If the penalty for murder where life in prison or death, would we need a 'Hate Crime' law?

Isn't the penalty for an assult based on the assault not the motivation?

I don't think we need more laws, sorry Mr. Harvard Law. We need punishment for THE CRIME. I fail to see the significance of the motivation.

Of course, the 'shell and pea' game which is Trial Law sometimes mucks up the facts.

I think we need a 'Responsible Lawyer Act'. Where lawyers make sure their clients get a fair trial and stop trying to 'get them off on a technicality'.

In other words, if lawyers were ethical, we wouldn't need a Matthew Shepard Act.

Sorry, I didn't spell check. where=were

There are stiff penalties on the act of murder, they just don't apply to killing glbt people. if those laws were proplerly applied THEN we would not need to have hate crime laws, but since the are not, we do.
You just like to be contrary don't you MS? It is not just the lawyers it is also the police, the judges the juries who value our lives less than straight lives. The last fools that tried to burn down my home with a flamin cross got their arse shot full of rock salt, because the police refused to come when I called for help with the krowd of kkkreestians on my lawn. So I had already had vandalism by these so called people of gawd, and called to report the slashed tires , broken windows, graffito painted on my house. When they showed up with the cross and white sheets I was ready. I got a ticket for letting off the 12gauge, they got nothin from the law even though we all knew who they were, the next door neighbor even told the cops who those folks were. They wanted proof. I said look for the people not sitting down and gave names. See in Alabama is alright to kill gays and blacks, even if it is technically against the law.

Those aren't Christians.

And, yes, lawyers and juries and judges and society all need a new attitude.

But, Robert, if you believe that, will the Matthew Shepard Act do anything other than create more paper?

I am contrary to meaningless legislation when we need to be changing peoples minds or passing legislation that makes lawyers, juries and judges subject to review (Supreme Courts, in place) and PENALTY. (Maybe not so much juries. If the other two do the right thing, so will the jury).

My contrary point is writing an Act does nothing if it is not enforcable. And, pointless if there already exists a law which should be doing the same thing, but is not presently being enforced.

Fix the system, don't keep complicating it by adding layers.

I don't think gays should push the issue because of the possible backlash. Obama said he was against gay marriage and he might be willing to create an Amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

As long as gay marriages are legal within a few states and allow the bible belt its peace, you will win and maintain your victory.

Even if a state like Arizona defines marriage a between man and woman they still have to respect a marriage contract made in a state where that contract is legal.

Making this a national issue is a mistake

Grant Robinson:

Actually, Grant, you are quite mistaken.  Arizona state law not only specifically states that marriage between members of the same sex are prohibited (ASRS 25-101C - http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/25/00101.htm&Title=25&DocType=ARS), but that marriages performed in another state that are prohibited by 25-101 are not valid in Arizona even if they are legal in the other state (ASRS 25-112A - http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/25/00112.htm&Title=25&DocType=ARS).  Many states have similar laws.  Plus, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act supports states in not recognizing other states' valid marriages, despite the full faith and credit given to most any other marriage from any state or even worldwide.  So no, they do not have to respect a marriage contract made in another state where the contract is legal, and this is part of the reason that is very much IS a national issue.

I think people don't realize what hate crimes laws would really mean for America. In some ways, it would create discrimination against those who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, and censor pastors and others from speaking the biblical view of homosexuality. I'm not saying it's right that gays are being murdered, but it's also wrong to shut out any opposing viewpoints, religious or otherwise.

All crimes of assault and murder are hate crimes.  Prosecute each equally without regard to motivation.

ZAppalorti Society GLBT MH

ZAppalorti Society GLBT MH

Hey fellow LGBT and allies,

Please support the Uniting American Families Act too under Immigration Reform -- It is for equal immigration rights for same-sex binational couples.

http://www.change.org/ideas/view/equal_immigration_rights_for_same_sex_binational_couples

Please vote for the Uniting American Families Act under
Immigration Reform. It's for equal immigration rights for same-sex
binational couples. Anyone how loves someone out side the USA needs our help! Please help push this though. With all of your help, your friends, and family we can help push the message to Obama that America needs UAFA now! Please take a moment and vote.

Here is a link if it does not work use click "ideas" on the tool bar and look.

http://www.change.org/ideas/view/equal_immigration_rights_for_same_sex_binational_couples

Thank you very much

I think you should just give it up already. The evidence is there in black and white that Shepard was NOT KILLED FOR BEING GAY! Accept the truth and STOP SPREADING LIES!!!!!

Two comments: First to Chelsea - There is nothing in any hate crimes legislation that limits free speech. Pastors and others are free to state they view homosexuality as immoral or ungodly. That is not "hate speech" under the law. No one, regardless of religion or anything else, has the right to promote actual violence against another person or group. That is terroristic threatening and punishable by existing laws.
Second: Hate crimes are needed because the intention of a hate crime is not only to harm the individual(s) involved but to send a message to a larger group. If I attack my neighbor because I don't like him, that is a personal crime. If I attack my neighbor because I don't like his race, religion or sexual orientation, my intention is not only to attack the person but the whole community he represents. The additional penalty is not for the same crime, but the additional crime of intending to terrorize a whole class of people. That is why I support hate crimes legislation of various kinds -- to protect not only gays, but races and religions as well.

Are you referring to the Film Actors Guild?

Response to Chelsea: Hate crimes laws don't ban people from having their own opinions. They ban people from taking those opinions to the extreme of carrying out violence on another person. This should be perfectly fine with any Christian point of view - it's completely consistent with the commandment to not kill, and it's consistent with Jesus' nonviolent lifestyle.

Aaron McKinney pled not guilty to Matthew's murder on grounds of gay panic and thus openly admitted that he killed Matthew because he was gay.  Some murders are more than violence against the victims; they are open threats to other members of the same minority group.  It's the reason that black people weren't only killed secretly by racists; their corpses were dramatically displayed after the fact to instill fear.  It's the same reason that Matthew Shephard wasn't just murdered but beaten until unrecognizable and left tied to a fence--to cultivate fear.  It's not just murder; it's terrorism.