Signature drive for anti-gay marriage amendment in Florida falls short of needed endorsements.
Elton John project: fictitious and popular not over-the-hill and gay...
Thumb's down: The Statue of Liberty's digit at center of Reading, Pennsylvania Keith Haring controversy. Background...
A 19-year-old homeless teen has been charged in an attack on a gay man in Derry, Ireland that left him without the sight in one eye. The attacker denies he assaulted the man because he was gay.
Senator Kennedy releases statement on New Bedford gay bar attack: "Hate crimes have no place in our society, and this hateful act is a sad reminder of how far we have to go, I join all of New Bedford and all of Massachusetts in praying for the victims' recovery and in demanding justice. After eight long years of delay, it's essential that we finally pass long overdue federal legislation to combat these despicable crimes."
Posted Feb. 2,2006 at 2:45 PM EST by Andy Towle in Elsewhere | Permalink
"After eight long years of delay, it's essential that we finally pass long overdue federal legislation to combat these despicable crimes."
Right, because walking into a bar, pulling a hatchet and firing shots at patrons is legal in New Bedford.
Whatta' windbag.
Posted by: Tom | Feb 2, 2006 3:03:14 PM
I think I'm with the South Park boys in regard to 'hate crimes' - the thinking marginalizes. The enraged asshole who chooses a gay bar as his psycho ground should be tried as an asshole who attacked CITIZENS, not gay men, because that is first and foremost how we must be seen. When we isolate his intent, even in decrying its fucked-upness, we give substance to what has to be utterly immaterial.
(Sorry for the preaching - it's how I see it.)
Posted by: Jacko | Feb 2, 2006 3:43:36 PM
At last! The Democrats are finally speaking up for us. Sen. Kennedy and the others sometimes disappoint me by not being more vocal in pressing gay issues forward, and I hate that it takes tragic circumstances such as the New Bedford assault spree to light a fire under their ass. The thing is that these kind of vicious hate crimes occur weekly -- if not daily -- in some form or another, and the mainstream press and politicians usually are just mum. Go Kennedy, and keep the heat on this time!!!!
Posted by: thatsright | Feb 2, 2006 3:48:19 PM
If we shouldn't prosecute people for what they're thinking, why do we differentiate between manslaughter and murder? Manslaughter isn't strictly reserved for accidental deaths, but is also used by prosecutors when they can't really prove the whole 'in cold blood' thing.
The truth is motive has always influenced punishment in our legal system. And as an enlightened, multicultural society we have decided that singling somebody out based on their gender/ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation is particularly antithetical to our cultural values and should be punished more harshly.
Duh.
Posted by: Dan | Feb 2, 2006 4:02:46 PM
But if he attacked those guys because they are gay, then that has to be brought into the equation. The people who don't want society to change always say gays are protected equally under the law, and that we're demanding more than our fair share of rights. But when other states don't recognize Massachusetts gay marriages, and Florida doesn't allow gay people to adopt kids, and when there are bills before legislatures that oppose the awarding of partner benefits, then we're not citizens, we're sub-citizens. They look at us as if we're sickos, degenerates, libertines, unworthy of equal rights and equal protection. They say we "had it coming"; "we made a pass at the guy"; that argument always makes its way into the defense, and it's all crap. You know the jerk will say "well, I didn't know they were gay until I asked", and that's crap too. Enough is enough. We won't need a federal hate crimes law the day we're treated the same as straight people.
That's my opinion.
Posted by: Liam | Feb 2, 2006 4:10:30 PM
Adding on an extra penalty for 'Hate Crimes' encompasses intent and forethought on the part of the commiter. 'Hate Crimes' are differentiated because they are preconcieved and planned out ahead of time with the intenst of doing harm to a certain group.
Where as the result may be the same: a dead or injured person. It's not like someone gets drunk and punches someone out regardless of dempgraphic. Hate Crime has forthought, planning, and malice which deserves a harsher punishment
Posted by: Blue | Feb 2, 2006 4:17:33 PM
Hate crimes are/should be punished more severely because the intent of the crime was not to inflict injury on a single individual, but rather to injure and intimidate an entire segment of the community. You're right in that a gun/machete attack is heinous regardless of the sexual orientation of the victim. But a gun/machete attack in a gay bar against random gay people BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY is evidence that the perpetrator was not attacking these men individually, but was rather attacking gay men as a societal group. I don't think of hate crimes as punishing people for their thoughts about gay people... they punish people for their ACTIONS against the GLBT community as a whole. It's the same thing as when they tack on "special considerations" to a particularly horrible murder, such as when the criminal used huge overkill, etc. Crimes against groups of people (for whom the individual victims simply acted as proxy) should indeed be prosecuted more harshly.
Posted by: Brian | Feb 2, 2006 5:49:59 PM
Ya, motive is of course a huge factor in determining punishment. But the 'hate crime' schtick seeks motive BEHIND motive, which is where the unnecessary - and ultimately marginalizing - element enters.
My attitude is this: if I'm slapped around in a bar by a gay-bashing dick, I don't want the cops on my side because the dick hates gays and I'm gay. I want them on my side because I'm an innocent man who was attacked. The dick's motive - they may later tell me - is that he has issues with gays. Asians and Blacks, too, maybe. I don't care. The law, enforced properly, is such that his unprovoked violence should be dealt with as unprovoked violence.
What really stuns me is the naivete in thinking that pointing to an orientation as a cause for a crime which must then be addressed differently will not promulgate further delineation. There's a scary little 'separate but equal' aspect to hate crime policy, even as it ostensibly serves to help. Liam, we need to continue to insist upon being treated as straight people are in the courts, and circumventing equal justice through ancillary legislation ain't the avenue to it.
Posted by: Jacko | Feb 2, 2006 6:25:03 PM
Hey Jacko -
Hate crimes aren't here for you. They're here for everybody.
Big picture thinking, dig?
Posted by: Dan | Feb 2, 2006 7:42:55 PM
Ahhh, so pretending homophobia and racisim don't exist is the best way to combat them.
Got it.
Posted by: Chad Hanging | Feb 2, 2006 7:46:19 PM
What hate crimes do is terrorize and intimidate a singled-out group. Like when the KKK bombs a black church, it is clearly meant not to kill just the four little girls, but to intimidate every black person in town or in the country. Hello?
If there's no extra punishment for a hate crime, then there should be no LESS punishment for "accidents." Which means that Laura Bush should have been put in jail for killing her ex-boyfriend by running him over with her car...even though she said it was an "accident" and "unintentional." Hello?
Posted by: BRIAN NYC | Feb 2, 2006 7:59:18 PM
Oh Brian just couldn’t resist that Laura Bush reference...what about a Kennedy/car reference? Seems accidents happen a lot.
Posted by: Matthew Schooler | Feb 2, 2006 8:50:52 PM
As much as Tom and Jacko, et al may have a point; the reality is quite the contrary. Philosophically and legally speaking motive is very relevant, as the reason behind hate crimes are to silence in many ways a targeted group (based on race, sexual orientation, etc.) This incident was motivated by the defendants hatred towards homosexuals, just as someone who commits premeditated murder may be motivated by personal hatred towards their victim. It was not a random act of violence at people who just happened to be there, but likely a premeditated act fueled by blinding hate. I understand by separating this issue homosexuals may be viewed differently or inferior. However, by not recognizing the motivation it denies the reality of targeted groups whom are being oppressed through these acts. Otherwise, courts would lump everything together, which gives credence towards the differentiation of manslaughter and murder charges. If we ignore this fact, understanding and thus advancement would greatly hindered... although I do give credit for raising an interesting point ;)...
Posted by: CJ | Feb 2, 2006 8:54:42 PM
Lessee...'Duh', 'Got it?', the still charming 'Hello?', and even a snazzy 'Dig?'. Can sarcasm kill? If so, I'm in deep shit.
Listen, guys - I am not thinking that pretending racism and homophobia don't exist is right. But I don't believe that the law should refer to them as motivations when, again, the main motive was to cause harm, period. (I don't understand your point, Brian; a violent crime is usually always discernably different from an accident.)
The 'hate crime' line of thinking is NOT SAFE, because it opens too many doors for lawyers and courtroom get-aways, as it may very well screw a defendant who done wrong but who may not have necessarily harbored an agenda.
The big picture I see with 'hate crime' legislation is the perverting of justice which must follow when an individual's bias, opinion, whatever, is allowed to be used in an EVIDENTIARY way. Four little girls are slain by a KKK member. The fuck should hang, in my opinion. But, as vile as the killer is, it's way 'Minority Report' - and pretty fucking unconstitutional - to try him based on a larger scheme supposed from the one reprehensible deed. (A pattern of criminal activity is another thing altogether, because the operative word is 'activity'.) When belief systems - even those generally agreed upon as scummy - are used in this way, a(nother) level of subjectivity dictates legal procedure. I find it frightening.
I apologize for beating this to the ground, and I'll leave it be, I promise. I'm not at all sure my opinion warrants condescending monosyllables, but that's OK, too. Things were much worse on the old AOL music boards. Angry Cher fans make you guys seem like a litter of Spaniel puppies.
Posted by: Jacko | Feb 2, 2006 9:24:43 PM
Don't apologize for stating your case. It's your opinion, and you have the right to express it. Though the Spaniel puppies thing is harsh. I'm a definite cat person.
Posted by: Liam | Feb 2, 2006 9:47:51 PM
WWWOOOOHHHOOO!!! no marriage amendment in Florida!! thats great. I live down the street from a Baptist church who advertised on their sign for everyone to stop into the church and sign the amendment. It made me sick. That is NOT what church is all about. Thank god (if he's out there)that they didn't get enough signatures.
Posted by: damien | Feb 2, 2006 9:50:30 PM
I totally understand your point, Jacko, and agree with your motivation behind it. However I think the difference between our approaches to the issue is that your argument focuses on your being treated the same as any other victim of the same crime. That would make total sense, usually. But if the crime in which you were the victim was truly a hate crime (and not all crimes against minorities are), then the object/victim of the crime was not you as an individual but the entire community to which you belong (for which you served solely as the unlucky proxy). That said, I think that the assignment of "hate crime" status should meet very stringent and specific criteria.
And why are the churches putting out signs in Florida telling people to come in and sign the homohating amendment? When, oh when, will someone take these organizations to task and revoke their tax exempt status?
And I didn't realize that the Cher fans were angry on AOL. I would imagine that would be a tough room.
Posted by: Brian | Feb 2, 2006 10:22:51 PM
>>Senator Kennedy ...praying for the victims' recovery and in demanding justice.
Will Mary Jo Kopecne recover? Did the senator demand justice for her murder?
It's difficult to listen to this dirtbag dipsomaniac argue for hate crime legislation, when he's never been punished for his own crimes.
Posted by: Jay Croce | Feb 2, 2006 11:09:44 PM
>>When it comes to art and the taxpayer, balance is elusive, particularly when the artwork touches on the flammable topics of sex, religion and politics.
There are plenty of reasons why a lot of people won't agree with me, and I agree with most of them. Art is a wonderful thing, and access to works of art should not be limited to those who can personally afford such luxuries. Still, I feel that taxpayer dollars should not be spent on works of art. I oppose government funding of art, artists, performing arts, and the exhibition of these things.
Privately funded museums, schools, and art collections do a much better job of selecting, supporting, and promoting artistic endeavors than "the government". They are not limited by political correctness, public opinion, or the whims of an aspiring politician.
Symphonies, Ballet Corps, Art Museums, and exhibition halls should either be self supporting, or allowed to fail. What is the point in publicly funding an institution that can't draw enough public support to pay for itself? Must we force art upon people? Is it acceptable to require taxpayers to pay for art that offends them?
Remember Ashcrofts infamous "blue drapes"? They concealed art that you paid for. Why give the government that kind of power. Take art away from the politicians, and leave it in the hands of artists, art lovers, and wealthy patrons. You'll see more art, and hear less controversy.
Posted by: Jay Croce | Feb 2, 2006 11:36:44 PM
The dude totally doesn't get it.
Not even :)
Posted by: Dan | Feb 3, 2006 12:00:42 AM
Incidentally - this whole "justice should be completely colorblind" thing has been tried before. It was the mantra of the french government for the past fifty years. Didn't work out so good, did it?
Posted by: Dan | Feb 3, 2006 12:08:50 AM
I appreciate Ted Kennedy's remarks. A certain jerk above's remarks- that he intentionally killed the girl at Chappaquidik- are so obscenely trollish.
The attack on the gay man in Derry, NI, moves me a lot- my mom is from there. As a gay American I am horrified that there's been a spate of hate crimes against gay people there.
Just crushing to me. My sympathy to the young man-who lost his eye?? Shit. I'm crying now. Fuct, man.
Special thanks to you Andy, for writing "Derry". I'm not a partisan really but i appreciate that you didn't call it by its other, recent, imperially imposed name.
Posted by: Deschanel | Feb 3, 2006 2:33:24 AM
Brian, Liam - understood, and thankee.
Dan, be of good cheer. I'm henceforth restricting myself, my blog, and my attentions to sex kitten pop stars. Madge, Mariah, Nick Lachey, like that.
Posted by: Jacko | Feb 3, 2006 5:58:23 AM
I'm totally riding it, so no worries dude :)
Posted by: Dan | Feb 3, 2006 10:06:02 AM
"Lessee...'Duh', 'Got it?', the still charming 'Hello?', and even a snazzy 'Dig?'. Can sarcasm kill? If so, I'm in deep shit."
"Angry Cher fans make you guys seem like a litter of Spaniel puppies."
hahaha!
Jacko!
You owe me a keyboard. (if I told you you have a beautiful website would you hold it against me?).
Tom
Posted by: Tom | Feb 3, 2006 10:49:02 AM