The whole problem, #68305, is that there ISN’T “equal justice for all” and never has been. Gays face discrimination in the courts and with the law in general. It does not GIVE preferential treatment, it is simply an acknowledgement of YOUR preferential treatment, straight white guy.

“This is taking the law and creating unequal justice which goes against the concept of EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL.”

Then of course the existing hate crime bill covering religion and racism should be eliminated, right?

Hate crimes are intolerable and should be punished equally no matter who is the victim or the perpetrator. However, I don’t see why preference should be given to one minority group over others. Here is a quote proving that the gay minority is not the group in most need of protection:

“The Judiciary Committee cited FBI figures that there have been more than 113,000 hate crimes since 1991, including 7,163 in 1995. It said that racially motivated bias accounted for 55 percent of those incidents, religious bias for 17 percent, sexual orientation bias for 14 percent and ethnicity bias for 14 percent.”

A hate crime bill expansion should include protection of gays without giving preference to any group over others.

Unfortunately, the gay rights activists try to exploit every hint of a crime for their own benefit building their cause on the suffering of other people. Even the so blown-out-of-proportion Matthew Shepherd case was classified by police investigation as a violent burglary where the victim happened to be gay. All hate crimes are disgusting but we are made to believe that there is a huge surge of crimes against gays and they need special protection. I cannot agree that fraud is a valid tool to defend a just cause.

The reason some religious groups are afraid of adding more groups to the hate crimes bill offered now is that it leads to the slippery slope that if you even utter something at your Church about living a gay lifestyle goes against the Bible, that eventually this utterance will be illegal and that amounts to ending the 1st Amendment right to free speech. 

Even you you have a religious conviction against homosexual lifestyle and do not want gay marriage amendment or whatever, that does not mean you want all gays hated and harmed. 

No person should be harmed, physically or emotionally.  However, religious institutions have a right to judge behavior as moral or immoral and teach such to its adherents.  Jesus did.  He did not throw stones to do it, he just asked the sinner to sin no more.  There’s a difference between judging a person’s actions (we do it all the time when someone murder’s someone else) and judging the person as immoral/illegal.  I don’t want murderers roaming my town free.  I also don’t think the US govt should have an admendment that states two men or two women can get married.  Does not mean I Hate the men or woment that want to engage in this behavior/event/activity.

The President and the Republicans in Congress won’t directly admit it, of course, but the real reason they oppose this bill is that their evangelical constituents bristle at the idea that homosexuals might be deserving of protection.  Just ask GOP supporter, Fred Phelps, who says, “God hates fags!”  The dirty little secret - most Republicans agree with the Reverend Mr. Phelps.

“The House vote “slapped Christians in the face,” said Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition.”

Which leaves one wondering, are violent hate crimes considered essential to maintaining Traditional Values?

“She criticized the bill for creating “two new federally protected minority groups” based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Now how’s a good Christianitist suppose to snuff out gays if it gets illegal?

“Some bill opponents also say the measure could stifle religious expression.”

You know, the burning at the stake kind of religious expression. Bet you thought that went out with the dark ages, huh?

“Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) thinks, “Justice should be blind to the personal traits of victims.”

And apparently to the personal traits of perpetraiters.

Meanwhile, Bush, the compassionate conservative peace-maker, war president commander guy has decidered to prepare to shoot himself in the other foot.

Bush by saying “the bill is unnecessary”, is really saying,  we the American people and Congress are unnecessary.  Bush knows best.
His history has been a long line of disregard for anyone who disagrees with his actions or special agenda.  Just look at the list of generals that have gone down the road, at least until he finds a yes general.  Special interests have had a field day under his support while, we the people have been sitting on our hands.
In my younger days I was a Union Representative,  We learned of an action or practice usually preformed by disgruntled employees,  the practice of deadly compliance. Deadly compliance is the practice of doing the job to the letter,  no more no less.  Preformed with a symbolic “in your face”attitude.  An employee who is proving their point by,  “ I will show you”. Bush is practicing deadly compliance. 
In the good old days, when the majority Republican lemming Congress ran congress,  Bush had free reign.  The Republicans through a blind lack of oversight, or a blatant looking the other way,  has distorted and created an unbalance of power. Bush’s   one party Congress, stripped us of our rights, gained more power, and destroyed the balance of power.
Bush has never had to deal with compromise before, his experiences have included a long line of yes men and cronies.  Now it seems after hitting some rough water with the new Congress,  Bush is practicing deadly compliance.  Congress and the people via the polls that can go “poof”  have called Bush’s   attention to something he has never had to deal with before, accountability .

This is what happens when a rich family buys a stupid child a Degree and then spends a fortune selling the child/man to the American People as a politician and statesman.

It is strange that the guy who almost never vetoes anything would rouse himself to oppose this bill.  The argument that it isn’t necessary flies in the face of the facts.  The argument that it would overburden federal law enforcement could possibly be made since the DOJ does seem to have its hands full these days, but why not, George, just do the right thing?

President Bush is being sensible about this. No group should get special treatment. There is a potential that this can also be abused by certain ppl in many situations. A crime of violence is a crime of violence. End of story. Should then we label women being raped as a “hate crime against women” with special legal repurcussions to the attacker? That has not been the case for female victims of violence, nor should anyone else, say a transgendered “woman” get more special consideration under similar circumstances. If a white man is victimized, would that be viable as a “hate crime” based on his ethnicity or does this only cover non-whites? If an elderly person were mugged would that denote a “hate crime” because of the person being elderly? EVERYONE that is victimized would then be technically able to use this “hate crime” bill because they were this that or the other. I am sure in any incident, no matter what the person is, the “hate crime” card could be used. Each case should be reviewed and dealt with separately. No one group should get any special protection. Crimes of violence are hate motivated in ALL situations. This is taking the law and creating unequal justice which goes against the concept of EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL.