i didn't really know what to write about this

[solarbird]

I really didn't know what to write about the newly-GBLT-inclusive hate-crimes bill passage and signing last week; it's something that could've passed a few times before, but Mr. Bush would have vetoed it because it included queers, which is bad, but on the other hand, I'm pretty ambivalent about this particular concept anyway. I don't think it's a bad thing - I'm not running around screaming THOUGHT CRIME! THOUGHT CRIME!, and the hypocrisy of that when the opposition favours hate-crimes legislation on religion and other grounds is the usual round of appalling bullshittery - but I've never understood why it was considered such a big deal.

So in this case I'll hand it off to a bunch of readers of Andrew Sullivan's. This isn't Sully talking about it, these are people who are writing him in reaction. Some of them are thrilled, and they can explain how they see it, and hopefully the optimistic and happy amongst them are correct.

Separately, here's Towleroad blogging from the signing ceremony, where everyone was smiles and handshakes. The bump in the road, tho', was Attorney General Eric Holder not just refusing to comment on Question 1 in Maine, but actively asserting he didn't know what it was. That's just nonsensical, and - no. Frankly, it's bullshit. It's a lie, and he's ducking the question, possibly because they were prepping for another enthusiastic defence of DOMA in Federal court on Friday. In summary, DOMA isn't discriminatory, there is no right to marital benefits on the Federal level, and so on. I haven't seen the actual filing, just the news report, but from what I hear it's not as vile as the first one, but more along the lines of the second.

So there you are. No conclusions, just, well, there you go.

Comments

[westrider.livejournal.com]

I can't remember where I saw this, but someone recently made an interesting point about Hate Crime Laws*: They don't actually make any new Crimes, they merely add another possibility for punishment depending on the Motive. Which there's plenty of precedent for, with things like the multiple degrees of Murder or Assault Charges that are possible.

Which means it is an entirely different ballgame from the "ThoughtCrime" BS that gets tossed around so often when the discussion turns to Hate Crimes.

*Assuming they're written properly, of course, which is a fairly large assumption. There is plenty of possibility for ThoughtCrime Laws within those parameters.

[backrubbear.livejournal.com]

there is no right to marital benefits on the Federal level,

Sometimes the straight folk forget that works both ways.

[dustin-00.livejournal.com]

Hate Crimes is not about thought crime.

Hate Crime is recognizing that the perpetrator's true goal is to intimidate an entire group of people -- the actual victim was just a handy target to induce mass terror.

If you can show that as the intent, then the crime isn't just the person you singled out; you have assaulted thousands of people with the intent to force them into not speaking out for their own rights and exercising their guaranteed liberties under the constitution.