House Minority Leader John Boehner has an interesting reaction to the Hate Crimes Bill:
He attacked Democratic initiatives such as a “hate crimes” bill being considered this week in the House, which would boost the federal government’s authority to go after “bias-motivated violence.” Conservative critics say the bill amounts to a gag rule for preachers and other religious figures who do not support homosexuality.
The bill “makes me want to throw up,” Mr. Boehner said, blasting the idea of going after someone for “what we think they were thinking as opposed to what they did.”
The bill that John Boehner is referring to is the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which is known colloquially as the ‘Matthew Shepard Act’ and officially as H.R.1913. Here’s a description of what the bill provides for:
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (LLEHCPA)/Matthew Shepard Act gives the Department of Justice (DOJ) the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated violence by providing the DOJ with jurisdiction over crimes of violence where the perpetrator has selected the victim because of the person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
The Act provides the DOJ with the ability to aid state and local jurisdictions either by lending assistance or, where local authorities are unwilling or unable to act, by taking the lead in investigations and prosecutions of bias-motivated, violent crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury. The LLEHCPA also makes grants available to state and local communities to combat violent crimes committed by juveniles, train law enforcement officers or assist in state and local investigations and prosecutions of bias-motivated crimes.
The bill makes two major changes to the 1969 Hate Crimes Bill. It extends protection to people who are attacked for their sexual orientation or gender identity and it expands the circumstances under which the Federal Government can get involved in local crime. It has an express provision protecting free speech.
SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.
In other words, pastors cannot be prosecuted for preaching against homosexual behavior even if their hate speech influences someone to commit a crime of violence against a gay person. Nothing in the law restricts free speech in any way. So, what exactly is John Boehner talking about and what is it in this bill that makes him sick to his stomach?
Perhaps he hadn’t actually, you know, taken the time to read the entire bill.
Or, maybe, he thinks it’s outrageous to worry about people beating gay people to death?
I suppose he’s just talking to his base. Complaining about the outrages perpetrated by the “liberal establishment” is about all they’ve got left. This is not the place to look for rational reasons.
I think we’re long past the time when making any kind of effort to link the views of John Boehner with facts is a productive use of ones time. The sad thing is that the media will make no effort to point out the pure ridiculousness of his views or statements. They will be treated with the same respectful deference and seriousness as those which are meticulously thought out.
And since it seems Boehner does not have to be concerned with defending his views in the media, maybe he will be forced to defend them in a primary challenge.
Jones is pretty popular in this part of the state. His aggressive stance on immigration wins a lot support around here.
But he’s not a one-dimensional candidate. Last winter he ordered his deputies to ignore eviction orders served on people who had no where else to go.
Not quite sure what to make of that. He’s kind of an enigma.
.
Astounding analogy how close the Republican Right is to views of hardline Islamic teachers in the Netherlands and Europe on homophobia. Are the Republicans and Muslim extremists living in the dark ages?
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Oh pity the poor persecuted Christians as they now will be forced to keep their “religion” to themselves while following god’s will – beating the shit out of someone that makes them feel icky.
John Boehner is so obviously GAY. Closeted, self-denying, self-loathing — perhaps he’s never acted on his attraction because “that would be so wrong” — but, still gay. I don’t mean this as an insult; it’s just my feeling about the man. I get the same vibe from a lot of Repub leaders. It explains their obsessive homophobia. Otherwise, why would they be bothered about it soooo much?
My Bullied Son’s Last Day on Earth via CNN
And here in North Carolina, religious conservatives are trying to strip an anti-bullying bill of specific gay-bashing language. What would Jesus do, indeed.
Sorry to rain on the party, but I don’t think this proves Boehner is a homophobe. (It also doesn’t prove that he isn’t.) There’s a legitimate conservative/libertarian objection to hate crimes legislation, and it goes like this: it doesn’t outlaw bigoted speech or action per se, but if you commit another crime that speech or action then becomes a compounding factor in deciding whether what you did was a hate crime. In other words, it puts prosecutors and jurors in the position of deciding who’s a bigot and who’s merely an asshole. In a case like Matthew Shepard it was pretty obvious, but often it isn’t. And while bigotry is offensive and unsympathetic, it shouldn’t be illegal — or the difference between one charge and another, more serious one.
That’s essentially the argument Boehner is making. Does that, on its own merits, make him a homophobe? Not that I can tell.
I think you’re being overly generous.
Saying ‘I hate fags’ in a crowded bar is still protected speech until the moment you beat a gay man to death. I’ve personally flip-flopped on Hate Crimes legislation. Steven D and Dave Neiwart convinced me it is worthwhile legislation. The part if the bill I find least attractive is its desire to add a special category of crime based on motivation. But that is not all that the bill does. And I think they’ve crafted it in a way that protects free speech.
In any case, if this bill makes you want to throw up, you’re a homophobe.
It’s the same as any other crime: You can talk about it all you want and not get in trouble, but when you cross the line and do it, your earlier speech becomes evidence of your intent. I did one one of the first prosecutions under the Washington State hate crimes law. Some rednecks were in a bar talking about how they wanted to thump on some Mexicans, then they went across the street and beat up a Mexican family in a restaurant. Was their talk in the bar evidence of a hate crime? Yes, because they acted on it. Got the convictions, BTW.
You nailed it Booman (again). It always amazes me how many allegedly straight politicians insist on using the phrase “throw up” when they are faced with the expansion of LGBT rights. It’s juvenile. And there is probably some junior-psychology-kit explanation for it. But if that’s all they’ve got, I’m not worried. President Obama has talked about “disagreeing without being disagreeable.” John Boehner just flunked this test (again).