The Democratic Global Socialists, of course, are ecstatic since it appears this time they may just be able to sneak this one through due to their majority status, of course with the assistance of a few of the Republican Global Socialists who are not up for re-election in 2010.
As most citizens have become aware, the federal government in the last decade now has become nothing more than dictatorship of 535 out of control nutjobs. The only time reality actually sinks in is apparently close to election time, or when the budget requests come through for more and more increases in expenditures for added security measures for federal and state office buildings.
You would think those requests and measures alone would provide a clue to the discontent of many in this nation with the Washington wackos.
This measure is being pursued in order to expand a prior unconstitutional measure addressing ill defined "hate crimes" against selected minority groups. The degree to which these "misrepresentatives" defend the bill as simply an "enhanced version" of existing law, and not in any way meant to criminalize "perceptions of intent," or infringe free speech of various religious groups in their biblical teachings speaks volumes right there, since the inclusion now of both homosexuals and the disabled are being included.
The disabled were included for purely political reasons apparently, since targeting a truly defenseless person either mentally or physically handicapped actually is something most juries throughout the country at least in this generation would find repugnant and reprehensible.
Homosexuality, of course, is a little different to a great many in this country since there is a biblical moral prohibition to its practice, and fundamentally has religious then overtones in all three of the major religions, and many groups fear politically motivated actions then also potentially could be the result because of the rather open ended language contained in the bill.
Legislation now is written primarily in order to stimulate the economies of the judiciary members (lawyers) it appears most of all. Since they, of course, are huge contributors to both federal and state public office campaigns.
In fact, there are still a few rather outdated laws on the books in some states prohibiting its practice (most of which have not been enforced, however, for literally decades), so the federal government is actually attempting to again assert its authority over the states and local governments on this as it has in so many other areas, and never more so than during the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama now eras.
Of course John McCain, in order to keep his name and presence in the media and in the forefront due to his upcoming re-election run in 2010 is objecting on religious and moral grounds as also potentially a bill which could target pastors and religious leaders for teaching biblical doctrine with respect to homosexuality, although did bring the Constitutionality issue up as a side note.
Arizona does have a heavy Mormon population, and also formerly was a more "conservative" state, although that has not been the case for many years due to the number of California refugees and East Coast retirees now living in Arizona after fleeing their own states due to impact in taxation of their former states liberal agendas, and Arizona's was formerly less expensive than some of those more liberal states as a result of its conservatism. That was about 25-30 years ago, however.
But the true measure actually of how redundant and unconstitutional it is is that there are already laws in 45 states addressing these "mitigating" circumstances in any criminal proceeding. Since the states have authority over criminal matters which occur within their boundaries as "crimes against the state," in general and not simply against the victim.
Pre-meditated murder, stalking, assault and other criminal actions targeting anyone for any reason are punishable in every state in the nation, irrespective of the motivation other than self-defense, or proveable precipitating circumstances.
Our criminal code is already a matter of settled law with respect to criminal actions based on proveable evidence, and such motivation is clearly something for a jury to determine. Upping the penalties for those crimes against anyone equally is Constitutional, not "piling on" additional punishments and penalties based on purely motivation, since there is leeway in the sentencing of many of these crimes also - and the more evidence and proof of criminal intent and motivation, the harsher penalty most juries or judge if they are also fulfilling their legal duties and functions would be.
It does appear at times our federal government just simply wishes to flex its muscle, or prove that those Senators and Congressman deserve those six figure salaries, pensions and expense accounts.
Since in a Republic, it is clear these would be matters for the state and "people" against whom that crime is committed in their communities, and not the "distant ruler" to "lawfully" under our existing law determine.
And with a foreign war now going on eight full years with no end again in sight but following the Bush plan and with America's southern border the true national security threat, an economy in the toilet due to federal negligence with respect to oversight and regulation of the banks and lending institutions in this country and their practices, and homelessness and joblessness increasing by the day yet passing now additional taxes on the air Americans now breathe, the moral outrage most Americans at this point have isn't at all directed in any respect for the gays or gay community - but those on the Hill.
Who truly do not acknowledge the boundaries of their power, nor true legal responsibilties.
And it is interesting to note that a push for this bill would also be made now publicizing also the former "hate crimes" legislation, just prior to also another contentious measure in which Washington is attempting again to put its will over that of the rights of the lawful American citizens and their Bill of Rights, the illegal immigration "reform" bill - of course, without addressing the state of our open borders and daily flow which will not cease until those borders are secured, and now also eight years after 9/11 and three years after the Secure Fence Act was passed, and after many Americans have died since at the hands of unlawful foreigners - appears also the timing is politically related as a precusor to another "in your face," Washington move.
