For all their protests about so-called “thought-crime laws,” Exodus president Alan Chambers and executive vice president Randy Thomas seem content to tolerate such laws, in case they might be used to prosecute non-Christians for violent crimes committed against Christians.
Despite their whispered personal misgivings, their employer Exodus and their employer’s primary benefactor, Focus on the Family, refuse to take an emphatic public stand against existing state and federal laws that provide investigatory assistance and enhanced sentencing of violent crimes that are based on the victim’s religion and race. Their objection is solely to laws that would extend coverage to violent crimes based upon the victim’s same- or opposite gender sexual orientation.
It seems that hate-crime/bias-crime laws are tolerable for Exodus and Focus — provided that they grant special rights for race and religion, rather than equal prosecution of all bias-related violent crimes.
But a New York judge’s ruling on Friday may undermine the ex-gay rhetoric.
As XGW and Republic of T have previously pointed out, the religious-rightist talk of thought crimes is a whitewash: Punishment of intent is simply not their concern.
XGW’s David Roberts noted regarding Focus’ latest hate-crime video:
What you will find at the end of this clip is what I believe is actually at the heart of the matter. Focus, et al, simply can’t allow sexual orientation to be codified into federal statutes as real and fixed, even as a byproduct.
After all the time and money they have spent trying to convince us that homosexuality is nothing more than a behavior, and a sinful one at that, it is against their self-interests to allow the obvious to make it into law. So in another example of the ends justifying the means, they use fear and lies to deny another vulnerable group the same protections against violent hate crimes that they themselves enjoy as members of a protected group by virtue of their religion.
Republic of T expands upon that observation in his post, Whose Death Would Jesus Mock:
The difference is that usually the above is covered with a thin veneer of “we’re not in favor of discrimination, etc., we just don’t think there should be a law about it,” which falls into the category of supportive non-support. It’s like the religious right in Minnesota opposing legislation giving same-sex couples the right to hospital visitation.
… Conservative groups are fighting the proposal. Their concern is not about visitation, but putting anything into law that acknowledges same sex partnerships.
“What we object to is the creation of these domestic partner statuses, which is really marriage by another name and that’s what we see they are attempting to do”, said Tom Prichard of the Minnesota Family Council.
Never mind that without a law, there is no right to visitation, and thus is can be denied to same-sex couples at the whim of whomever happens to be in charge of the nurses desk. And without legal recourse. So, essentially, bigots get away with manifesting their bigotry in a way that impacts our lives.
And provisions in the hate crimes bill would help prevent that from happening. It provides for federal agencies to aid state and local agencies with investigations of hate crimes, and to provide financial resources to cover the cost of investigations.
It provides for federal agencies to step in and conduct investigations when state and local officials can’t or won’t conduct investigations, as was done in the murders of civil rights workers when white southern sheriffs and juries refused to treat those murders as crimes. Case in point, right now the FBI is investigating a 61-year-old lynching in Georgia.
Regardless of the feelings of their individual employees, Exodus and Focus institutionally object to any legal recognition that violent hate crimes do happen against same-sex-attracted people. They object to such violence being investigated and prosecuted equitably. This week, a Focus article opposing the protection of same-sex-attracted people in existing hate-crime laws ridiculed the very notion of “sexual orientation” with scare quotes. (Gay people do not really exist, you see — therefore there are no crimes to investigate.)
But on Friday, the New York Times reported a judge’s observation that may help to unravel the ex-gay doubletalk.
Three men arrested in the death of a gay man who was beaten and then struck by a car during an October robbery attempt can be charged with hate crimes without evidence that they were motivated by hatred for gay men, a judge ruled yesterday.
In other words, intent — hatred — is not what’s being punished. The sole target of a properly worded and enforced bias-crime law is the deliberate and premeditated attempt to seek out and injure or kill someone on the basis of perceived sexual orientation.
“The grand jury evidence shows that this is not a case where hate crimes are charged simply because the victim just happened to be of a particular sexual orientation,” Justice Konviser wrote.
“Rather, this is a case where the defendants deliberately set out to commit a violent crime against a man whom they intentionally selected because of his sexual orientation. Thus, the hate crimes charges in this case are consistent with the intent of the Legislature.”
If victim Michael Sandy had been killed because of his Christian faith, Exodus and Focus would be screaming for punishment to the fullest extent possible. But because Sandy was perceived by the killers to be gay, Exodus and Focus are content for investigation and sentencing to be as lenient as local authorities will allow.
Thankfully, New York state’s bias-crime law includes sexual orientation. If the crime had occurred in Texas or Georgia, it’s reasonable to surmise that authorities in some local jurisdictions would whitewash Sandy’s death just as surely as these authorities once ignored the murders of black Americans. And because there is no federal coverage for sexual orientation, nothing could be done to force local authorities to equitably uphold laws against violent crime.
Addendum: For more discussion of Focus on the Family’s role as a benefactor of Exodus, go here.
Mr. Airhart, it is not reasonable to make such assumptions regarding the actions of local jurisdictions in the State of Texas. This state has a hate crimes law which is defined in Article 42.014. This law can be found at the following link:
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter 42, Judgment and Sentence
If a case is found to fall under the auspices of 42.014, the Penal Code defines the appropriate sentence enhancements as described at the following link:
Texas Penal Code, Section 12.47
Based on these facts, I hope there will be less Texas bashing by XGW. I find the assumption that my home state is some barbarian hinterland to be genuinely offensive and I don’t get offended all that easily.
So is Focus ever going to respond to any of these posts putting their unabashed bigotry and hipocrisy on display?
I’m thinking “Probably not…”
It is interesting that FOTF and Exodus like to protect the perpetrators of these hate crimes as if the perpetrators are acting on religious principal. While there may be the occaisional crazy who attacks gay people (or flies planes into buildings in NYC) on the basis of their religious beliefs, I really doubt that most thugs with baseball bats, hanging outside gay bars are blessing themselves or saying a prayer before killing their victim. It is interesting though how closely FOTF and Exodus officials identify with these goons.
PW, thank you for correcting me. Texas has a bias-crime law that would enhance punishment of the killers of a gay man, if the state makes an effort to enforce the law. Unfortunately, that law does not extend to persons perceived to be transgender. So it still looks to me like a special-rights law — but less of a special-rights law than those that exclude sexual orientation.
By the way, are you suggesting that while Texas is not a barbarian hinterland, Georgia is? I myself would not go that far. There are many things to like about various cities in Georgia, including Atlanta, Athens, and Savannah. And I’m fully aware that there are many cities in Texas where intelligent and civil people live. However, much of my extended family was born and raised in Tyler, and so I know from personal experience that some Texans would still segregate the “Negroes” if given a chance. Of course, that’s true of some people in many states.
But PW, Texas IS a barbarian hinterland, it IS the home of Shrub et al after all…
STOP! Get back on topic please and forget partisan political slurs, state rivalry and such.
Thank you.
You could throw Indiana in there instead of Texas.
What makes you think that what a New York Judge says has bearing on what FotF or the Exodus cabal should think/say? No matter how their rhetoric is exposed as falacious, they’ll still purvey it.
Unfortunately, having laws on the books is only part of it. If local law enforcement is not willing to deal with certain crimes appropriately – for whatever reason – then it will go on.
I live in Georgia. With the EXCEPTION of Atlanta / Athens / Savannah, it’s largely a heterosexist barbarian hinterland. We are, after all, in the Bible Belt.
Emily K said:
Oh, they have responded alright.
What could force equitable enforcement of laws against violent crimes is the United States Constitution, which says that all people are entitled to “equal protection under the law”. It doesn’t matter if the issue is the victim’s skin color or sexual orientation or their hobby of tap dancing, if the victim can merely show that the crime against them is not being investigated in the same manner that similar crimes against others were or are being investigated, they can make a case that the police have violated their constitutional rights.
The problem, of course, is that few victims are willing to make a federal civil rights case out of police inaction.
Lynn, my point was simply that the New York judge was an authority acting in an official capacity to make it clear that prosecution under New York’s hate-crime/bias-crime law is based upon the perceived identity of the victim, not the thoughts of the perpetrators.
I realize that Exodus and Focus couldn’t care less about the facts. I just hope that other officials will make a similar case, and that localities with loosely written bias-crime laws will consider rewriting their laws. I also hope that Exodus will eventually state its position on existing bias-crime laws, loud and clear, in its press releases and on its web site. Until now, Exodus has officially stated only that it opposes the inclusion of same-sex-attracted persons in bias-crime laws, while Chambers and Thomas speak very vaguely, and only for themselves, when opposing hate-crime laws in principle. When I say “vaguely,” I mean that Chambers and Thomas have declined to speak out against specific existing state and federal laws protecting race and religion; they behave as though such laws do not exist.
David,
I was kind of hoping for a more direct reply from them in reaction to our watchdog activities. (sigh..) But I guess that’s how FOTF works.
In any case, FOTF and their ilk probably think that NY is a state of the Devil. But at least this ruling would provide some valuable case law.
To refuse to support “enhanced sentencing” because of the views of the attacker is not necessarily saying hate crimes are tolerable. Many people, who oppose the exgays and support equality for gays, oppose hate crime laws which increase the penalty based, not the damage done to the victim, but on the thoughts of the criminal involved or the nature of the victim. It is an enhanced penalty based on a thought crime in many cases. And in the case cited here it is worse.
The judge is ruling that simply because the victim was gay the men should be charged with a hate crime on top of the murder charges they are facing — even if they didn’t target the man because they hate gays. That is not equality of gays. Should gay people ought have more protection from the state instead of equal protection? I want equal rights across the board. Equal marriage laws, equal access to all benefits given by the state (first taken from us to begin with). I don’t think straights should have more marriage protection than gays or that gays should have more criminal protection than straights.
If Sandy had been murdered by men targeting Christians the penalty should be the same as it would be if Sandy were Jewish, or even it he were a rationalist atheist. It shouldn’t matter if he is tall or short, black or white, rich or poor. The penalty should be the same, not enhanced or reduced, due to these factors. The law should be blind to such factors when it comes to the criminal and to the victim.
Holding forth that sort of equality before the law is not an endorsement of hate. Now I don’t think Forus on the Family does hold that sort of view. They do believe in inequality. But then so do you — just in a different direction.
J,
I’m not a strong proponent of bias-crime laws in principle — I simply think that if they exist at all, then they should apply to all targeted demographics, not just favored ones. Some religious rightists want authorities to punish anti-Christian criminals more harshly than criminals who target anyone else. Exodus and Focus seem to be playing along with that desire. I believe all faiths, races, sexual orientations and gender identities should be treated equally — either by naming them in bias crime laws or by eliminating the laws entirely.
How exactly do I believe in inequality?
Here’s another question:
Would you support the revision of bias-crime laws to remove enhanced sentencing, but also to improve the ability of state and federal government to intervene when local or state authorities neglect to investigate and prosecute violent crimes committed against the aforementioned demographics?
Mike, yes the lack of protection for transgendered people is a problem, one that I hope will be rectified eventually, and I do understand your point, there are a lot of backward thinking folks down here. As for Georgia, well I wasn’t familiar with Georgia law so I didn’t comment. I figure it’s like around here, good places and bad places.
As to your question, you raise a good point, perhaps the pursuit of enhanced sentencing, while it does make a social statement, is not as important as insuring that the authorities do not neglect their duties due to prejudices and biases.
David, you are correct of course, laws mean little if the authorities don’t enforce them.
From The Citizenlink Article:
Ashley Horne, federal issues analyst for Focus on the Family Action, warned that cases such as Boissoin’s demonstrate that a federal hate-crimes law could be used to punish religious free speech.
It is absolutely repulsive that some followers of Christianity, the faith, had now become members of a new division of Christianity, the cult.
There is nothing is wrong in punishing a person that creates enough mental disturbance in a person in regards to sexual orientation, to act violently against homosexuals.
However, it is disturbing that they label the act of inciting hate so blatanly as free speech, and actually are proud of it. If this form of Christianity condone violence in the name of ‘God’, then in the eyes of the world ALL Christians would be labelled as extremists.
It is now the year 2007. Do these so called Christians from FOTF and Exodus still wish to revel in third world thinking?
John’s comment:
That is why laws against hate crimes really should include imprisonment of ministers or people that preaches intolerance and hatred.
I may be wrong, but I believe not all Americans are Christians? So why whould they be subjected to these kinds of religious induced bigotry? The act of imposing Christian religious values upon non-Christians is already disrespecting people from other religions.
If non-Christians are violently attacked by Christians because their thoughts, pure intent and final act of crime that results from specific churches’ sermons of bigotry, is it fair for the victims?
It has nothing anymore to do of whether homosexuality is or is not a sin, or whether Christians would be prosecuted. The act of creating insecurities and inciting hatred, and promoting it as the ‘right’ thing to do is wrong.
The law should stop anyone, even Christians, for flaming violence.
Not really an ex-gay topic, but related to hate crimes.
This is news from Florida.
https://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/07/070307flatrans.htm
A hate crime that happened but is deemed non existant.
How about this one for a “thought” crime:
https://www.thisischeshire.co.uk/display.var.1521675.0.transvestite_beaten_in_stalker_mixup.php
A crossdresser, but beaten because he was perceived to be a stalker. Ironic, is it not?
I wonder when the time will come for someone from FOTF or Exodus, to be violently beaten because they are perceived to be homosexual. Perhaps only then, they would realise what equality for all hate crimes stands for.
I would have to part company with you on that as I believe the attempt to place such restrictions on speech would be a murky, dangerous mess. The fact is, people have the right (one which the Klan and political partisans regularly excise just to name a few) to voice an opinion which includes a negative view of anyone.
Discussions over US First Amendment style free speech have been some of the most active at XGW. However I would like to point out that the proposed hate crimes legislation has nothing to do with this – it applies only to violent acts, and specifically excludes anything which might be covered under our First Amendment.
The world is full of hate and prejudice of one kind or another, but the individual is held accountable if they act on it. You may be voicing your sincere opinion, but you are also falling into a well baited trap.
I am not well informed of how US law goes, and offer only opinions in a general point of view. I am actually speaking in terms of a person living in a country whereby free speech may be liable for imprisonment under an Internal Securities Act. The kind of free speech allowed are one of those that would push the LGT community deeper into a well of prejudice.
I can understand why. Reading back some of the things I commented, I do see their reflection when I look back at myself. Thanks for reminding me.
Although I did criticize FOTF and Exodus for their work protecting the perpetrators of hate crimes, I agree with David that trying to criminalize the speech of these folks or most other hatemongers doesn’t make much sense and probably wouldn’t pass First Amendment muster.
The only situation where I think a good case can be made for charging someone for what they say is incitement cases, where someone whips a person or group into a frenzy and orders them to attack a person or group. This was the basis for some of the prosecutions in the Rwanda genocide. It is also used in the US for prosecutions after some riots. It wouldn’t apply to most hate crimes that I read about in the press.
Very often, FOTF or Rev. Harry Jackson will cite incidents of ministers brought before judges in Canada and Sweden for speech against gays and lesbians. Of course, a good deal of the arguments made to deny equal rights and protections to gay people tend to ultimately become conjecture and hypothesis.
And of course, other countries don’t have the same provisions as do American laws.
But there is clear evidence of what is spoken of gays and lesbians BEYOND what is purely Scripture. There is a great deal of OPINION and editorializing done on gay lives. For example, saying that ANYTHING that gay people do or are included in, will destroy it or in some other way.
I don’t have to tell you in what way and how far off topic from Biblical teaching opinions on gay folks and the transgendered will go.
However, also unlike America-Canada and Sweden are countries with a lot of governmental social supports in place.
They recognize that violence against gay people COSTS a lot of money to their tax payers.
In hospitalization and job losses of victims or personal income losses to survivors, in police investigation and judicial procedure, in incarcerating the perpetrators.
Candada and Sweden recognize the intrinsic and inherent VALUE of gay people to society and the costs of hurting them to everyone.
Here in America, FOTF and others don’t recognize any of that. But it costs us in this country too the same ways it does in other countries.
And to tell you the truth, if there was a way to legally discouraged creating this atmosphere of devaluing gay lives, I’m all for it.
Sad that some organizations, even Christian ones….don’t understand that.
They have a right to those opinions, as others do to counter them. The idea of the state regulating such things may seem acceptable, even preferable to some, but one has to assume the state will always be benevolent and faithful in it’s actions concerning the rights of its citizens. I don’t think I will ever be ready to make that assumption.
The law can only go so far to prevent injustice – it can’t create decent human beings.
No, I’m not suggesting REGULATION, David. I am suggesting that information on the negative social impact of such speech be a part of common discussion. I see that FOTF mocks hate crimes with that video in the other thread.
Mocking the victimization of ANYONE is appalling. And why have gay people and their concerns become an object of mockery?
And they SHOULD be called on it.
I’ve noticed that even James Dobson will avoid the very people whose information he distorts and public discourse, open like this one-are not available on the websites of Exodus or FOTF or FRC.
Just as the how much the military has been compromised by the dismissal of gay soldiers. The VALUE of gay people can’t be emphasized enough.
And at what cost any crimes against gay people committed would do to society as well.
I was just pointing out that the Canadian and Swedish government’s interest was fair. The ministers that were called up to face judgement weren’t treated in any way HARSHLY.
They were strongly cautioned on the damage they were causing. The rest was up to them.
As you know, in the minds of many religious people, they think they are doing a community service or that their work has results worth their efforts.
But just as we discuss on exgaywatch all the time, the damage done to the gay psyche, as well as the straight family members who try to change them, does damage.
What most of these ministers can’t prove, is any damage done to THEM, for dialing down a little.
And they don’t get NEARLY so worked up as on gay related issues.
Not on domestic violence, not on adultery, not on murder, gang incursion into every American city…no other subject seems to get them started than homosexuality.
So it would also be fair to expect them to put up or forever expect a cynical audience that doesn’t believe in their ministry. With so many other pressing issues facing EVERYONE.
Again, very twisted priorities if you ask me.
Regan said,
And they don’t get NEARLY so worked up as on gay related issues.
Not on domestic violence, not on adultery, not on murder, gang incursion into every American city…no other subject seems to get them started than homosexuality.
Regan, I believe a big part of that reason is personal prejudice and disdain for homosexuality that isn’t always necessarily based on Scripture. A personal dislike if you will because there are some individuals that have no profession of faith but have a strong prejudice against homosexuality.
Divorce, adultery, murder can be seen for some as a one time act while homosexuality is seen as a continuous lifestyle choice. I’ve met a few Christians that believe that homosexuality is worse than murder. They base this belief on what I said above. One time act vs. a continuous lifestyle choice.
Thanks Ken…would it be fair for me to think that it’s patently irrational that no matter what a gay person says about it not being a choice, or any less fixed than heterosexuality- a straight person will bald face insist that it IS?
And do so despite all the evidence that points to how much a gay person is threatened in the meantime for that insistence to make any sense?
Despite religious belief, how much scientific and social evidence is required for said Christians to not continue to rationalize THEIR behavior towards gay people?
They seem to be quick to disbelieve what is tangible. But eager to continue this attitude and believe what is not tangible.
And I don’t get that.
@Regan
Calling others on their hatred and intolerance is a right and a duty. As long as we don’t use the law to stifle them, I’m all for it.
Regan,
The anti-gay Christians point to Scripture to prove their justification for not accepting the GLBT community. If science proves otherwise they will reject it because to them Scripture will always triumph. Galileo had this exact same problem with the Catholic Church. He was considered a heretic because he went against Scripture. But we now know better because God has revealed the error through science. The same with blacks and women. Same in time for gay people. It is God that reveals these little mysteries to us. If we search we will find it.
It is hard for many people to let go of their prejudices. I know because there was a time I held grudges, hated people, and had prejudices. I had a miserable life. God was always working on me and even though I was a lapsed Catholic I became what is known as “born again” last October. My eyes did open to things I wasn’t sure about because I searched. I struggled with so much after that and even wondered if being gay was wrong for a brief time but that was only because of what I had read on the net and in the paper. However, that was not what was in my heart. Just recently God revealed to me that it is love that fulfills the whole Law. Sure, I had Scripture to show me this but I didn’t believe it in my heart. I wanted God to help me come to knowing it in my heart. Then it happened. At that point there was no longer a doubt in my mind. It is love for God first and then his children above all else. No ifs, ands or buts attached. Now I have peace.
When I now look at other Christians that vilify the GLBT community I am saddened by it. I used to feel anger but I am beyond that. I can only feel sorrow and compassion for those that seek to condemn people based on Scripture. God is not Scripture. The world is not so black and white as some believe. There are other mysteries that God has not revealed to man yet. We must keep searching. And in that search we must make sure that no one person or group has been left out of the Hate Crimes protection laws.