Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsThursday, October 22, 2009
Homo / News Hate Crimes Bill Clears Senate
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Some good news...
The Senate cleared a historic hate crimes bill for President Obama's signature Thursday, approving new federal penalties for attacks on gays and lesbians.The legislation, which was attached to the conference report for the bill outlining the Pentagon's budget, marks the culmination of a years-long fight by civil-rights groups to codify the expanded protections. The law broadens the current definition of federal hate crimes—which covers attacks motivated by race, color, religion or national origin—to include those based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It would also create a new federal crime to cover attacks against U.S. military personnel because of their service.
The measure was approved, 68 to 29, with a majority of Republicans voting against it. The House passed the same bill Oct. 8, also with most Republicans opposed.
Let's be clear: being added to a hate-crimes law doesn't "expand protections" for anyone. It's not like this law creates a force field around homos; nor does it make it super-extra-illegal to beat up a gay person. It allows for additional charges to brought—federal charges—when someone is targeted for a crime on the basis of his or her real or perceived sexual orientation. The language in the law reads sexual orientation, not homosexual orientation. Straight people are rarely singled out for attack because of their sexual orientation but that doesn't change the fact that this law also covers heterosexuals who might be, you know, "straight bashed" by one of those marauding gangs of gay teenagers.
Obama has indicated that he will sign this bill into law. That's nice—that's great (honest)—but it's not a laurel that the president can rest on. A hate crimes law does not represent the change and fierce advocacy that we were promised during the campaign. This law, a law that will have very little impact on the day-to-day lives of most gays and lesbians, is a step in the right direction, a positive development, and a good sign. But it already made it out of the House and Senate once before, only to be vetoed by George Bush. A signing ceremony beats a veto, for sure, and we should celebrate this development. We shouldn't, however, be mollified by it.
Pass ENDA. Repeal DOMA. End DADT.
1
Jesus...I am usually right there with you and your righteous indignation over Obama's lack of progress on Gay Rights but this reads a little too Bitter Betty for me.
Is passing this bill a dramatic step toward equality, no. Is it a step in the right direction, yes. Do we have to fawn it's importance, no. Should we acknowledge it as a small win, in my opinion yes.
Is passing this bill a dramatic step toward equality, no. Is it a step in the right direction, yes. Do we have to fawn it's importance, no. Should we acknowledge it as a small win, in my opinion yes.
3
OMFG Dan. "Yes, Obama got a bill to repeal DOMA, a bill to repeal DADT, and ENDA, and he signed them all. Whatever. I'm still waiting for proof the Obama loves gay people. Where is he on the need for more gays in Congress? I haven't heard a word from him on the first gay President. Hope and change, my ass."
4
@1:
This law, a law that will have very little impact on the day-to-day lives of most gays and lesbians, is a step in the right direction, a positive development, and a good sign.
5
Yay! Now when my husband is beaten to death by two men when he goes out to buy cigarettes at 3am I know the Feds will help prosecute.
Woo hoo! To me, this is like being told that hospital visitation rights have been extended to me in case my husband is near death. What a victory! The government doesn't hate me enought to allow people to kill me or allow me to die alone.
Dan, please add the UAFA to the list of demands. Until DOMA is destroyed as it should be - it must be - UAFA is something that can be done to help bi-national couples from being pissed on by our generous government.
Woo hoo! To me, this is like being told that hospital visitation rights have been extended to me in case my husband is near death. What a victory! The government doesn't hate me enought to allow people to kill me or allow me to die alone.
Dan, please add the UAFA to the list of demands. Until DOMA is destroyed as it should be - it must be - UAFA is something that can be done to help bi-national couples from being pissed on by our generous government.
7
Soooo, basically it's currently legal for gay teenagers to go hunt down and beat and kill straight people? I think I've come up a way to get the Republicans to sign The Matthew Shepard act.
8
Thank God, now I don't have to fear roaming gangs of gay youths beating me up for being straight, like the Pink Posse from Queer As Folk. (/facetiousness)
Seriously, a small step (and small comfort for people who may still be harmed by bigots who'd attack them based on these criteria), but it's still progress.
Seriously, a small step (and small comfort for people who may still be harmed by bigots who'd attack them based on these criteria), but it's still progress.
9
@7 - only if you do it BECAUSE they're straight. (Shouting "die breeder scum" as you break their ribs might be helpful in establishing intent.) Otherwise they'll think you did it because gay people are just like that.
11
Wow, are you seriously upset that the law reads "sexual orientation" rather than "homosexual orientation"? Seriously?
See, I really like that aspect, since it means that people are treated equally regardless of their sexual orientation. This isn't about protecting gays from straights: it's about protecting people.
I'll agree that in today's society straights don't need protection, but I like that in the eyes of the law we're treated equally.
(also, of course, that's the way the law is set up for all other groups--it doesn't protect women from men, or blacks from whites, but rather anyone from being assaulted due to their race/gender/orientation)
See, I really like that aspect, since it means that people are treated equally regardless of their sexual orientation. This isn't about protecting gays from straights: it's about protecting people.
I'll agree that in today's society straights don't need protection, but I like that in the eyes of the law we're treated equally.
(also, of course, that's the way the law is set up for all other groups--it doesn't protect women from men, or blacks from whites, but rather anyone from being assaulted due to their race/gender/orientation)
12
The legal system - and particularly the police - are rarely, if ever, on the side of gays. Look at the New Jersey 4, or the fact that New York police have been arresting gay men for "cruising" even though that arcane law was taken off the books over 25 years ago. This new legislation is not going to protect gays. It will just give prosecutors more ammunition to go after longer prison sentences, which is not in anyone's interest except the folks who never have to worry about getting arrested because of their power and privilege. If we really think this is going to help us, we are sorely mistaken.
14
Looks like a few people need to take a deep breath, chill out, and actually READ what Dan wrote in that post.
I'm not sure how much clearer he has to make it. He states that it is good that this bill has passed and that it will be signed into law - which is no small thing (nor does Dan imply that it is).
I took Dan's post to be a reminder to us all not to get complacent or ease up on the pressure to get real and lasting movement on the issues that have a bearing on the day-to-day lives of many LGBTQ people and their families.
The Hate Crimes Bill becoming law is important, but it is a small piece of a greater struggle, and realistically only impacts a small percentage of cases (in fact it is one of those provisions that while useful to have, is the type of thing that you hope doesn't have to be used - that is to say better that the crime against the individual never happen in the first place).
Passing ENDA, repealing DOMA, and even ending DADT will have more of a real and positive impact on the lives of a great many Americans (gay and straight).
I'm not sure how much clearer he has to make it. He states that it is good that this bill has passed and that it will be signed into law - which is no small thing (nor does Dan imply that it is).
I took Dan's post to be a reminder to us all not to get complacent or ease up on the pressure to get real and lasting movement on the issues that have a bearing on the day-to-day lives of many LGBTQ people and their families.
The Hate Crimes Bill becoming law is important, but it is a small piece of a greater struggle, and realistically only impacts a small percentage of cases (in fact it is one of those provisions that while useful to have, is the type of thing that you hope doesn't have to be used - that is to say better that the crime against the individual never happen in the first place).
Passing ENDA, repealing DOMA, and even ending DADT will have more of a real and positive impact on the lives of a great many Americans (gay and straight).
15
Dan Savage: Get an education. Call me crazy, but I prefer my legal advice from those with law degrees.
16
Thanks Dan for speaking truthfully about this. The HRC and others parade this like it was a big deal. But, it is mostly symbolic. Matthew Shepard's murder was successfully prosecuted under Wyoming law without a hate crime bill, as are most hate crimes. It won't make much difference to the vast majority of Lesbian & Gay (not exactly sure who else would be covered by this bill under "sexual orientation") Americans. Repeal of DOMA and ending DADT are the biggies, DOMA potentially affecting most L&G people. So, lets get on the main events!
18
@17 Then you might want to get a REAL lawyer for your inevitable disbarment proceedings, because if you think what Dan wrote is relevant legal analysis, then you sure as shit don't know what you're talking about. Let me guess, you're working shit law, endlessly trying to pursue fruitless PI claims? A little too close to home?
19
Sorry, I'm a little slow today. How does this not "expand protections" and not "make it super-extra-illegal to beat up a gay person"? It looks to me like it does both of these things. Please elaborate.
20
19 ftw
According to Dan the law
"allows for ADDITIONAL charges to brought—FEDERAL CHARGES—when someone is targeted for a crime on the basis of his or her real or perceived sexual orientation."
And yet, also according to Dan
"It's not like this law ... make(s) it super-extra-illegal to beat up a gay person."
Is Dan familiar with the expression
...to make a Federal Case... out of something, as the epitome of blowing it up into a Super-Extra-Big Deal?
According to Dan the law
"allows for ADDITIONAL charges to brought—FEDERAL CHARGES—when someone is targeted for a crime on the basis of his or her real or perceived sexual orientation."
And yet, also according to Dan
"It's not like this law ... make(s) it super-extra-illegal to beat up a gay person."
Is Dan familiar with the expression
...to make a Federal Case... out of something, as the epitome of blowing it up into a Super-Extra-Big Deal?
21
Will this law protect little old ladies in California exercising their freedom of speech from Gay Thugs?
24
So long as this is not used to prosecute religious speech on dissenting views opposite to those that are in the majority here on Slog but that are in the minority in the real world, then i believe the President has done far more than enough when it comes to gay issues.
Dismantling DOMA, allowing for an implementation like DADT that will erode cohesion in the military and cause episodes like that of the Kabul embassy to repeat itself, and passing something like ENDA without fully examining what it means and how could those who do not agree with homosexual behavior on moral and religious grounds be penalized for their views is something that the President doesn't need to involve himself in if he wants to keep his real core base still supporting him.
Dismantling DOMA, allowing for an implementation like DADT that will erode cohesion in the military and cause episodes like that of the Kabul embassy to repeat itself, and passing something like ENDA without fully examining what it means and how could those who do not agree with homosexual behavior on moral and religious grounds be penalized for their views is something that the President doesn't need to involve himself in if he wants to keep his real core base still supporting him.
25
@24: has the current hate crime statue been used to prosecute religious speech about other religions? That would fall under the realm of the statute and, OMG, it hasn't happened!
An important note: it covers attacks based on perceived sexual orientation. You know, straight people do regularly get gay bashed based on where they are, assumptions attackers make, etc.
The other important note: the thinking behind hate crimes laws is that hate crimes are designed to intimidate whole communities, and that is serious. To put it simply: a bunch of guys in white sheets murdering people in African American communities is not that same thing as a random murder in that same community. That's the point. Argue with that if you want, but if you don't address that idea in arguing against hate crimes laws, your argument is missing the point .
An important note: it covers attacks based on perceived sexual orientation. You know, straight people do regularly get gay bashed based on where they are, assumptions attackers make, etc.
The other important note: the thinking behind hate crimes laws is that hate crimes are designed to intimidate whole communities, and that is serious. To put it simply: a bunch of guys in white sheets murdering people in African American communities is not that same thing as a random murder in that same community. That's the point. Argue with that if you want, but if you don't address that idea in arguing against hate crimes laws, your argument is missing the point .
26
Awww.... Loveschild you were pro ENDA, now your anti ENDA. What a big surprise. Color me shocked. Your base of hatred is dying out, we will out live you.
27
Sometimes, I read LC's posts and hope she is real. I don't hope this for her poor kids (who are likely to be fucked as far as being anywhere near normal goes), but for the fact that I want her to live a good long time until gay marriage/adoption is 100% American legal in all states and the gay friendly generations are in control. Then I want her to have a stroke and be saved by a gay doctor, freshly married to his husband and having adopted a beautiful baby boy. I want the doctor to become aware of her hateful, vile nature and still do his very best as her doctor while showing her the compassion she lacks even as she attacks his family because he'll have already won and she won't matter anymore.
@Kim, I mostly lurk...but I love you. You're compassionate, logical, patient, and forgiving. The only trait of that I possess is logic.
@Kim, I mostly lurk...but I love you. You're compassionate, logical, patient, and forgiving. The only trait of that I possess is logic.
28
25 Two days ago i had the unfortunate luck of having to presence two men holding hands and giving each other kisses in public, it was unfortunate for me because i was with my youngest child and it put me in an awkward position that thankfuly i was able to divert. Now, the reason i related this was not to fuel your hatred toward people like me who don't agree with public displays of homosexual behavior, tho that's probably what you will end up taking away from this, but to explain to you that had those two men not been displaying publicly the acts that they were i couldn't have guessed in any way that they were gay. I did so because of what they were doing in a public venue.
I don't believe that people should be bashed for their appearance or even for their actions, whatever those actions may be, because so long as its lawful and it doesn't hurt others, or intrudes on others lives and rights. But the murdering of people in African American communities as you put it is due to bigotry against a physical trait, ethnicity, not on actions. I cannot act black, my skin color is black i cannot come out of the closet one day as an African American and another day decide that i'm not black anymore and i want to be of another race.
So i must disagree with your use of "perceived sexual orientation" because when it comes to homosexuality it all boils down to what is acted, not perceived. Violence against others even if we morally disagree with them is something that must be avoided but there's a real difference between appearance and behavior and to conflate the two is insulting to those who have been murdered by something that's physical.
I don't believe that people should be bashed for their appearance or even for their actions, whatever those actions may be, because so long as its lawful and it doesn't hurt others, or intrudes on others lives and rights. But the murdering of people in African American communities as you put it is due to bigotry against a physical trait, ethnicity, not on actions. I cannot act black, my skin color is black i cannot come out of the closet one day as an African American and another day decide that i'm not black anymore and i want to be of another race.
So i must disagree with your use of "perceived sexual orientation" because when it comes to homosexuality it all boils down to what is acted, not perceived. Violence against others even if we morally disagree with them is something that must be avoided but there's a real difference between appearance and behavior and to conflate the two is insulting to those who have been murdered by something that's physical.
29
@LC, please -- that logic is sooo flawed. How can you tell a person's religious convictions (for example) if you just see them walking down the street? And yet bigotry toward religious folks has been widespread (during the holocaust, say, or against early Christians in Rome). It is immaterial that your bigotry is against those who are not as easily identifiable as yours.
30
27 Thankfully i take good care of my health and that of my family, tho, that's no assurance it does reduces greatly the chances for what you envision for me.
I can't say i accept your ill wishes for me. But i on the other hand much rather wish you and yours (as i do all who post here including mr Savage) nothing but longevity, and complete health both physically and the much needed spiritually. So i rather discard your curse and defer to you a sincere blessing in the name of Jesus Christ. In God's Love.
I can't say i accept your ill wishes for me. But i on the other hand much rather wish you and yours (as i do all who post here including mr Savage) nothing but longevity, and complete health both physically and the much needed spiritually. So i rather discard your curse and defer to you a sincere blessing in the name of Jesus Christ. In God's Love.
31
Lovechild, now take that feeling you experience, imagine being white, and seeing a interracial straight couple holding hands and expressing simple affection in public in front of your child.
See how history seems to repeat itself?
See how history seems to repeat itself?
32
What's all this about hat crimes? I never seen a hat hurt nobody, though one time I did poke myself in the eye with a pin on my beret, and it hurt like the bejeezus. And I have seen horrible fashion offenses committed by hats, and I mean it.
33
@28:
Here's a quote from you:
Versus
Perceived masculinity and femininity is a physical trait. You've proven that you have a definite reaction to feminine-looking men and masculine-looking women in such a way that you assume sexuality based on these traits.
Here's a quote from you:
If you're a woman that without the side effects of the pill or any other drug find feminine traits sexually attractive then you're dealing with a lesbian attraction cause the men you're finding attractive are outwardly identical to women.
Same with guys who find women with masculine traits attractive.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Versus
But the murdering of people in African American communities as you put it is due to bigotry against a physical trait
[...]
So i must disagree with your use of "perceived sexual orientation" because when it comes to homosexuality it all boils down to what is acted, not perceived.
Perceived masculinity and femininity is a physical trait. You've proven that you have a definite reaction to feminine-looking men and masculine-looking women in such a way that you assume sexuality based on these traits.
34
Loveschild, I hope nothing but the best for you, and pray towards Mecca every day that you will find Mohammed's love. Praise be Allah, and I hope one day you find His grace. At least we both agree that gay parents should be barred from seeing their dying family in the hospital.
35
@ Loveschild: The whole concept of hate crimes legislation being used to go after religious views or dissenting political speech is a total red herring. 45 states and the District of Columbia have some sort of hate crimes statutes relating to race, religion, and ethnicity; of these, 32 include sexual orientation. Not once has any of these state laws been used to prosecute ministers spouting from the pulpit. Remember, in the US, we have the First Amendment protecting both speech and religion. Any examples from the UK or elsewhere are meaningless because those countries don't have the First Amendment guarantees we do. Look for cases in states that already have hate crime protections: you won't find any.
Hate crimes are an additional charge because they are, in effect, crimes against not only the targeted victims but also the victims' communities. They are an act of terrorism. They are intended to instill fear in entire communities, not just the direct victims themselves. They intended to send signals: don't look effeminate or look "gay," don't walk through gay neighborhoods at night, don't go to gay bars, don't hold hands. They provide a "kicker" when the intent of the crime is clear (like when the assailant is screaming homophobic epithets at the same time). Lots of crimes have different sorts of kickers. Killing a cop, for example, has a heavier penalty than non-cops. When a crime is premeditated by more than one person, defendants are often charge with conspiracy to commit the crime in addition to being charged with the crime itself.
And it should be remembered that this protects straight people too, in multiple ways. For example, there are cases where straight people were attacked after leaving a gay bar or walking through a gay neighborhood because their assailants assumed, incorrectly, that they were gay. That's why it's important that these statutes cover PERCEIVED sexual orientation rather than ACTUAL sexual orientation. Secondly, though this is extraordinarily rare, sometimes a straight person is harassed because they are straight. For example, what if I got fed up with all the straight people moving into the Castro and decided to beat up a few to send a signal that straight people aren't wanted here. That, too, would be a hate crime based on sexual orientation.
More...
Hate crimes are an additional charge because they are, in effect, crimes against not only the targeted victims but also the victims' communities. They are an act of terrorism. They are intended to instill fear in entire communities, not just the direct victims themselves. They intended to send signals: don't look effeminate or look "gay," don't walk through gay neighborhoods at night, don't go to gay bars, don't hold hands. They provide a "kicker" when the intent of the crime is clear (like when the assailant is screaming homophobic epithets at the same time). Lots of crimes have different sorts of kickers. Killing a cop, for example, has a heavier penalty than non-cops. When a crime is premeditated by more than one person, defendants are often charge with conspiracy to commit the crime in addition to being charged with the crime itself.
And it should be remembered that this protects straight people too, in multiple ways. For example, there are cases where straight people were attacked after leaving a gay bar or walking through a gay neighborhood because their assailants assumed, incorrectly, that they were gay. That's why it's important that these statutes cover PERCEIVED sexual orientation rather than ACTUAL sexual orientation. Secondly, though this is extraordinarily rare, sometimes a straight person is harassed because they are straight. For example, what if I got fed up with all the straight people moving into the Castro and decided to beat up a few to send a signal that straight people aren't wanted here. That, too, would be a hate crime based on sexual orientation.
36
@ Loveschild: I also wanted to address your concerns about DADT and ENDA. (I'll ignore DOMA because fighting gay marriage seems to be your raison d'ętre and has been covered exhaustively in other threads.)
First, ENDA. You seem concerned it will pass "without fully examining what it means and how could those who do not agree with homosexual behavior on moral and religious grounds". Bear in mind that 21 states and the District of Columbia have ENDA-type state statutes, of which 12 + DC include gender identity. Another 8 have executive orders covering state employees, 5 of which also include gender identity.
Yes, in this instance there are cases where an employer cited their religious views when refusing to employ or provide services for someone because of their perceived sexual orientation. When the establishment is a religious institution, they are protected. And some statutes (including the current version of ENDA) also protect religiously-oriented businesses (like a Catholic bookstore). But in other areas where a supervisor or business owner has religious views, it should not impact others in the public sphere. Should a doctor be allowed to refuse to treat a lesbian patient? What if every doctor in the area had the same convictions? Should a Jewish deli be allowed to refuse to serve a Muslim patron? Should a government employee be allowed to refuse to issue a marriage certificate to an inter-racial couple? (Remember, the Mormons continued to practice racial bigotry long after the Civil Rights Act passed. Should a Mormon hotel owner be allowed to refuse to rent a room to an inter-racial couple?)
As for DADT, all this rhetoric about it being social experimentation and undermining truth morale is B.S. Polls of both the American public *and* members of the military show far more support for integrating gays into the military than there was support for eliminating racial segregation when Truman signed his executive order. The whole Kabul embassy argument is ridiculous. What happened there was criminal and would be criminal even under DADT. It's offensive to suggest that all gay people willing to put their lives on the line for their country really just want to throw frat hazing parties. How many people in the military (or military-funded private companies like Halliburton) have raped civilians or even co-workers? Do we then suggest that no straight men can serve in the military because some straight men will use their position of authority as an opportunity to commit rape?
More...
First, ENDA. You seem concerned it will pass "without fully examining what it means and how could those who do not agree with homosexual behavior on moral and religious grounds". Bear in mind that 21 states and the District of Columbia have ENDA-type state statutes, of which 12 + DC include gender identity. Another 8 have executive orders covering state employees, 5 of which also include gender identity.
Yes, in this instance there are cases where an employer cited their religious views when refusing to employ or provide services for someone because of their perceived sexual orientation. When the establishment is a religious institution, they are protected. And some statutes (including the current version of ENDA) also protect religiously-oriented businesses (like a Catholic bookstore). But in other areas where a supervisor or business owner has religious views, it should not impact others in the public sphere. Should a doctor be allowed to refuse to treat a lesbian patient? What if every doctor in the area had the same convictions? Should a Jewish deli be allowed to refuse to serve a Muslim patron? Should a government employee be allowed to refuse to issue a marriage certificate to an inter-racial couple? (Remember, the Mormons continued to practice racial bigotry long after the Civil Rights Act passed. Should a Mormon hotel owner be allowed to refuse to rent a room to an inter-racial couple?)
As for DADT, all this rhetoric about it being social experimentation and undermining truth morale is B.S. Polls of both the American public *and* members of the military show far more support for integrating gays into the military than there was support for eliminating racial segregation when Truman signed his executive order. The whole Kabul embassy argument is ridiculous. What happened there was criminal and would be criminal even under DADT. It's offensive to suggest that all gay people willing to put their lives on the line for their country really just want to throw frat hazing parties. How many people in the military (or military-funded private companies like Halliburton) have raped civilians or even co-workers? Do we then suggest that no straight men can serve in the military because some straight men will use their position of authority as an opportunity to commit rape?
37
Oops, my first sentence in the last paragraph should have read "undermining troop morale" (not "undermining truth morale").
38
The most useful bill that the Senate could have attached to the Defense spending bill would have been ENDA. I don't know why they didn't. Now we have to go kissing ass to a few Republicans or conservative Democrats.
To me this was a beautiful opportunity lost.
To me this was a beautiful opportunity lost.
39
The fact that one disagrees with "public displays of homosexual behavior," loveschild, does not give one the excuse to commit violence against them. I am so sorry to tell you this, but you aren't allowed to act violently toward gay people. I would think that you, as an avid defender of free speech (or claim to be) would support peoples' right to give affection in public.
I will say this very clearly - I have every right to kiss my boyfriend in public.
You, however, have no right to incite violence based on your petty little qualms with other people.
I will say this very clearly - I have every right to kiss my boyfriend in public.
You, however, have no right to incite violence based on your petty little qualms with other people.
41
14.
This, 1,000 times, going all the way back to Dan's post-prop 8 commentary.
We are no longer a literate society, are we?
Looks like a few people need to take a deep breath, chill out, and actually READ what Dan wrote in that post.
This, 1,000 times, going all the way back to Dan's post-prop 8 commentary.
We are no longer a literate society, are we?
42
loveschild is incredibly guilty of impersonating an african american woman, when LC is neither. once again, STOP INSULTING THE SISTERS!!!
43
You know what's scary? There are a bunch of people out there who think this legislation is ACTUALLY called the "Pedophiles/Pedophilia Protection Act" and that it will somehow allow adult homosexuals to preach in favor of child-molestation in elementary schools — and these people are calling their newspapers to hyperventilate about it.
44
OBAMA LOVES HATE BILL
Go ahead, Mr. President. Sign the "hate" bill. By doing so you will help to fulfill the predicted repeat of the "days of Lot" in Luke 17 - days which today seem anxious to outperform their ancient counterparts! You have already been helping to fulfill the predicted repeat of the "days of Noah" in the same chapter - that is, violence towards the unborn which presently is matching, if not surpassing, the violence that forced God in Genesis 6 to announce that He would soon destroy everyone except Noah and his family. Mr. President, by helping to fulfill both of the above "days" you will discover that God has His Almighty veto over what you say and do! [spotted the preceding on the web a short time ago]
Go ahead, Mr. President. Sign the "hate" bill. By doing so you will help to fulfill the predicted repeat of the "days of Lot" in Luke 17 - days which today seem anxious to outperform their ancient counterparts! You have already been helping to fulfill the predicted repeat of the "days of Noah" in the same chapter - that is, violence towards the unborn which presently is matching, if not surpassing, the violence that forced God in Genesis 6 to announce that He would soon destroy everyone except Noah and his family. Mr. President, by helping to fulfill both of the above "days" you will discover that God has His Almighty veto over what you say and do! [spotted the preceding on the web a short time ago]
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Whitney Is Dead, And So Is Hollywood by Kelly O
-
Planned Parenthood Exposed! by David Schmader
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (44) RSS