Even though the above numbers may not look good . . . it has been worse in the past. Consider these stats:
- The Hate Crimes (Smith. S. 3183) vote in 2004 was 65-33-2.
This time, the vote was 60-39-1. We were able to strip away FIVE Senators who voted for it last time (Alexander, Bennett, Ensign, Murkowski and Stephens).
- Today's vote SUPPRESSED an override vote on a presidential veto.
- Senator Tedd Kennedy was in an absolute PANIC about the drop in votes. This caught him COMPLETELY by surprise. He immediately tried to dispense with procedural votes and tried to "voice vote" the Hatch bill. Leader McConnell said, "no" and the result was 96-3...an overwhelming increase from the vote in 2004 (50-49). If you have a few minutes, you may want to call him and tell him thanks for his leadership on this issue -- 202-224-2541
Senator Orrin Hatch did a lot of work behind the scenes during this battle and if it hadn't been for his amendment the five Senators who switched wouldn't have had the 'cover' to do so. His number is 202-224-5251.
Here's what to expect now: Once the Department of Defense Authorization bill (HR 1585) is voted on (and passed...MAYBE later today), it along with the Senate version of the Hate Crimes (S.1105), as well as the Hatch bill (and numerous other amendments) will head to conference. Both the Dems and GOP get to select conferees.
Continue praying for our nation.
Following is the news release just issued:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
CONTACT: Diane Gramley 1.814.437.5355 or 1.814.271.9078
Senator Casey Again Shows How Anti-Family He Really Is, Traditional Values Group Says
“Twice in a three-week time period Senator Bob Casey, Jr. has proven he is really anti-family and anti-life – his vote on September 6th to not renew the Mexico City Policy banning taxpayer dollars from being used to fund overseas abortions and today’s support of the hate crimes amendment,” noted Diane Gramley, President of the AFA of PA.
Senator John McCain was right when he said the hate crimes amendment has no place on a Department of Defense bill. Senator Kennedy’s actions and words show that he is trying to equate those who do not accept the homosexual lifestyle to domestic terrorists.
Several reasons why this is a bad bill:
q There is no need for this bill. As outlined in the FBI 2005 Hate Crimes Statistics the hate crimes against homosexuals have gradually declined between 2003 to 2005 – from 16.6 % in 2003 to 14.2% in 2005. Putting this into perspective one must note that involves a total of 7,163 criminal incidents based on bias in 2005 and 7,489 bias-motivated incidents in 2003. The FBI defines these crimes as toward a particular race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or physical or mental disability. Again, as in the past, intimidation makes up the larger portion of hate crimes – accounting for 48.9%. This is a continuing decrease from 49.7% in 2003.
q Since 2000,
q Passage of such laws creates unequal protection – i.e. the attacker of an adult male homosexual will receive a harsher punishment than the attacker of a seven-year-old girl.
q Federalizes each and every State and local crime
q Requires criminal investigations to probe if a crime occurred “because of” bias towards a protected group, and opens the door to criminal investigations of a suspect’s philosophical beliefs, politics, biases, religion, activities, and past statements.
q Violent attacks upon people or property are already illegal, regardless of the motive behind them. With ‘hate crimes’ laws, however, people are essentially given one penalty for the actions they engaged in, and an additional penalty for the politically incorrect thoughts that allegedly motivated those actions.
“Any hate crimes legislation is a bad idea –
The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at the
“Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. “
# # #