We believe all people should be treated equally and do not believe that any person or group of people should be given a special protection status. Bill H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is being debated in House Judiciary Committee hearings this week. This legalisation is designed to add "sexual orientation," gender" and "gender identity" as specially protected categories of persons under federal law. Representatives from The Traditional Values Coalition sat in on the hearings. Listed below are the results of some of the discussions from yesterday's hearing, as reported by the TVC.
In the findings portion of the bill, the liberals stated that homosexuals and cross dressing individuals were being forced to flee across state lines to avoid persecution, thus making the case for federal protection under the interstate commerce clause. During the hearings yesterday, they had to admit defeat on the phony "findings" to justify passage of the bill, and these findings were deleted from the bill.
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) was visibly shaken and upset by a series of questions about sexual orientation and gender identity. She refused to define what gender or “gender identity” might mean in the law. She was repeatedly asked to define these terms and she danced around giving a real answer.
Democrats refused to add members of the military, seniors, unborn babies, pregnant women, and Americans targeted by illegals as protected classes under this hate crimes bill.
Democrats admitted that “animus” – or what a person thinks – is the basis for enhanced penalties against homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals. They have admitted that this is a thought crime bill! People will be punished for what they think!
Rep. Gerald Nadler (D-NY) admitted that this bill is designed to raise the penalties for crimes against these specially protected groups! This is unequal protection under the law. Nadler’s specially-protected groups are more valuable than soldiers, the elderly, pregnant women, or unborn babies.
The recent controversy surrounding the Miss USA pageant should serve as an example as to why special protection for certain groups of people is not needed. Because Miss California was honest with her comments about her feelings on gay marriage, Perez Hilton, and openly gay man, gave her a score of zero on that portion of the contest. Miss California was chosen as the first runner up to Miss USA. The argument could be made that had it not been for Mr. Hilton's score of zero, Miss California would have won the Miss USA contest. Furthermore, Mr. Hilton then made several nasty and mean spirited remarks about Miss California, for which he refused to apologize. Where was the protection for Miss California?
Please contact your elected representatives and tell them to vote no on H.R. 1913.