College Jay considers himself a “Side B” Christian, as defined by the folks at GCN. In short, those who view their same-sex attractions as a temptation, and strive to live celibate lives. Side Bs are not in competition for which view is right, but are simply living their lives as they see fit, recognizing other’s freedom to do the same. This is offered as background, not a point of debate. His guest post below on the deceptive tactics of many who are working to defeat HR 1592 is refreshingly honest and well worth the read.
My personal blog, “Adventures of a Christian Collegian” is about my experiences as a conservative Christian on a college campus…who happens to experience same-sex attraction. It is not a political blog, nor should it be taken as such. However, I have always had a big interest in politics, and I have pretty defined opinions about current issues. I consider myself a classical liberal. As such, I am all about limiting the government’s intrusion into the freedoms of Americans. I consider “hate crimes” legislation to be such an intrusion, because it prosecutes the thoughts of the criminal instead of the acts. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I don’t care if you kill me because I’m gay or kill me because you want my iPod. Either way, I want you to rot in jail for the rest of your life.
That being said, I am also a big fan of truth. I don’t care what your views are; if you can’t defend them honestly, don’t defend them at all. This value of mine is why I am taking a short break from completely personal posts and doing something political for a change. I hope you’ll all bear with me. I worked hard on this post, and it’s long. Luckily, I had plenty of time to do it since I don’t have any exams until Friday (turns out I already have an A in Spanish and don’t have to take the final! ¡Eso es maravilloso!)
The theme of this post is that wording matters. In the exact same way that tone of voice matters when speaking, words chosen (or not chosen) are important indicators of an author’s motives, personal views, and target audience. Therefore, they should be chosen with extreme caution and care. In personal posts such as the ones I usually write, it doesn’t matter as much. There are few (if any) objective facts that I need to be mindful of when writing about my feelings on a particular topic. But if I was writing about the actions of another, I would do everything in my power to make my words as accurate and clear as possible.
Gary Bauer does not seem to have the same ethic regarding that, or at least the person who wrote this article, which is found on his End of Day website, does not. I originally found the article on Randy Thomas’ blog, and I was not able to find it anywhere else in its full form. Therefore, I want to make it clear now that the following is not a critique of Randy Thomas. As stated before, Randy is someone that I deeply respect despite our disagreements, and though he did post the article, he is not the author and thus is not the target of my criticisms.
The article is an example of the many that can be found concerning H.R. 1592: legislation that is meant to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes (in the same way that race and religion are currently protected classes). H.R. 1592 is accompanied by a similar bill being passed through the Senate by Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Gordon Smith (R-Oregon). Actually, the article omits Smith’s involvement with the bill, but we’ll get to lies of omission later. After establishing this, the article makes its first of several dubious statements by bringing up the murder of Matthew Shepard:
Kennedy’s bill would have done absolutely nothing to save Matthew Shepherd’s [sic] life, which was tragically taken in a drug-related robbery.
Sneaky, isn’t it? The whole “drug-related robbery” phrase is inserted as fact. It doesn’t say a “possible” or “speculated” drug-related robbery. It says “drug-related robbery.” However, this goes against the testimony from the trial, which stated that neither Russell Henderson nor Aaron McKinney (Shepard’s murderers) were on drugs at the time of the murder. Speculation that they were on methamphetamine at the time did not appear until five years after their conviction. And even then, the phrase “drug-related robbery” is misleading. To the casual reader, it sounds as though Shepard was taking drugs, or that the murder was a drug deal gone wrong. It wasn’t. At the very most, his murderers were on drugs at the time of the crime. That doesn’t make it “drug-related” any more than a drunk man robbing a gas station is “alcohol-related.” Now, on to the second point:
[T]he FBI’s analysis of hate crimes in 2005 revealed that only 177 out of 862,947 cases of aggravated assault were motivated by sexual orientation bias. That’s 0.000205 percent of all aggravated assaults in 2005.
This is actually true, and it’s a valid reason why the federal government needs to stay out of hate crimes legislation. Oh, but I forget that the article doesn’t say anything about that. It only speaks out against the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. If we’re going to argue that the means don’t justify the end, lets compare the total number of hate crimes in 2006 to the total number of aggravated assaults.
Total aggravated assaults: 862,947
Total number of hate crimes: 8,804
Percentage: 0.01
The number of hate crimes is still minuscule compared to the number of assaults in general. So, why stop with blocking H.R. 1592? Can’t we go ahead and try to get rid of all hate crimes legislation, including that which includes race and religion? After all, there certainly doesn’t seem to be a need for it. I know several conservatives (including Randy Thomas) agree with me here, but I find it odd that they were not concerned about hate crimes legislation until the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity were suggested. On to my third point:
They [Conservative Republicans] offered more than a dozen amendments in committee that would have added pregnant women, members of the military, police officers, babies in the womb and senior citizens to the bill’s list of protected classes of citizens. The liberal majority voted them all down.
This is probably the most outrageous of all the statements made, in part because of the pure simplicity of it. Read it thoroughly. The author of the article is pretty much saying that liberals don’t care about pregnant women, members of the military, police officers, senior citizens, and babies in the womb (actually, seeing as I’m pro-life and most liberals aren’t, that might have merit). However, it’s not like these amendments were shot down without good reasons.
For example, when the amendment proposing the inclusion of pregnant women to the list of protected classes was put on the floor, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-California) cited that her own proposed bi-partisan Motherhood Protection Act covers them, while Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) had this to say:
That is a gender crime. Gender is covered in this legislation. And so, frankly, I believe that the gentleman [Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia)] is trying to make more of a point than is necessary.
Gender is covered by the legislation. Only a woman can get pregnant. Therefore, if a pregnant woman was targeted because she was a pregnant woman, it’s the same as saying that she was targeted because she was a woman. Also, let’s remember that hate crimes legislation does not protect particular classes just because they are particular classes. If a black man is killed, it has to be proven that he was killed because he was black to be considered a hate crime. When the Family Research Council makes claims like this: “The bill is most notable for the millions of Americans it leaves out, meaning if you or I are a victim of a violent crime – we matter less,” they are pretty much lying. If you are a victim of a violent crime based on the fact that you are white or Christian, you are already covered.
In a similar fashion, the amendment that proposed to add senior citizens to the list of protected classes was “shot down” for technical reasons. Per Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin):
I would cite Title VII of the Older Americans Act, which Congress recently reauthorized, which protects and enhances the basic rights and benefits for vulnerable older people, and defines abuse, neglect and exploitation as they relate to the elderly.
Additionally, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have enacted some form of elder-abuse prevention law.
You see what I’m getting at here? It’s not like these amendments were shot down by some evil liberal majority that hates pregnant ladies and old people. There were many technical reasons for the proposed amendments to be shot down (most of them revolving around the fact that the groups proposed were already protected). And if I may say so myself, some of the amendments were worded in such a way that it was pretty clear their proponents were simply testing the majority. On to my fifth point:
Even worse, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) offered an amendment to clarify that nothing in the bill would infringe on a person’s religious liberty, but it was defeated on a party-line vote of 15-to-20.
There is a world more to that statement than meets the eye, and the fact that the author of this article could say it without mentioning the rest is very disheartening. Rep. Pence did indeed offer that amendment, and it was defeated. However, there’s a good reason it was defeated, and that is because language similar to what he was offering had already been added to the bill in Rep. Artur Davis’ (D-Alabama) amendment. From the Davis amendment:
Nothing in this act or the amendments made by this act shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Read that again. Nothing in the act shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. You know, the Amendment that includes the religious freedoms that conservatives think are about to be blown to bits? Yeah, it’s still there, and the amendment (proposed by a Democrat, no less!) actually makes sure people recognize that it’s still there. Mike Pence himself helped to vote that amendment into the bill. His proposed amendment is actually more limiting than Davis’, because he only mentions religious freedoms.
It’s lies of omission like that that are the main problem with the media today. Everyone has their own spin. Nothing in the article was blatantly untrue, but several things were cast in such a light that it makes it look like our religious freedoms are about to be trampled and our First Amendment is about to be overturned. That simply isn’t true. Pence’s amendment was defeated because it was practically already part of the bill. The hate crimes legislation is not merely a Democrat-proposed bill, either. Gordon Smith is a Republican and a Mormon who backed the Federal Marriage Amendment. Yet he is backing the bill along with Senator Kennedy, a fact that is conveniently tossed aside.
Look, like I said I’m against H.R. 1592 and its Senate companion. However, there are plenty of philosophical and legal reasons to state my discontent without resorting to feeding off of people’s paranoia. Actually, Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Florida) made a great legal argument to not back the bill:
Federal efforts to criminalize hate crimes cannot survive the federalism standards articulated by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in United States v. Morrison, struck down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence and specifically ruled that Congress has no power under the commerce clause or the 14th Amendment over “non-economic violent criminal conduct” that does not cross state lines.
Unless federalism is suddenly out of style (it never will be in my book) then I suggest conservatives start using that angle to argue against the bill. For one, it’s honest. Lying, no matter how noble the perceived ends are, is never excusable. And Gary Bauer has some owning up to do for that ridiculously biased article. I hope no one is offended by this. I tried to get all my facts as straight as possible. If you need to check if I missed something, please read the transcript (PDF) of the House Committee on the Judiciary’s meeting, from which the above Representatives’ quotes are taken.
Jay,
Do you disapprove of all hate crime legislation, or just extending hate crime protection to LGBT folk?
SarahS, this is what Jay said:
So it would appear that he does not see the need for any hate crimes statutes. His point in this post, however, is that many on the right who are speaking out against including sexual orientation are being dishonest in their defense of this position.
Actually, interestingly enough Andrew Sullivan struck almost exactly the same note as Jay did, and I happen to agree with both. Andrew, very valuably I think, focuses more on the point that Jay makes, that some opponents of hate crimes legislation are ONLY focusing on sexual orientation rather than all hate crimes.
Hi Jay,
I think there some misleading math in your analysis:
8,804 / 862,947 = 0.0102 (rounded) = 1.02%
(not “Percentage: 0.01” which is 0.0001%)
Is 1, 100, 1,000, or 10,000 victims sufficient to warrant federal attention?
My understanding is that hate crimes legislation is a tool to prosecute those who advocate and threaten violence against a type of person. For example without hate speech laws, “kill Ellen DeGeneres” speech is illegal, but “kill lesbians” is legal.
Interestingly, John Aravois at AMERICAblog says that today Rep. John Conyers called the GOP’s bluff and agreed to add Armed Service members and senior citizens to the Hate Crimes bill. The GOP refused which means they were merely using service members and seniors.
Ooops, I screwed up too:
“Percentage: 0.01” = 0.01% = 0.0001 (not 0.0001%)
Confused? I am too. 🙂
Do religious conservatives believe and advocate for removing the statute altogether? The current law as spelled out by the president in a statement yesterday protects “race, color, religion, or national origin”, and the Matthew Shepard inspired addition to the existing law would simply add, “gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability” to the existing law giving women, the disabled and the folks the right-wing most loves to hate some protection from the types of crimes that Shepard and Brandon Teena suffered.
There is only a three-percent difference between religious bias crimes, with 17% reported for religion and 14% reported for gender bias since 1991.
Should the whole statute be thrown out or do supporters of vetoing this much needed addition to the law think if religion was to be removed from the statute that those who are making all the noise might have a different attitude?
We reported on this issue heavily at BBSNews and from my research, the religious right simply wants to protect their right to advocate against gays and transgender people while retaining the protections that they enjoy under the very same statute.
I’m pretty sure that’s the very definition of hypocrisy given that no one wakes up one day and says “I think I’ll be gay today.” If anything is a choice, selecting ones religion is a choice, not gender identity or sexual orientation.
Michael Hess
Editor, BBSNews
Michael Hess said:
I imagine religious conservatives have varying opinions on this as would any large group. However, the general argument I have heard from those organizations claiming to be is that they do not support bias or hate crime laws at all. I have suggested to those who have told me this that the more honest plan would be to find someone to introduce such legislation which would repeal those laws. Until then, it is unfair to only restrict the groups you mentioned.
As Jay has made very clear here, the typical pundits on the far right, those that would call themselves “pro-family” organizations, are using deceptive language and, candidly, lies to prevent these new classes from being introduced. I personally suspect that their ultimate fear is that sexual orientation will be in some way codified into law any more than it already has, since their entire strategy depends on the idea that sexual orientation is not a fixed condition.
No doubt they also realize that they would never get the support needed from either side of the aisle to remove them entirely, and so deception is employed to allow them to practice something other than that which they preach.
An interesting post. I can sympathize with College Jay’s reasoning but only to a point. I take issue with his citing of US v. Morrison, a case which involved an alleged victim suing their alleged rapist in Federal court despite the fact that no charges had been brought against him nor was he ever convicted or any crime. Although I am certainly not a lawyer, it seems to me that Wisconsin v. Mitchell is more appropriate here. In that case, decided unanimously by SCOTUS (including 5 of the current Justices on the Court), a black man was charged with a hate crime for attacking a white teenager. He was found guilty and his sentence was increased due to racial motives for the crime. He appealed and it made it to SCOTUS which ruled against him.
As long as gays are subject to such stringent discrimination in the U.S., while philisophically I can appreciate College Jay’s position, realistically I cannot.
I think we may be losing our ability to separate information offered up for debate, as opposed to that which is offered up for background. Jay is not here to argue his position against bias crime laws in general, he is pointing out the deceptive tactics used by so called right wing religious organizations in their fight to prevent sexual orientation, gender and disability from being added to those existing statutes.
I realize this is a log post, but it is an important read and one must finish it to realize the real point Jay is trying to make. I’ve not seen a more honest, perceptive dressing down of public figures for their lies in a long time.
I agree, David, that Jay made some good points about the tactics being employed by the Dobsonites. Perhaps I should have stated such more clearly. Yet while I am sympathetic to his view on hate crimes laws in general, I have problems with that view as well. I give him credit for consistency, something dearly lacking among the Dobsonite crowd. The reason I cited Wisconsin is because of those on the extreme Right who ignore such legislation when it protects them (such as religion), but scream bloody murder if gays are included. The hypocrisy of their approach is stunning. We can argue or agree to disagree on the constitutionality of such laws, but I find it telling that in the Wisconsin decision ALL of the Justices found them to be acceptable. That’s liberals AND conservatives on the Court, 5 of whom are still serving today. I find that to be significant to the discussion.
Norm!: I am most definitely not a math major, so I was a bit concerned about that. If David (or another admin) wishes to change “Percentage: 0.01” to “1.02%” to avoid confusion, I would get behind that. Thank you for pointing out the error. Like I said, math isn’t my thing by a long shot. I’m an English major. 🙂
Michael Hess: Like David said, it varies. Many of the religious conservatives I know say they are against all hate crimes laws. However, I agree that if legislation were to be introduced that sought to repeal all hate crimes laws, it would be quickly shot down by both sides. Is that hypocritical? Yes. That’s why I try my best to look for honesty. I’m looking for some pundit to ask for Congress to repeal all hate crimes legislation. Unfortunately, I haven’t found one.
John: I didn’t look into the US v. Morrison decision when I posted the quote. I was merely quoting Rep. Feeney. Not that that’s an excuse, but my point was that I felt hate crimes laws, if they exist, should be handled on a state-by-state basis. And even then, I do not believe they are necessary. If you want to debate that with me, please stop by my blog and/or e-mail me. I’m only 18, so my views aren’t set in stone yet. 😉
David: I’ve not seen a more honest, perceptive dressing down of public figures for their lies in a long time. Gosh, David, my ego’s big enough as it is. No need to make it bigger. 🙂
Excellent post, Jay. I posted about Bauer’s blatant misrepresentation of the Matthew Shepard murder on my blog, and I was hoping someone would disect the rest of it. I assumed Jim Burroway would do it, but I must say that your analysis is just as thorough as his was. Kudos!
Jay,
I appreciate your post, and I recognize that your calling these folks on their lies is probably more effective than my ranting at them. I think that based on the path that you are currently trying to follow, that they would respect you more than me, an openly gay man.
However, I disagree with you on a very fundamental point. You fall into the same trap that Dobson, Randy Thomas and Alan Chambers have been trying to set by claiming that Hate Crimes are about “Thought crimes.” The motive of the criminal is important in many crimes. The most obvious example is murder. Deliberately, methodically planning and executing a murder for profit scheme is more likely to get you a 1st degree murder charge. Flying into a rage and killing someone is more likely to get you a 2nd degree murder charge. And killing someone unintentially while doing something that is criminally reckless (driving drunk) is likely to get you a manslaughter charge. If you are so opposed to motive being a factor in Hate Crimes, you should logically be opposed to motive being taken into account in all other crimes.
Singling Hate Crimes out as the only “Thought” crimes is the most basic lie that has been used to oppose this bill.
The original post states: “I consider “hate crimes” legislation to be such an intrusion, because it prosecutes the thoughts of the criminal instead of the acts.”
This is such hogwash! Hate Crime Lwas don’t punish “thought”, they punish behavior — and the greater the crime, the greater the punishment ought to be. Hate Crimes are greater crimes.
As I said in an earlier post, there is a big difference between setting your neighbor’s trashcan on fire as a stupid prank — and torching a cross on the front lawn of the only black family on the block. There is a big difference between drawing smiley faces on a synagogue door and spray-painting “kills all jews” and embellishing your work with swatiskas.
It’s a question of MORALITY, not “thought-policing”. Crimes that do more harm to society ought to be punished more severely.
John,
Wisconsin v. Mitchell affirms that state hate crime legislation does not run afoul of the first amendment. It is not a precedent bearing on whether federal hate crime legislation lies within the power of Congress as limited by the Commerce Clause, which Morrison might very well be.
I heard an interview with Rep. Mike Pence last night on Christian radio (Primetime Live, I think). He said the President would veto this bill if it lands on his desk and that there were not enough votes to override a veto.
John and Michael Bussee: I think if a man kills someone for no reason other than because they are black, gay, Jewish, etc. then the state is already well-prepared to try that man with first degree murder. The crime is “especially heinous” and, if you look at it objectively, the man bascially killed the person because he “didn’t like them.” That’s not a valid defense in any state.
Now, I will admit that my political views border on minarchism sometimes and are thus not representative of the larger whole. Michael, you are right when you say that cross-burning is worse than burning a trashcan as a prank. Legally, however, I see no difference. If you want to make an example of the cross-burners, then let it be done privately. This shouldn’t be a problem, either. Public outcry will be much harsher against those who burn crosses than those who pull stupid pranks. The law does not have to make an example of people if other people are there to do it.
As far as morality goes, I don’t think I need to remind you of the stupidity that can happen when certain lawmakers start addressing their versions of “morality.”
I rec’d an e-mail from Exodus stating that they are against all violent crimes but that the thought behind those crimes should not be a consideration.
Do they consider the degrees of manslaughter to be equal? I will be responding to them soon – but they seem to be very selective in their choice of crimes and which intent.
Jay: I am astonished that you say: “Michael, you are right when you say that cross-burning is worse than burning a trashcan as a prank. Legally, however, I see no difference.”
No difference legally? Of course there is a difference. It’s written into our laws. We often consider MOTIVE (and the severity of the injury to the common good) when establishing the appropriate punishment for a crime. What objection do you have to dishing out greater punishment for greater crimes?
Are you suggesting we do away with considering motive — and the impact on the freedoms of the total community — when assigning penalties? If so, I find that truly frightening.
As for “morality” — all good laws are rooted in the basic morality (that particular balance of compassion and justice) of “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.” All other laws are immoral.
Michael,
We do consider motive, and I support that consideration because it is necessary in administering justice. If a murderer’s motive is that he merely “hated” his victim (for whatever reason), then the law is already prepared to deal with him, and more often than not he will receive life in prison or the death penalty.
Simply put, I believe motive is already covered in other laws. We do not need new laws that prosecute motive unto itself.
On a side note, this post was not intended to be a comprehensive guide to my political philosophies regarding hate crimes laws (or anything else, for that matter). The main goal was to examine the lies, spin, and rhetoric being used by conservatives such as Gary Bauer and the FRC.
As much as some people may fear Hate Crime laws (because they worry that the “government” will become “thought police”), I believe that Hate Crime laws should, can and ultimately WILL be passed — because they are the right thing to do. They affirm that this is America.
They underscore that this nation WILL NOT TOLERATE one person or group imposing terror on another. We will not tolerate crimes against people or groups on the basis of real or perceived differences. We are a land of diversity. All crimes are bad, but crimes motivated by bigotry and hatred are especially heinous. They are a direct threat to the “life, lberty and pursuit of happines” of one “superior” group over the supposed “inferior”. In that respect, Hate Crimes are threats to us all.
We have the First Amendment and courts to insure that Hate Crime Laws don’t undermine our freedom of through and expression. With all due respect, I think that opponents of Hate Crime laws are needlessly paranoid if they believe otherwise.
Michael – Out of curiosity, was the murder of Matthew Sheppard somehow worse than the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson? Was the beating of Chris Crain because of anti-gay animus worse than someone being beaten because they don’t have any money to give a gang of thugs?
It is easy to say that animus towards a particular group is wrong, because it is. But each crime against another person is wrong, regardless of the motive for doing so, and each crime is injurious regardless, and should be punished equally under the law.
In six years, President Bush has vastly increased federal power and spending. The feds now torture, imprison without charge, spy on American citizens without oversight, promote special rights for evangelical Christians at the expense of all other faiths, damage the environment, and subsidize U.S. oil giants at the expense of consumers and sustainable energy policy.
No one is being paranoid in saying “Enough’s enough” — growth of federal government power over localities and individuals should have been halted long ago. I’m very much in favor of local and state laws to punish violent hate crimes, but I think it may be unwise to keep giving the feds more power, when they clearly are corrupt and have too much power already.
Kendall asked: “Out of curiosity, was the murder of Matthew Sheppard somehow worse than the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson?” I would honestly say YES. Not because one life is worth more than another, but because certain groups in our society have been historically abused and terrorized — on the basis of differences protected by our constitution — and therefore deserve extra protection.
It’s impact was upon not just one person or one family, but against an entire group of people who have the right to live free from the terror of being killed just because their skin color is different or because they are not turned on by women. My best friend’s murder for being gay terrorized an entire community. It said, “You better not be publicly gay if you value your life.” Maybe you have to survive an anti-gay murder to understand what I am trying to express.
Mike: The paranoia I am talking about is this fear that, by enacting Hate Crime Laws, the “government” is going to “police your thoughts” or take away your freedom of speech. It simply WON’T happen. Americans won’t stand for it. Yes, I acknowledge that there are abuses of power. That’s why we can vote OUT our elected respresentatatives and why we have laws and courts to protect our rights. I am in favor of protecting the more vulnerable among us, not increasing the power of the federal government. But, protecting its more vulnerable citizens is one of the legitimate purposes of government: “…in order to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..,” remember?
That’s the point though Mike, isn’t it? We’re already protected by the constitution as you said, and so, fortunately or unfortunately, are the perpetrators of hate crimes like that. Murder is murder, assault is assault, etc. You can’t start treating criminals who commit the same crime differently because of WHY they do it, that’s not justice and its not American.
You’re right, I’ve never lost someone to a hate crime, and I feel fortunate for that. But if I was that unfortunate I’d know that the laws of this country guarantee that if the perpetrator is caught he or she would be prosecuted under the laws that exist, same as if the victim was straight or had any other characteristic.
But then, you addressed the easy half of my question and not the more difficult half. Murder is pretty much universally considered the ultimate crime, lets talk about assault which is criminally speaking less harsh and thus sentences tend to vary a little more. Why should someone who beats a man within an inch of his life because they’re gay receive a harsher sentence than someone who beats a man within an inch of their life because they owe them money?
Kendall: I COMPLETELY disagree with you when you say: “Murder is murder, assault is assault, etc. You can’t start treating criminals who commit the same crime differently because of WHY they do it, that’s not justice and its not American.”
Murder is NOT murder. And it is perfectly “American” to impose harsher penalites for crimes based on different motives. We do it all the time. There is first degree, second degree, murder with our without premeditation, murder committed during another felony, murder with special circumstances, murder that inolves torture of the victim and murder just because someone was black, gay, a child, handicapped, etc.
My perpertrators (the ones that stabbed me once in the back and stabbed Jeffery five times in the back — just because we were gay) WERE prosecuted “under that laws that exist”, as you put it (including California’s Hate Crime Laws). These laws are “American” because “Americans” voted for them.
As for you last question: ” Why should someone who beats a man within an inch of his life because they’re gay receive a harsher sentence than someone who beats a man within an inch of their life because they owe them money?” — I find it amazing that you don’t see a difference. For the same reason that the kid who sets a trashcan on fire is different than the guy who burns crosses on the lawns of black families. You honestly don’t see a difference here?
Both crimes are deplorable, but one is a greater crime against society than the other and, in my mind, does deserve harsher punishment, I really don’t know how to get that across, other than what I have said.
Michael – You’re right, there are degrees of murder, there are special circumstances, etc. But at the end of the day a victim is dead and in either case I mentioned there was no self defense or other mitigating circumstances (unless you can find some wacky court that buys into “gay panic” I suppose).
And again, I’m sorry you and Jeffrey were stabbed, and that he was murdered. Do you think if it was you and Josephine or Jeffrey and Michelle that the perpetrators would have gotten a lessor or different sentence?
I draw a distinction between violent and non-violent crimes which is perhaps where the confusion exists with assault compared to cross burnings. I don’t think they’re the same thing because in the case of assault you have the same victims suffering the same pain. In the case of a cross burning the clear intent is to target and intimidate someone, its no different in many respects from sending a death threat.
Therefore I don’t think its inconsistent to say I oppose violent hate crime laws generally but I see nothing with being opposed to violent imagery targeted to intimidate a person because of some characteristic real or perceived.
Kendall: We will have to agree to disagree. I think my perps DID get the same punishment as they would have if had been “Jeffrey and Michelle.” Hate Crime charges were eventually dropped for lack of evidence. It was very hard to PROVE intent — even though the gang members shouted “faggot” as they beat and stabbed us and even though the Governor, District Attorney, Human Rights groups and our Chief of Police ALL went on record that they thought the crime was mtivated by anti-gay hatred.
Four gang members pled to lesser charges (assault and gang involvement). The stabber was found guilty of second degree murder and gang involvement. The woman who hid them was found guily of felony false reporting. I really think living through it changes your perspective, but I respect your opinion.
Details of Jeff’s murder and my attack can be found here:
https://tampabaycoalition.homestead.com/court.html
Click on Jeffery’s photo for all the information.
(Edited by the moderator to fix the link to details of the murder and attack.)
https://tampabaycoalition.homestead.com/court.html
Jay said:
AGAIN, is anyone reading past the first couple of paragraphs? We’ve had the pro/con arguments about hate crimes legislation in general many times. These are valid, but the fact is people of good conscience disagree on this issue. This post was offered as an excellent analysis of how pundits on the conservative side are seriously compromising the truth in order to push their agenda against inclusion of sexual orientation, gender and disability. Does this interest no one?
Mike – I also respect your opinion and you’re right, we’ll have to respectfully disagree.
David – Its interesting but how much new ground does it break? Can you honestly say you’re surprised by the dichotomy of values anti-gay individuals have? Its just another example of the cognitive dissonance some people experience because of their personal animus against gays. Frankly, I think people are responding to the hate crimes angle because its “sexier” in a way, there’s more meat to that issue.
Maybe it’s just that no one’s surprised. 🙂
Kendall, I’m not surprised when a congressman lies but the details are important to me 😉 That’s a big part of what we do, spotlight lies and deception amongst ex-gay pundits and their allies. I guess perhaps Jay’s observations would do better in a main stream paper or broadcast, but I think our readership is diverse enough to benefit as well.
If we weren’t concerned about WHY criminals committed their crimes, then it wouldn’t matter whether a killing was premeditated or not. There would be no need to have degrees of murder or manslaughter, and the end result alone would determine the punishment.
The Dan White verdict of the late 1970s illustrates why hate-crimes laws should apply to gays. Just as the murders of black civil rights workers in the south went unpunished in the 1960s, the murders of gays have often gone virtually unpunished right up to the present day.
Dan White served only five years of a seven-year sentence for the cold-blooded murders of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and gay Supervisor Harvey Milk. His motive was clear. As a Supervisor himself, he had been vocally anti-gay and clashed with Milk before he resigned, then changed his mind and wanted the job back. Moscone refused.
The murder could not have been more premeditated, because White had to sneak a gun into City Hall through a basement window to avoid metal detectors. He eventually administered his own punishment by committing suicide after he was paroled.
The point is, juries are already required to consider motives, and motives that apply to a whole class of people deserve harsher punishment.
I would like to know if any participants in this discussion have actually read the actual piece of legislation that is being discussed?
Does it even matter to anyone in this discussion what the ACT factually says?
Here’s the LINK to the actual bill that went to congress. It’s pretty clear to me that this ACT is not about “thought” crimes and more likely about the definition and the allocation for funding for investigations which many cities will be provided who currently don’t have access to.
Hey Jay! Great job….I believe you have indeed become the youngest “author” to have an article published at Ex-Gay Watch. Good for you!
I’m curious about something. I know Randy often provides links to a bunch of articles at once….was this one of those or was it featured? I looked quickly but couldn’t find his link to it. Has he (Randy) made any response to you regarding your “smack down” on the article?
Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us here!
queertardo: The link didn’t work for me. Could you try re-posting it? I would definitely like to get a more full and objective look at the act.
Pam: Thanks, girl! The article was not a link, but was featured in full in a post of Randy’s. The post is linked in the fourth paragraph of this post (not including the introduction). Randy has not responded to my article. And I may be the youngest “author” here, but I have a feeling you’re the youngest at heart. Take care.
Queertardo, I’ve read the legislation, which is why I’m more concerned about the growth of federal power and deficit spending than about punishment of intent.
The groundwork for any limited punishment of intent was established in the 1994 federal hate crimes law, which would be amended by HR1592 to impose sentencing and allocate resources.
No one at Exodus seems willing to call for repeal of the 1994 law. That suggests to me that Exodus leaders’ claim to oppose all hate crimes laws is insincere.
link
Jay: Part of that “young at heart” persona I think must come from keeping company with roomfuls of 7th graders every day. On the other hand, the fact that I so completely ENJOY the company of 7th graders on a daily basis may be the best proof of what you’re saying. 🙂
7th graders!
EEK…!
Mutants…all of them!
Mike – Which is why I linked to Andrew Sullivan. I think his analysis is more on point in specifically speaking to the hypocrisy of ONLY opposing sexual orientation being a category in hate crimes.
I’ve been getting Townhall daily. They don’t have any gay contributors and it’s interesting to see how their readers respond to any articles on gay issues.
1. Virtually all of them can’t have a conversation about it without turning the thread into an Amen Corner with the same selections from Scripture. Most of all when they think gay people are writing posts.
2. Their sources for what they think is reliable information on gay lives comes from Paul Cameron, Scott Lively and Tony Perkins.
3. They don’t say it, but an outside observer can see that in general they want gay adults to live like, have the status of and respond to grievances like children. And because gay adults DON’T the criticism IS strange…and stupid.
4. Gay folks know heterosexuals, and know a lot more ABOUT heterosexuals, rather than the other way around. And the usual suspects don’t seem to understand that gay folks are able to recognize a steaming pile of crap when they see it falling from the brains of straight folks.
And resent being called on that.
5. Over and over and over again, the straight folks will argue that it’s a choice to be gay, as you all well know.
And over and over again, their is resentment being called a bigot for not ‘agreeing’ with what the opposite side says.
I don’t know why people with such brick walls in their heads should expect flattery.
But anyway, reading and watching the very prejudiced try to analyze the equally prejudiced pundits is like watching people examining their own navels.
It would be funny as hell if the subject wasn’t so serious.
Kendall is right about Andrew Sullivan and several other gay analysts or somewhat liberal social analysts like Colbert King over at WaPo can look at this legal issue very clearly.
When I made my own contributions at Townhall about the definition of hate crimes, no one addressed institutional bias and it’s foundation in hate crimes. But that hate crimes are easier to prevent than ones of passion or opportunity for the same reason.
The solution was to eliminate the bias in the institution. That would compromise the scope of the crime and the risks for it, which is the point.
Not the freedom to speak one’s personal bias, or eliminate print or broadcast materials that reflect it.
I repeated this several times, and no one said a thing about it….except the two or three contributors who identified themselves as gay.
However intelligent some of the TH contributors might seem.
It’s important to know the difference between evidence and opinion, facts and where their sources are coming from.
These are not trivial matters. This is not about a trivial group, or trivial grievances.
And the dominant group, complaining the most about this legislation-does trivialize gays and lesbians and what happens to them, but the dominant group conjectures GREAT harm to themselves with it.
And will not acknowledge or discuss THEIR contribution to the institution that causes hate crimes in the first place.
They feel quite entitled to continue the status quo and tragedy or it’s risks for it, are of no matter because of the group it effects.
There is a definite current of ‘they have it coming’, to that.
I know you all know this. Gay media has been FAR more honest about it than conservative media and I have to agree, NO hate crime legislature brought out so many conservatives or definitely anti gay so much as THIS particular legislation.
There has been no call to eliminate it altogether, just to make things equal if this is to reflect what is so often said…’a crime is a crime’.
They should be also at the forefront of ASSURING justice for all.
But of course, as Andrew said their intent ISN’T justice for all….at least, not for gay people.
Which shows again, that they think we all don’t know EXACTLY what it is, and what it’s about and what their motives are for objecting to these laws.
Michael Bussee….I want to extend my condolences all over again. My best friend, also named Michael is originally from Riverside Co. and he knows that establishment well and has been there himself. We were both shocked and very upset by what happened.
There is no hiding place from hate crimes, they can and will touch us all.
I suppose that because of working against hate, taking a scholar’s interest in it with all the history and laws and examining the causes…some range of synergy would be at work and connections be found with the victims, their families and friends.
I looked at the link you provided and could see some personal links I had to the victim’s families.
Or other victims just like them, with much similarity in the mode of the crime.
Some of the victim’s families all know each other too, connected by tragedy, but also by advocacy.
They do not do this selfishly, but for everyone in their shoes.
These sorts of crimes, are like brush fires…they require containment or else their scope will engulf MANY eventually.
I’m not working for LAPD and it’s been about 16 months since I have.
But I’m seriously considering going back once my primary literary projects are done.
I felt more like I was making a contribution there. I think though that if I took this subject at a broader forensic view…
Those that are anti gay, dismiss or ignore evidence. Do not want to hear or acknowledge another side to testimony, or acknowledge that those with the life experience, history or personal eyewitness accounts do not matter.
There is only one side that matters, only they put into the arena, and intangible entity as motive for their behavior.
When those charged with investigating an assault against others that is hurtful, bloody, tragic AND preventable.
We would call these people an uncooperative, hostile witness.
Completely useless to the investigation, and likely a contributor to further crimes.
Something that law enforcers ALSO must be able to stop.
There is no murder or assault of a human being that is ever justified, except in profound self defense. There is no law that justifies contributing to it, or putting people at risk. And no institutions against the same that contribute to it also.
The anti gay, are NOT acting in self defense. Imagined or perceived self defense, STILL wouldn’t justify preemptive assault on another or a compromise to the freedom and safety of another.
Putting out information that creates an atmosphere of danger that puts a group at risk of said PREEMPTIVE assault or compromise….undos order, and makes the work that law enforcers do, that much harder.
When a belief system CAUSES more chaos and insecurity, then that system has to be changed, not the group it targets.
If the anti gay find that their system isn’t sustainable or it does compromise or put at risk, the freedom and safety of more than their targeted group, than that’s just too bad.
They have no justification for contributing to chaos.
Perhaps in these terms, the court of public opinion, the bench of civil responsibility, they can be called on THEIR behavior.
It’s only fair and right to do that. If this legislation is one of those times when this happens, so be it.
THEY have a choice as well. The status quo they are hoping for, doesn’t work. I can’t and it won’t anymore.
No human being deserves to live in fear and no others are entitled to create it.
We can and should do better by each other….or else those who extend the chaos through assault and battery…and murder…win.