circle who have been in theirs for much longer, one couple for over 35 years. Its not that uncommon, believe it or not. Its just that it never gets any attention. The notion that we can’t sustain long term relationships is one of the weapons right wing bigots use to deny us equality but they totally disregard the soaring straight divorce rate which isn’t caused by gays marrying, another one of the weapons in their arsenal. What you stated is something they relish, be careful.
Eddie
YOUR RIGHT ROBERT AND 17 Years (wow) my hat to you (i respect you even more because you know what we have to go through to keep it going) i dont know im only 26 and i know i have alot to experience and in reading your comment you make sense and i respect your comment. More so because of the way you defend your comment by setting yourself as an example. Anyhow yeah this will be my last comment i wont keep going back and forth with oldbatteries anymore. GOOD LUCK TO YOUR ROBERT. TAKE IT EASY.
Robert, NYC
Eddie, thank you for your kind words. I wish you too the very best in your relationship and to all others here. If society at large knew more about our long-lasting relationships, maybe it would help the argument for marriage equality, all it is getting is the negative, derogatory remarks fueled by the right wing, religious bigots and the media that rarely portrays us in a positive light which proves that none of them know any gay people or want to get to know us. Ignorance for them is bliss no doubt
Bill Perdue
Robert is right. There are large numbers of GLBT folks in long term partnerships and they deserve all the breaks and support provided by law.
And so does everyone one else, no matter what form their partnering takes and even, especially, if they choose not to be partnered at all.
Partnering is a civil matter and the unwanted intrusion of religious cults should be forbidden and criminalized. Partnering, whatever form it takes, is a civil matter and except for questions of protecting the status of women and children it’s really a matter best left to those involved in the partnership.
The cults intrusion in civil affairs like marriage as well as their tax breaks are unconstitutional. But simply calling it unconstitutional is not enough. Their interference in civil life should be criminalized for the same reason that private armies, aka, gangs, are illegal.
They have no business conducting marriages or even commenting on civil matters while we’re unfairly forced to pay their taxes. They should confine themselves to counting the number of demons that can dance on the head of a pin.
Take away the money they make on marriages and take away their tax exempt status and all the freeloading mullahs, priests, pastors, evangelists, imams and grand gazebos might be forced to become productive members of society and actually get jobs.
Or, alternatively, they could become hermits and live in caves in the desert and mull over the odds of being possessed by pea soup vomiting demons and similar gawdstuff. Which is fine as long as they don’t bother the real snakes.
In any case then we can all sing Hallelujah!
extrabatteries
@eddie, your trolling is totally believable. i mean, who wouldnt doubt you are 26, specifically 26, tell me again, how old, oh thats right 26. youre a lame troll. old wanker.
@bill, regarding churches, amen!
Robert, NYC
Bill, right on! Religious cults for the most part are nothing more than parasites. NOBODY should be above the law as these bigots are and I’m for retaliating with state referenda to remove the tax-exempt status of any cult meddling in and influencing the outcome of legislation favoring civil equality, let alone banning civil marriage for LGBT citizens. How would they like it if we sought a ban on religious marriage? They can’t have it both ways. If they want to get involved in the political process, then force them to pay their fair share of taxes. No exceptions.
scott ny'er
bill and robert… i agree.
i still say we start our own church. The Church of Gaydom. With our many gods. Liza, Barbra, Judy. Anderson Cooper (oh, he’s not out) ummm, Neil Patrick Harris, Ellen, RuPaul, Harvey, Bill T. Jones, The Weather Girls, Sir Ian, etc.
Eddie
@oldbatteries, haha. Go do something with yourself you “single” pervert . We established that the only reason you’re upset with me is cause i hit a little to close to home with you on one of my comments. I’ll be on the lookout for you on “to catch a predator” lol. _ i can just imagine how sad and lonely your world is or if anyone even loves you besides your mother who obviously didnt teach you anything good. Go have a martini at a local gay bar with a 21 year old college student you old sugar daddy_dont forget your viagra and your (c**K Ring) __(chuckling)
ewe
@AlwaysGay: Savages sex column in anything but cosmopolitan. I wonder if Savage would tell us all why he does not refer to Anderson coopers orientation in casual conversation. I still believe people are being forced to sign waivers and confidentiality clauses barring them from talking about Anderson Cooper before appearing on his show. That is my opinion and i am sticking to it untill it is PROVEN otherwise. If you say anything relating to his orientation on his CNN/360 blog, it is censored so what i feel makes perfect sense. There is something very disturbing about this underlying THING never spoken of.
Patrick Garies
#73 Ewe wrote: “There is something very disturbing about this underlying THING never spoken of.”
It’s no more disturbing than a straight news anchor/commentator not speaking about their sexual orientation. Unless the topic is “Anderson Cooper”, it’s really irrelevant.