This raises an issue. What happens on Kill Haole Day? How do we protect the rights of Hawaiians to partake in some nice Haole beatings without seeming hypocritical?
And for those who think I'm kidding, this is from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin: "School Superintendent Paul LeMahieu said he is aware of "kill haole day" but is not aware of any recent incidents. He added that he hopes the practice of beating up Caucasian students on the last day of school is a thing of the past."

Your tourist dollars are welcome, but your white skin is not. Unless you're gay, of course. They deserve protection, you and your children don't.

Aloha!!

There you go again - applying the concepts logic and human decency. Shame on you.

Good post. Here's one for you. I'm going to play the lazy card and not blog on it today.

Free SUV's - a human right

Dear HA,

Thank you for commenting. Comments are closed on items more than 30 days old to
prevent comment spam.

I'm sure you could open it just once so I could post my comment and then reclose it.

Besides, I have no duty to provide you with a feedback forum, and closing comments is not censorship in any way shape or form.

Well, it's nice to know I can respond by saying Hawaii has no duty to legitimize your deluded view that its hate crimes law is "special rights".

Hate crimes legislation applies stiffer penalties based on race, religion,
sexual orientation, etc. That's discrimination.

Uh, no it's not. You still don't get it, and neither I might add, does Linda Lingle, and that's why you did a disservice to your readers by quoting her erroneous statements. The hate crimes legislation provides enhanced penalties based on affectional orientation, race, religion, etc. Any affectional orientation, race, religion. That means if you're hetero and you get attacked because of it, you too get enhanced protection if you need it. That means if you're Christian and you're attacked because of it (something you hear a lot Xtians whining about lately), you too get enhanced protection if you need it. That means if you're WHITE -- in fact, when the constitutionality of hate crimes legislation went up to the SUPREME COURT OF THE US - and no, it was actually the Rehnquist court, thanks for asking - they ruled unanimously that they were constitutional, something that would not have happened if it weren't for the unique circumstances of the case that went before them. You see, hate crimes legislation were being challenged in a case where a group of blacks beat up a white guy precisely because of his race. And that's why you had Antonin Scalia on the same side of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, because they couldn't deny that there were no "special protections", no "discrimination", except for that being perpetrated by those who would single out someone for attack based on their characteristics, whatever those characteristics might be. It doesn't say "if you're gay", it says "affectional orientation". It doesn't say "if you're Jewish or Muslim", it says "religion". It doesn't say "if you're black or Hispanic, it says "race". And that is why it's not "discrimination" -- because it applies to everyone. Read this and weep, "buddy".

HA,

So I take it you support the ban on gay marriage, because it applies to everyone.

Re: "white skin"

Mr. Mike "Oh poor us oppressed white folk" M --

please do research on the SCOTUS case Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)

Whites are the only ones that have ever rated a unanimous Supreme Court decision upholding their right to be protected against hate crimes. No one else has ever had that august privelege.

Once again...

spare me your right wing propaganda.

Ravenwood, oh you mean the one that prevents heteroaffectional couples seeking to marry from getting civil licenses as well as homoaffectional couples from getting them?

Sure, I support "that one", but funny, I hadn't heard of any such one like that. Care to tell me in which state it will go on the ballot and when?

HA,

Battery is battery. It shouldn't matter what a person was thinking when they committed the crime.

For instance in New York, a man is facing extra penalties because he beat up a black man with a baseball bat. He faces a more serious punishment, because he is white and his victim was black. If instead he had. . .oh I dunno. . .beat down a little old white lady, that's not as serious. Because he was beating a black man, he was obviously thinking something like, "I'm gonna kill this black mofo." If it were grandma and he was slugging away while thinking, "When's this old bitch gonna die", that's a lesser crime.

It is offensive that it is considered less severe of a crime to bludgeon someone for the $10 in their pocket then to bludgeon them because they "hate" them for their differences.

Bludgeoning is bludgeoning. The injuries are the same and the penalties should be equally severe.

""Oh poor us oppressed white folk" M --"

Try this on for size: ""School Superintendent Paul LeMahieu said he is aware of "kill faggot day" but is not aware of any recent incidents. He added that he hopes the practice of beating up gay students on the last day of school is a thing of the past."
Followed by " Oh poor us oppressed gay folk" M --".

Hard to imagine someone being so flippantly cruel in response to actual hate crimes, isn't it? But gays have that type of response to violence directed at anyone but themselves.

You want special protection for yourself that you laugh off for others. You are one of the reasons there is less sympathy for gay activism. You are not interested in a just society. You want a pass to hate others who do not worship at the feet of your sexual orientation, but your hatred backfires.

Quote Mike M:

"You are one of the reasons there is less sympathy for gay activism."

Nope... homophobia is the reason there's "less" sympathy for gay activism... or gay people, period. Anything else is an extension of homophobia. You like to blame activists responses to homophobia... in fact, you like to blame anything but the original homophobia itself.

HA,

Name calling and labeling people who disagree with you a homophobe does not help your cause. Here at Ravenwood's Universe the staff writers and I support libertarian principles. Some of them align with your agenda while others do not.

We are not homophobes nor do we suffer from homophobia or an extension thereof.

"HA"

So I take it you've ditched your earlier, thoroughly discredited description of hate crime laws as "discrimination", Ravenwood ... now it's the enhanced penalties you have a problem with?

Whatever. You have the right to your opinion, just as I have the right to disagree, which I do, natch. I'm not going to attack you for your opinion as long as you aren't twisting things around like you did before. Now that you've been called on it, and are realizing it won't fly, you can say what you want. Just note that you're being watched if you try again to pass off propaganda as truth.

Having said that, I doubt you'll adjust your 2003 post to reflect your latest in a series of colorful premises for opposing hate crimes legislation, so that your earlier propaganda is taken down... nope -- didn't think so.

And I'm sure you'll leave the ridiculous allegation that calling you on your false information means I sent you hate mail up on this latest blog entry -- yeah, I thought so.

Quoth Raven:

"I support libertarian principles."

99% of Libertarians are basically Republicans-lite. Furthermore, they don't tell you this, but a huge number of wind up voting for Bush or other Re-THUGs in any election a Libertarian candidate isn't running in and even in those there is one.

Once you break down their agenda, you realize they are very selfish in general, and that's usually where the majority of their political positions tend to emanate from.

Just about every hetero Libertarian, if not homophobic, is certainly heterosexist. I have yet to meet one exception to this rule, and I doubt I ever will.

And from hanging around them, even some Libertarian-leaning homoaffectionals become heterosexist through osmosis.

Yeah pal, that's why people are turned off by your hateful remarks, because your gay.

Please. Don't pretend like you know us or what our beliefs are. You have no idea. We have long supported gay issues. I think you are drawing a foolish line in the sand on the issue of so-called "hate crimes".

I suggest you read some of the other postings on gay issues before you make sweeping generalizations and prejudgements about our beliefs.

Here is just a sampling of the times we've spoken out in support of gay marriage.

http://www.ravnwood.com/archives/001676.php
http://www.ravnwood.com/archives/001702.php
http://www.ravnwood.com/archives/002385.php
http://www.ravnwood.com/archives/002392.php
http://www.ravnwood.com/archives/002717.php
http://www.ravnwood.com/archives/003104.php
http://www.ravnwood.com/archives/003273.php
http://www.ravnwood.com/archives/003672.php
http://www.ravnwood.com/archives/003798.php
http://www.ravnwood.com/archives/004641.php

Mike:

Let's go back to the beginning --

before anyone who was homoaffectional even CONSIDERED the CONCEPT of fighting for their rights, there was massive, unchecked homophobia.

Since then, things changed... often in the face of unrelenting opposition, because it became a test of who was more unrelenting -- the gay rights advocates or the homophobes. Gay rights advocates have won some fights, but make no mistake -- if they didn't fight till the death, they would have won nothing except in the few true hotbeds of liberalism in this mostly conservative country. And yeah, you may not like some of the activists fighting for gay rights, but if even the most incendiary of remarks made you not only neutral, but OPPOSED to gay rights, then you were probably a latent homophobe to begin with (or heterosexist, if that offends your precious sensibilities less). But go ahead, deny it and I'm sure you can hide it by scapegoating an activist who isn't popular. And I'm not being facetious when I say that.

Quoth Raven:

"Here is just a sampling of the times we've spoken out in support of gay marriage."

I'll check them out, but one question before I do that... if you honestly had the choice between supporting equal marriage or "getting government out of the business of issuing marriage licenses", which honestly would you advocate? Be honest now...

Gay marriage is probably easier to achieve because it has more momentum from a policy standpoint. Ideally, the government shouldn't have any say what-so-ever in marriages, and there shouldn't be tax burdens/incentives piled on married people.

We'd advocate going back to the days of a preacher/notary/justice of the peace and two witnesses, or even common law. When it comes to homosexuality, we take the position that as long as it doesn't deprive anyone else of life, liberty, or property, go for it. What's it to us?

Quoth the Raven:

"homosexuality"

How do you define "homosexuality"?

Quoth the Raven:

"Gay marriage is probably easier to achieve because it has more momentum from a policy standpoint."

Ah, the true admission of a "pragmatist" type Libertarian.

I tend to like to leave it at that before I get into the real workings of the mind of a Libertarian and what they really want...

HA,

Please, get over yourself. How can you call Ravenwood a homophobe when you've never met him? You base your judgement on one post, yet demand everyone else not be judgemental?

I suppose that since I'm a staunch republican with periodic libertarian leanings, I must be selfish, hate all minorities, and want to oppress the poor so that I can get more and more money.

Yeah, right.

Here's a clue--before hitting "post", remove all vitriol and name calling. You'll find you sound far more reasonable and will make your points more effectively.

"I suppose that since I'm a staunch republican with periodic libertarian leanings, I must be selfish, hate all minorities, and want to oppress the poor so that I can get more and more money."

If the first part is true and not some joke, then as for the rest of it -- pretty much. But I'm sure your talking points memo will explain why none of that is true and you're the "Party of Lincoln" come to save us from ourselves. (Hah!)

Ooops, I'm sorry if I didn't follow all your instructions on posting.

What is this -- tag team? Ok... whatever works for you.

Oh wait, Lornkanaga, no I'm sorry. I forgot.

The truth is I brought any hate crimes or discrimination that hurt me and every other gay person worldwide on myself by being an uppity activist. Silly me. So sorry... I'll try to be a good little homo and know my place next time. Maybe go back to "the closet" like Ken Mehlman, David Dreier, Mark Foley, Ed Shrock, Linda Lingle and the rest...

I could go years without sputtering the type of hateful comments that just roll off your tongue, but you seemed pleased with the response that you and other hate filled gay activists bring forth in otherwise sympathetic people. Think what you want about my latencies (what a surprise you came up with that!), but if our individual lives are ever measured by the care and consideration granted to others, gays like you (and the others who stand silently and allow you to represent them) will flunk miserably.
By the way, there are plenty of gay people who despise what people like you have done to the gay rights movement, but they learned their lesson decades ago when gay activists tried to call for safe sex and the temporary closing of the bath houses in San Francisco to stem the spread of AIDS in their community. They were vilified as self hating homophobics by the very people they had served and loved. So they silence themselves and hope that others will take on their responsibility.

Homo Ffectional -

WTF is wrong with you? You suddenly show up at this site, make broad accusations, particularly of our host, and behave like some self-appointed champion of the gay population? You had a boiler-plate argument that you intended to execute, and continued blazing ahead, even when your opposition turned out to not be the "homophobes" you had pre-determined them to be.

In fact, your entire method of seeking out a debate reminds me a lot of the guy in the movie, "The Jerk" who decides to go shoot someone and proceeds to simply pick a name from the phonebook.

Let's see... Standard liberal argument, attempts to force others to fit your already-twisted opinion of them, using hateful speech to decry the use of hateful speech, delusions of grandeur...

If it weren't for the facts that you are neither popular nor successful as an activist, I'd think you were Jesse jackson in disguise.

What a faggot.

'Mays' would be the designated liberal troll who posts an obviously hateful comment to 'prove' that others are as hateful as he/she is. I see this repeatedly at various moderate/conservative websites and it is the dying gasp of a bankrupt party. Dan Rather would be proud.

Wow, this HA fellow is the best troll I've seen on this site to date! He even makes up his own words; homoaffectional? heterosexist? Classic! I've half a mind to bookmark this post for pure comedic value.

Hmm....
HA is rather funny, actually, I agree with Pasty. Except I don't think he/she/it actually made up the words. Those wierd words are coming down the way.

By the way, HA, I AM transgendered, so - do me a favor, go crawl off and die and let intelligent people debate a useful solutin. Your type of vitriol endangers many people, and "Hate Crimes" legislation does nowhere near as much to curb sociopathy as a .45" wide chuck of steel, expelled from a tube at high velocity, into the head/thorax/abdomen of whatever is trying to injure you.

"Y'all c'mon back / if you ever wanna try again - I done told you once / you son of a "gun" / I'm the best there's ever been... "

Hope charlie Daniels won't mind that...

-AzraeL