House Passes Gay Hate Crimes Bill
WASHINGTON -- Despite objections that it would infringe on the religious liberty of pastors and other faith leaders, the U.S. House Thursday passed a defense bill that includes historic hate crimes protections for homosexuals.
The 2010 defense authorization bill, which passed 281-146, has little if anything to do with hate crimes but is being used as a vehicle to pass hate crimes legislation, which was attached to the defense bill. The defense bill (H.R. 2647) now goes to the Senate, where a similar version already passed earlier this year.
Lobbyists for homosexual organizations for years have supported expanding the hate crimes law but have failed, either because Republicans controlled Congress or the White House, or both. But with Democrats in charge, their prospects appear good. If the bill becomes law, it would be the biggest federal legislative victory for homosexual organizations to date.
President Obama supports hate crimes protections, which, according to the text of the legislation, would give the U.S. attorney general the authority to investigate crimes that are "motivated by prejudice" based on the "actual or perceived ... sexual orientation [or] gender identity" of a person. It also adds disability to the list of protected categories. Persons convicted of a hate crime would be subject to additional prison time and penalties than persons who commit a crime that falls outside the class of hate crimes.
The defense bill passed the House Oct. 8 largely on a party-line vote, with 237 Democrats and 44 Republicans supporting it, and 15 Democrats and 131 Republicans opposing it. An earlier effort to strip hate crimes from the bill failed, 208-216, with 34 Democrats joining 174 Republicans in supporting the attempt.
The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) sent a letter Wednesday to House Minority Leader John Boehner, R.-Ohio, urging him to support efforts to strip hate crimes from the defense bill. The defense bill that passed the House was the result of a House-Senate conference compromise. The conference committee nixed funding for the F-22 fighter plane -- funding opposed by Obama that had initiated a veto threat -- although it left in funding for F-35 engines, also opposed by Obama. It is unclear whether Obama would veto the defense bill in its current state.
Rep. Mike Pence, R.-Ind., said on the floor that he "disdains" discrimination but that passage of the hate crimes legislation would chill religious freedoms.
"Under Section 2 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code today," Pence said, "an individual may be held criminally liable who aids, abets, counsels, commands or induces or procures in the commission of a federal crime. Therefore, to put a fine point on it, any pastor, preacher, priest, rabbi or imam who may give a sermon out of their moral traditions about sexual practices could presumably under this legislation be found to have aided, abetted or induced in the commission of a federal crime. This will have a chilling effect on religious expression from the pulpits, in our temples, in our mosques and in our churches."
The bill, Pence said, criminalizes thought.
"Adding hate crimes provisions in this defense bill puts us on a slippery slope of deeming particular groups as more important than others under our system of justice," he said.
Boehner, speaking at a news conference, called the attachment of hate crimes to the defense bill "an abuse of the legislative process"
"It's an abuse of power by Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi and [Senate] Majority Leader [Harry] Reid, and it's offensive," Boehner said. "It's offensive to me and a lot of my members. And that's why I will vote and urge my colleagues to vote no.... The idea that we're going to pass a law that's going to add further charges to someone based on what they may have been thinking, I think is wrong."
Pelosi, D.-Calif., though, was undeterred, and was in a celebratory mood at her press conference.
"It's a very exciting day for us here in the capital," she said. "… When I came to Congress 22 years ago, hate crimes legislation was one of the items on my agenda."
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist ERLC, asserted in the letter to Boehner that hate crimes legislation would infringe on religious speech.
"Since the bill specifies a hate crime 'is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived' 'sexual orientation' or 'gender identity' of a victim, prosecutors and judges would assume the precarious position of judging thoughts," Land wrote. "This could create a chilling effect on religious speech, connecting innocent expression of religious belief to acts of violence against individuals afforded special protections. The criminalization of religious speech, such as speech against the practice of homosexuality, has already been seen in other countries with similar hate crimes legislation in place."
Land also said hate crimes protections are "unnecessary and unconstitutional" and would "afford special protections to some individuals but deny such protections to others."
"This would turn on its head the 14th Amendment, which grants equal protection under the law," Land wrote.
The hate crimes legislation was named in part for Matthew Shepard, the young homosexual who was beaten and left to die while tied to a fence in Wyoming in 1998. Although some have argued Shepard's death was the result of a hate crime, the murderers told ABC News in a 2004 interview they instead were motivated by a desire for money to purchase methamphetamine.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Let's see if I can verbalize my opinion on this:
I don't know exactly what this bill states.
MOTIVE and intent are valid multipliers in almost all criminal prosecutions, this just adds to the list of actionable motives.
Incitement and preaching are two completely different things and to pretend that there is no distinction in a court of law is plainly and simply lying or willful ignorance.
I fully support adding the motive of "hate" to the list of actionable considerations in crimes of violence.
While I agree with the libertarians in general, I'm clearly not a libertarian.
Criminal code of law is SUPPOSED to be structured in way as to at least try to act as a deterent... That is why we recognize the difference between "degrees" of homicide and also add modifiers like "with a deadly weapon" and have laws like "10-20-Life". Special considerations are meant to remind people that their reasoning for crime will affect their punishment and yes, if your reason for killing someone was simply because of who they are and not because of any slight, that is a crime we look down on more harshly and will punish more severely.
Calling it a punishment of beliefs is wrong because there is no punishment for believing something, but there may be a punishment for victimizing someone else because of your beliefs.
Like I said, I don't know exactly what the bill says everywhere but I know this doesn't impede on religious liberty unless violence is your religion or incitement to violence is your method of "preaching the gospel "
does nothing but create barriers between people. It reinforces the idea that a certain group of people is different and thus should be treated differently. It does nothing to increase acceptance it only further penalizes those who for ANY REASON commit a crime against a member of a protected group.
Gays are not the only one's protected by sexual-orientation-based hate crime laws. Anyone with a sexual orientation (including "straight") is protected by the same law from attacks motivated by his/her sexual orientation. Just like racial and ethnic hate crime laws protect whites, as well as blacks and persons of other races and ethnicities.
Hate crimes are acts of terrorism against a community in addition to crimes against individuals. The crime against the individual is punished by means of standard criminal penalties. The additional penalties for committing a hate crime are not imposed because of the individual who was hurt, but because of the intent on the part of the criminal to impose terror and intimidation upon the larger populace of whatever group was targeted by the motivation of the hate crime.
how do you judge if a person MEANT to terrorize a local community of a certain ethnic or social group unless they come out and tell you?
That's precisely the point. If someone beats someone else up while screaming "you f---ing faggot!!!," chances are there's a hate crime involve, just the same as if someone graffitis swastikas on a synagogue or commits any crime against someone of a racial, ethnic, religious, national, gender, or sexual-orientation group (including a white, straight, USAmerican-born, protestant male) while using epithets against them which would indicate that the attack is motivated by hatred of the group of which they are a member.
If a person is attacked specifically because he is a Jew or black or straight or white, and the attacker makes this motivation plain by using epithets and slurs in the course of the attack, or specifically picks out people of that group repeatedly to attack, or uses methods of attack which speak to the attack being motivated by hatred (such as lynching a black man while burning a cross nearby), then the crime is clearly intended to terrorize a group of people, to "send a message," if you will, and that terrorism element of the crime should be punished in addition to the action taken against the individual who was directly harmed.
Tolerance and acceptance are not the same thing. Tolerating something means you are civil and allow opinions to take place even when you do not agree with them. Acceptance is bit more welcoming.
We can all be tolerant and it is expected by the First Amendment, but not everyone can accept and nor should they have to. And this has nothing to do with faith, either. I'm not religious at all and yet there's some things I don't accept about "gender identity."
Also, I know lesbians who admit to being closet-bisexual and yet don't admit it to other lesbians for fear of animosity from members of their own sub-culture.
Don't get me wrong, I don't oppose homosexuals having rights. However, there is a point where " safe -havens" and majorities produce somewhat of a mob mentality no matter what. I was watching a story on television several months ago where a district in California was mostly for homosexual residents and businesses / employees. In what way is this bias fair to heterosexuals?
If it can be imbalanced in one direction it can certainly become imbalanced in the other direction as well. Laws should be written to make folks equal, not elevate one group at the expense of another.
Verbally condemning choice is not the same as inflicting physical harm. If Matthew Shepard had been heterosexual the murder would have been just as vicious and uncalled for. I don't know about you guys but I hate people for the fashion trends they adopt. I'm not going to hurt anyone for such choices but if someone did wouldn't that be just as much of a hate crime ?
Isn't all murder hate or another similar act of passion?
But had Matthew Shepard been straight, he most likely wouldn't have been murdered. Not many straight people get murdered for their sexual orientation.
As to the "gay district" in a California city being "unfair" to straight businesses, this is pretty silly. There's no laws keeping straight people from living in gay-majority areas. Many do. There's no law keeping straight-owned businesses from doing business in predominantly gay areas. But they have to be willing to cater to the local clientele if they want to STAY in business. If they aren't gay-friendly, they are likely to find themselves with no customers.
On the other hand, most of the states in this nation make it perfectly legal to discriminate against gay employees, gay customers, gay renters, gay home buyers. A gay person can be refused employment, legally fired, legally refused service in a restaurant or other business, legally refused a room in a hotel, legally refused the rental of an apartment or purchase of a home, on the basis of his/her sexual orientation. Now THAT'S discrimination .
Oh, a hell of a lot of straight people get murdered for who they sleep with. Granted infidelity is the typical cause of it. But how is murdering a person for one reason any different than murdering someone for another reason?
I can be discriminated against by employers for having long hair in the state of Florida. Problem with the policies in my state are that you can be fired for a reason, any reason, such as "Supervisor hates your guts." As long as they can prove that it wasn't for one of the protected criteria such as skin color, gender, disability, etc.
I don't dispute that Matthew Shepard had a sexual orientation that was peculiar to his peers and he was ostracized for it, though it falls on the hands of courts and attorneys as its a case-by-case scenario to figure out the motive. Defendants come up with sleazy defenses all the time, weaseling their way out of it. Conviction is in the hands of prosecutors and judges. However, I take the stance that any murder is wrong if it is for any reason other than self-defense , when someone is threatening your life. Just because the victim happens to be gay it doesn't mean that the removal of a young life is excusable or even worthy of a more harsh punishment. Murdering another human being is still murdering another human being and the kids should still suffer the consequences. Shepard happened to be gay. It might affect you more if you feel you are more likely of becoming that victim and I find your reasoning understandable.
There's many reasons for which you can be denied a job, home, or apartment though. My suggestion is not to add special rights or changing what constitutes a crime but to revamp our way of thinking and expanding our freedom to choose what we do in our personal lives. So yeah, maybe I do agree we should add special rights but we shouldn't discriminate against some serious issues such as murder and we shouldn't have Thought Police telling us how open we need to be.
Sexual orientation is none of anyone's business, whether it's two women , two men, two people of an opposite gender, two women and a man, or three men and a woman. If all parties consent privately it's an exchange that excludes those on the outside of that arrangement. I'm not saying you can't make it public, but I am saying that people should retain the right to peacefully disagree. And everyone should strive to be responsible enough to look the other way if they don't want to see a public display of affection they do not agree with. Just like the people who call in to radio stations to bicker about what they don't like to hear. There's a knob to change stations. Use it.
We don't need special laws such as hate crimes to differentiate between one murder and the next, in my opinion. To me that's further from equality and it subdues free thought and debate. The moment violence comes into the picture, for any reason, there should be an attempt to punish the offenders.
We need fewer laws; we need to keep and possibly revise laws we do have to produce more clean-cut definitions and expand rights and privacy in a number of matters that should be kept 100% private and revealed only with discretion. Employers don't need to know who you sleep with. Employers don't need to know credit scores. Employers don't need to know if I smoke weed anymore than whether or not I drink in my free time.
Apparently you haven't read my other comments on this topic, m.
Just to address your first point, the person who is killed because he is being unfaithful to his spouse, or with someone else's spouse, is still killed in a crime which is directed solely at him as an individual (though certainly it impacts those around him). The person who is killed because he is gay, or black, or Jewish, is killed in a crime which is not only directed at him as an individual, but at an entire community of people ( gays , blacks, Jews). Ordinary criminal legislation addresses the crime against him as an individual. Hate crime legislation addresses the crime of terrorism directed at the larger community.
I do see your point. I can understand how the "special" legislation is needed.
Still, I don't believe we should abolish free thought when we don't like what we hear. And that's for both sides, whether it's someone condemning a lifestyle or promoting it. In all it would be a healthy medium - an ideal and perfect world - if we as people gave space and respectfully let our neighbors do as they wish as long as it doesn't affect us.
I'm not against homosexuality . I don't choose that lifestyle and therefore I think my issue is general apathy. Since I don't have the social stigma I'm not really affected by such a law 's absence. Education and certain values instilled in the murderers would have possibly changed the outcome which led to the young Mr. Shepard's demise.
I hope for an eventual utopia - a point when everyone gets along just fine despite the personal choices they make in their life, because we maintain respect and privacy instead of being judgmental and hateful. I'm not so sure appending new laws to the system itself will get us to that end rather than a revision of how we think and act as a civilization. And perhaps I should lower my aspirations as human beings haven't seemed to be all that capable of this in the past.
Individually people are weak, but together with the wrong thoughts in our minds we're capable of destroying ourselves completely.