The Sexist

Bruce Barilla, The Anti-Gay-Sex Candidate

[youtube:?v=nL7cVCa7lWE]

West Virginian Bruce Barilla, a long-shot candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, lays it all out there in this campaign video, in which he explains that we must fight an "unnecessary hate crimes bill" because it supports  "gay sex." Points for transparency! Bonus: Supporters can proudly display their refusal to support gay sex to the world by placing a box of Barilla pasta in their car windows. (Barilla says he has "No relation to and not sponsored by Barilla pasta").

  • ellen

    There's something extremely entertaining about a man who claims to be against "the gay agenda" using the slogan “Taking PRIDE in West Virginia!”

  • Eo

    The mind boggles.

  • http://angryfeministdoc.blogspot.com EAMD

    Oh, I so disagree on the transparency. What kind of tidy little euphemism is "gay sex"? If you're not listening carefully, you might miss the "gay", and therefore not understand that we are talking about filthy queer hairy homo dirty anal butthole giant dildo sex here.

  • Eo

    I fully support gay marriage and the rest, Im not keen on PC hate speech laws because they discriminate. I have a gay ex friend and he would spout the most hateful things about christians and heterosexuals and if anyone said boo to him he would accuse them of hate crimes.

  • chris

    I'm really fucking sick of hearing people call censorship when their SACRED RIGHT to say bigoted shit (Such as some of the things being said here! Fuck you, too, EAMD!) about me is called out.

    Seriously, how the fuck can you be against a law protecting people from HATE CRIMES? Nobody's going to take away your god-given right to be a dick, but I'd appreciate it if, you know, no more gay, lesbian or transgender people got murdered for being who they are. Apparently that's too much to ask.

  • Eo

    I support laws against hate crimes in theory but when you look at them, they segregate us in groups on the basis of our race, gender and sexuality, some groups become more equal than others, which is the point because its cultural marxism but anyway, PC hate speech laws makes it illegal to say, some crap like dead gay men dont spread aids, which is good but because of the double standards of legal protection it makes it ok for, feminists to say dead men dont rape... for example.

  • Kit-Kat

    I'm actually on the fence about hate crimes legislation, even though I certainly oppose hate crimes. I, too, would be really happy if no one was murdered for who they are, whether that is gay, lesbian, transgender, black, white, male, female, whatever. But I'm not really sure that hate crimes legislation is the way to go.

    Assault, battery, murder, and threats are already illegal, so a person who kills someone because she was transgender is already subject to prosecution. Hate crimes legislation, at that point, just punishes the person more because they had a specific motive. But is it really worse if someone killed a person because he was gay v. killing that same person in order to steal their wallet? You're criminalizing someone's beliefs, and even though those beliefs may be completely abhorrent, I'm not sure that should make them a crime. (As opposed to any criminal actions taken as a result of those beliefs, which should be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law.)

    And do the hate crime laws really make people safer? Wouldn't aggressive enforcement of the laws against all violent crimes do that just as well? To the extent that a person's motive for committing a crime might indicate something about their future dangerousness, couldn't we just clarify that judges may take that into account during sentencing? For example, if a man kills a woman because she is a lesbian and he hates lesbians, surely a judge can impose a longer sentence on the grounds that the guy is more likely to kill or injure someone again?

    The one area where I feel more sure that hate crimes legislation is useful is when a person commits a crime in order to frighten, coerce, or terrorize an entire group (for example, burning a cross in front of a black church). If the government can show that the criminal committed the act, whatever it was, with the purpose of terrorizing others, then that might make it a different kind of crime. It would be something like an anti-terrorism statute, or perhaps existing terrorism statutes could be revised to make clear that they include these kinds of acts.

    I'm open to arguments on this issue, because I am genuinely not sure about it. I abhor violence based on racism and bigotry, but I'm just not sure that criminalizing beliefs is the way to address that violence.

  • kza

    I wouldn't mind racists getting more jail time.

  • Kati

    Why in the hell did he have to be from WV?????? Isn't our reputation bad enough???????

  • http://angryfeministdoc.blogspot.com EAMD

    My previous post was a comment on Barilla's transparency, since it seems to me "gay" sex is his way of tidily obscuring all of the hateful words listed above. It's unfortunate the sarcasm didn't come across.

  • chris

    Kit-Kat, are you white, heterosexual and cisgendered? I'm going to assume that you are, since that'd make it a lot more likely you'd call punishing someone that hates people that aren't all three of those things so much that they murder them for it "criminalizing beliefs."

    I can't call myself an expert on law or anything like that, but I'm pretty sure a big reason that hate crime legislation is necessary is because murder cases involving minorities aren't taken as seriously. I mean, how many times have you heard people justify the rape and/or murder of trans people because they're "deceptive" or some other bullshit reason, for example?

    And besides all that, this douche isn't even talking about just hate crime legislation, he's against "supporting gay sex". Can we at least agree that that's just hateful and fucked up, and this guy probably wouldn't give a rat's ass about violence against minorities?

  • http://angryfeministdoc.blogspot.com EAMD

    Sorry for the uptick in your blood pressure, Chris.

  • chris

    Yeah, just saw your last post. Thanks for apologizing, didn't realize you were being sarcastic what with this blog being troll-heavy sometimes and all.

  • http://toysoldier.wordpress.com Toysoldier

    @chris:

    Punishing someone for hating other people is criminalizing beliefs. No law can compel you to like or accept other people.

    The other problem hate crime legislation is that its supporters do not want it applied to every group. For instance, there were complaints when a group of black boys who severely beat a 12-year-old boy because he was white were charged with a hate crime.

    Another problem is that motivating factors occur in most crimes, so why would all crimes not qualify? For instance, when someone targets children, is that a hate crime? When someone targets men or boys, is that a hate crime? What about skinny people, short people, people of various economic statuses?

  • Pingback: Bruce Barilla, The Anti-Gay-Sex Candidate | The HomoFile

  • chris

    So you're saying that hate crime legislation is criminalizing beliefs but at the same time it doesn't protect non-minorities enough?

  • Jasmin

    Lol, what's with the MIDI music in the background? Couldn't get a real piano player??

  • Kit-Kat

    Chris, feel free to assume whatever you want about me. I was trying to have a discussion about hate crimes legislation. If you don't think that my points and questions aren't valid if I'm white and hetero, there's really nothing I can do about that, but it really doesn't advance the discussion.

    My point is that it is already illegal to murder someone, for any reason except self-defense. If the problem is that the murder of certain groups is not taken seriously enough by prosecutors and judges, perhaps the solution is to educate prosecutors and judges. The fact that "people" try to justify the murder of transgendered individuals because they are "deceptive" only matters if those people are prosecutors, judges, or juries, and if they fail to prosecute, convict, or appropriately sentence defendants who murder transgendered people, because that's the only group of people that hate crimes legislation would directly affect.

    Using the criminal justice system to punish someone for murder: okay in my book. Using it to punish someone for hatred: I'm not so sure. If that hatred leads someone to commit a crime, then there are already laws to punish them, and I'm in favor of vigorous enforcement of those laws, and whatever education and training are necessary to ensure that vigorous enforcement.

    And I'm not remotely defending this Barilla guy. I absolutely agree that he is a bigot and a jackass.

  • TJ

    @KitKat, I think, and I am no expert, the thought behind hate crimes legislation is that the persons who have committed these heinous crimes did so with the intent to bring fear to an entire marginalized group. In this case, against the LGBT community. You said it best when you stated

    "The one area where I feel more sure that hate crimes legislation is useful is when a person commits a crime in order to frighten, coerce, or terrorize an entire group (for example, burning a cross in front of a black church)."

    If the person committed the act BECAUSE someone was gay (or black, or disabled, etc), it is done to show that it is not ok to be gay, and therefore puts fear into the hearts of the LGBT community.

    "But is it really worse if someone killed a person because he was gay v. killing that same person in order to steal their wallet?"

    Killing is wrong no matter what, but killing someone for their wallet affects that person and their family (you could argue that it could affect the community at large, but there is no particular group within that community that feels especially alienated). Killing someone because they are gay affects not only the person and their family, but the LGBT community at large.

    It's a bitch to think that you can be offed at any time just because you aren't of the majority...

  • Kit-Kat

    @TJ--interesting point. Perhaps I would feel more comfortable with a hate-crimes law that required that intent element. Motive just isn't an element of most crimes (actually, none that I can think of), but intent often is.

    I don't mean to create the impression that I'm not anti-hate crime; I'm just also a big proponent of freedom of speech and thought, even though the consequence of that is a lot of nasty though and speech.

  • DanceDreaming

    Kit-Kat: I think the intent of hate-crimes is basically part of the crime. When you commit a crime based on hatred of the group they are a part of, the intent is to hurt the group, via the individual. Freedom of speech and thought is fine, engaging in terrorism is not.

    The laws are also in part reparative. 'Educating' police, judges, prosecutors and juries all throughout the country is not feasible. Crimes against minorities -are- under prosecuted, and leniently sentenced, and those who are guilty of such discrimination are very decentralized and very hard to affect directly.

    Oh, and for those who are clutching their pearls about hate-crime laws and discriminatory speech, no hate-crime law affect freedom of speech. We don't have hate-speech laws in the US. If we were talking about South African style hate speech laws, it would be a different conversation.

    We -do- have some very loose laws around seditious speech, against inciting riots, and against convincing or coercing someone else into committing a crime for you. I personally am undecided about the idea of laws that would criminalize public figures encouraging criminal behavior, such as, again, those in South Africa. Some part of me thinks that public figures should be held to certain legally enforced standards in this regard, such as certain public figures celebrating the murder of abortion providers, and encouraging further such behavior. But I also think that any such laws could be easily abused, especially in this era of slowly decentralizing media.

    But this isn't the sort of law we're talking about. Nor do any hate-crime bills really anywhere affect people saying 'boo' to Eo's gay ex friend.

  • Bill

    Heterosexual douchebaggery at its finest, folks.

  • mk

    Some people are fiercely against gay rights because of child sex abuse by gay individuals. Rather than block marriage rights, just say the real reason and stop hiding behind religion. It happened to me as a child, but its better to educate people about sex crimes in the minority population instead of denying marriage.

...