Republicans out to stop hate crimes bill in Alabama

[quaoar]

Now this is an interesting issue for Alabama. We have a Democratic Legislature. And in Alabama, the Legislature has all the power -- not the governor. Democrats have enough votes to make up a 3/5ths majority to cut off debate. But there are currently two vacanies that reduce this majority to less than 3/5ths, so Republicans are emboldened.

They apparently see this as an opening to label Democrats as the "gay" party for the fall statewide elections. Unfortunately, this sleazy tactic might work.

This is especially distressing to me because I know Cam Ward, the GOP front man on this issue. He's a good guy. I've worked with him to help develop more low-income housing in central Alabama. He is not an ideological head case.

I plan to call him about this. If you were me, what would you say to him?

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/060119/hate.shtml

By Phillip Rawls
Associated Press Writer

MONTGOMERY — A legislative committee voted largely along party lines Wednesday to expand Alabama's hate crimes law to cover crimes committed because of the victim's sexual orientation. But some Republicans are determined to make sure the legislation goes no further in this election year.

Rep. Cam Ward, R-Alabaster, said House Republican leaders have agreed "to lock down the House" if the bill comes up for debate. "And we've got the votes to do it," he said.

On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee held a lively debate on the hate crime legislation, with the remarks covering everything from the Holocaust to capital punishment. Some Republican representatives spoke against the legislation proposed by Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, but they didn't ask for a roll call vote.

The committee had a sharply divided voice vote that broke down largely along party lines, and committee Chairman Marcel Black, D-Tuscumbia, declared the bill approved. Holmes said he expected a close vote, but he believes he can muster enough support in the House to pass his bill.

[Voltaire99]

1. "If you were me, what would you say to him?"

First, you might need to reevaluate what constitutes a "good guy."

[quaoar]

3. A guy who helps to develop low-income housing

qualifies as a good guy -- to me.

He didn't have to do that. There was no political gain in it for him. He helped because he believes in it. There are actually some republicans like that out there.

[bliss_eternal]

2. I don't understand their problem with this?

I would think that opening up the definition of hate crimes, to include violence against the glbt community is a good thing. Are they saying they WANT to see gays battered?

What's their problem?

[mom cat]

4. Just say "hey buddy, what gives? You know him. Appeal to his good side.

[InternalDialogue]

5. When you write "what would you say to him?"

It all depends on why he opposes it.

If he's doing it for purely partisan political reasons, it won't matter what sort of convincing you do.

But if he might change his tune if the issue were framed in a way he could defend, then there are several things I might say.

Some thoughts:

In a perfect world, no one would hold prejudices against others for any reason. In a slightly less perfect world, people would hold prejudices, but they would never voice them nor let them affect behavior. In a slightly less perfect world than that, people would hold prejudices and they would voice them, but they would never let them affect their behavior. And in the world we live in, people hold prejudices, they voice them, and they sometimes commit crimes because of them. None of the first three scenarios above involve any illegal behavior, but the fourth scenario does. Regardless of Ward's personal opinion of homosexuality, it is incumbent upon the state to ensure a society that protects the right of people to live safely and retain their individual civil liberties without regard to their personal beliefs or identity. Even if Ward is wholeheartedly against homosexuality, defeating language that includes protection for gays in a hate crime bill is granting permission for those who hold prejudice or hatred against gays to act in a manner that may infringe on those liberties for no reason other than the victim's sexual orientation. If someone is the victim of a crime and just happens to be gay, our laws appropriately assign punishment to the criminal. If someone is the victim of a crime BECAUSE he is gay, the state has on obligation to act more strongly, because the criminal has broken not just a statutory law, but because he has stepped across the bounds of civil society and taken his prejudice not just to a place where he (legally) voices it, but to where it affects, sometimes drastically and mortally, the rights and life of another citizen.

And a crime based on acting specifically against someone's political, racial, sexual, or religious identity should be punished more strongly than a similar crime not based on any prejudices. We categorize murder and other crimes in the same way: First, second, third degree murder all have the same result -- a dead victim. But they differ based on the intent and pathology of the killer's thoughts and actions. A court should be allowed to assign more severe punishment when it is determined that the motive for a crime is the infringement on another person's right to identify himself in any way he sees fit.

To say, "I am gay," is protected free speech that a civil society tolerates. To respond, "I hate gays," is also protected free speech that a civil society tolerates. To put action to that response and commit a crime is more than just a crime -- it is a crime compounded with a prejudicial intent that a civil society cannot tolerate.

[quaoar]

7. Good point about 'granting permission'

Sometimes the things we do -- or even the things we don't do -- send subtle messages that we don't always intend to send.

[Rocknrule]

6. Hate is the #1 value of Republicanism. What else is new?

[NativeTexan]

8. Republicans rejecting hate crimes is like....

.....Hitler going to the synagogue once a week!

[IndianaGreen]

9. Lynch a Black man and it is a hate crime

Lynch a gay Black man and it is not a hate crime.

What is wrong with that picture?