S.909 - Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act

A bill to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes. view all titles (3)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: A bill to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Popular: Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act as introduced.
  • Short: Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 61-90 of 457 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    AntonGolovin 05/09/2009 7:54pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    This was filtered by someone, and this is very important point. Please do not filter it. I am sure many people would have their eyes open once they read this post and compared it to what is going on.

  • Comm_reply
    onevoice 05/21/2009 3:38am

    I am with you .

  • Comm_reply
    TinaStorm 07/20/2009 1:50pm

    That I a LIE. This Bill would do more to protect your pastor and your right to be free of harassment.

  • Comm_reply
    TinaStorm 07/20/2009 1:52pm

    Evey time you make that statement, you know you have LIED. “and the truth is not in him”

  • slw 05/05/2009 6:49pm

    This bill is frightening. This will elevate one class of citizens to ‘protected’ status while slashing the free speech of everyone not in that ‘protected’ class. It not only shreds the 1st amendment AND the 14th & 16th amendments it enables pedophiles to freely molest our children! All crimes or acts of violence against another person are already illegal and thus don’t need any special ‘protections’ for anyone. This is a completely unnecessary bill unless you are seeking to persecute one segment of the population which is unconstitutional.

    All this bill does is enable one segment of the population to commit crimes without fear of consequences because they are now in a specially ‘protected’ class, while punishing the other segment of the population for merely thinking something the newly ‘protected’ class of citizens perceives they ‘might’ be thinking! This is classic fascism. Except now the Christians are in the crosshairs instead of the jews. Wake up America!

  • Comm_reply
    RuthAnn 05/07/2009 6:12am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    First, the law explicitly is in agreement with the free speech amendment:
    “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.”

    Second, there is a false notion that gay = pedophile. I am unsure where this idea comes from, certainly not from the medical field, statistics or any other reasonable, testable hypothesis. In fact the only place I have encountered this notion is through groups affiliated with a religious group. While you may abide the fact that people are gay, that does not give anyone the right to speread the lie that gay equals pedophile. If your fear is not founded in fact, then perhaps it is unjustified.

  • Moderated Comment

  • Comm_reply
    RuthAnn 05/08/2009 3:36am

    Which church I attend is really none of your business and has no bearing on a discussion of the rights of a particular class of citizen in this country. The issue at hand is whether laws are being prosecuted against all violaters or just against those whom the enforcers feel are justified.

    Nowhere in the text of HR 1913 do I read the word pedophile. Please enlighten me with the text you are alluding to in the bill. Perhaps I have misspoken. If it is not the churches who teach that gay = pedophilia, maybe you can enlighten me. Where did you get this idea? And…Which church do you attend and what is their stance on the relationship between gay and pedophelia? Thanks

  • Comm_reply
    fosocrom 05/08/2009 6:26am

    Our churches only teach the Bible. The Bible never compares a homosexual to a pedophile. I am completed against judging others. I would not want to be judged myself. I am against sin, because I have seen what it does to people. “Hate the sin and love the sinner.” Hating others is wrong. Jesus told us to love everyone. He was the ultimate example of this. However of you read Proverbs Ch 6 you will see just one example of Jesus hating particular sins.

  • Comm_reply
    daringone 05/11/2009 8:29am

    Agreed. It is already illegal to beat up/kill/rape someone, this bill tries to (incorrectly) say that we can know what someone was thinking when they committed a crime. A crime is a crime, regardless of motivation. Use the laws we already have.

  • Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • sefraser 05/06/2009 11:03am

    Are we reading the same bill? Did the other commenters actually read it? Section 10 of this bill addresses, explicitly, the intent to preserve free speech. And the main thrust of this bill is to expand existing hate crimes classification to include sexual orientation and gender identity while providing grant assistance in prosecuting all hate crimes. Unless you are planning or inciting violent crimes against someone based on the qualifying criteria, you should be able to retain your liberties.

  • Comm_reply
    fosocrom 05/07/2009 12:17pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Have you looked into the list of people and corporations that sponsored H.R. 1913? This bill is subject to limiting the free speech of those who preach the Bible. If this passes, pastors of churches would not be aloud to read the Bible from the pulpit.

  • Comm_reply
    RuthAnn 05/08/2009 3:39am

    Please identify in the bill the line that suggests that “free speech of those who preach the Bible” will be limited.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    RuthAnn 05/08/2009 3:48pm

    I am sorry that you were unable to opt out. I suppose that if you choose a religious school, or a charter school of choice you might get around that; then you would have to obtain vouchers.

    With regard to natural, many things are natural, they just may not be the norm. We all are members of the population that is defined by a bell curve. None of us is alike and I am sure that if the closets were cleaned out many many people would be surprised by their neighbors. Therefore I see the best policy as not throwing stones and trying to be tolerant. In fact we all do depend upon each other for the life we live. Not one of us could stand alone in this world for very long. I dare say that 99.9% of the people in this world purchase most of what they need to survive from a store. And can you imagine WHO was involved in the manufacture?

  • Comm_reply
    WyoPaladin 05/15/2009 1:51pm

    A college Stat & Economics course proved if real data and data sources don’t exist use generalities. Your generality of the entire population being in a perfect “Bell Curve” is rediculous. The population of heterosexual-homosexual is not a bell curve. It’s absolute because no-one has polled or done genetic validation of this point. Take for example where “political polls” declared a “winner” only to learn the next morning the wrong person one,statistical samples indicate a disease cause and effect only to fail when applied to the larger population.

  • Comm_reply
    WyoPaladin 05/15/2009 1:51pm

    Or when a nicely written “THEORY-Darwins Law”, which has never been scientifically “Proven” becomes a “PROOF”. These things are more politically motivated than scientifically. Scientist are politically punished all the time for presenting “well researched data and conclusions”. All this misdirection on your part about this issue of “taking away” First Amendment Rights not to be confused with “Free speech” sounds too much like a political and personal “…I want it my way..” argument. Sorry but I won’t buy it until you can show some raw data and statistical conclusion. Nice Try but No Banana.

  • Comm_reply
    2100km 05/23/2009 10:25pm

    No, when you say

    “’THEORY-Darwins Law’, which has never been scientifically “Proven” becomes a ’PROOF’"

    I think you really mean “… becomes PROOF that you absolutely under no circumstances are allowed to question EVER!!!” If any scientist even asks serious questions about how the first cell came into being they are shut down PRONTO.

  • Comm_reply
    RuthAnn 05/08/2009 3:49pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    With respect to the separation of church and state. That was an interpretation provided by one of the primary drafters of the constitution, Thomas Jefferson.

  • Comm_reply
    fosocrom 05/11/2009 8:03am

    Thomas Jefferson used those words in terms of protecting religion from state and federal intervention. He wrote those words to a baptist minister. He explained that government had no right to prohibit religion, but he himself believed that religion should be a part of government. As proof I would invite you to look at the record of congress. When Jefferson was president, he attended church in the Capital building in D.C. His name is multiple attendance records and his personal writings indicate that he went often to church in the treasury department building as well. Hopefully this will shed some light on how words and laws can be very misleading.

  • Comm_reply
    WyoPaladin 05/15/2009 1:54pm

    Reading his actual letters also prove it was not to be interpreted as “EXCLUSION of Church and State”. It was written about by every founding father that it was about not having a “Government Church” which was part of the Governing Ruler(s). This rewritting of history is really a Progressive idea run amok. Sorry but you really need to do a better job of reading all the documents and become an American!

  • Comm_reply
    fisherman 07/17/2009 9:04am

    Can you please read and see the video at the end of the page?


    Especially minute 1:22-2:22.

  • Comm_reply
    fosocrom 05/08/2009 10:00am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I read H.R. 1913 and S.909 along with the corresponding documents they used to describe their meanings of the terms hate crimes, and sexual orientations.

  • ronsooline 05/06/2009 3:33pm

    Perhaps someone could explain why such a bill is needed. There are already on the books countless laws that address the issues in this bill ( http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-909 ). I cannot conceive a need for it, unless the goal is to provide more Federal intervention into matters best left to the several States and local jurisdiction.

  • RuthAnn 05/07/2009 6:15am

    First, the law supports interstate cooperation and provides communities which otherwise lack the resources to help in the fight against perpetrators of violence against its residents.

    The law is necessary, because without further clarification, bias that is often deeply seated in individuals (including law enforcement officials) can guide whether or not they see violence against an individual as a crime or the result of what they see as natural backlash (think about the notion that women are raped because they ask for it; gays are abused because they are, according to some less Christian peoples, an abomination). Making these types of clarifications leaves less to interpretation.

  • Comm_reply
    WyoPaladin 05/15/2009 1:57pm

    The “Clarifications” will be Government interpretations. Which will always be used against and ignorant and uneducated populace…as proven by Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Lenin just to name a few in our recent history.

  • Comm_reply
    DAK 05/23/2009 3:31am

    Absolutely. I am sure there are those among you who can look back and realize the steady erosion of any of God’s laws from our laws. It will just be a matter of time before someone cite’s this law in a suit against a pastor somewhere from reading from the Word of God any passage on homosexuality or against abortion and the fight will be on. The ignorant sheep supporting this administration will nod their heads up and down and all the true hate organizations like “Move On” will scream and yell and then all the politicians on the Hill who cater to these groups will declare in all thier fake “righteousness” that yes, it is a crime to quote these passages from the Bible, even in a Church and “Free Speech” will again be taken from Christians.

  • kevinmcc 05/07/2009 10:41am

    A crime is a crime, you do not need to add excuses for why the crime was committed. Equal protection under the law please.

  • ryan713105 05/07/2009 11:37am

    The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909) is supported by a wide range of Christian churches and other interfaith partners. The purpose of this bill is to help prevent hate crimes, one sixth of which are committed because of the victim’s sexual orientation. These crimes are on the rise, and are intended to create an atmosphere of fear and terrorize entire communities. Sexual orientation is already defined by federal law and does not include any of the criminal acts that right-wing groups are claiming it does. Additionally, no church will be hushed or persecuted in any way because of this bill. If you don’t believe me, review our list of coalition partners. You might even find you church on the list!

Vote on This Bill

21% Users Support Bill

213 in favor / 804 opposed

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments