Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on June 27, 2007

Click here to view bill details.

Mr. Hanson, Ridiculous legislation. If someone breaks a law then arrest them for it, but until someone can tell me what country the Gay people are from, I refuse to recognize them as a special group. If it's an assault - then it's assault. We already have laws that cover that crimes. Enough of this political correct nonsense

Now a Sodomite has special protection! They can come to your public school and recruit your kids into the Sodomite lifestyle (gay is wrong term) IT IS SODOMY and nothing less or different. Those sodomites will stop at nothing to sneek in legislation (back door aproaches). Vote those girly men out!

Now all you have to do to get special rights is choose to live a degenerate lifestyle. Sad

I agree we already have laws to protect our society from assault,murder,or whatever deviant behavior someone of violent nature would participate in. What if am beat-up because I am not gay should the crimnal get less time in jail because I am not gay or some sort of miniority.I think the voters made it perfectly clear how they feel about groups of people recieving specials rights when affirmitive action was voted out.I hope more people start paying attention to what goes in on with the government.I also think these types of laws or any that is so conterversial and effects our legal sytem and public lives so deeply should always be done by a public vote.The brilliant elitist in Lansing hate that idea because they know the general public doesn't agree with relentless assault on our rights and lives.

Now get them the same rights as married heterosexuals.

We are slipping into a totalitarian society very very fast. I have never seen anybody beat up somebody that they didn't hate. All crimes are "hate crimes". Get rid of these no nothing twits now.

 let's talk about having the same rights, shall we?

do we give felons the same rights as law abiding citizens? NO.

why? because you lose rights when you break the law. SODOMY IS AGAINST THE LAW.

now, when you lose sight of that fact, you MIGHT be willing to allow sodomites into the highest circles of government. but alas, only TRULY liberal democrats routinely lose sight of that fact. to them, having a felonious sodomite at the helm of government, local, state, or federal, is a GOOD THING. they label putting felonious sodomites as being POLITICALLY CORRECT.

what is CORRECT about putting felons in government? NOTHING. yet they constantly whine about how politically correct it would be for us to do it.

now, let's talk about giving felons not only the rights they threw away by committing their particular felony, but extra protection not afforded any other citizen by our constitution. proving that their concern is NOT for the law abiding citizen, but for the criminal.

once again, we see the true liberal colors. yes, liberals represent change, but not EVER change for the better.

 

1.Homosexual acts between consenting individuals are legal. The Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) that any state constitutional prohibition of them is against the U.S. Constitution.

2. Extending the Michigan hate crimes legislation to protect against crimes motivated by gender identity / sexual orientation is simply extending the protection afforded to everyone in existing hate crimes law. Are hate crimes laws protecting people of Oriental descent imappropriate because they afford protection to a group whose very small percentage were Japanese spies during World War II, and thus enequivocally criminals?

3. You are confusing having a homosexual orientation with doing homosexual acts. It is possible to be a celibate homosexual (and thus not violate your imagined "law"), but still attract harassment based on one's mannerisms or mode of dress.

 

I'd welcome a debate.

--hca.

 dear hca.

where in the constitution does it say that it is the job of the state to PROTECT you?

it is the job of law enforcement to ENFORCE THE LAW by ARRESTING VIOLATORS OF THE LAW.

therefore, one MUST VIOLATE THE LAW BEFORE LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN BECOME INVOLVED.

there IS the matter of THREATS, but those are civil matters, not criminal.

now, what is the difference between a person being beaten because he slept with someone's wife and being beaten because he is a homosexual?

they BOTH involve hatred, but only ONE is a PROTECTED HATE CRIME. that makes the homosexual a PROTECTED CITIZEN, with a HIGHER STATUS OF CITIZENSHIP than everyone else.

how does THAT jibe with EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER LAW?

i eagerly await your answers.

”now, what is the difference between a person being beaten because he slept with someone's wife and being beaten because he is a homosexual?”

 

Sleeping with someone else’s wife is an action.  Being a homosexual is having a sexual orientation.  The difference is very substantial.

 

”there IS the matter of THREATS, but those are civil matters, not criminal.

 

Nonsense.  Threats are treated as criminal matters – felonies – in many cases in Michigan law.

 

”they BOTH involve hatred, but only ONE is a PROTECTED HATE CRIME.”

 

More nonsense.  No crime defined by law is protected from prosecution.  

 

 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?

 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.

 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.