Oklahoma Lawmaker Wants State to Legislate Exemption from the Recently-Passed Federal Hate Crimes Bill
Comparing homosexuality to necrophilia, Oklahoma State Sen. Steve Russell (R-Oklahoma City) plans to introduce a bill that would exempt the state from having to abide by the recently passed Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act on the basis of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The 10th amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
Says Russell, who is upset that the bill was attached to a Department of Defense bill: “The bill gives the federal government power that was not given to them in the Constitution. I am aware of the supremacy of the federal government over state governments, but the federal requirements are vague enough for us to make actions. We just have to be very careful on how we proceed.”
Russell says he considered finding a way of still taking the $5 million in federal funds that the Hate Crimes Act provides state agencies but decided against it because it would "be a compromise in the values of his bill."
The Oklahoma Daily reports: "Russell said because the government has decided to intervene on issues of morality, he is worried that religious leaders who speak out against any lifestyle could be imprisoned for their speech. 'The law is very vague to begin with,' Russell said. 'Sexual orientation is a very vague word that could be extended to extremes like necrophilia.' Russell said he is also concerned if someone is attacked and killed for his or her sexual orientation, the suspect could pass the blame onto a religious leader who preached out against the lifestyle of the victim who was attacked."
Said Russell: “The federal government should not be creating a special class of people, and that is just what they did when they passed and signed this bill. All crimes against another person have some level of hate in them, and people can be assured that our laws that protect people against crimes such as murder are sufficient to protect everyone.”




Queen, please.
Posted by: Matthew | Nov 17, 2009 1:20:02 PM
Look up the word Oklahoma in the Dictionary - and the word STUPID pops right out at ya...more crap from Inhofe and Kern country - surprise suprise...NOT!
Posted by: Disgusted American | Nov 17, 2009 1:22:33 PM
An interesting link exploring the pros and cons of hate crimes legislation:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat5.htm
Posted by: Mike | Nov 17, 2009 1:26:32 PM
Surely someone has a tale from the fox-hole, or an interstate rest stop???
Posted by: Perry | Nov 17, 2009 1:26:51 PM
why does DR Smith have the word Russell under his picture? LOL
Posted by: Disgusted American | Nov 17, 2009 1:27:20 PM
In response to one comment made by Bart, Sally Kern isn't in the U.S. Senate, just in the Oklahoma House of Reps I believe. Now crazy Virginia Fox is in the U.S. House. I rank her up there (or down there actually) with Kern.
Posted by: Joe | Nov 17, 2009 1:27:43 PM
Wow, this guy could be transported back in time to, say, the 1960s when Southern states were asserting the right to "nullify" federal Civil Rights legislation to keep the uppity negras in their place. What a douche.
Posted by: Paul | Nov 17, 2009 1:30:48 PM
Russell is an obvious homosexual.
Why is she so nasty to her sisters!
Posted by: Mrs Patrick Campbell | Nov 17, 2009 1:34:17 PM
@ Josh
Josh, hate crime legislation is not about legislating thought, it's about legislating 'action' against a particular minority.
Say I hate people in wheelchairs. Hate them because they get ramps and I don't. They don't arrest me for that. They don't prosecute me for that. But once I grab a handicap person and dump them out of their wheelchair, kicking them over and over while I call them derogatory names, then it's a different game.
Hate is not involved in every crime against a person. That's simply not true.
To say there is no difference between these crimes and other crimes with the same result (murder, rape, assault) isn't true. To take that thought a step further...why have a defense at all for any criminal? Once you've proven they've done it, who cares why? If a woman who is beaten senseless by her husband day after day finally turns the gun on him and kills him, does it matter? I mean, she killed him. Does it matter why? Should she get a lighter sentence for her reasons?
If your answer is yes, then doesn't the reasons someone targets a specific minority also matter in their prosecution and sentencing?
If your answer is no, then at least you're applying your logic consistently. But then I would argue that what is in the heart of a person when they are committing a crime is almost always taken into account. It's very hard to disassociate the reasoning from the crime. And it's why we have 'special circumstance' laws in this country.
Posted by: Bart | Nov 17, 2009 1:35:52 PM
Why is it that I suspect this man to have, at several points in his life, kicked up his legs faster than a Rockette while lying flat on his back, preparing for that familiar rush of stinging pleasure and self-disgust so commonly felt by his ilk?
Men like him make the closet walls transparent.
He makes me want to projectile vomit on the screen.
Posted by: Andalusian Dog | Nov 17, 2009 1:42:49 PM
According to the bitter comments here,every homophobic bigot is a closeted fag or (In a homophobic female's case) a closeted man-hating dyke.Thats pretty much the cliche belief of bitter queens.
Posted by: Rocky | Nov 17, 2009 2:10:45 PM
@Bart - Great breakdown...
@Josh... what would happen if he did it for ALL hate crimes including Blacks, religion, and such... then I can believe him. Would you really stand by him on that? Most of these that say that the hate crimes bill being attached to something else was a bad idea... Don't want LGBT people to have the same rights as everyone else. This is NOT about thought its about actions. Yell and scream at me all you want because you hate me, fine. But beat me and or kill me just because of being LGBT, that is just plain wrong and now a hate crime. Someone kills a gay man just because he was gay, and only gets 6 months??? Now tell me we don't need a hate crimes bill for the LGBT people?
This is what happened when the Civil War started... the "I don't like your rules, and only want to follow my own" crap.
Posted by: Hawk | Nov 17, 2009 2:35:11 PM
Let those Okies beat up their queers (poor souls that are still there) in peace!
Posted by: niles | Nov 17, 2009 2:54:36 PM
Wow. That is crazy-hateful to go out of your way to try to get something amended in your state's constitution that 'probably' would never come into play in the first place. I bet he wouldn't mind rolling back a few other constitutional protections. Segregation anyone?
Posted by: jakeinlove | Nov 17, 2009 3:23:13 PM
@ Mrs. Patrick Campbell:
I understand your point, and thanks for the insight. What I am trying to say though, is that I think you should be punished if you beat up someone who ISN'T in a wheelchair just as severely. You're injuring/hurting/murdering another human being, and it doesn't matter if they are gay, trans, black, white, young or old. They still have families and many loved ones who are affected. The pillar that supports our court system is blind justice, and that applies to the plaintiff as well as the defendant. Whether or not a murderer is gay should matter no more than if a victim is gay. A similarly severe punishment should apply in both cases. You can't compare this to a woman killing a husband who beats her, as the law clearly provides for self-defense measures to be taken. It sets a very dangerous precedent to have a jury trying to focus on the motivation (for a seemingly unwarranted crime, outside of more clear issues such as self-defense) rather than the facts in a given case. Just my opinion...
@ Rocky:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not standing by "him" so much as I am saying that he actually has fallen onto a somewhat valid concern (whether by cognitive reasoning, or just because he is a disgusting bigot). I'm just making the argument that killing ANYONE is wrong, regardless of who or what they are, or what section of the populace they represent.
Posted by: Josh | Nov 17, 2009 3:28:55 PM
TOTAL GAY FACE.
Russell needs to be at Exodus learning to throw a football with Ted Haggard and John Paulk.
Posted by: Mark | Nov 17, 2009 4:42:01 PM
Um...I think Mrs. Russell might want give Mrs. Foley and Mrs. Haggard a call for advice.
Posted by: Mark | Nov 17, 2009 4:43:37 PM
@Josh
" It sets a very dangerous precedent to have a jury trying to focus on the motivation (for a seemingly unwarranted crime, outside of more clear issues such as self-defense) rather than the facts in a given case. Just my opinion..."
Different laws actually do take into account the motivation and intent for various crimes. Take a look at the different degrees of murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter for example. Also, judges take motivation into account during sentencing. Motivation is a part of the facts of any given case.
"I'm just making the argument that killing ANYONE is wrong, regardless of who or what they are, or what section of the populace they represent."
From the link I supplied earlier:
"A hate crime is more serious than a conventional crime because it abuses more than the immediate victim. When a criminal act is based on a factors such as a victim's race, gender, sexual orientation or religion, it takes on some of the characteristics of a terrorist act. The victim and the perpetrator are typically strangers. The crime is not directed simply against one person; it is intended to target and intimidate the victim's entire group. These acts have been referred to as "message crimes:" violence intended to send a message to a minority group within a community."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat5.htm
Posted by: Mike | Nov 17, 2009 4:46:51 PM
Josh didn't comprehend the responses to his opinion (which he's entitled so long as it isn't legislated), and thereby just repeated it. We've got possibilities here, none of them are very flattering... bigot, fucktard...
I notice this a lot Opponnents of hate crimes just aren't very intelligent or are bigots. There's no other category.
Posted by: TANK | Nov 17, 2009 4:48:27 PM
Maybe Bart should read his Bible a little more closely, since most of this lunacy can easily be supported by Scripture. If you're in it for the philosophy, I'd say try the Dao De Ching or some Confucius.
Posted by: Jesus | Nov 17, 2009 5:02:37 PM
Let Oklahoma pass this law.
A state law cannot nullify a federal law because of the supremacy clause. The courts will simply declare it null and void.
End of story.
Posted by: John | Nov 17, 2009 5:08:54 PM
Either abide by the whole bill or ignore the whole bill. That includes any military spending and jobs in Oklahoma
Posted by: Patrick | Nov 17, 2009 8:37:02 PM
OK can not exempt itself from federal law.
Posted by: John in Boston | Nov 17, 2009 11:00:04 PM
Why all the nastiness? Everyone in OK isn't bad. Every city, state, country, has people like this jerk-off.
Posted by: John in Boston | Nov 17, 2009 11:03:38 PM
Dude looks like a fag. To state the obvious.
Posted by: Candy Asskiss | Nov 18, 2009 1:03:40 AM