From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?
Organization: The Armory
Lines: 94

In article <1993Apr5.000007.27707@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbond@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mimi) writes:
>In article <1993Apr3.211910.21908@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.n
>u.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>In article <1pkmo9INNg7@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> wdstarr@athena.mit.ed
>
>>(William December Starr) writes:
>>>
>>>And what difference does it make?  If homosexuals should not be treated
>>>as equals with heterosexuals in the eyes of the law then it doesn't
>>>matter if they comprise an overwhelming majority of the population, and
>>>if they should then it doesn't matter if, numerically, they're only an
>>>infinitesimal minority, right?
>>>
>>And if it makes no difference, then shoving a false number down my throa
>
>>shouldn't be a high priority.  After all, why should a minority group ne
>d to
>>inflate their numbers in order to justify the rights they claim they des
>rve
>>i.e. extra privileges they ask for?  
>>
>>If someone beats up a homosexual, he should get charged for assault and
>>battery.  Why must we add gay bashing to the list?  Isn't this a sort of
>>double jeopardy?  Or am I just being a fascist again?
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Douglas C. Meier		|  This Space for Rent
>>Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  
>>This University is too Commie-	|  
>>Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
>
>
>You know, I have thought about the issue of if someone beats up a
>homosexual, or a black person, etc., should the crime be specified
>as something special.  Shit, beating up anybody, regardless of race
>and sexual orientation should be a very serious crime.  If you
>pick out those crimes which are committed against the opposite sex,
>different race, or a different sexual orientation, is this a form
>of favoring those groups over other groups.  Hmm..  I mean, I think
>that a crime committed against all people should be treated the
>same.  But, I know that there are many people out there who are
>very prejudice against people who are different than they are.  And
>perhaps hate crimes laws are the only way to punish the bastards 
>appropriately.  But, why should a person who commits a crime against
>a wealthy protestant white by a wealthy protestant white be treated
>on a lower level.  Isn't this discrimination against the wealthy
>white person.  
>
>Hmm..  Any input out there?  As a black person, I here about all
>sorts of stories where fellow blacks are persecuted and beat up
>because of their race.  This really tears me up.  But, a crime
>against a white by a white should also be treated as a heinous
>crime.  
>
>Please respond.  I would like to hear what other views are out ther.
>
>Ciao'
>Mimi
---------------------------
The federal government has used such laws to allow mutliple charges in
order to prevent more crimes than would nromally occur just from two people
being pissed off at each other. The federal government has an interest in
the intent of the perpetrators in the pursuit of preventing violations of
civil rights. It's the way they broke the back of the Klan, by putting a
lot of people away for a very long time for harrassing blacks specifically.
It is a principle that has been well recognized as constitutionally valid
since over 100 years ago. It has been used whenever a select group was
getting bashed or harrassed more than any other person would just for being
part of a minority. It is the only way we made the defeat of the south
stick after the Civil War. People who harrassed free blacks, when normally
they wouldn't find themselves harrassing just anyone walking around were
expeditiously tried and jailed for 5 to 8 years until nobody wanted to try
it anymore. Now with the 14th amendment guarantee of equal protection under
the law, the law can use multiple crime and severe penalty involving intent
as much as is needed to protect even one human that is a hated minority to
somebody. They can call out the national guard just for them, as they did
the school girls in Alabama during desegregation in the 1950's, and the
president can nationalize the state militia and turn the guns of the
militia that were being used to bar blacks right around to point at the
thousands in the crowd with an order to shoot that they would have to obey
or face possible death by firing squad under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice for failing to obey a direct order while under arms! And by god,
they did! Those southern boys turned right around an fixed bayonets! And
the governor was left standing and was arrested by the federal marshalls
that had brought the order to nationalize the guard. And that's why we need
such an ability in federal jurisdiction.
-RSW

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *
