2007 Senate Bill 609: Establish gender identity/sexual orientation "hate crime"

Legislation watch

Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next

Introduced by Sen. Hansen Clarke (D) on June 27, 2007, to provide sentencing guidelines for the felony proposed by Senate Bill 610 of intimidating or harassing another person because of gender identity or sexual orientation.
- Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 27, 2007.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Re: Great by crazycajun on January 19, 2009

how about making it a crime (false statement on state/federal documents... assuming a false identity... ) to intentionally misrepresent your sex.

notice i did not say your SEXUALITY.

that way, when a woman represents herself as a man, or a man represents himself as a woman, both are considered felons. i, as a STRAIGHT man cannot represent myself as something i am not, why is that okay for homosexuals?

let's also say that representing your gender as something different from what your ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE STATES is a felony.

in a previous post, you stated that sexual orientation was not an 'overt act'. choosing to marry a person with the same gender as yourself is a CHOICE, which is an overt act.

if your ire is raised at the supposed injustices brought about by the 'protection of marriage' laws, just remember, they represent the will of a majority of the people. as a democrat, you should be respectful of the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. but you obviously are not.

we hear you speak of THE PEOPLE being in charge, and when they voice their opinions opposite of your views, you complain. how is this KEEPING TO THE DEMOCRAT IDEALS? the truth is, it isn't.

if you want THE PEOPLE to be in charge, then you must be prepared when the PEOPLE speak their minds, and those thoughts are contrary to your views.

unless and until the three major religions in the world strike the book of leviticus (and their equivalents) from their holy scriptures, homosexuality will never have the widescale support of all the people. some people read their bibles and believe what is in there.

now,i'm apalled to find democrats supporting this TOTALLY UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF SUPPOSEDLY "EQUAL" CITIZENS. i understand urging stronger law enforcement to supress such crimes, but STRONGER TREATMENT BASED ON THE SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF THE VICTIM IS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION.

Line

2) Re: Great by crazycajun on January 8, 2009

by the way, sane...

you can THREATEN someone, and once all is said and done, when you report it to your local p.d., they will tell you to take a hike, because it's a CIVIL MATTER. the criminal courts won't even mess with it, unless of course the person doing the threatening ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING ABOUT CARRYING OUT THE THREAT.

other than that... it's judge judy time.

Line

3) Re: Great by crazycajun on January 8, 2009

it's not the protection from prosecution... dipweed.

it's the ADDED PENALTY for one over the other.

THAT is what belies the principle of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER LAW.

careful... you are starting to sound like TRUE/FALSE...

you wouldn't want to do THAT, now, would you?

Line

View Full Conversation