Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) has a Comprehension Problem

Congressman Forbes gets about everything wrong on Hate Crimes. One has to wonder how this moron got elected. This little tidbit is via American Family Association's OneNewsNow.which lacks the intellectual curiosity to think this through. If anything, Randy only confirms the fact that religion is currently a protected class while neither sexual orientation nor sexual identity are included. That is precisely the point of the bill passed by the House and soon to be under the consideration of the Senate. Perhaps if he had actually listened instead of practicing the talking points on the floor of the House, he wouldn't be such an ignoramus on an important piece of legislation.

The bill does not create "special rights" for gay people. Repeating that falsehood won't change the bill. Nor does the bill "silence religious speech" as most of the right wing claim.

Indeed, as a society we have determined that bias crimes are crimes committed against a group as well as the individual victim. Furthermore, there is the potential for repeating the offense towards another member of the group being targeted. The sentencing enhancements are secondary to providing assistance to local law enforcement when this kind of crime is committed.

Congressman Forbes compared the protection Miss California Carrie Prejean would receive under the bill to the special protection homosexual blogger and Miss USA judge Perez Hilton would have been afforded.

OK. Go for it Randy.

"Had [Hilton] done what he said he would do and stormed that stage and pulled that tiara off [Prejean's] head and [inflicted] bodily harm when he did it, there would not have been one ounce of protection under this piece of legislation for that young girl," Forbes stated.

Well first of all Randy, the bill now in effect covers hate crimes due to religion. I doubt that this would rise to the level of a federal hate crime but Bimbo would have been "protected." Actually, hate crime laws are not about protecting victims; they are about prosecuting offenders. But I digress.

"But after he did it, if she had in response made a statement back about the very sexual orientation that had led him to his hatred and dislike for her, and if she had responded by slapping him or any physical injury, she would have had the potential of a ten-year federal piece of legislation coming against her."

Again, Randy, that probably doesn't rise to the level of a federal hate crime. Aside from the triviality, it is probably self-defense or simple retaliation.

The Virginia Republican also argued that if beauty contestant's father had rushed onto the stage at the Miss USA pageant and responded to Hilton's hatred in a physical way, he would have been open to prosecution under the hate crimes bill as well.

Wrong again, Randy. That would have been a simple assault. Just because Hilton is gay doesn't mean that every crime committed against him is a hate crime. I realize that the increased complexity presents a challenge to your meager capacity for critical thinking but, trust me, that's how it is.