NJ Legislature Strengthens Transgender Protections With Strong Majority Vote

**DSM4Life** · 01-08-2008, 04:55 PM

The New Jersey State Assembly voted 65 to 10 on Monday to extend the state’s hate crime and anti-school bullying protections to transgender residents, according to Garden State Equality, one of the advocacy groups to help draft the legislation. The bill, which passed unanimously in the state Senate (35-0), now moves to the desk of Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who is expected to sign it into law.

The law will give New Jersey some of the nation’s strongest protections for transgender people, according to Garden State Equality officials.

“This is a massive, historic win that fuels our momentum to win marriage equality at year’s end,” Steven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Quality, said in a press release.

The legislation, also supported by the New Jersey Anti-Defamation League and the Gay and Lesbian Task Force, will also require that new police officers undergo two hours of hate-crimes sensitivity training. It also protects residents on the basis of national origin and mandates that public schools distribute anti-bullying policies and post them on their Web sites. (The Advocate)

**Logan13** · 01-08-2008, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by DSM4Life

The New Jersey State Assembly voted 65 to 10 on Monday to extend the state’s hate crime and anti-school bullying protections to transgender residents, according to Garden State Equality, one of the advocacy groups to help draft the legislation. The bill, which passed unanimously in the state Senate (35-0), now moves to the desk of Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who is expected to sign it into law.

The law will give New Jersey some of the nation’s strongest protections for transgender people, according to Garden State Equality officials.

“This is a massive, historic win that fuels our momentum to win marriage equality at year’s end,” Steven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Quality, said in a press release.

The legislation, also supported by the New Jersey Anti-Defamation League and the Gay and Lesbian Task Force, will also require that new police officers undergo two hours of hate-crimes sensitivity training. It also protects residents on the basis of national origin and mandates that public schools distribute anti-bullying policies and post them on their Web sites. (The Advocate)

I could see transgenders needing protection, moreso than "regular" homosexuals.

**DSM4Life** · 01-08-2008, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

I could see transgenders needing protection, moreso than "regular" homosexuals.

"I am only disagreeable with those who are wrong."

**thegodfather** · 01-08-2008, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by DSM4Life

The New Jersey State Assembly voted 65 to 10 on Monday to extend the state’s hate crime and anti-school bullying protections to transgender residents, according to Garden State Equality, one of the advocacy groups to help draft the legislation. The bill, which passed unanimously in the state Senate (35-0), now moves to the desk of Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who is expected to sign it into law.

The law will give New Jersey some of the nation’s strongest protections for transgender people, according to Garden State Equality officials.

“This is a massive, historic win that fuels our momentum to win marriage equality at year’s end,” Steven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Quality, said in a press release.

The legislation, also supported by the New Jersey Anti-Defamation League and the Gay and Lesbian Task Force, will also require that new police officers undergo two hours of hate-crimes sensitivity training. It also protects residents on the basis of national origin and mandates that public schools distribute anti-bullying policies and post them on their Web sites. (The Advocate)

Garden State Equality....A special interest group jamming its agenda down the throats of 11 million New Jersey residents. Sounds awesome... The Garden State "Equality" group. More like inequality. They offer more protections to a certain group of people vs. other groups of people. Hate crime legislagtion punishes people for their beliefs&feelings. Completely unconstitutional and special interest groups have absolutely no business drafting laws.

If Gays&Transgendereds want to be treated EQUALLY, that is fine. Accept that a person who commits a violent crime against you, is going to get the same jail sentence/punishment as someone who commits a crime against me. There is nothing fair or equal about this new law. It makes things more unequal, and it favors special interests. It treats your lifestyle as being more valuable than mine. If someone muggs me and gets 1 year in prison, and then someone mugs a transgendered person for being transgendered, and they get 2 years, it doesnt take rocket science to figure out that..... THATS NOT ****ING EQUAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**DSM4Life** · 01-09-2008, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

Garden State Equality....A special interest group jamming its agenda down the throats of 11 million New Jersey residents. Sounds awesome... The Garden State "Equality" group. More like inequality. They offer more protections to a certain group of people vs. other groups of people. Hate crime legislagtion punishes people for their beliefs&feelings. Completely unconstitutional and special interest groups have absolutely no business drafting laws.

If Gays&Transgendereds want to be treated EQUALLY, that is fine. Accept that a person who commits a violent crime against you, is going to get the same jail sentence/punishment as someone who commits a crime against me. There is nothing fair or equal about this new law. It makes things more unequal, and it favors special interests. It treats your lifestyle as being more valuable than mine. If someone muggs me and gets 1 year in prison, and then someone mugs a transgendered person for being transgendered, and they get 2 years, it doesnt take rocket science to figure out that..... THATS NOT ****ING EQUAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It doesn’t "treat our lifestyle as being more valued." I don't think you are seeing the entire picture. When was the last time you heard of a heterosexual being killed because he was straight? How about a guy tied to a fence, beaten and left for dead which he did die? This happens because there is more hatred towards the LBGT community. So don’t give me that we all need to be 100% equal BS. That might work in a perfect world but this world is far from perfect.

**thegodfather** · 01-09-2008, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by DSM4Life

It doesn’t "treat our lifestyle as being more valued." I don't think you are seeing the entire picture. When was the last time you heard of a heterosexual being killed because he was straight? How about a guy tied to a fence, beaten and left for dead which he did die? This happens because there is more hatred towards the LBGT community. So don’t give me that we all need to be 100% equal BS. That might work in a perfect world but this world is far from perfect.

So you concede that the new law does foster some inequality and is unfair? You dont hear that someone tied and beat someone to death because they are straight, all you will hear is that they were tied and beaten. The point is it does not matter how someone "feels' about the person that they assaulted. The action itself is what we punish, not their feelings about the person. What about the college student in West Virginia who was killed and shuved in a crawl space? Maybe we should do an investigation and see if she was killed because she was a heterosexual female. You can talk about the bias towards this community or that community all day. The fact remains that these communities are constantly asking to be equal. So why must their special interest groups attempt to pass laws which make things in fact more unequal. You may think that laws like this help protect your 'group' of people more. In actuality, all you are doing is hurting your own cause by fostering a fracture between yourself and the rest of society and encouraging more "us" and "them" mentality.

**DSM4Life** · 01-09-2008, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

So you concede that the new law does foster some inequality and is unfair? You dont hear that someone tied and beat someone to death because they are straight, all you will hear is that they were tied and beaten. The point is it does not matter how someone "feels' about the person that they assaulted. The action itself is what we punish, not their feelings about the person. What about the college student in West Virginia who was killed and shuved in a crawl space? Maybe we should do an investigation and see if she was killed because she was a heterosexual female. You can talk about the bias towards this community or that community all day. The fact remains that these communities are constantly asking to be equal. So why must their special interest groups attempt to pass laws which make things in fact more unequal. You may think that laws like this help protect your 'group' of people more. In actuality, all you are doing is hurting your own cause by fostering a fracture between yourself and the rest of society and encouraging more "us" and "them" mentality.

Let me use your example.

Do I feel as though there should be a law that protects people from shoving students into lockers? At this point in time I would say no. I base this on the fact that it doesn't happen often and when it does happen it normally has no physical harm on the child. Unfortunately this child had to pay with his life but it’s still a rare occurrence.

But on the flip side, say that on an average school day 5 kids in across the country got pushed into lockers and little over half got serious hurt, would you expect something more to be done ? I know i would. For the fact that this behavior is being repeated and growing I would say it’s a problem that needs to be stopped before it reaches 7 or 8 kids a day.

The problem with sexual discrimination is not getting better. Many might think its getting better with all these “gay rights” but the scary fact is most of our laws are written in other people’s blood. Also keep in mind just because a law is created doesn't mean people abide by it but in reality its just about the only way to try and deter people from doing bad things.
You don’t live the life so you have no clue how bad it really is.

If i could erase all type of homosexual feelings and be 100% happy with being straight and looking "normal" in the eye of society i would do it in a heart beat. Sounds like a fun life doesnt it ?

**gixxerboy1** · 01-09-2008, 09:13 PM

The problem i see. Say i beat up Mike because he is an asshole. I get what ever sentence. Now if mike also happens to be X it can be turned into a hate crime. It could have nothing to do with it but you know sometimes people play the x card even if it has nothing to do with the situation.. Mike was just a douche bag

**wantmoremass** · 01-10-2008, 01:38 PM

under canadian law, there is federal law against hate crimes including hate based on sexual orientation (i'm not entirely sure how that bodes for transvestites/transexuals). that being said, the burden of proof is upon the prosecutors to prove that the crime was 'hate-related'. i do think that there is a distinction that can be made between an 'everyday' violent crime and one driven by hate. i agree with your point godfather that a crime is a crime. i do think, though, that by deeming a crime that is in fact based on hate as a hate crime, we as a society send a message about what is not acceptable (i know, murder isn't acceptable either, but the message is that murder because of someone's race, gender, orientation, etc. is considered particularly off-side). if nothing else, i believe it helps push our society towards intolerance of hate-based crimes, and away from indifference that 'the person was just a tranny or fag or whatever'.

my feelings on this were shaped by an incident that happened here in vancouver a few years ago. a gay man who was trolling around what was known as a cruisy area in stanley park was violently beaten and killed. the 4 assailants ranging from 17 to 20 went down there knowing it was a gay cruise spot, looking to hunt a 'peeping tom' down (their words, not mine). they beat him with a baseball bat, pool cue, and golf club and he died on the scene. one of them was acquitted (insufficient evidence), two minors were convicted of manslaughter (one of the two was deemed a hate crime),given 3 years in juvee because they were young offenders, and the eldest was convicted of manslaughter (not a hate crime) and convicted to 6 years in prison. had they all been deemed hate crimes, the sentencing could have been longer. part of me wonders if this would make any difference. to me, sentencing for what amounts to murder is too weak to begin with. the fact that it's hate-related, to me, makes it more sickening though.

**thegodfather** · 01-10-2008, 02:39 PM

You guys are talking about trying to curtail or legislate "hate." Unfortunately, people have the RIGHT to hate other people. It is a feeling, an idea, a position. We have absolutely no charter the in Constitution for regulating peoples beliefs and ideals. If a person choses to hate, that is their own perogative. If that hate motivates a crime, I feel that is really irrelevant. And we can also not ignore that for the most part passing laws with "stiffer penalties" does little to actually curtail or prevent crime. It is only in place as a measure to punish people for crimes, it does not prevent them.

I do not agree with hate crimes. I just object their being penalized on principle. I feel that it is punishing people because they are of a certain belief.

**Tock** · 01-10-2008, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

You guys are talking about trying to curtail or legislate "hate." Unfortunately, people have the RIGHT to hate other people. It is a feeling, an idea, a position. We have absolutely no charter the in Constitution for regulating peoples beliefs and ideals. If a person choses to hate, that is their own perogative. If that hate motivates a crime, I feel that is really irrelevant. And we can also not ignore that for the most part passing laws with "stiffer penalties" does little to actually curtail or prevent crime. It is only in place as a measure to punish people for crimes, it does not prevent them.

I do not agree with hate crimes. I just object their being penalized on principle. I feel that it is punishing people because they are of a certain belief.

I agree with that.

But on the other hand, it seems to me that if a disproportionate % of a minority is suffering abuse at the hands of other folks, then the group that's being abused should be given special protection until the abuse declines to levels found in other populations.

Ya, it's not so much giving some groups "special protections" as much as it is stopping "special abuses." If it was me, I don't think I'd try to deter the crime with harsher prison sentences. Instead, I'd raise taxes on everybody to fund extra police to stop the abuse. That would be a far more expensive method to fix the problem, but it would be in harmony with the US Constitution.

JMHO . . .

**wantmoremass** · 01-10-2008, 03:51 PM

i agree we should have the right to hate anyone. but not the right to express that hate through murder, mutilation, genocide, etc. hate is hard, if not impossible to prove though, which i think is why it's not referenced a whole lot in criminal decisions.

do you think there is no instance where the crime should be punished without consideration of the motives? should there be no such thing as a war crime, simply call it, trial it, and treat it like as straight up murder? what about the degrees of murder, should there be any? premedidated murder is still murder just like manslaughter is.

**DSM4Life** · 01-10-2008, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by wantmoremass

i agree we should have the right to hate anyone. but not the right to express that hate through murder, mutilation, genocide, etc. hate is hard, if not impossible to prove though, which i think is why it's not referenced a whole lot in criminal decisions.

do you think there is no instance where the crime should be punished without consideration of the motives? should there be no such thing as a war crime, simply call it, trial it, and treat it like as straight up murder? what about the degrees of murder, should there be any? premedidated murder is still murder just like manslaughter is.

I agree.