A longtime pundit and supporter of the homosexual lifestyle choice has admitted online that the so-called “hate crimes” bill now pending in the U.S. Senate is totally unnecessary, according to a report.
“The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that – and Matthew Shepard’s murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time,” wrote Andrew Sullivan in his “Daily Dish” column.
“The real reason for the invention of hate crimes was a hard-left critique of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings,” he continued.
“Just imagine how many direct mail pieces have gone out explaining that without more money for [Human Rights Campaign], more gay human beings will be crucified on fences. It’s very, very powerful as a money-making tool – which may explain why the largely symbolic federal bill still hasn’t passed.”
The comments came in an article titled, “Intent vs. Motivation” that discussed the “hate crime” law that has been proposed.
By special arrangement through WND, for only $10.95 members of the public can send 100 individually addressed letters to each senator by overnight mail. Each letter is individually “signed” by the sender. The letters ask for a written response and call for opposition to the bill, including by filibuster if necessary.
Matt Barber, director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and the Liberty Alliance Action, commended Sullivan, whom he described as “one of the foremost leaders in the homosexual activist movement worldwide,” for admitting S. 909 is “a money making scheme.”
“Well, the cat’s out of the bag,” said Barber. “I almost never, if ever, agree with Andrew Sullivan on anything. But I must give credit where credit is due. Sullivan’s admission that S. 909 is both a ‘symbolic’ and ‘meaningless … money-making tool’ devised by the extremist homosexual lobby is both refreshing and stunning at the same time.”
Barber continued, “I hope Sullivan will now join me in calling for his fellow homosexual activist leaders, such as HRC’s Joe Solmonese, to exhibit the same kind of candor relative to this anti-American ‘hate crimes’ charade, do the honorable thing and come together to request that the Senate withdraw S. 909 from consideration.”
Barber said the bill, already approved in the House and dubbed by many critics the “Pedophile Protection Act,” would chill speech across the nation if approved.
He said lawmakers already have admitted pedophilia and other “sexual orientations” will be given special protection under the plan and, “this should shock the conscience of every man, woman and child.”
Barber also said U.S. senators now are on notice.
More than 4,000 people already have sent 400,000-plus letters to the Senate expressing their concerns over the “Hate Crimes” plan, and the program has been extended indefinitely while the Senate has the plan pending.
“May I be so bold as to suggest you follow Andrew Sullivan’s lead? The line in the sand has been clearly drawn. You are either for pedophiles or against them. You are either for freedom and equal protection under the law or against it. If you vote for S. 909, you might as well plan now to have that potentially career ending millstone permanently tied around your political neck,” concluded Barber.
A hearing on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, already approved by the U.S. House as H.R. 1913 and pending in the Senate as S. 909, is expected in the Senate Judiciary Committee soon. It’s been described by Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst with Liberty Counsel, as a bill to create penalties against “victims” who were chosen based on an “actual or perceived … sexual orientation, gender identity.”
Many have dubbed it the “Pedophile Protection Act,” and Reps. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, and Steve King, R-Iowa, explained how they had tried to have majority Democrats in Congress define “sexual orientation” in the bill – and were refused.
They also tried to add an amendment that would state that pedophiles were not, in fact, protected under the law, and Democrats again voted to reject that idea.
King explained it’s part of the national effort by homosexual activists not to just have the freedom to choose their lifestyle, but to be able to demand approval and likewise condemn those who don’t agree with homosexuality.
First, he said, comes the so-called “hate crimes” law. Then will come the employment non-discrimination concept that says “thou shalt hire people of these proclivities.” Finally, there would come the imposition of nation-wide same-sex marriage combined with speech limits banning any criticism of that.
Gohmert pointed out that Christians and their pastors need especially to be worried because of the bull’s-eye being painted on them by homosexuals.
He said while the “hate crimes” bill says its provisions shouldn’t be used against religious statements, there’s an important word that follows that statement: “Unless.”
That’s unless “the evidence relates to that offense,” he said.
And under existing federal law, someone who “induces” a crime can be tried, convicted and sentenced as the principal.