The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Matthew Shephard Act passed!

RicanDAB said:
We know that, but at the very least we should celebrate the fact that we have one foot in a door which was once closed.
Click to expand...


You're right, this is something to celebrate.

Democrats figured a way to probably get this onto Bush's desk and make it something he can't veto with a dismissive shrug because it's attached to the military authorization bill.

Even if he vetoes it, Democrats made the Matthew Shepard Act something Americans will see more clearly for what it is -- thanks to Ted Kennedy's leadership. Democrats have to keep on showing America how mean spirited Republicans are being by resisting this kind of legislation. This was a creative and smart way to do it.

So Bravo! :=D:
 
The good news is that it is still being considered.
I hope it will pass the pissy House of Representatives.

The bad news, is that is has taken far too long.
One of the reasons for my user name is that I long
to see people who kill gays treated with the harshness
that such heinous acts deserve. Here I choose
lex talonis.

Some of us know all too well that not so many
years ago, some died, and they were not even noticed
nor remembered. They were regarded as non beings.
We also know only too well, that we survived without
such an untimely death was sheer coincidence and good luck.
Shep+
 
Yes, good news indeed. Let's make thought crime a reality.

I'm sorry guys, I understand thinking something like this would be a good thing, but it won't. It won't help us. It will make those who don't like us resent us more. It will not build bridges, but walls.

Furthermore, am I the only one terrified of the idea of some judge and/or jury trying to decide what I was thinking after spin-doctor lawyers have laid it out for them? Sometimes it's clear someone was hurt because of irrational hatred. Matthew Shepherd was one of those cases. But there's a huge gray area, and that's going to wind up hurting innocent people.

Everyone's worked up over those six black kids in Louisiana being charged with attempted murder for beating up that white kid. If this hate legislation was in place, those six kids would no doubt be facing charges for a hate crime now, in addition to attempted murder.

I understand the back story that led up to the beating. This would be a classic application of the hate crime law. So a bunch of people who don't know these kids would sit around and try to determine if these kids harbored actual hatred. And is it hatred for the victim in particular or whites in general? Of course the government will provide at least the appearance of representation if the kids can't afford it themselves, but these kids would in a best case scenario spend weeks or months in a court room, fearing for their future, not over what they did, but over what people think was running through their head.

This is just too much power to give the State. We need to work to marginalize and minimize hatred, but laws like this aren't the way to do that.
 
you can't build bridges if the people from one side can hurt the others, this is just ONE step, I admit that it is far from over, but is better than nothing.
 
valis23 said:
Yes, good news indeed. Let's make thought crime a reality.

I'm sorry guys, I understand thinking something like this would be a good thing, but it won't. It won't help us. It will make those who don't like us resent us more. It will not build bridges, but walls.

Furthermore, am I the only one terrified of the idea of some judge and/or jury trying to decide what I was thinking after spin-doctor lawyers have laid it out for them? Sometimes it's clear someone was hurt because of irrational hatred. Matthew Shepherd was one of those cases. But there's a huge gray area, and that's going to wind up hurting innocent people.

Everyone's worked up over those six black kids in Louisiana being charged with attempted murder for beating up that white kid. If this hate legislation was in place, those six kids would no doubt be facing charges for a hate crime now, in addition to attempted murder.

I understand the back story that led up to the beating. This would be a classic application of the hate crime law. So a bunch of people who don't know these kids would sit around and try to determine if these kids harbored actual hatred. And is it hatred for the victim in particular or whites in general? Of course the government will provide at least the appearance of representation if the kids can't afford it themselves, but these kids would in a best case scenario spend weeks or months in a court room, fearing for their future, not over what they did, but over what people think was running through their head.

This is just too much power to give the State. We need to work to marginalize and minimize hatred, but laws like this aren't the way to do that.
Click to expand...

True, every word, but there's a saying that things often have to get worse before they can get better. All things have to start somewhere, and you have to take the bad in oder to accomplish the greater good.
 
I support this bill and hope it will pass without a veto. Crimes against gays are not always treated the same as crimes committed against other people. Even when it is clear, that the attack was motivated by extreme hatred for gays, the sentence seems light. This bias may be caused by a deep seated prejudice that some people have about homosexuality. The Matthew Shephard act would help to remove the effect of this bias, and provide a more fair trial. This law can also help establish a person's motivation or intent for committing the hate crime. Very often, the fact that a person is a rampant homophobe, is not considered an important factor in that person committing the actual crime.

I hope what I've said isn't too confusing.
 
Here is another thread on Hate Crimes.

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=128813

I scanned through the thread, but I couldn't find where someone had gone into detail about the legal definition of Hate Crimes. It seems, like the guy that posted the good explanation was moving at the time. He kept putting off packing to post to the thread. Does anyone remember who it was?
 
NickCole said:
You're right, this is something to celebrate.

Democrats figured a way to probably get this onto Bush's desk and make it something he can't veto with a dismissive shrug because it's attached to the military authorization bill.

Even if he vetoes it, Democrats made the Matthew Shepard Act something Americans will see more clearly for what it is -- thanks to Ted Kennedy's leadership. Democrats have to keep on showing America how mean spirited Republicans are being by resisting this kind of legislation. This was a creative and smart way to do it.

So Bravo! :=D:
Click to expand...

you are so right. by adding the legislation to the defense bill they have painted bush into a corner. you know he wants the funding after all.

regardless though, this is something to celebrate. for far too long we've seen attempts languish or get shot down. this time we have a foot in the door.
 
BlueLantern said:
A question, in the states, what is a hate crime and what is the diference between hate crime and regular crime?
Click to expand...


A hate crime is directed at a group (blacks, gays, Jews, etc), not only an individual.
 
valis23 said:
This is just too much power to give the State. We need to work to marginalize and minimize hatred, but laws like this aren't the way to do that.
Click to expand...


The State, on behalf of the people, has a vested interest in distinquishing hate crime from conventional crime.

In Wisconsin v. Mitchell,the US Supreme Court unanimously determined "bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest.... The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, 'it is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness.'"

("Blackstone" was Sir William Blackstone who, in the 18th Century, wrote the book on common law and its principles.)
 
I really hope Bush will not veto this.

How COULD you veto this? Can someone be that cold hearted?

To veto would mean that violence and hate are OK to have in America.
 
BlueLantern said:
A question, in the states, what is a hate crime and what is the diference between hate crime and regular crime?
Click to expand...

Let me begin by endorsing everything that Nick has said here.

I only want to add that the state laws vary among themselves somewhat as to what is included as a hate crime. In Texas, for example, any crime can have its penalty enhanced if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was selected because of prejudice in one of the protected categories. By contrast, the proposed federal law is limited to crimes of violence.

And, yes, some jurisdictions do pursue investigations of hate crimes more aggressively than investigations of other crimes. For example, I have had harrassing phone calls investigated by the major case department because they were designated as a hate crime.
 
construct said:
I don't know. As a stand alone bill, I would agree with you. As a rider to the Department of Defense Authorization Bill, it has a chance.
Click to expand...
I suppose that if the thing is vetoed it is still a win, right? I mean it was close, and there is his lost for the Department of Defense.
 
If it's vetoed, it goes back to Congress for another vote. It takes a 2/3 vote to override the veto. So it could still pass. I don't know whether there are that many votes though.

It is just impossible to predict how this one will come down this session.

And as for the Department of Defense, there's some sort of an emergency funding that would kick in (if no bill gets passed) and last through the end of Bush's term. I don't know the details about that. It's a pretty bold move, but it's not like playing "chicken."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top