Log Cabin Criticizes Democrats for Derailing Hate Crimes
Log Cabin’s latest press release puts me in a bind. On the one hand, I’m delighted that they’re taking on the congressional Democratic leadership for blocking legislation they favor. On the other hand, I oppose the legislation the Democrats are blocking.
Just a few moments ago, I learned that Log Cabin had condemned Democrats for “Derailing Hate Crimes.” According to Log Cabin, Democrats removed “the hate crimes provision from the final Defense Authorization Bill.“
There are two things to note in this, the first is about the Democrats. Here, it seems that when push comes to shove, despite the strong support (including financial contributions) they receive from gay organizations and citizens, they won’t go to bat on issues of concern to those groups.
The second is that Log Cabin is criticizing Democrats instead of taking on fellow Republicans. This is something we want to see more of.
While I oppose federal Hate Crimes legislation for a great variety of reasons, it’s nice to see Log Cabin taking the Democrats to task. Kudos to Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon for so quickly criticizing their congressional leadership. Now, let’s see if other gay leaders follow suit.
16 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Let’s put this in perspective.
“Hate crimes” laws are Orwellian, thought-control laws. They seek to give people extra punishment if, having committed crimes, those people also hold certain social or political opinions. Plus, they violate Equal Protection, by giving different protection to different classes of victim, where the class is defined or privileged by perceived social – political characteristics.
In other words: “Hate crimes” laws are not very Republican. They are quintessentially Left.
So, what’s really going on here? LCR is ripping the Democrats for not being far enough to the Left.
Sounds to me like someone is trying to manufacture a case where they can say, “See? We criticize Democrats” – while still keeping their Tim Gill money.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 6:53 pm - December 6, 2007
Totally agree, ILC. This is a classic example of the right thing happening for the wrong reason.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 6, 2007 @ 6:55 pm - December 6, 2007
Pretty much every left-y blog posting I’ve read since the news broke has excoriated the Democrats for wimping out, again, so I don’t think you’ll have any trouble finding examples of the gay left “criticizing their congressional leadership.”
Comment by torrentprime — December 6, 2007 @ 7:11 pm - December 6, 2007
Torrent, thanks the alert. Been so busy this afternoon that I haven’t had time to check.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 6, 2007 @ 7:20 pm - December 6, 2007
#1:
Not exactly. The only way you get a crime classified as a hate crime was if the bias actually provides the motivating circumstance behind the criminal act committed. Just because a person hates Jews doesn’t mean any crime he happens to commit against a Jew is a hate crime.
Now, you can rail all you want against hate crimes laws but they are constitutional and here to stay. The only issue is whether or not in that case, sexual orientation should be covered under hate crimes laws. I say yes.
Comment by Ian S — December 6, 2007 @ 10:45 pm - December 6, 2007
Exactly as I had put it: They seek to give people extra punishment if, having committed crimes, those people also hold certain social or political opinions.
We shall see.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 11:12 pm - December 6, 2007
#3: “Pretty much every left-y blog posting I’ve read since the news broke has excoriated the Democrats for wimping out…”
Of course they are, because those narcissistic little sissies are too obtuse to see the grotesque irony in their reactions.
Let’s break it down. The gay lefties are outraged that the Democrats did not cut off funding to the men and women who are fighting a war against Muslim savages that would happily lop their gay heads off, in order to blackmail Congress into passing a law that will have absolutely no effect whatsoever in reducing crime against gays, but will serve the “vital” purpose of making these homos feel better about themselves and more “valued” by the cruel, oppressive, hateful society they live in (the one, by the way, that every week gives Santos one hour of televised, whimsical, fabulous gay fun on Ugly Betty).
If I hear…I dunno….16 or 17 more instances of liberals pulling crap like this, I’m really going to have to think very hard about whether the Democrats are being sincere when they say they “support the troops.” Seriously,…19, 20 more times and the Democrats are really going to have some explaining to do.
Comment by Sean A — December 6, 2007 @ 11:13 pm - December 6, 2007
After all – What is “bias”, but the leftie’s all-purpose word for any political or social opinion that (rightly or wrongly) doesn’t agree with him?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2007 @ 11:14 pm - December 6, 2007
#8: “After all – What is ‘bias’, but the leftie’s all-purpose word for any political or social opinion that (rightly or wrongly) doesn’t agree with him?”
Oh, ILoveCapitalism, IF ONLY they were that reasonable! They won’t be done with this crusade until “bias” is legally defined as “an insensitive, heterosexual, Christian, white male who callously refused to wear lace up football pants and dance with us on the parade float.” This is NOT about equality and now it’s not even about validation anymore. It’s about CELEBRATION. Who can forget this gem from that enchanting wordsmith, Santos:
“Yes. poeple like you always have MANY gay friends. Problem is, we never see you with your friends. If you don’t support them, you’re not really their friend.”
And here’s another one of his greatest hits:
“I just like pointing out the ridiculousness of claiming to be friends with people, whom one does not ‘approve’ of. Clearly you’re only friends with them , for the opportunity to claim them as friends, while denouncing them.”
These are not the words of a person seeking “equality” or “freedom from bias.”
Comment by Sean A — December 6, 2007 @ 11:41 pm - December 6, 2007
#6:
No, the way you put it, the bias only has to present, it doesn’t have to be shown that it was the motivation for the crime in question.
For now hate crimes laws are constitutional. In light of that, do you or do you not support adding sexual orientation to existing laws?
Comment by Ian S — December 7, 2007 @ 12:02 am - December 7, 2007
I think hate crimes laws were more necessary when state and local authorities were not at all interested in prosecuting crimes against minority groups. It was only possible to hold someone accountable for lynching if the feds were involved since often many of the local officials were Klansmen. That’s the history of this.
I think these days incidences of refusal to prosecute are pretty rare. Are the laws actually necessary?
Also, I think we should prosecute groups that use violence against minorities for the purposes of intimidation as terrorists. The KKK is a terrorist organization. Why not just prosecute them that way and let the idea of “hate crimes” go? We lost the idealogical battle on this one and anyway I think there’s a better way of prosecuting people who commit acts of vandalism and violence against other people.
Comment by Houndentenor — December 7, 2007 @ 12:02 pm - December 7, 2007
Houndentenor, good points in the first two paragraphs. Good questions.
If the KKK were still as active it once was, I would totally agree with you. But, it is something to consider.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 7, 2007 @ 4:00 pm - December 7, 2007
As I have noted so many times, here is another example of the Democrats using gays and lesbians to make a point, and then chew up and spit them out. I mean, if that ol’ drunkard, Teddy Kennedy, really believes that there is such a rampant epidemic of “hate” crimes against gays and lesbians, then he should be fighting along with the rest of the leftist cabal. But, rather than fight they would like to blame us cold, uncaring, EVIL Republicans! It gets the “community” riled up and more money in the Democrat coffers. But, like the groom or bride left at the altar, the Dems do it to gays and lesbians when push comes to shove. And, as far as “hate” crimes, it is no business of the federal government. That is why we have cities, counties and states. Let the local governments deal with it. This monolithic thinking is so absurd.
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — December 7, 2007 @ 11:04 pm - December 7, 2007
#13
It’s called an attempt to shore up dismally miserable approval numbers and felch the GayBorgLeft for 2008 laundered donations and votes.
That’s all there is to it. No substance.
Same thing with DADT. They hate the military and could give a flying fcuk about gays. But come election time, pander pander pander.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 8, 2007 @ 6:43 am - December 8, 2007
ThatGayConservative
GayRightBorg care squat about Gays, they are the Uncle Toms of Republicans. They are like slaves who complain about abolitionists.
[Gosh, do our critics ever come up with original insults? Do they just keep coming here to vent their spleen, rather than to read our posts and understand our arguments. We set up a blog to put forward our ideas. And they act like a child, with their fingers in their ears as they repeat whatever it is they were saying before while saying "Not listening." And who will ever upbraid them? What is it, I ask again and yet again, that brings these people to our blog yet prevents them from reading our posts and just mouthing as if we had said exactly what it is they thought we said based upon their own misunderstandings of conservative ideas and Republican politics. --Dan]
Log Cabin REpublicans and the peole here bitch about Democrats the ‘left’ but you hardly are getting off your asses and pushing Republican legislation on gay rights. I have yet to see any legislation AT ALL originating from Republicans that deal with gay rights in a progressive postive manner. Republicans will never do anything for gays as long as the Republican party exists.
Comment by Patti — December 11, 2007 @ 11:51 pm - December 11, 2007
Wow, patti…way to go out on a limb there with an original critique…. *eye roll*
Comment by Vince P — December 12, 2007 @ 3:24 am - December 12, 2007