Monday, January 17, 2005

Ahhh...their evil plan becomes apparent...

Unable to get rid of gays by converting them to heterosexuality, the religious right passes the gay marriage amendments in all those states to "protect the sanctity of marriage". But now their REAL plan becomes apparent: for gays to beat the snot out of each other. As it turns out, it looks like the gay marriage amendments (at least the one in Ohio) removes domestic abuse protection...Very devious!
http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/01/15/domestic.html

7 Comments:

At 8:39 AM, Blogger romeotheBT said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 8:46 AM, Blogger romeotheBT said...

I don't see it... why does it have to be domestic abuse? Why can't someone just be charged with assault? What is the difference? Are penalties for domestic abuse stiffer? If so, why? This sounds like the same crap as "hate crimes". If you kick the shit out of someone because you are having a bad day or because you don't like someone because their gay, what is the difference? You've still kicked the shit out of them.

 
At 12:39 PM, Blogger Ricardo Grande said...

My guess is that the standard of evidence that is necessary is lower if it is a domestic abuse case, given that there are not likely to be witnesses around. As for hate crimes, I am a big supporter of hate crime legislation. The critical thing to remember is that if you assault someone, it's not a crime against them, it's a crime against the state. That's why the state takes you to court, not the person assaulted. So, if the state finds an interest in increasing the punishments for hate crime (i.e., violence against minority groups because they are minority groups causes fear throughout that community, not just in the person affected) then they can and should punish those crimes differently. Even as a white male I see how this makes sense - if I was beat up because I was white I would feel much worse than if someone beat me up to take my wallet. It's much more dehumanizing to be beat up because of something like your color.

 
At 1:02 PM, Blogger romeotheBT said...

Punishing the motivation behind a crime seems a little too Big Brother-ish to me. If I kick your ass to take your wallet that is one thing. If I kick your ass just to kick your ass... what does it matter the motivation behind it?

 
At 1:32 PM, Blogger Ricardo Grande said...

The difference is in the effect of the asskicking. If I go into town and beat somebody up and take their wallet, that's a drag but everyone just chalks it up to crime, and is maybe a little more wary. If I go into town and beat up a gay man, while shouting "this is what happens to fags in this neighborhood", there is definitely going to a bigger effect in the gay community, and they probably will be afraid (to some extent) to go into that neighborhood again. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing those type of scare tactics. I agree that it is difficult in some circumstances to determine someone's motives, and I can understand concern with the way these laws are implemented, but I don't have any problem with their purpose.

 
At 2:02 PM, Blogger romeotheBT said...

Sorry, I had to rush the last comment so maybe I didn't explain well enough. Like you said... if I go and kick someone's ass to take their wallet, then there is some explanation for the crime. But is it any more or less forgivable or excusable? I don't think it is.

If I kick some white dude's ass (say YOURS for example) because I'm in a bad mood is that really any different (or worse) than say if I kicked some Tennessee Titan's ass (this is more appropriate as this is who I direct anger towards) because i hate Titan fans?

The end result in both cases is that someone has had their ass kicked.

There was some case in Wichita Kansas (I don't remember all the details), but anyway two black dudes basically tortured and murdered several white people for no real reason either, nothing was taken from their appartment. They were charged with a hate crime, but to me this is just random violence. It is horrendously unfortunate, but it happens.

I just think it is dangerous to look at the situation and say, well the offender is white and the victim is black, it must be a hate crime. I know it may be more clear cut than that, but the issue should be to punish the crime and not alter the severity of the sentence based on whether the jury thinks the motivation is greed or hatred.

 
At 3:50 PM, Blogger Ricardo Grande said...

Yeah, if that situation in Wichita is like you say it is, I agree. Just because the race of the victim is different from the race of the perp doesn't make it a race crime. I still think the effect of the crime is much bigger if there are overt racial or other undertones to it.
We draw distinctions like this all the time, like we say beating up an old woman is worse than beating up a young man. That's because old people are fragile and already afraid to go outside. So, the effect of beating up an old person is worse than the effect of beating up a young person, even though it's the same act. Likewise, the effect of beating up a Jew and spraypainting a swastika on them is bigger than just beating someone up. Anyway, I gotz nothing else to add. As Bush would say, "you're either with me or against me!" :)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker