Real Change for Gays/Lesbians

[catzmeow]

Forget the stupid, symbolic, and ultimately meaningless Matthew Shephard Hate Crime Bill.

Real change for gays and lesbians might include overturning "don't ask, don't tell"...TODAY.

But god forbid the change should actually be REAL and SUBSTANTIVE...

Gay soldier: Don’t fire me – amFIX - CNN.com Blogs

Open Letter to President Obama and Every Member of Congress:

I have learned many lessons in the ten years since I first raised my right hand at the United States Military Academy at West Point and committed to fighting for my country. The lessons of courage, integrity, honesty and selfless service are some of the most important.

At West Point, I recited the Cadet Prayer every Sunday. It taught us to “choose the harder right over the easier wrong” and to “never be content with a half truth when the whole can be won.” The Cadet Honor Code demanded truthfulness and honesty. It imposed a zero-tolerance policy against deception, or hiding behind comfort.

Following the Honor Code never bowed to comfortable timing or popularity. Honor and integrity are 24-hour values. That is why I refuse to lie about my identity.

I have personally served for a decade under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: an immoral law and policy that forces American soldiers to deceive and lie about their sexual orientation. Worse, it forces others to tolerate deception and lying. These values are completely opposed to anything I learned at West Point. Deception and lies poison a unit and cripple a fighting force.

As an infantry officer, an Iraq combat veteran and a West Point graduate with a degree in Arabic, I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates. I demand honesty and courage from my soldiers. They should demand the same from me.

The Department of the Army sent a letter discharging me on April 23rd. I will not lie to you; the letter is a slap in the face. It is a slap in the face to me. It is a slap in the face to my soldiers, peers and leaders who have demonstrated that an infantry unit can be professional enough to accept diversity, to accept capable leaders, to accept skilled soldiers.

My subordinates know I’m gay. They don’t care. They are professional.

After I publicly announced that I am gay, I reported for training and led rifle marksmanship. I ordered hundreds of soldiers to fire live rounds and qualify on their weapons. I qualified on my own weapon. I showered after training and slept in an open bay with 40 other infantrymen. I cannot understand the claim that I “negatively affected good order and discipline in the New York Army National Guard.” I refuse to accept this statement as true.

As an infantry officer, I am not accustomed to begging. But I beg you today: Do not fire me. Do not fire me because my soldiers are more than a unit or a fighting force – we are a family and we support each other. We should not learn that honesty and courage leads to punishment and insult. Their professionalism should not be rewarded with losing their leader. I understand if you must fire me, but please do not discredit and insult my soldiers for their professionalism.

When I was commissioned I was told that I serve at the pleasure of the President. I hope I have not displeased anyone by my honesty. I love my job. I want to deploy and continue to serve with the unit I respect and admire. I want to continue to serve our country because of everything it stands for.

Please do not wait to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Please do not fire me.

Very Respectfully,

Daniel W. Choi
1LT, IN
New York Army National Guard

 

[Sky Dancer]

Overturning "don't ask, don't tell" is an important issue for gays and lesbians.

What YOU as a straight person doesn't get to do, is tell US gays and lesbians what our most important issue is. We get to decide that for ourselves. I happen to think marriage equality ought to be tackled first. Then gay and lesbian soldiers could marry and the whole 'don't ask, don't tell' bs would fall on its head.

Stay consistent about your hate crime position, catz. Yeah, the passage of the Matthew Shepard Act is NOT important to YOU. I get that. Why would it?

It's important to me that gays and lesbians are included in the hate crimes bill. The prosecutors could have used the funds to help with the trial of Matthew's murderers. I agree that Matthew Shepard's murder was stupid, symbolic and untimately meaningful to only gay people and people with compassion.

Yeah, forget our own priorities, catz. Whatever you say counts. Uh huh.

 

[KittenKoder]

There are so many problems with the DADT policy, where to begin ...

... meh, I'll just do the one big one ... who the fuck cares if a gay person wants to fight to defend their freedoms to be gay ... seems like people should be happy that someone is willing to fight for their rights as much as others.

 

[catzmeow]

What YOU as a straight person doesn't get to do, is tell US gays and lesbians what our most important issue is. We get to decide that for ourselves. I happen to think marriage equality ought to be tackled first. Then gay and lesbian soldiers could marry and the whole 'don't ask, don't tell' bs would fall on its head.

Sky, you can be as retarded as you consistently prefer to be. As a professional who works in a criminal justice field, I'm telling you that hate crime legislation, IN GENERAL, is patently misguided in principle and execution.

Stay consistent about your hate crime position, catz. Yeah, the passage of the Matthew Shepard Act is NOT important to YOU. I get that. Why would it?

It's about efficacy, you deluded twit. Hate crimes legislation DOES NOT WORK in the criminal justice system. I'm speaking to that issue as a professional in the field.

It's important to me that gays and lesbians are included in the hate crimes bill.

You don't care what the effects of this legislation are, you like the IDEA of it. That's the difference between us. I care what WORKS to actually reduce serious and violent crime and improve the status of gays/lesbians. I am not about meaningless symbolic gestures, though. I don't have time for those.

 

[Sky Dancer]

What YOU as a straight person doesn't get to do, is tell US gays and lesbians what our most important issue is. We get to decide that for ourselves. I happen to think marriage equality ought to be tackled first. Then gay and lesbian soldiers could marry and the whole 'don't ask, don't tell' bs would fall on its head.

Sky, you can be as retarded as you consistently prefer to be. As a professional who works in a criminal justice field, I'm telling you that hate crime legislation, IN GENERAL, is patently misguided in principle and execution.

Stay consistent about your hate crime position, catz. Yeah, the passage of the Matthew Shepard Act is NOT important to YOU. I get that. Why would it?

It's about efficacy, you deluded twit. Hate crimes legislation DOES NOT WORK in the criminal justice system. I'm speaking to that issue as a professional in the field.

It's important to me that gays and lesbians are included in the hate crimes bill.

You don't care what the effects of this legislation are, you like the IDEA of it. That's the difference between us. I care what WORKS to actually reduce serious and violent crime and improve the status of gays/lesbians. I am not about meaningless symbolic gestures, though. I don't have time for those.

Catz, I could care less that you work in criminal justice. I've worked in criminal justice as well. Big deal.

Hate crime legislation works because it puts addtional money into the legal system to try these crimes. Crime legislation does not deter crime.

You are not lesbian or gay. You don't get to tell us what is worth OUR time to pursue. Get over yourself. You don't support hate crimes legislation. Fine. Get out of our way and let those of us who think Matthew Shephard's murder mattered get on with our work.

Thank you for your support of marriage equality and reversing don't ask, don't tell.

 

[del]

What YOU as a straight person doesn't get to do, is tell US gays and lesbians what our most important issue is. We get to decide that for ourselves. I happen to think marriage equality ought to be tackled first. Then gay and lesbian soldiers could marry and the whole 'don't ask, don't tell' bs would fall on its head.

Sky, you can be as retarded as you consistently prefer to be. As a professional who works in a criminal justice field, I'm telling you that hate crime legislation, IN GENERAL, is patently misguided in principle and execution.




It's about efficacy, you deluded twit. Hate crimes legislation DOES NOT WORK in the criminal justice system. I'm speaking to that issue as a professional in the field.

It's important to me that gays and lesbians are included in the hate crimes bill.

You don't care what the effects of this legislation are, you like the IDEA of it. That's the difference between us. I care what WORKS to actually reduce serious and violent crime and improve the status of gays/lesbians. I am not about meaningless symbolic gestures, though. I don't have time for those.

Catz, I could care less that you work in criminal justice. I've worked in criminal justice as well. Big deal.

Hate crime legislation works because it puts addtional money into the legal system to try these crimes. Crime legislation does not deter crime.

You are not lesbian or gay. You don't get to tell us what is worth OUR time to pursue. Get over yourself. You don't support hate crimes legislation. Fine. Get out of our way and let those of us who think Matthew Shephard's murder mattered get on with our work.

Thank you for your support of marriage equality and reversing don't ask, don't tell.

so you're saying that unless this bill is passed, the murder of a gay wouldn't come to trial because there'd be no money for it?

do you have idea how preposterous that statement is?

i didn't think so.

loon.

 

[catzmeow]

Hate crime legislation works because it puts addtional money into the legal system to try these crimes. Crime legislation does not deter crime.

Every single chargeable offense under the hate crime legislation is ALREADY a crime on the books that is regularly charged and tried in communities. That's what you don't get. These cases are already chargeable offenses and are already tried routinely in cases around the country. The lack of hate crime legislation did not keep Wyoming criminal justice professionals from charging and trying the perpetrators, and obtaining the maximum possible sentence in that case.

I deal with the same thing, routinely, with gang cases, and prosecutors who want to use RICO statutes with gangs. The simple fact of the matter is that RICO statutes are so labor intensive, and require so much effort that the bang is not worth the buck. Gang members, by their very natures, are so criminally involved that one can generally prosecute them effectively for the actual offenses they commit without going to greater lengths.

I have the same concerns about hate crime legislation that I have about gang enhancements. In several states, these statutes have been struck down because of perceived constitutional violations. So, passing these laws has become an expensive exercise in testing the limits of the constitution and bill of rights. Our time (and, frankly, our MONEY) is much better spent in aggressively investigating and prosecuting people for ALL ACTUAL CRIMINAL ACTS, rather than creating special categories of victims.

That actually has the possibility of reducing crimes, whereas these special laws take away money from other aspects of dealing with crime to focus on special groups.

Furthermore, there is a good chance that they will ultimately be found to be unconstitutional. For that reason, and because criminal groups desire to create fear in all types of communities, rather than concentrating on the agenda of the criminal, let's reduce their capacity to create fear and mayhem by prosecuting all serious crimes--seriously.

For the record, I support overturning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," for the same reason I am opposed to hate crimes legislation -- because it infringes on civil liberties.

You are not lesbian or gay. You don't get to tell us what is worth OUR time to pursue. Get over yourself. You don't support hate crimes legislation. Fine. Get out of our way and let those of us who think Matthew Shephard's murder mattered get on with our work.

If you consider posting on a message board to be "work", god help you.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Hate crime legislation works because it puts addtional money into the legal system to try these crimes. Crime legislation does not deter crime.

Every single chargeable offense under the hate crime legislation is ALREADY a crime on the books that is regularly charged and tried in communities. That's what you don't get. These cases are already chargeable offenses and are already tried routinely in cases around the country. The lack of hate crime legislation did not keep Wyoming criminal justice professionals from charging and trying the perpetrators, and obtaining the maximum possible sentence in that case.

I deal with the same thing, routinely, with gang cases, and prosecutors who want to use RICO statutes with gangs. The simple fact of the matter is that RICO statutes are so labor intensive, and require so much effort that the bang is not worth the buck. Gang members, by their very natures, are so criminally involved that one can generally prosecute them effectively for the actual offenses they commit without going to greater lengths.

I have the same concerns about hate crime legislation that I have about gang enhancements. In several states, these statutes have been struck down because of perceived constitutional violations. So, passing these laws has become an expensive exercise in testing the limits of the constitution and bill of rights. Our time (and, frankly, our MONEY) is much better spent in aggressively investigating and prosecuting people for ALL ACTUAL CRIMINAL ACTS, rather than creating special categories of victims.

That actually has the possibility of reducing crimes, whereas these special laws take away money from other aspects of dealing with crime to focus on special groups.

Furthermore, there is a good chance that they will ultimately be found to be unconstitutional. For that reason, and because criminal groups desire to create fear in all types of communities, rather than concentrating on the agenda of the criminal, let's reduce their capacity to create fear and mayhem by prosecuting all serious crimes--seriously.

For the record, I support overturning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," for the same reason I am opposed to hate crimes legislation -- because it infringes on civil liberties.

You are not lesbian or gay. You don't get to tell us what is worth OUR time to pursue. Get over yourself. You don't support hate crimes legislation. Fine. Get out of our way and let those of us who think Matthew Shephard's murder mattered get on with our work.

If you consider posting on a message board to be "work", god help you.

Advocating for hate crimes legislation is work--just ask the Shepards. I have heard every one of your tired arguments against hate crimes legislation. Too bad. It's the law of the land since 1968. All the Matthew Shepard Act does is add gays and lesbians to the list. If you want to buck the legal trend of the last 41 years, knock yourself out.

 

[catzmeow]

Advocating for hate crimes legislation is work--just ask the Shepards. I have heard every one of your tired arguments against hate crimes legislation. Too bad. It's the law of the land since 1968. All the Matthew Shepard Act does is add gays and lesbians to the list. If you want to buck the legal trend of the last 41 years, knock yourself out.

As stated, you don't care whether it works or not. You just like the idea and the symbolism.

Frankly, I care about crime victims--of all kinds, regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation. That's why I don't have time for empty gestures.

But, to each their own.

However, it would be nice of Obama would sack up and eliminate don't ask/don't tell. I'm sure we can agree on that.

 

[Nik]

What YOU as a straight person doesn't get to do, is tell US gays and lesbians what our most important issue is. We get to decide that for ourselves. I happen to think marriage equality ought to be tackled first. Then gay and lesbian soldiers could marry and the whole 'don't ask, don't tell' bs would fall on its head.

Sky, you can be as retarded as you consistently prefer to be. As a professional who works in a criminal justice field, I'm telling you that hate crime legislation, IN GENERAL, is patently misguided in principle and execution.

Stay consistent about your hate crime position, catz. Yeah, the passage of the Matthew Shepard Act is NOT important to YOU. I get that. Why would it?

It's about efficacy, you deluded twit. Hate crimes legislation DOES NOT WORK in the criminal justice system. I'm speaking to that issue as a professional in the field.

It's important to me that gays and lesbians are included in the hate crimes bill.

You don't care what the effects of this legislation are, you like the IDEA of it. That's the difference between us. I care what WORKS to actually reduce serious and violent crime and improve the status of gays/lesbians. I am not about meaningless symbolic gestures, though. I don't have time for those.

Symbolism matters. See the first elected black president for an example.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Advocating for hate crimes legislation is work--just ask the Shepards. I have heard every one of your tired arguments against hate crimes legislation. Too bad. It's the law of the land since 1968. All the Matthew Shepard Act does is add gays and lesbians to the list. If you want to buck the legal trend of the last 41 years, knock yourself out.

As stated, you don't care whether it works or not. You just like the idea and the symbolism.

Frankly, I care about crime victims--of all kinds, regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation. That's why I don't have time for empty gestures.

But, to each their own.

However, it would be nice of Obama would sack up and eliminate don't ask/don't tell. I'm sure we can agree on that.

Bullshit. You didn't care about the victims of the train accident. You stated as much. Text messaging is no big deal, remember?

You're selective about what crime victims you care about.

 

[Nik]

Hate crime legislation works because it puts addtional money into the legal system to try these crimes. Crime legislation does not deter crime.

Every single chargeable offense under the hate crime legislation is ALREADY a crime on the books that is regularly charged and tried in communities. That's what you don't get. These cases are already chargeable offenses and are already tried routinely in cases around the country. The lack of hate crime legislation did not keep Wyoming criminal justice professionals from charging and trying the perpetrators, and obtaining the maximum possible sentence in that case.

I deal with the same thing, routinely, with gang cases, and prosecutors who want to use RICO statutes with gangs. The simple fact of the matter is that RICO statutes are so labor intensive, and require so much effort that the bang is not worth the buck. Gang members, by their very natures, are so criminally involved that one can generally prosecute them effectively for the actual offenses they commit without going to greater lengths.

I have the same concerns about hate crime legislation that I have about gang enhancements. In several states, these statutes have been struck down because of perceived constitutional violations. So, passing these laws has become an expensive exercise in testing the limits of the constitution and bill of rights. Our time (and, frankly, our MONEY) is much better spent in aggressively investigating and prosecuting people for ALL ACTUAL CRIMINAL ACTS, rather than creating special categories of victims.

That actually has the possibility of reducing crimes, whereas these special laws take away money from other aspects of dealing with crime to focus on special groups.

Furthermore, there is a good chance that they will ultimately be found to be unconstitutional. For that reason, and because criminal groups desire to create fear in all types of communities, rather than concentrating on the agenda of the criminal, let's reduce their capacity to create fear and mayhem by prosecuting all serious crimes--seriously.

For the record, I support overturning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," for the same reason I am opposed to hate crimes legislation -- because it infringes on civil liberties.

You are not lesbian or gay. You don't get to tell us what is worth OUR time to pursue. Get over yourself. You don't support hate crimes legislation. Fine. Get out of our way and let those of us who think Matthew Shephard's murder mattered get on with our work.

If you consider posting on a message board to be "work", god help you.

Do tell us what civil lberties hate crime legislation infringes upon.

 

[Sky Dancer]

What YOU as a straight person doesn't get to do, is tell US gays and lesbians what our most important issue is. We get to decide that for ourselves. I happen to think marriage equality ought to be tackled first. Then gay and lesbian soldiers could marry and the whole 'don't ask, don't tell' bs would fall on its head.

Sky, you can be as retarded as you consistently prefer to be. As a professional who works in a criminal justice field, I'm telling you that hate crime legislation, IN GENERAL, is patently misguided in principle and execution.




It's about efficacy, you deluded twit. Hate crimes legislation DOES NOT WORK in the criminal justice system. I'm speaking to that issue as a professional in the field.

It's important to me that gays and lesbians are included in the hate crimes bill.

You don't care what the effects of this legislation are, you like the IDEA of it. That's the difference between us. I care what WORKS to actually reduce serious and violent crime and improve the status of gays/lesbians. I am not about meaningless symbolic gestures, though. I don't have time for those.

Symbolism matters. See the first elected black president for an example.

I remember similiar arguments about why do we need to fund women's sports--they aren't important because they don't play football?

The Matthew Shepard Act is not about symbolism. It's about making meaning of Matthew's murder by including it for what it was--a hate crime--and including it in the federal legislation--with all the funds that go with it to prosecute the crime.

 

[catzmeow]

Bullshit. You didn't care about the victims of the train accident. You stated as much. Text messaging is no big deal, remember?

You're selective about what crime victims you care about.

I don't care about it as far as interest in the story. Text message accidents are a dime a dozen. People who text while trying to drive are idiots.

 

[catzmeow]

Do tell us what civil lberties hate crime legislation infringes upon.

When you attempt to attach an enhanced penalty to a hate crime, you have to prove that the suspect engaged in hate speech and/or engaged in association with hate groups.

Saying that gays should die is not a crime (and frankly, under our bill of rights, never should be). Killing a gay person, however, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Basically, these laws infringe on the same civil liberties that gang enhancements do (freedom of association and freedom of speech). Gang enhancements have been found to be unconstitutional in several states. Florida, for one.

I have no doubt that hate crime enhancements ultimately will be, as well.

 

[catzmeow]

The Matthew Shepard Act is not about symbolism. It's about making meaning of Matthew's murder by including it for what it was--a hate crime--and including it in the federal legislation--with all the funds that go with it to prosecute the crime.

What if the meaning you attach to it is actually false?

Former Laramie Police Detective Ben Fritzen, one of the lead investigators in the case, also believed robbery was the primary motive. "Matthew Shepard's sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn't the motive in the homicide," he said.

"If it wasn't Shepard, they would have found another easy target. What it came down to really is drugs and money and two punks that were out looking for it," Fritzen said.

New Details Emerge in Matthew Shepard Murder - ABC News

There is a lot of emotionalism wrapped up in these kinds of cases, but justice is supposed to be blind to these kinds of biases.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The Matthew Shepard Act is not about symbolism. It's about making meaning of Matthew's murder by including it for what it was--a hate crime--and including it in the federal legislation--with all the funds that go with it to prosecute the crime.

What if the meaning you attach to it is actually false?

Former Laramie Police Detective Ben Fritzen, one of the lead investigators in the case, also believed robbery was the primary motive. "Matthew Shepard's sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn't the motive in the homicide," he said.

"If it wasn't Shepard, they would have found another easy target. What it came down to really is drugs and money and two punks that were out looking for it," Fritzen said.

New Details Emerge in Matthew Shepard Murder - ABC News

There is a lot of emotionalism wrapped up in these kinds of cases, but justice is supposed to be blind to these kinds of biases.

HAHAHAH

You showed your hand this time. You think Matthew Shepard's murder was NOT a hate crime?

Unbelievable.

You've topped yourself out. Nice job. I sure hope none of your kids turn out to be gay and no harm ever comes to them that is hate motivated, really. Have fun with that right wing spin, and while you're at it read the trial transcripts. In court the defendants attempted to use the "gay panic defense", arguing that they were driven to temporary insanity by alleged sexual advances by Shepard.

Good luck with re-trying the case. Have you been dating Fred Phelps again?

 

[Nik]

Do tell us what civil lberties hate crime legislation infringes upon.

When you attempt to attach an enhanced penalty to a hate crime, you have to prove that the suspect engaged in hate speech and/or engaged in association with hate groups.

Saying that gays should die is not a crime (and frankly, under our bill of rights, never should be). Killing a gay person, however, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Basically, these laws infringe on the same civil liberties that gang enhancements do (freedom of association and freedom of speech). Gang enhancements have been found to be unconstitutional in several states. Florida, for one.

I have no doubt that hate crime enhancements ultimately will be, as well.

Incorrect. The hate speech and/or engaged in association with hate groups is not what one needs to prove to attach the hate crime moniker. Its the mental state of the individual and their motive. Hate speech and association can be used as evidence for mental state, but the association itself isn't t he crime.

And as we discussed before, motive has allowed to be used in criminal justice issues for a long time.

Gang enhancements are likely unconstitutional because it doesn't add to the crime itself. RICO statutes, and conspiracy statutes have been upheld because they are associations that are directly involved in the plotting of a specific crime.

 

[catzmeow]

Incorrect. The hate speech and/or engaged in association with hate groups is not what one needs to prove to attach the hate crime moniker. Its the mental state of the individual and their motive. Hate speech and association can be used as evidence for mental state, but the association itself isn't t he crime.

The hate speech and/or association is about the only evidence you would have towards mental state, thus making them equivalent to a crime.

 

[catzmeow]

And as we discussed before, motive has allowed to be used in criminal justice issues for a long time.

The problem is that you don't understand HOW motive is used in the courtroom.

Gang enhancements are likely unconstitutional because it doesn't add to the crime itself. RICO statutes, and conspiracy statutes have been upheld because they are associations that are directly involved in the plotting of a specific crime.

WRONG. The courts ruled on this clearly. You're speculating wildly, without facts. If you prefer to be educated, you can read their decision here.

The courts ruled that these sentence enhancements were a clear infringement on civil liberties, specifically, the rights of freedom of association and free speech, precisely the rights that are infringed upon by hate crime enhancements.