Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Ken Blackwell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Jailhouse Stripes for Thoughts?
by Ken Blackwell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


"[T]he legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions ...."
-Thomas Jefferson

For those who commit physical crimes against others based on race, religion, or sexual orientation I have no sympathy. But the notion that government can punish thoughts and opinions, even offensive ones, is frightening.

A bill making it illegal for people of various faiths to freely hold and profess their respective religion's teaching on sexual morality is working its way through Congress. Regardless of your politics, every American who cares about free speech and religious liberty should tell their U.S. senators to oppose this legislation. This bill has already passed the House of Representatives on a largely party-line vote with a Democrat majority. It is now pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and is expected to be voted on by the entire Senate in a month.

This bill would criminalize beliefs. If signed into law, H.R. 1592 would create a new class of crimes.

Called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, this bill would pour federal resources into prosecutions based on suspicions about a person's thoughts and beliefs, not just his alleged criminal act(s).

While criminal law treats all violent acts equally, the proposed law would additionally punish the accused for any prejudice they might have toward the victim. Instead of ending discrimination, this bill would create a judicial caste system in American society by creating categories where some victims are given more consideration and attention than others. This is a direct affront to the equal protection provision of the U.S. Constitution.

As a former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Human Rights Commission, and a person who grew up fighting racism, I oppose the idea of thought crimes. In America, our Constitution guarantees everyone the freedom to think and believe whatever he or she wants, no matter how repulsive those beliefs are to others. And, our Declaration of Independence champions the dignity and worth of every individual.

Our system of laws requires evidence and varying levels of proof for different offenses. We lock people up for criminal acts. That penalty is already established in law. This bill would allow government to further punish them for their alleged beliefs.

As a country, do we want to be in the business of "proving" what someone thinks or denying them freedom of conscience? Do we want to rip the heart out of the First Amendment of our Constitution? Do we want to deconstruct our public square where progress has been advanced by a dialogue between faith and reason? Do we really want to embolden a 21st century secular fundamentalism by forcing religious expression from the public square?

The answer to these questions is a simple and emphatic no! What is driving the controversy associated with this bill ultimately comes down to one issue: Can the government punish a person for a "thought crime" whose religious faith includes the belief that homosexual behavior is immoral, and same sex marriage is morally objectionable?

While some modern liberal denominations and other faiths refuse to criticize homosexual sex and embrace same sex marriage, it is an historical fact that moral evaluations of these acts have been part of the Judeo-Christian belief system for four thousand years.

And, millions of Americans oppose these acts because they believe the historic teachings of their respective religions on this matter.

You are free to disagree, but they are free to believe.

No rational person argues against the proposition that all American citizens should be afforded full rights and protections under the law and Constitution. The present debate surrounding this bill is derived from the fight to preserve the most fundamental institution necessary for the continuation of any human civilization - the family.

Isn't it classic community doublespeak when a society that has decriminalized homosexuality is now contemplating criminalizing opposition thoughts?

The question we face is if the federal government should have the power to lock people away for beliefs flowing from their religion. Think it can't happen?

In Sweden, a pastor was imprisoned for 30 days for simply expressing his faith's view of homosexuality in a sermon. In Canada, Christian leaders received a hefty fine for expressing the same view over the radio. And right here in America, in Philadelphia eleven people were arrested and prosecuted for sharing the Christian gospel at a homosexual rally.

No violence was committed in any of these situations.

They were simply punished for expressing their faith.

President Bush has said he will veto this bill if it passes the Senate. Regardless of what you think about homosexuality, you should support stopping this bill.

We punish people for their wrong acts, not for what some consider their wrong thoughts. America has a rich heritage of religious liberty and free speech. Let's keep it this way.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mr. Blackwell, a contributing editor at Townhall.com, is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and American Civil Rights Union.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ken Blackwell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Equal Rights and Equal Protection
No Discrimination
No Special privileges for anyone.
No Hate Crimes.
No Thought Crimes.

Americans have died to preserve the notion that "All men are created equal."

No one should be MORE EQUAL.
No one should be deserving of MORE PROTECTION.

Well, now
Most certainly, all men are not created equal. However, it is a very American dream that all men be equal before the law.

Thought crimes
Hate crimes legislation is the most loathsome appendage that's been attached to the legal system in the past 40 years.

Now that the libs have got this blatantly unconstitutional race/sex based feature established in law, why not expand it to legitamize and promote every unsavoy subset group of the population. With such a law, one might bully and coerce any majority opponent in any way necessary.

What's more, if libs can get this kind of legislation, why not simply go for prior restraint laws - this is the logical next step - the perfect way of getting rid of inconvenient political opposition.

If the dems sweep in '08, we're going to see much of Nazi Germany revisited right here in the US.

Dem's sweep in 08
We wouldn't want you preaching any sermons, in your own church, that might make someone think homosexuality is wrong, cant have that can we? Cant have you teaching that abortion is wrong, its a woman's right to choose, you might make her feel bad about her choice to off her child for her career. Don't forget that. Freedom to practice your religion as you see fit is dangerous, better let big brother pre-approve a list of sermon topics for you. Your child will be attending mandatory tolerance training 5 times a year until he/she reaches 12th grade. If you speak against anything taught in these classes you are subject to fines, being arrested, or both. Remember, YOU HAVE NO exclusive right to the sexual education of your children. (By the way, the sick twisted 9th Circuit Court of Appeals actually stated that last line) Abortions no longer require parental notification, Dad would be so mad if he found out. Just come see us at Planned Parenthood and we will make it all better. Not to mention abortions are perfectly safe, get as many as you need. We'll fund it with our new universal health care system. Just get in line behind the 12 million new Mexican citizens. Affirmative action for gays maybe? You must have a diverse workforce after all. If a gay man and straight man of equal qualifications applies for the same job, YOU MUST hire the gay man. He is in a protected minority status.

These things will happen, eventually, if the Dem's sweep.
I also believe that Americans will wake up when this garbage starts to land on their front door, and the Lib community will feel a backlash like they haven't felt before.

Solo610
I'm afraid that most Americans including most Conservatives are so pissed with President Bush and the Republican Party, that even with the specter of everything that you mentioned hanging over our heads, your subject line may come true.
Let's be honest... the only time Libs punish their Representatives over misdeeds is when it comes to agreeing with Bush on the War. Conservatives on the other hand have shown that they will punish their Reps for misdeeds and for leaning so far left, there is hardly a distinction between Republican and Democrat... as seen in the 06 election. The Republican response... "We must not be leaning far enough to the left! We must go further!"

Republicans keep this crap up and it will be an all Democrat government.

Hate speech
It's time all of us realize that when our children are educated in public schools, they are indoctrinated to believe the government is right, and parents are wrong. Exactly like Hitler did in Germany in the 20's and 30's. If we don't stop this liberal crap now, we have lost America. There is no hope with the Democrats or Republicans in 2008. They are hell bent on destroying Free Speech, and all the Constitution and Bill of Rights. What to do? You had better get on the band wagon to elect Don Cordell or our nation will be converted to the North American Union, no borders, no rights, unlimited immigration, and everything against the law. Lets save this nation while we can. Don't believe me, look up Public Law 87-297 to disarm America, and then look at REX 84 to lock us up for demonstrations against destroying America. FEMA to take over with Martial Law, and United Nations troops to occupy and operate our country. Thanks to the New World Order, America is dead. White Americans to be the minority, and the Trilateral Commission in charge of all nations. Search Google for "Don Cordell" and 2008.

Memo to Congress:
"Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.....or of religion....".....US CONSTITUTION

Of course, given the failings of our educational system over the last 40 years, its an open question whether many of these Congressmen can read.

Professor, you've piqued my curiosity...
Can you please elaborate on:

"Most certainly, all men are not created equal. "

Since this is the foundation of our system of government and the creation of our country, does this mean that our entire history is based on a falsehood and that we've gotten democracy wrong all these years?


President Don, may I split hairs?
Educating children in the public schools teaches them that the government is ETERNALLY WRONG, DESTRUCTIVE AND THE ENEMY OF THE POOR AND DOWNTRODDEN and that the people who live to subvert and destroy it are right... beacons of hope in a cruel and dark wasteland called the USA. The young are taught that the U.S. is rife with evil, white heterosexuals and that no stone must be left unturned to stop our maniacal colonialism and imperialism.

Its exactly this liberal crap that keeps my kids out of public school and me in the poor house.

All Hate Crime laws....
are unconstitutional! Come'on ACLU get busy on something worthwhile for a change!

Hate speech laws
We are slowly slouching towards a soviet system. The public schools are more involved in left wing indoctrination than education. Hate speech laws threaten us with thought crimes. McCain-Feingold law is a current active threat to our free speech rights. There are some churches that actually have attorneys review their sermons to make certain they do not thrust them against the IRS. There is no longer a mere threat of it happening. It is happening.

Time to Change the Party Name
No group which would aspire to pass such laws is worthy of calling itself "democrats".

In a way, it's kind of funny, because what we have here is an object lesson in just how disfunctional the Left has become. Here we have a group supposedly dedicated to the ideals of liberty, and who constantly harp about the dangers of conservative "fascists" and such, yet given the chance, they immediately start kicking the can further down the road to authoritarianism and totalitarianism, telling us what we can do, what we can say, and now even what we can think.

What is it about the liberal mind that makes it forget all of its concerns for freedom of conscience when it has the power?

Read the Bill
Has anyone here (including the author of this ridiculous article) actually read the text of HR 1592. The bill simply adds gender and sexual orientation a currently implemented bill concerning hate crimes. There is also a specific section (sec. 9) protecting free speech.

"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."

Read the bill before you start spewing your misguided and homophobic opinions.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592

Right to work act
This bill should be named the "Mind readers right to work act". If you can't read a person's mind how can you really know what he/she thinks or believes?

The dems will like this act for several reasons, the least of which is they can create another government agency. Maybe they can borrow the name from George Orwell, the Thought Police. Then they could offer rewards to children for reporting what their parents say. I see great posibilities for this legislation.

Lancelot
The paragraph from the bill that you have quoted provides the coldest of comfort.

One need only review the news stories about on-campus repression over the past decade to see how the Left has created the concept of speech-as-action (even to using the term "speech act") to circumvent the moderate language of paragraphs such as that quoted.

The worst problem with hate-crimes laws, IMO, is that they make double jeopardy not only possible, but common practice. Under such laws, if a local prosecutor cannot procure a conviction, he is encouraged to refer the alleged crime to the feds for prosecution as a hate-crime. You can easily look up numerous cases where this has occurred.

I wonder how long it will take before the Left manages to craft some way of punishing people who do the "right thing," but for the "wrong reasons?" Seems like the next logical step toward chaos.

Hang the CRIMINALS!
When laws are violated the offenders are criminals. Our Constitution is the fundamental law of our land, and all the congress, presidents and judges who have trashed and deliberatly violated our constitution over the past century are CRIMINALS. This proposed law is just another ratchet on a history of cutting down our laws and notorously operating in complete violation of the law. The crinminals all ought to be rounded up and hanged in a row down Pensylvania avenue.

Bob

Catch more of Bob at http://bobstruth.blogspot.com

This whole Article...
... can be summed up in one Newspeak phrase...

Crimethink.

Mr. Blackwell is just ASKING for a visit from the Ministry of Truth.

Lancelot
So who said the existing law is good?

"I'm Already Against the Next 'Hate Crime' Bill".

Re: Read the Bill - Lancelot
And I suppose yours are homophobic-phobic opinions? However, you are correct. Much to your disappointment, I assume.

Lancelot
Did you notice another sentence in the bill... "actual or percieved bias"? Meaning that even if there is no actual bias, if the "victim" says he or she percieved some bias against them, wham! Hate crime. This is very, VERY dangerous.

Don't even get me started on the lack of any definition of "sexual identity" or the other terms, and how this bill essentially creates a protected class of citizen. I have NO problem with perpetrators of violent crime being punished - there are plenty of laws already in place that serve that function. But someone who commits a violent crime against me (straight, white) should be punished just as much as someone who commits the same violent crime against a gay black man. This bill ensures that would not be the case.

Lancelot
So nothing in the Bill shall violate anyone's 1st Amendment Rights, eh?

What about the rights protected by the 4th, 5th, 14th, etc?

What baffles me is that the wording of a Bill before Congress would NEED to include a phrase mentioning that it is not going to violate one of our Constitutional Rights. Shouldn't that be sort of automatic and inherent in ANY bill being considered and/or passed by Congress? Why do you think they feel the need to specifically state such a thing in this particular Bill?

Could it be that this Bill and the previously passed Bill which this one appends are/were unConstitutional from the outset and that the members of Congress KNOW it. Noooo, why if that were the case then anyone who votes for it would be violating their oath of office; and we all know that none of these distiguished gentlemen and ladies would EVER do anything like that.

This new law is of a piece with
all hate-crime laws as encroachments on freedom of speech. The minute that America accepted the principle of that some thoughts could be criminalized, then they should have been ready for the day when all non-approved throught would be. From the day hate laws and speech codes first appeared on the scene, anyone with a brain could see them as an end-around attack on the First Amendment of the US Constitution. As such, both the State and Federal legislators should have immediately acted to purge all the colleges and universities of this blight to free thought and inquiry, and the essential mission of college-level education. When I think of the German college-students' "White Rose" protest during World War II, when these students and academicians were killed by Hitler in the name of freedom, and and compare that to now when Americam students and academicians whine in the name of creeping totalitarianism, I am sick at heart.

I am an academic who lives under the rule of "Free speech for me, but not for thee." This is not the academy that I was educated in, but I saw signs of it then among the leftist students who literally snarled at anyone reluctant to swallow their ideas whole. I thought that it would be bad if these types got to be in charge of colleges back then, and I have been proved only too prescient today.

-Trentamj

MellorSJ
Okay, I give up.

I just re-read the Constitution of the United States. My memory served me correctly. In MY copy, there is no mention of free speech being contingent upon the payment of taxes.

Will you please point me to the Article and Section which contain this limitation?

Wher's the Problem?
After reading the full text of the Bill, (http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/110_hr1592.pdf) I find myself wondering where the author finds any threat to speech.

Specifically, Section 11 states:

SEC. 11. 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.

Long before you get to that section we find a definition of "hate crime as being a "violent Act," as referenced below:

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME. In this Act— (1) the term ‘‘crime of violence’’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code; (2) the term ‘‘hate crime’’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C.

So, someone please help me out. Where in this Bill is the threat to free speech? Rather, I see the Bill giving federal assistance to local law enforcement who lack the resources to properly investigate and successfully prosecute violent hate crimes.

Liberal Cowardice
The Liberal Agenda has been SOUNDLY THRASHED at the Ballot Box over the years. Being Abject Cowards, they haven't the guts to defend their positions. THEY KNOW that enacting it through The Courts or Congress is their only hope.

Check out the latest post on my Blog!

The_Iceman

Aren't violent crimes already illegal?

Why, then, is this or any similar law necessary?

And since it is not necessary, why is Congress wasting their time and our money considering it?

MellorSJ

Again, where in the CONSTITUTION is free speech tied to the payment of taxes?

...
Crusade08: Please define "homophobic-phobic opinions".

Caste Schmaste
Blackwell writes: "Instead of ending discrimination, this bill would create a judicial caste system in American society by creating categories where some victims are given more consideration and attention than others."

Bull puckey. Everyone who believes that this somehow gives minority members an elevated status under the protection of the law are living in a fantasy world where violence fueled by hate doesn't exist, and that Democrats somehow want Christians forever silenced. Look people, this bill will protect EVERYONE from crazies out to kill or hurt those they hate. It just so happens that gays and lesbians, along with blacks, hispanics, muslims and jews, tend to be the victim with a higher per capita percentage of the majority population, so the bill appears to be biased. But it's not. It protects everyone. And again, I wouldn't be surprised if hate-fueled violence towards Christians doesn't increase in years to come; we'll see how you feel about the bill then.

That being said, I do believe it will be very important that the labelling of a hate crime only come up as an option when there is violence involved. Punishing the words of anyone, no matter how hateful and ignorant they are, is a direct affront to the First Amendment, as we all know. But, I do believe Democrats understand this, and that no one has the intention of punishing thoughts.

THAT being said, we are currently engaged in a battle that will not soon end, and will get a lot hotter before it gets cool. Gay people aren't going anywhere, and while it's easy to use Marriage and the public's overall dissatisfaction with the idea so far as a litmus test of the Gay Rights Movement. But as anyone can see, the idea of granting equal rights to same-sex partners, "Marriage" or no, is growing in popularity in every state, and the momentum shows no sign of slowing. If history teaches us anything, in 50 years the Church will have changed their tune a bit to be more inclusive so as not to die out completely, and this whole topic being part of the major political discourse of our time will be but a fond memory.

lil' mistake
Two sentences should be one in my last paragraph. My editor is fired.

No justice left anyway.
None of this makes any difference. We have thought police already. The laws in this country are so complicated any one of us can be arrested, judged, and put away anytime anyway. Remember, "watch what you say."

We are not a country of laws but a country of judgment by association. We do not get justice and certainly do not get equal protection. If we violate a law that the politicians deem bad today, we are slammed, if not, we get off or never get arrested. This decision is made based on which group we represent. An example is it is OK to sneak across the border and use forged documents because it is profitable for the preferred group. We have ignored these crimes and are now looking to reward the law breakers.

Good day to discuss this since poor Paris has to spend time in her house instead of jail. Poor baby. Tears from a celebrity will get you out of jail.

It's the camel's nose in the tent.
It may seem like no threat to those who support this law, but the fact is that it's the slow creep of totalitarianism. That battle is fought one small inch of territory at a time. But eventually, the scale is tipped, and there is no more room for freedom in the tent.

BloodABoilin
Clearly we are individuals with unique sets of talents, handicaps, strengths and weaknesses. I accept that I am clearly not the equal of Jim Brown, Richard Feynman, William Shakespeare, Bobby Fischer, or a toothless drunk stumbling and filthy in a skid road alley. However, as judged by American law, we are possesed of precisely the same rights.

WayneS's reading comprehension
WayneS asks again, even though he has been told already: "Again, where in the CONSTITUTION is free speech tied to the payment of taxes?"

Let me do this v e r y slowly. The First Amendment requires separation of church and state. Got that?

That separation allows a "church" to get away without paying what the "liberals" like to call their "fair share." Got that?

What constitutes a church? This is drawn broadly, but one of the boundaries has been church meddling in the affairs of the state. By, for example, lobbying. Got that?

So if a church lobbies explicitly, it is no longer regarded as a church only. Got that?

And in that case it has to pay taxes like the rest of us. Got that?

Even then a church can rail on about abortion-mongering candidates, and whip their congregations into a lather, but if the pulpit says "Vote for him," it's a lobbying organization.

You may not agree with that. (As I said, I don't; I think you should pay through the nose to make up for past tax evasion). But that's the law of the land, founded on.... see if you can figure this out... the First Amendment.


MellorSJ2

The word "separation" is not in the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. So who has a reading comprehension problem?

NONE of the rest of your discussion is in the Constitution of the United States. it is ALL your opinions. So, again, who has a reading comprehension problem?

I asked you to simply point out the portion of the Constitution (of the United States, by the way, maybe that is where your confusion lies) which predicates FREE SPEECH upon the payment of TAXES. This you have not done/cannot do. So, again, who has the reading comprehension problem?

MellorSJ2

PS - You say you think I should "pay through the nose" to make up for my past tax evasion. I do not understand what you are talking about.

I have NEVER evaded paying taxes; and since you don;t even know who I am where do yu get off accusing me of tax evasion?

Or does someone, perhaps, have a WRITING comprehension problem?

Fumble Fingers
...don't... ...you...

JeffRob


Violence IS fueled by hate. That is my whole point. Separate, defined, "hate crimes" are not necessary because ALL violent crimes are "hate crimes".

What difference does it make, from the standpoint of justice, WHO the victim is or WHAT the perpetrator was THINKING. A violent crime is a violent crime and the punishment for ALL such crimes should be severe; equally severe for every perpetrator regardless of the "status" of their victim.

All is clear...
Wayne is one of these folk who think that the Establishment clause does not imply "separation."

We can discuss that if you like. But the chain of reasoning I outlined has been established by precedent--based on the Constitution.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution...
...of the United States of America:

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No more, no less.

NOW, will someone (anyone) PLEASE show me where the above says that freedom of speech may be abridged for failure to pay taxes. I see the "...shall make NO law..." (emphasis mine) part, but I don't see the "except tax law" part.

Lancelot: Really?
"Read the bill before you start spewing your misguided and homophobic opinions."

Ironic. Your pedantic missive conveys your overt “heterophobia”, i.e., your fear of heterosexuals w/ differing opinions to you own, resulting in you employing neo-Marxist “shaming language” IOT compensate for your pedestrian intellect & inability to engage in rational discourse. That being said I am quite familiar w/ said bill’s seemingly innocuous wording. However, you obviously live in a historical vacuum, given the fact that you're conveniently ignorant of the concept of the "slippery slope" as well as current misapplications of seemingly well-intentioned & overtly innocuous legislation, e.g., the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This bit of legislation has been twisted by the left IOT form the basis for “institutionalized racism/sexism", i.e, Affirmative Action.

MellorSJ2

I am one of "these people" who think the Constitution says what it says; no more and no less.

So you like precedents, eh? How about Dred Scott? That was a "precedent" at one time, wasn't it?

MellorSJ2

By the way, our intitial discussion, before you tried to side-track into the separation of church and state, was regarding whether the payment of taxes was a prerequisite of free speech.

You have yet to show me where in the Constitution it states that one must pay taxes in order to exercise ones right to free speech.

Please do so or admit that there IS no such prerequisite.

SSGTRET

Truth be told, sadly, I do not see anything odd about it at all.

Thought Crimes
Forget this argument about sexual orientation. The big issue is that Congress so freely ignores the Constitution. The 14th Amendment says:

". . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If crimes against gays and lesbians are punished more harshly than those against straights, then there is no longer equal protection under the law. I want someone who assaults me to get the same time behind bars as the guy who assaults James McGreevey.

If you want to have hate crime legislation, could you at least amend the constitution first instead of simply ignoring it?

JeffRob: Really?
"Look people, this bill will protect EVERYONE from crazies out to kill or hurt those they hate. It just so happens that gays and lesbians, along with blacks, hispanics, muslims and jews, tend to be the victim with a higher per capita percentage of the majority population, so the bill appears to be biased."

Really? You seem to think that the only demographic group capable of “HATE crimes” is white, heterosexual, ostensibly-Christian males. Reality: 90% of all interracial violent crimes are committed by blacks on whites. But I forgot, according to leftist MSM punditry , those were ECONOMIC crimes. WRT Hispanics & Muslims. Are you serious? Have you ever heard of the racial violence committed by Latino-gangs? How about the recent arrests of domestic Muslim terrorists associated w/ FT Dix & Kennedy Airport? Who do think they were targeting besides white, heterosexual, ostensibly-Christian males as a group? Stop seeing reality via a Marxist lens. Stop believing the MSM and start thinking for yourself.

Another Liberal Money Pit.
Pouring federal resources, tax payer money, into a new bureaucracy to run it, and the attorney faction the left is beholding to. The American public needs to GET A CLUE. The left only secures its position, power,and wealth, by legislating personal behavior. Secured by attempting to create an equality based on equalizing possessions,and passions. A speculative form of government, speculating that by equalizing its inhabitants,they will have total control. There will be no dissent,as all the puppets passions are equally fulfilled.All you need to do is look at their past government programs to quell personal turbulance. According to them,the need,the personal turbulance is still their. It never gets better, it gets worse. Although they, and their factious base, seem more secure in wealth.

I Hate Democrats
Now my striped uniform must be XL.

MarkMcLemore

Ahhhh, but the apologists will tell you that this is a Federal Law, not a State Law, and since the 14th Amendment only applies to States, and doesn't say "Congress shall not make or enforce any law...etc.", then everything is OKAY!

And the Bill ALREADY says right in it that it doesn't infringe on your 1st Amendment rights, so what's to worry, eh?

Yeah, right...

Censored!
Normally, my name appears at the foot of the comment page, ready for my new comment.

This morning, I was asked to log in, which I duly did. (These things happen.) But no luck. I requested a new password. No luck.

So I created a new account.

Then I went back to reading the ravings of the likes of Kathy.

All my posts have gone. I checked several threads. All gone.

Happily, many of you quoted me, so my pearls of wisdom remain.

So, who is willing to take responsibility for this? Hmm?

Separation of church and state
I am always simply amazed at how that phrase is turned on its head by the Left.

The Connecticut Baptist Congregation contacted Jefferson with their fears that the state of Connecticut would make their congregation and religion illegal. Jefferson assured them that the "wall of separation between church and state" (he coined the term in writing this letter) protected their freedom of religion and prevented the State from silencing them.

It had nothing to do with keeping religion out of the square of public discourse; exactly the OPPOSITE.


What the FIRST really says
My copy of the Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, …” and on and on. The American Heritage Dictionary says — “Establishment: Something established, as an established church.” “Establishing: To set up; to bring about; to introduce.”

The First Amendment does not prohibit the public celebration of religion, nor does it require “separation of church and state.” If you don’t believe that, read again: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; … .”

Think about it, the Crystal Cathedral is “an establishment of religion,” a Baptist Church is “an establishment of religion,” a Synagogue is “an establishment of religion,” and a Catholic Cathedral is “an establishment of religion.” Someone starting a new religion is “establishing a religion,” a word with a different meaning, a word not mentioned in the Constitution.

The Constitution says Congress shall make no laws respecting an established place of worship, it says nothing about the Government establishing a religion of its own. Maybe the authors of the Constitution wrote other documents on the subject, but the Constitution is clear.

============
MellorSJ2

I find your comments all over the place, does that mean they put them back? Now we will hear from all those people who say "censored" is a government action.

You were "edited."

Shades of brown shirts and lamp shades
made of skin. Those on the left that preach the most of fairness, will be the one's we must watch the most. When the new liberal version of fascism takes hold of our country. Words mean things. Actions mean things. Just take a typical liberal on his word, and his proposed actions. Sounds like a fascist to me. Not a complete match, but read the following definition.

Fascism: a system of government characterized by rigid one party dictatorship, forcible suppresson of opposition. Private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control. Political aggression.

Sounds like political correctness and thought control, will lead many to the ghettos and then the camps. If you read KOS and other leftist blogs, a final solution is not out of the question.

JeffRob
Even assuming you are correct about violent crimes NOT being hate-based (which I do not stipulate), what exactly is it about a violent crime perpetrated by someone because of "hate" which makes it MORE serious than one which is "poverty-induced, power/control issues-induced, or just insanity-induced"?

The victim is still equally harmed (injured or dead). Why is the person who "hates" the vistim for who/what they are more deserving of punishment than the power/control-freak?

jim
I find MellorSJ2's comments to be "all over the place" too.

That explains the MellorSJ2.
By "pearls of wisdom" you must be referring to your veritable TH repertoire of immature insults, name calling, hate-filled intolerant comments (rather hypocritical coming from a poster claiming to want tolerance), antireligion (except Islam) commentary, and overall lack of manners to other TH posters who did not agree with your position on homosexuality.

Although the column was about a frivolous lawsuit filed by a homosexual against a privately owned heterosexual dating service, it did not take long for the direction of the posts (not just yours) to deteriorate to toilet level. Unfortunately this seems to be the rule rather the exception when columns such as these are published. From what I was able to discern there were many posters who were on the receiving end of various 'MellorSJ' taunts and angry remarks. For posters who stated a belief against homosexuality, you chose to attack personally and unnecessarily,although these same posters were in no way attacking you on a personal level as you did them. Yes, there were a few posters who deliberately and unkindly attacked you or your position, but you chose to lash out at many who did not. This was accompanied by making fun of posters who did not agree with you by grouping with other homosexual posters to become somewhat of a bully group (for lack of a better term)including demeaning the columnist himself on more than one occasion. Of course that is not the topic of THIS column.

Unconstitutional "special" laws for a small minority of people who wish to claim victimhood personna is, as is agreeing or disagreeing with the proposed law. It would be great if this column's posts would stay out of the sewer as well.

WayneS
You asked: "Why is the person who "hates" the vistim for who/what they are more deserving of punishment than the power/control-freak?"

Well, that's gotta be the first really good question I've seen posted on this thread. That question really is the heart of the conflict. So, thank you.

I would argue that the hatred and intolerance that persists in our society- for any group, when perpetrated solely at that group, for no reason but that they are that group- is a more serious problem, worthy of a larger effort to fight it, than crime or violent crime in general.

My reason for arguing this is because a violent criminal who commits an act based on poverty or insanity needs to be punished and/or rehabilitated, so that they understand that violence is not the answer to solving their financial problems, and/or stopping the voices in their head. The answer is not to give them a lifetime-supply of money, or to just pray the voices stop, but instead to teach them a non-violent way to address their problem. After being punished, of course.

The criminal who commits an act of violence SOLELY because the victim belongs to a group they hate has a whole different motive for their attack, not based on a need for money or because of the voices in their head, but ONLY because they have been taught to hate, and have justified in their own heads turning that hatred into violence. No purpose. Just to hurt/kill those they hate.

And so as such, again, I would argue that hate-fueled violence is a much more serious problem than random violent crime, and deserves a separate category under the heading of Criminal Motivation. They're just two completely different things.

It would be nice if you were right...
...but you're not.

All I did, on this thread, was assert the truth that current laws give tax-free status to churches so long as they keep out of politics, based on the First Amendment.

I agree with you when you say: "deteriorate to toilet level." That's generally when the homophobes make their appearance.

Hate Crimes
This article represents on of the most dishonest pieces rhetoric I've seen from a member of the bar. No matter what side of the political spectrum you're on, the law specifically refers to violence. Any person who can read can see this. As is being shown by the DOJ fiasco, mixing the law with political partisanship is ill-advised, deceitful and unethical.
Or are you implying that the audience you're targetting doesn't know the difference between what is stated and their own particular biases? Be honest about you're reasons for opposing this bill. By being dishonest, you insult the readers that base decisions on the facts.
Sharon

One More Step Towards the One World Govt
Slowly but surely, steps are being taken to set up the one world government. The dystopian Sci Fi books and movies in which the government controlls every aspect of people's lives has been coming true gradually for a long time. If this bill passes, you can say good bye to religious freedom and just the freedom to think what you want to think. This bill if it becomes law, will be precedent for increasingly controlling laws in the future. Eventually, everyone will be brainwashed into believing the same things. Anyone who disagrees with what the government wants them to think will be punished. That will set things up nicely for the Antichrist when he comes to control the world.

If this law does not
make hate a crime, why is it needed? Violent acts against others (and even animals) are already prohibited by law

The reason many believes it violates the 14th amendment is because it does not make all hate a crime, but only hate against favored groups.

These are not complicated arguments.

People who are arguing in favor of this are either being disingenuous or are too ignorant or stupid to know what the law does.

JeffRob
You need to read this bill thoroughly. It lists what is considered a hate crime so your premise is incorrect. I called my Congresswoman on this bill and she confirmed it(she is for it). This bill will pass. It needs to be challenged in SCOTUS.

Mellor: I answered you
on the Bopp column.

Take a look.

Sharon 1:57p.m.
It's called "slipperly slope." You can't be that dense, or uncaring! Can you?

Christian ethic exchanged for no ethic..

‘Isn't it classic community doublespeak when a society that has decriminalized homosexuality is now contemplating criminalizing opposition thoughts?...America has a rich heritage of religious liberty and free speech. Let's keep it this way.’ --Ken Blackwell


Mr. Blackwell, thanks for exposing this assault on the first amendment. Can you imagine what the Constitution would look like if the modern Democrat leadership had its way with it? They are the personification of lawlessness in high places.

Before our eyes religious liberty is being suppressed by those who think themselves the champions of tolerance. The Christian ethic stands in opposition to the non-ethic of moral relativism. In the name of diversity the Christian ethic is under attack. Lawlessness is a poor exchange for the form and freedom we have enjoyed in America.

Who is it that gave us the first and second amendments, and who is it that would repeal them? What makes them to differ?




Appearances
MellorSJ2 writes: Thursday, June, 07, 2007 1:55 PM
It would be nice if you were right...
...but you're not.

All I did, on this thread, was assert the truth that current laws give tax-free status to churches so long as they keep out of politics, based on the First Amendment.

I agree with you when you say: "deteriorate to toilet level." That's generally when the homophobes make their appearance.
---------------------------------------
Which then you've undoubtedly proven the opposite, that being you the heterophobe making your appearance.

Lolo
You are correct in that HR 1592 says specifically "crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability."

What you're forgetting is that HR 1592 is just an extension onto the 1969 law 18 USC 245 (b)(2), which defines Hate crimes as being against:

"any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been attempting to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as voting or going to school." (paraphrased from Wikipedia)

So that means that Christians, for example, are already protected by Federal law against violent crimes perpetrated against them due to hatred, and so HR 1592 would only allow gays and lesbians to join in the protection.

And do you know what that's called, boys and girls? EQUAL RIGHTS.

Its a Secular War.
This bill is another attack on our Republic, and its principles embodied in our Constitution. A backdoor effort to get around the seperation of church and state. An effort to eliminate the open expression of relgious morals, and values. There by, giving immoral behavior, and values, an unchallenged path. Those pursuing immoral behavior can't stand that constant nagging in their head. That voice telling them it is wrong. The seculars imagine that by passing a law it will make it right. That voice in their head will disappear, as they are not constantly reminded. Religious programs on tv will disappear, any religious sign will disappear. These will be seen as symbols of hate, reminding them of their immoral behavior. In turn this will cause religious communities to go underground, so not to be seen as offenders, expressions of hate. This will also enable nations holding,potential radical religious groups,a cause to attack the infidels. They already use our embrace of abortion,and embrace of a queers right to marry, as an excuse. We could never defend against this evil without the Word of God directing us.

Fivo, thank you for
catching MellorsSJ2 proving the point I made in that post.

As for you MellorsSJ2 there you go again with the put downs and insults. Are you so angry and bitter that you cannot dialogue any other way?
Don't bother with an answer for two reasons:
1) Because your frequent TH posts show, for the most part, you are unable to do so, and
2) I am not going to resort to your communication tactics or play your game.

Lancelot is an idiot
The bill, dummy, by its VERY NATURE, deviates from First Amendment rights! The Amendment as written is meant to cover ALL people - there is no reason on God's Earth why language needs to be added directed at ANY specific group.
By doing so you are creating a privileged class. That is contrary to the Constitution.

Just my opinion
Folks this "culture war" nonsense is over. The people woke up and decided they wanted to worry things they could fix like poverty and eliminating terrorists. But I guess it is ok if you folks sit here and still fret about these issues.....

Hate Crime (Thought)
It's the same ole montra that has happened throughout history. There have always been and will always be as there is now those that can't bear the thought of the masses having freedoms that Eletists feel reserved for a handful of them only. From the time America won our Independance there has been a plan in motion to take it away from us. So, through the centuries since; our Constitution's 3 branches of governance has been ever so slowly curtailed that by now it is almost unfunctionable.

Hate Crimes is nothing but an extension of this satanic induced dribble that is slowly dribbeling away at our freedoms. And eventually will because we are powerless to stop it except as our forefathers leaving us one alternative in our Constitution at a time like this and that is to overthrow our so called elected officials and revert back to our Constitution in its original intent and purpose.

So, while we are attempting that the terrorists all ready inside our country will simply detonate a few nuclear bombs and take over.

Hate Crimes
The basis of many of the responses to this issue appear to be misplaced. The notion that all acts are treated exactly the same under the present laws is not true. For example, pre-meditated murder is treated more harshly than murder committed in the heat of passion or murder committed by a deranged individual.

This bill proposes to codify a more severe penalty for a particular state of mind (hate for a particular identity)as do laws making the intention for committing a murder relevant in punishing the perpetrator.

Who will be the mind readers????
I hate violence perpetrated on anybody. I want to see all perpetrators of violence prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No matter what group or association that the victim has. I hate people who want me to know of their personal sexual preferences, hetero, homo, pedo or beastio, that is there personal business. I have absolutely no interest in their personal behavior or beliefs. To commit a hate crime of violence is a oxymoron, violent crime never has feelings of love or goodness, all violent crime is hate crime. The Constitution protects all citizens regardless of any of their personal beliefs or practices (legal). It is an affront to the Constitution to try to create a "More protected class" of citizens that are deemed to deserve and receive more protection from hate. Violence is a form of hate. Who is it that will be able to look into the "Minds" of these perpetrators to determine what it was they were, thinking. My God, I have been married for 35 years and often times doen't know what is on my beautiful wife's mind. Who will be the trusted mind readers????

Moving Towards "1984" and Judgment?
The homosexual lobby has been pushing a bill like this for a long time, and the great tragedy of today is that their cancer-like destruction of the American Republic is making Orwell's book "1984" come closer and closer to actually happening. The Old Testament describes how God used pagan nations to judge an ancient Israel that continually fell away from Him. Could it be that He will use Islam to judge America for its sin of accepting the "gay" lifestyle as normal? Time will tell.

Jim
Keep up your good work :>)

fantasyland
It is hard to think of stronger support for this measure than the fact that opposition to it needs to be so dishonest. In what fantasy world are all violent crimes treated the same. Could Blackwell actually not know that intent is part of what distinguishes different types of homocide?

This particular bill does not criminalize thoughts. It does categorize crimes according to intent. But that is hardly something new in law or something in violation of the constitution. Nor does it specify some group for special treatment. I know it is the extension of such laws to cover hate crimes based on sexual orientation (such provisions already exist for other categories)but everyone has a sexual orientation. And it is possible for any person to be victimized based on this orientation even if some groups do more such hate filled acts.

That is not to say that the bill is a good idea. It is just to say that the bill should be judged on its actual content and how it fits in with the actual law, and not with these kinds of distortions.

Comments Thought Control
Thought Control

Quotes are based on thoughts (possibly soon to be illegal) penned by Ken Blackwell in an editorial titled Stripes for Jailhouse Thoughts? recorded in Townhall.com Thursday, June 7, 2007.

“A bill making it illegal for people of various faiths to freely hold and profess their respective religion's teaching on sexual morality is” slithering its way through Congress as House Bill H.R.1592 called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.”

“While criminal law treats all violent acts equally, the proposed law would additionally punish the accused for any prejudice they might have toward the victim.” … “Our system of laws requires evidence and varying levels of proof for different offenses. We lock people up for criminal acts. That penalty is already established in law.” … “This bill would allow government to further punish them for their alleged beliefs.“

These polititions are proposing that government punish a person for a "thought crime." “Even people” …(probably specifically those people)… “whose religious faith includes the belief that homosexual behavior is immoral, and same sex marriage is morally objectionable would have to pay the penalty.”

“While some modern liberal denominations and other faiths refuse to criticize homosexual sex and embrace same sex marriage, it is an historical fact that moral evaluations of these acts have been part of the Judeo-Christian belief system for four thousand years.” We are now looking at “a society” which has gone beyond “decriminalized homosexuality” to “contemplating criminalizing” thoughts against this behavior! Now how can the government prove that a person thinked such thoughts…Fiat! This is next step in the extension of hate crimes laws. Oh! They will start with what a person says but the persons associates are liable for this same drag net…thought police.

How about pure thought crimes based on religion: In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania “eleven people were arrested and prosecuted for sharing the Christian gospel at a homosexual rally.” “In Canada, Christian leaders received a hefty fine for expressing the same view over the radio.” “In Sweden, a pastor was imprisoned for 30 days for simply expressing his faith's view of homosexuality in a sermon.”

Europeans have a black history of government thought control that was imported into the new world. For the most part this tendency was stamped out by custom then it was sealed into the First amendment to the U.S Constitution. It is not a stretch of the imagination to think that some of the leaders of this worming proposal intend to use this law as a way to strip the first amendment out of the constitution. Others (the majority) may think that this is a good intention to bring civility back into public discourse! …going to Hell on a road paved with good intentions?

Why is H.R. 1592 called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, but a federal appellate judge said that the town of Farmers Branch out side of Dallas, Texas cannot use local law to enforce Federal laws against illegal aliens? Maybe the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 will be used against the people who want to report such crimes or even think of reporting such acts? …using federalized local law enforcement officers to do the enforcing? After all the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the powers of enforcement.

Muslims are using the U.S. law to sue people who reported their unruly behavior on US air carriers. After all they were discriminated against, right? The ACLU has a litigious gold mine using these new hate and antidiscrimination laws to hammer people who become frightened at Muslim unruly behavior inside U.S. Air Carriers.

How about the Earth Firsters researching how they can use the law surpress the global warming deniers. …AlGore? Anybody for revising the Fairness Docterine?

Without the First amendment there is no reason for the Second Amandment. With out these two amendments, there is no need for the U.S. Constitution.

With out the U.S. Constitution…

The BOB

mellorSJ2, from your continuing
posts, insults, profanity, and name calling I question as to whether you may suffer from some type of mental illness or repercussions from some type of life event that has left horrible scarring. I also believe several other TH posters have come to a similar conclusion once they have come up against your sick and perverted personal attacks. Most of them just stop posting back and forth with you, although you continue to attack them even when the posts are not specifically directed to you. The behavior you accorded to me was not reciprocated and the one calling on the "baloney" was not you (but you are perfectly free to believe it was.)In the TH posting world you like to twist words around to make it look like you are a target of hate (victim.) The only hater here happens to be you. But I hope you find happiness somewhere, sometime in your life. Eventually you may even come to realize that attacking/insulting/calling names to those who hold a different opinion of the homosexual lifestyle is a choice too.

The only hater here?
Not ashamed to be right claims I'm the only hater here. I copied a few posts from Barber's Queerly Beloved column, in full, without change. I have two more paragraphs at the bottom.

ChiefArt writes: Wednesday, June, 06, 2007 4:49 AM
HOMOSEXUALS
I believe that if a person is not heterosexual they are sexual deviants. I would like the policys of a few years ago to return in force. There was a time when this type of person would end up in a mental health facility. I think they need this type of service."

truetolife writes: Wednesday, June, 06, 2007 9:47 AM
I'm a homophobe
Everyone should be!! Why shouldn't I be afraid of people who want to sodomize anyone? Sodomy is sinful. Homosexuality is STILL listed in my Abnormal Psychology textbook. It is deviant behavior--not "chosen." It is pathological behavior and we should ALL be afraid of it. These people all have psychological issues which need to be resolved in a manner that is not harmful to themselves or to others. The whole "idea" of loving, committed relationships is a smokescreen. I bet there is not ONE homosexual who has only had sex with ONE other person. There are plenty of heterosexuals who have only had sex with one other person--and then only within the context of marriage. We should be very afraid of homosexuals and pedophiles and all "defenders" of sinful behavior. Including adulterers and fornicators. We need to bring the concept of "sin" back into this culture. ALL can be forgiven of a loving God, but we have the duty to inform our consciences of what "sin" is--the consequences of not doing so are dire. Wake up America. God help us and our children."

Lolo writes: Wednesday, June, 06, 2007 9:49 AM
MellorSJ
Maybe your right. It was religion that civilized the world. With that civilization came laws. Because of those laws we can't beat your @ss to a bloody pulp. So maybe we should do away with it all. You'll be the first to lose.

Kathy writes: Wednesday, June, 06, 2007 11:10 AM
Makes no sense
MellorSJ-

Your confused and twisted version of family is due to your self-gradification of your sexual desires, which are also twisted and makes no sense for the family tree. I am praying that God will bring you to the path that will lead to His Truth. Praying for us all. Amen!!!! Praise Jesus!!!!

Kathy writes: Wednesday, June, 06, 2007 4:26 PM
No Favors
You homosexuals have bought enough favors from the politican holes that we find ourselves in. Homosexuality is a devaint and dangerous practice that will robb our children of much more than those wolves will ever admit. The homosexuals and the dispicable politicains that promote homosexuality are lying through their teeth. I can't say enoungh about this travestiy of justice and flat denial of facts. They will prositute children for money, power and votes. They will put children at risk and destroy their innocence. They are the wolves that are noted in The Holy Bible. Liars, cheats and thieves all of them. Truth is not on their agenda's. They have a hugh problem that is called greed. They do no justice to the Protection of Marriage, family nor the children Now they have 7 year olds having sex change operations, with the taxpayer money. Check out http://www.massresistance.com. No Favors, as I will not take such abuse. Shame to you dispicable and lying, cheating ba$ard$. May God deal you your just desserts.

solver writes: Wednesday, June, 06, 2007 5:03 PM
Homosexuality the scourge of the earth.
A Homosexual repeat is in the early stages. In the 19th century BC The Sodomites of Sodom and Gomorrah met their death via an asteroid or comet like object. Their evil practices prevented God from saving them from the calamity. Lot's wife lost her life because of it, she hesitated and was killed, and so were a couple of Lots relatives, who chose to remain in the city.

America and the whole world is rapidly entering the phase of 'the new Sodom.' Very soon, God will loosen all restraints and the world will enter a time of trouble worse than any other time in the history of the world. The holocaust will seem like birthday party in comparison.

Homosexuals have a mental disease, it is very closely akin to Compulsive Obsessive Disorder. The CAN be cured, however like all other mental diseases the victim must to want to be cured, and most homosexuals are satisfied with their perverted life style.

Satan is going to and fro upon the earth like a roaring lion, seeking whom he can devour. Today he has all he can 'eat,' and more.

truetolife writes: Wednesday, June, 06, 2007 6:53 PM
Sorry but
homosexuality IS perversion despite what some may think. Just ask the gerbils

-----------------------

Now, I ask you: who's calling whom names? And who are the haters? And this is JUST ONE thread that is actually about property rights. But you're not jumping up and down all over them because you agree with what they say.

And for the record, I think the lawsuit should be thrown out, the attorney's involved fined for contempt, and the gay community should distance itself from such foolishness. (I said that already, but everyone was so busy ranting about homosexuals they missed it.)

mellorSJ2, my reference to 'hater'
was what was specifically happening regarding posts between the two of us. I already stated earlier, most likely more than once(and to other posters as well), that you had been the recipient of some terribly unkind posts, so your quotes are not anything new.

For comparison sake, go back and take the quotes from you and other posters of the same persuasion. In order to see the whole picture, a reader needs to be presented with the other side. There are equally offensive quotes coming from that side as well. There is no need to "prove' which side can be more hateful. Clearly both can take that route. Several of the posts from either side crossed the line from opinion into personal attack (accompanied by names, insults, and profanity.)

We at least agree on the frivolity of the eharmony lawsuit, and for now that will be the way it is between us. Like I said,even though we have differing opinions, I hope you find personal happiness and peace within yourself.

Ancient Greece's fable of Narcissus ...
The version of the ancient Greek fable I read said that

"Narcissus, who was loved by all the men & women fell in love with his own face's reflection in the water, and fell in and drowned.

Again, Narcissus, poor dear man, may drown in himself, tho now he may pull in others along with him in his tragic self absorption.

So do I see these special protection laws for persons who choose to sleep with others of their own gender.

*****
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.