Subscribe Now Mobile Site Place an Ad E-Edition Email Updates Obituaries Classifieds Find a Job Find a Car Real Estate Contact Us

Currently

66°

Clear

FREE ARCHIVE SEARCH

Breakingnews

CLASSIFIEDS

All Classifieds
Find a Home
Find a Car
Find a Job
Work Here
Find Merchandise
Today’s Print Ads

2 Weeks Free

Free Ad

Place an ad
in print and online, 24/7 for free, select the Clean Sweep option. Unable to submit Real Estate, Services, and Business Investements at this time.

Get a Subscription

Map the Valley

Restaurant Listing
School Listing
Open Houses
Garage Sales

Subscriber/
Reader Services

Subscribe Now
Contact Customer Service

Congress extends hate crime protections to gays

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Physical attacks on people based on their sexual orientation will join the list of federal hate crimes in a major expansion of the civil rights-era law Congress approved today and sent to President Barack Obama.

A priority of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., that had been on the congressional agenda for a decade, the measure expands current law to include crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. The measure is named for Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student murdered 11 years ago.

To assure its passage after years of frustrated efforts, Democratic supporters attached the measure to a must-pass $680 billion defense policy bill the Senate approved 68-29. The House passed the defense bill earlier this month.

Email this story

Print this story

POST A COMMENT

Hanfordsentinel.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed, particularly if they are posted after normal office hours.

We reserve the right to remove comments in total that violate our code of conduct. If you want to report a violation, please e-mail editor@HanfordSentinel.com

For more information please read our Terms of use, and Rules of the Road.

Please log in to post comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
	Forgot Your Password?

If you don't have an account you can create one for free by clicking the link below.
CREATE ACCOUNT

The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Hanford Sentinel

Alihandero wrote on Oct 22, 2009 9:28 PM:

" It's bad to persecute ANYONE simply for what they believe or the life they live.

PERIOD.

Why does it have to be MORE ILLEGAL to persecute some people rather than others?

I could never figure that out...

NEXT UP on the AGENDA:

Deliberate attacks on the homeless as hate crimes!

(it's real: Google it) "

toleranttaxpayer wrote on Oct 23, 2009 5:18 AM:

" Way to go Congress ! Any crime based on discrimination should not be tolerated. "

Cammy wrote on Oct 24, 2009 2:51 AM:

" Alihandero,

Im a victim of a hate crime. It happened back in 2004 at my job in the parking lot. I had to go to counciling due to it because i feared leaving my house. The guy's face i still see, full of hatred and his eyes full of rage. He called me names that i cannot say on here or this wont post. Yes, he called me names based on my sexual orientation and they were not pretty. He also thought it would be ok for him to corner me between 2 cars and then proceed to push me so hard that my body slammed into the brick wall.
So yeah, i think it is time to put a stop to hate crimes, afterall, thats what i went through. But unfortunately, Matthew Shepard wasnt able to live through his horrible hate crime.
Its about time that someone does somthing about this. Its a shame that it took 11 years for this to finally happen. Let justice finally be served! "

Scott Tucker wrote on Oct 24, 2009 3:30 AM:

" toleranttaxpayer, I second your sentiment: "Way to go Congress!" on the passage of this bill. "

Pete wrote on Oct 25, 2009 1:30 PM:

" Because of my travel this week, I haven't been able to listen to Rush, so really don't know what to think about this. But to have to attach it to another bill to get passed sounds a little funny. "

Devils Advocate wrote on Oct 25, 2009 5:49 PM:

" Creating a higher level of protected class isn't the answer, but rather equal enforcement of non-discriminatory law.
There will always be people that are more frequently victimized by crime because of who they are and how they behave, regardless of whether its "deserved" or not. For example, gang members have a higher likelihood of being physically assaulted or shot, women are more likely to be raped. The question is whether or not justice is denied WHEN it happens.
Pre-suffrage and civil rights movements, justice was often denied through the LAW itself - therefore, the laws needed to be changed. Sometimes its was denied through selective enforcement - if rape is excused away as "boys being boys", etc. Fortunately, most people, legislations, and law enforcement agencies nowadays try to make sure everyone is treated the same.
Just because a person is more likely to be the victim of a crime doesn't mean the crime itself is more heinous and worthy of greater punishment.
The person that assaulted Cammy should definitely, but ONLY, suffer the penalty for breaking the law, regardless of why they did it. "

Alihandero wrote on Oct 25, 2009 6:55 PM:

" Hi Cammy,

You know I am a fan of yours and I'm really and truly sorry for your assault and victimization. It should not have happened.

Were there not any existing CA. laws(s) that would have covered your situation or otherwise have protected you?

If not, and there was a chance that special 'hate crime' laws would have prevented either your assault or Mathew Shepard's death then that would be a good thing for society to have in place.

Maybe a federal 'antibullying' law for the kids would be appropriate well as laws recognizing any persecution of the homeless.

Criminal and aggressive antisocial behavior needs to stop any way you cut it - for everbody! "

Paul wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:57 PM:

" Pete wrote on Oct 25, 2009 1:30 PM:

" Because of my travel this week, I haven't been able to listen to Rush, so really don't know what to think about this. But to have to attach it to another bill to get passed sounds a little funny. "

Glad to see that "some" don't know what to think unless rush tells them to.

And all this time "some" say that President Obama is a great ordator. Imagine that.

Thanks for making it prefectly clear peet. "

HereWeGo wrote on Oct 25, 2009 11:16 PM:

" It's funny how people want to blame the liberal media for forcefeeding the public with propaganda, but here we have someone admitting to listening to Rush so they can know what to think. HIlarious.

And in all seriousness, I was more surpised that this law wasn't on the books already. "

Mrs.D wrote on Oct 26, 2009 11:02 AM:

" Attaching one bill to another to guarantee passage is a common practice. It doesn't always guarantee passage if the original bill is doomed.

RE: Pete, I listen to Rush all the time, dude. "Signals" is my favorite album, but I don't think Geddy Lee is my beacon in politics. But if you mean Rush Limbaugh, then you better find someone worthy to listen to on the road. "

manuel wrote on Oct 26, 2009 12:41 PM:

" Paul Like Pete, some republicans can't think for them selfs, they must be guided by Limbaugh "

Pete wrote on Oct 26, 2009 1:54 PM:

" Gee, does anybody know of someone else I should listen. It is a proven fact that Rush is 99.1% correct and that is hard to beat. "

kermit the frog wrote on Oct 26, 2009 1:58 PM:

" Rush is not the one to listen to for forming your own opinions. He is an over-hyped gas bag. "

baristamclane wrote on Oct 26, 2009 3:01 PM:

" Pete wrote on Oct 26, 2009 1:54 PM:
" Gee, does anybody know of someone else I should listen. It is a proven fact that Rush is 99.1% correct and that is hard to beat. "

I could swear that condoms have the exact same disclaimer on the packaging.

Try NPR. "

Paul wrote on Oct 26, 2009 10:21 PM:

" Pete wrote on Oct 26, 2009 1:54 PM:

" Gee, does anybody know of someone else I should listen. It is a proven fact that Rush is 99.1% correct and that is hard to beat. "

Back in August (2009) rush had this on his show"

"The Constitution is the most liberty-promoting and freedom-acknowledging document in the history of the world, and this little boy in college is writing about it with utter disdain, and he still shares those feelings," "Why didn't this come out a year ago at this time? Why didn't this come out before the election in November?"

Turns out that it was a satire written by Matthew Avitabile, a grad student in upstate New York who writes a blog called Jumping in Pools,

What did rush say,

" So we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway. That's how it works in the media today."

"WE know what he thinks"...hummm sounds like "some" here.

Anyway, I guess it falls in that .9%

Next, rush kool- aid. "

Pete wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:15 AM:

" I listened to NPR this morning and it was very good for news, but I was looking for a talk show with opinions on issues, any suggestions for that? "

SuziQ wrote on Oct 27, 2009 2:17 PM:

" No, pauly, that was in the 99.1% figure. You seem to be the only person that doesn't know what obama is thinking. "

Paul wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:31 PM:

" SuziQ wrote on Oct 27, 2009 2:17 PM:

" No, pauly, that was in the 99.1% figure. You seem to be the only person that doesn't know what obama is thinking. "

Good to know that no matter what the article is about, "some" will somehow always find a way to bring President Obama into the mix.

Here's what I THINK and KNOW. Either you have painted yourself into a conservative rush corner and have to present yourselves as such "here" but secretly love President Obama because "some" can't stop talking about him or...

"Some" are still "MAD" macain and palin LOST. GET OVER IT.

They lost fair and square. President Obama didn't need the US Supreme Court to crown him the winner. And "some" complain that the Gov't has their hand in everything. Didn't complain about Big Gov't then did you?

That IS what I THINK. "Some are just sore losers."

And pete... I also THINK that the only opinion that you care about is your own and rushs.

Back to the article, I'm glad that "Congress extends hate crime protections to gays." "

Alihandero wrote on Oct 28, 2009 3:15 PM:

" Paul wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:31 PM:
"Back to the article, I'm glad that "Congress extends hate crime protections to gays."

Paul, I do believe we need more special categories of hate crime victims made into law.

That will stop these grievous offenses from occurring and promote harmony and good will as you suggest.

See - we actually CAN get together! "

toleranttaxpayer wrote on Oct 28, 2009 4:58 PM:

" It'a amazing to me that the conservative rights cannot support tougher sentences on crime. This is about holding ignorant people responsible for their actions. Hate crimes should never be tolerated regadrless of your views ! "

Alihandero wrote on Oct 28, 2009 5:30 PM:

" I do believe some people don't know their right from their left on this topic, though. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Oct 28, 2009 9:10 PM:

" I for one am against the hate crime bills. A crime is a crime. Why do you have to create special types? How does one define a hate crime? I feel that many have committed hate crimes with their posts here attacking me and my opinion. Does that qualify as a hate crime?

If somebody attacks another person physically then try that person for assualt and battery. A bully is a bully, doesn't matter who or what the victim is. So my simple statement covers everyone. I have never attacked anyone because of race, creed, religion or sexual preference. Yes I post my opinion which may vary from others, but it is just as much my right to poswt a difference of opinion as it is yours. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Oct 28, 2009 9:15 PM:

" to Paul, you state McCain and Palin lost, your are correct, but then you lower yourself with other comments about the losers can't accept that. Go back to 2000 when the Dems couldn't accept that Bush won, and yes because of their whining, it took the Supreme Court to confirm that Bush won.

I have just as much right to disagree with President Obama as you did with Bush, but you seem to suffer from amnesia when it comes to fair play. You want everybody to follow only your way. You act as though only Republicans have made mistakes, and only President Obama's plans can fix everything without input for any other source. "

Skip wrote on Oct 30, 2009 12:18 PM:

" Excellent point NHG, there's not one thing that has been said about Obama that the Libs didn't say about Bush. It was OK then but much different now when they say it. They can make excuses as to why they did it, but they can't deny it. "

formerhanfordguy wrote on Oct 30, 2009 1:32 PM:

" Simply amazing the warped mean spirited Repukicans and so called "christians" denouncing this this new law of the land.. No one should be bashed for who they choose love! The blood of Matthew Sheppard is on your hands right wingers! "

manuel wrote on Oct 30, 2009 4:25 PM:

" NothomeGrown You tell Paul to stop whining for Bush won in 2000, yes he did win the same way the president of Iran won "

Paul wrote on Oct 30, 2009 11:02 PM:

" NotHomeGrown wrote on Oct 28, 2009 9:15 PM:

"it took the Supreme Court to confirm that Bush won."

You don't see anything wrong with the US Supreme Court naming the next president of America. It wasn't that I hated bush winning, it was the precedent that was being set by allowing judges to decide who should be president not the "voters of America." Remember, Gore won the popular vote.

" and only President Obama's plans can fix everything without input for any other source."

To this point "ALL" I have heard from the republicans is "NO!!!!!" So, yeah. I wouldn't ask for their "input" either, they are just going to say NO!!

What is the republicans "plan" for health care? Oh, that's right they don't have one. But they do have "A NO."

Why do you have to create special types?

Because of people like cecil price, dan white, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, Shawn Allen Berry, Lawrence Russell Brewer, and John William King.

Shall I continue???

"some" have a lot to learn about the difference between a " physical attack" and expressing an opinion. "

formerhanfordguy wrote on Oct 31, 2009 3:36 PM:

NotHomeGrown wrote on Nov 3, 2009 12:47 PM:

" to Paul,

I don't know who those people are that you posted, care to enlighten me?

The Supreme Court had to decide because the Democrats wouldn't accept the facts. After how many days of wrangling over hanging chads and when the count was still against them, the DEMS still didn't want to accept facts. So yes I have no problem with the Supreme Court stepping in and applying the law of the land.

How can anybody input any suggestions if leadership continues to say it is my ball and we will only play by my rules? The Republicans have put forth suggestions and also their counterpoiints to things such as Public Option, but again leadership wants it there way and their way only.

Where have I ever stated that it is okay to attack anyone, how quickly you all forget to read the entire message. I am against creating second class citizens. We are all the same in that regard, and a crime against one is a crime against another. Republicans are not the only criminals! "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Nov 3, 2009 12:51 PM:

" to Paul,

If Republicans are the only people who commit crimes, then it would appear that a larger majority of people of color should be registered as Republicans, as there is a larger percentage of them in prison based upon total percentage of American citizens. So one would presume that the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree, so then you would also think that their families would be primarily Republican, but we know for a fact that it not so. And to be honest with you, I don't care what party affiliation a person behind bars is, I only think of them as criminals serving their punishment for the crime that they committed. And if they are currently serving a felony charge they shouldn't be able to vote anyway! "

ToldYouSo wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:00 PM:

" I'm not surprised that Manuel and Paul both wanted Bush to lose, no liberal softy likes a Republican winner like George and Reagan. Hopefully this doesn't get blocked like my earlier comments but I guess censorship against comments against stupid laws like this one need extra protection from the press. By the way, Gore advocated not counting votes being sent in by active service military... what kind of anti-American scum would be against counting their votes? You guessed it sore loser Gore and the Liberals. "

Cammy wrote on Nov 5, 2009 12:33 AM:

" Alihandero,
Thank you for the compliment. I never got to finish what happened to me. The guy who assulted me and called me bigotory names, wasnt alone. There stood his 2 small kids that were maybe 4-6 yrs old. Yeah, they got to witness thier daddy physically hurt me because of my sexual orientation. What does this teach children? It teaches them that its okay to hurt another human being just for being gay. This is wrong, and that is why i there are so many men and women who have lost their lives due to this hatred act.
After i had seen another co worker, i yelled for help, and the guy took off in his car. We got the license plate # and called the police. They came, took my statement, took pics of where i was injured. I told the police this was a hate crime and what the guy ended up getting was a slap on the wrist and was told never to come to this area again. Wow! What if it was worse and i not being able to type as you read this? Or better yet, what if i was killed? "

Cammy wrote on Nov 5, 2009 12:53 AM:

" Cont.
Some people think a hate crime is no difference than any other crime. Your dead wrong! It's totally different, look it up.
NotHomeGrown wrote:"I am against creating second class citizens. We are all the same in that regard"
Well i know how you feel about the LGBT community as you clearly noted in the past year reguarding gays and lesbians. You dont want us to have the same rights as you. Prop 8 stripped us from that right to marry, therefore turned the LGBT communty into 2nd cless citizens. We have the married same sex that got to get their marriage before prop 8 past, but wait..make that 3rd class citizen because i am one of those who did not rush to get married, and now i cannot do so because people did not separate church from state. If they did separate, then this soar subject would have ended. The result? You helped make us 2nd and 3rd class citizens and that makes what you said a false statement. Not trying to nit pick here, but i remember the endless debates of you, me, Watchdog Fred, and many more go round and round over same sex. "

Cammy wrote on Nov 5, 2009 1:07 AM:

" Cont.
So many people fail to open their eyes to the truth here. "Gay Bashing" equals hate crime. But there has to be enough eveidence to proove its considered a hate crime. At the time of my horribel experience, there wasnt much the cops could do. They found the guy, asked him if he did the things as i described, and of course he denied it. After that, the cops really didnt do much and that was that. This new hate crime, now something WILL be done. If someone calls me a name, is that a hate crime? no. If someone beats the living tar out of me and says bigotory names to me, is that a hate crime? YES! Hello, i had physical contact and painful slurs and the scars and the months of seeing a theripist to proove it. Again, its about time they FINALLY did passed it. Next time you think people dont do such things, go on utube and read some of the comments regaurding no on prop 8. HA Prop 8 make it worse too! "

Pete wrote on Nov 5, 2009 2:12 PM:

" Assault and Battery laws have been on the books for years, you think they are "love crimes"? These so called hate crimes fall under assault and battery and the offenders should go to jail. What happened to Cammy was a crime before this bill was passed!! "

ToldYouSo wrote on Nov 5, 2009 6:26 PM:

" Sorry Pete, but it is hopeless for now. The gutless Dems and libs can't enforce the laws on the books, but instead they want to write additional worthless laws to appear that they are actually against crime. Like a shell game you would play with a two year old, except some adults are fooled by this sham and keep supporting the Democratic party. "

Paul wrote on Nov 5, 2009 9:54 PM:

" NotHomeGrown wrote on Nov 3, 2009 12:47 PM:

I don't know who those people are that you posted, care to enlighten me?

By now, I think that "we" that write here have been "enlightened" about as far as we are going to be enlightened.

If you don't know who these people are, the problem is yours, not mine.

But what "some" have failed to understand is that laws, especially those that deal with gender or race HAVE TO BE fine tuned. And that is what was done here with this new law.

If that wasn't the case nhg, then there would still be a law that says segregation is "fine" because you have a separate but equal clause. Only the same kind of races can MARRY. Still alive in Louisiana. Shall I continue???? The next examples will have to do with those that are gay.

"Some" say that they don't want to create a second class citizen.

I argue that those who some think will become second class citizens WILL IN FACT, FINALLY, take their place with any other American FIRST CLASS Citizen.

Nice try. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Nov 10, 2009 1:28 PM:

" to Cammy, yes you and I have had many discussions about Prop 8. I and still stand firmly that I have not denied you any right that I don't have. I too can only marry a person of the opposite sex, same right that you have. So therefore we are both of equal status. Now just because you don't desire to marry a person of the opposite sex is not my fault, nor am I implying that it is a fault on your behalf. But you also have stated that you would support denying the right to marriage that you are seeking to others, i.e. pedophiles, and incest. What is your justification for that? Just as in principle my right in justifing that marriage should be between a man and a woman. You have also voiced an opinion against polygamy, yet 2 of the larger religions allow that, so you now are violating their constitutional right to practice their religion. continued. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Nov 10, 2009 1:34 PM:

" continued. Cammy, you and Paul submit posts that imply all Repulicans are thugs, yet I have never yelled racial nor gender slurs. If I had witnessed your attack, I am sure that I would have come to your support, first because I am a male chauvinist pig, I don't believe in men hitting ladies (not all women are ladies though, go figure). But even if I saw anyone attacking anyone else I would attempt to stop the attack. And to me no matter who is attacking who, it is a crime. Now just because a gay person is attacked is it a hate crime, for example when one gay attacks another, is that a hate crime? To me it is still just a simple case of assualt and battery. And that is where we are currently failing, we don't enforce the laws on the books. It is a shame if the police had physical evidence and did nothing, if so they to me are guilty of a crime. "

ToldYouSo wrote on Nov 13, 2009 7:05 PM:

" I know, we should make a law to protect us from terrorist attacks.... well that wouldn't work because all dems and libs would want to repeal it. "

HOT TOPICS

MORE LOCAL NEWS

Lemoore:

Selma:

Kingsburg:

PHOTO GALLERIES

More Photos

Sentinel Photos (195) Albums

: Lemoore Golfing Lessons; Monday, March, 15 2010; (5) Photos

: Hanford Youth Baseball Opening Day; Monday, March, 15 2010; (8) Photos

: Arbor Day; Monday, March, 15 2010; (6) Photos

Reader Submitted (7) Albums

: Vintage Hanford; Monday, December, 15 2008; (1) Photos

: Vacation Photos; Thursday, November, 20 2008; (43) Photos

: Events; Thursday, November, 20 2008; (38) Photos

EMAIL UPDATES

Sign up today to get all your local headlines delivered to your home or work e-mail address, so you don't miss the latest in breaking and local news.

E-Mail:
Daily News Updates
Breaking News Alerts