Controversy over Hate Crimes Bill

I receive action alert newsletters from both MoveOn.Org and from the American Family Association, two lobbying organizations on opposite ends of the political spectrum.  One of the things that really annoys me is that the appeal so often is to lesser human values.  Instead of providing up-front information so people can make judgments for themselves, lobbyists so often warn of the dangers of particular legislation without offering any specific evidence.  

A good example is this most recent mailing from the American Family Association about what took a lot of detective work to find was H. R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.    

Here is an excerpt from the letter I received from AFA –

May 1, 2007

Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.

A message from Chuck Colson

Dear James,

Please take the time to read the enclosed article by Chuck Colson.  Click here.

This law does not define “sexual orientation,” leaving open the definition of the term. To see all the behaviors covered by the term “sexual orientation,” please click here.  Warning!  This listing is offensive.

When I click the link to the letter by Chuck Colson, no specifics about this proposed law are given.  The following is a representative excerpt -

Last week the House Judiciary Committee, egged on by radical homosexual groups, passed what can only be called a Thought Crimes bill. It’s called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act [this note is not part of Colson's letter and was inserted 5/13/07: without a link to the bill in question, one cannot be certain about what is being criticized here since, for example, different versions or amendments might be under consideration]. But this bill is not about hate. It’s not even about crime. It’s about outlawing peaceful speech-speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.

Some say we need this law to prevent attacks on homosexuals. But we already have laws against assaults on people and property. Moreover, according to the FBI, crimes against homosexuals in the United States have dropped dramatically in recent years. In 2005, out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals-far less than even 1 percent.

Another problem is that in places where hate crimes laws have been passed, hate crimes have been defined to include verbal attacks-and even peaceful speech. The Thought Police have already prosecuted Christians under hate crimes laws in England, Sweden, Canada, and even in some places in the United States.

If this dangerous law passes, pastors who preach sermons giving the biblical view of homosexuality could be prosecuted. Christian businessmen who refuse to print pro-gay literature could be prosecuted. Groups like Exodus International, which offer therapy to those with unwanted same-sex attraction, could be shut down.

…. Clearly, the intent of this law is not to prevent crime, but to shut down freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought. Its passage would strike at the very heart of our democracy.

The full Congress may vote on this bill as early as this week. Unless you want Big Brother telling you what to say, what to think, and what to believe, I urge you to contact your congressman immediately, urging him or her to vote against this bill. If you visit the BreakPoint website, you’ll find more information about this radical law.

When I click the link to go to the Breakpoint website to get “more information about this radical law” I just find this letter repeated and the following links -

Visit Family Research Council’s Stop Thought Crimes Laws website.

Visit the websites of Exodus International and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays.

“Pro-Family Leaders Call for Equal Protection for All Americans,” CitizenLink, 24 April 2007.

Peter J. Smith, “Democrats Refuse Religious Freedom Amendment to Hate Crimes Bill,” LifeSite, 26 April 2007.

See this fact sheet on the hate crimes bill from Traditional Values Coalition.

Doug Huntington, “‘Day of Silence’ Protestors Defended after School Suspensions,” Christian Post, 26 April 2007.

Anne Morse, “Orwell Lives,” The Point, 27 April 2007.

BreakPoint Commentary No. 050816, “Words Matter: Combating Orwellian Distortions.”

When I check each of these links I find nothing about what the proposed law actually says except perhaps for the following -

Anne Morse, “Orwell Lives,” The Point, 27 April 2007.

 …These laws are not about violence or hatred; they’re about using the power of law to silence those who disagree with you. They’re about redefining civil discourse into “verbal attacks.” That is, if someone “feels attacked” by words–even words on a tee shirt–then he HAS been attacked, and the “attacker” should be punished by the Ministry of Love….er, by the federal government.

fact sheet on the hate crimes bill from Traditional Values Coalition.

Last week, the Judiciary Committee voted to send H.R. 1592 to the full House for a vote on May 3, the National Day of Prayer. If it passes in the House, it will go to the Senate, where Senator Ted Kennedy is offering a nearly identical bill, which is a threat to free speech and religious expression!

Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) added an amendment to H.R. 1592 that supposedly protects religious freedom and free speech. This isn’t true. He was forced to admit during the hearing that his amendment doesn’t protect a pastor’s sermon if that sermon is considered “relevant” to the commission of bodily injury against a homosexual or cross-dresser. (Bodily injury includes merely touching the person.) Thus, a pastor could be convicted of a hate crime for preaching against homosexual conduct!

Without your action, this anti-Christian legislation will pass — under the guise of hate-crime prevention — and accomplish the following homosexual goals:

• Silence the Bible-believing Churches, Pastors and Christians
• Criminalize so-called “hate speech,” - which is any speech that is critical of homosexuality or cross-dressing behaviors. The suppression of free speech will be justified by the claim that such speech “incites” individuals to commit violence against homosexuals, cross-dressers etc. Any remarks about homosexuality, such as reading Bible passages, preaching on these passages, telling a person they can come out of the homosexual lifestyle, etc. will be deemed critical remarks and will be ruled to be outside the bounds of First Amendment protections for pastors, business owners and individuals.
• Elevate homosexuality and gender confused individuals  such as drag queens, cross-dressers, she-males, etc. to the status of federally-protected minorities. These behaviors will be considered equal to race under the federal law.
• Interfere with local law enforcement by elevating every alleged incident of “hate” against a homosexual or cross-dresser into a federal crime.
• Fund anti-Christian curriculum for children K-12, through the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice to promote homosexuality and cross-dressing as normal behaviors.

In addition, HR 1592 makes false claims that:

• 1. Homosexuals are fleeing across state lines to avoid persecution;
• 2. Perpetrators are crossing state lines to commit crimes against them;
• 3. Homosexuals are so persecuted they have trouble purchasing goods and services or finding employment.

So now, at last, with the Bill # in hand I can do a Google Government search and obtain a copy of the 16 page Bill for myself.

HR 1592 is freely available for anyone to read online or to print out.

Why are these lobbying groups so intent on keeping this information from the public?  This happens repeatedly, as you can see if you have checked any of the links above.  They fail to provide links to the bills they are criticizing. It seems like they are afraid to let people make up their minds for themselves.

Although there are lots of definitions to be taken into consideration, here is what looks like the essence of the bill -

… At the request of State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that-

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;

(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal laws; and

(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.

To me the biggest question about this bill is to what extent motivation should be the basis for prosecution.  This seems to open a Pandora’s box where police and prosecutors from so many different backgrounds could cause havoc.  Ultimately it could lead to a situation where people would be afraid to express opinions for fear of being offensive or being misunderstood.  Schools have seen how certain reading materials are not considered appropriate because they promote older stereotypes and prejudices; so legal changes of this type do tend to result in major cultural shifts.

This is not to say this proposed law is necessarily bad.  But it does mean that religious people need to think of themselves as ever reforming and retranslating their beliefs into today’s idioms rather than thinking that all the major issues have already been resolved in the past.  This means that Christian scholarship is more important than ever if there is to be continuity with the past and Christian identity is to be retained. 

These lobbyists want me to take action now; but I can’t really hear what they are saying because they did not start with the proposed law itself and they just sound so alarmist without documentation.  They have bypassed logic and simply appealed to fear, which incites only one response in me: “God did not give us a spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind” (2 Tim 2:7). 

Although there is a place for speculation on the unintended consequences of a law such as this, I need to see how those consequences grow out of the law itself.  When you actually look at the bill, it looks like its main initial impact will be to establish sexual orientation as a protected legal minority, something that has not yet occurred, and which will have tremendous legal and judicial impact. As we noted in an earlier entry-

Maggie Gallagher says polls suggest that the majority of Americans would support an anti-discrimination law at the federal level.  Among other effects, such a law would affect tax-exempt status.  “In 1971, the IRS issued a decision redefining the tax exemption as a public endorsement or subsidy. This meant that the IRS would strip an organization of its exempt status if its purposes, although legal, were ‘contrary to public policy.”

This background seems to explain the irrational response of the lobbyists noted above.  This law would also contribute to the march towards the acceptance of gay marriage.

Freedom of religious speech

By John M. Templeton Jr., M.D.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Saturday, June 10, 2006

In this important article, John Templeton has unwittingly disclosed why the aggressive supporters of the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection amendment are actually hastening the arrival of same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania.

Let me explain, piggybacking on insights gained in the May 14 post below, which discusses Maggie Gallagher’s Banned in Boston.

Based on Templeton’s essay, it appears that Pennsylvania may be following in the footsteps of Massachusetts.

Recall that the first step towards same-sex marriage in Massachusetts was the law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation over a decade ago.

Then in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that it was discriminatory to restrict applicants for marriage to those of the opposite sex and allowed that same-sex couples be permitted to marry.

According to Gallagher’s report, “the majority [on the court] ruled that only animus against gay people could explain why anyone would want to treat opposite-sex and same-sex couples differently.”  Apparently they read the will of the people correctly as represented in their legislature, because the state representatives did not pass any countervailing legislation when they had opportunity to do so.

It is common among conservatives to consider this Massachusetts ruling the result of an “out-of control judiciary.” James Dobson’s Focus on the Family does so and used this as a primary justification for supporting the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment.  Charles Krauthammer also considers this case to be “judicial overreaching,” but he cautions - “The solution to judicial overreaching is to change the judiciary, not to undo every act of judicial arrogance with a policy-specific constitutional amendment.  Where does it end? Yesterday it was school busing and abortion. Today it is flag-burning and gay marriage.  It won’t end until the Constitution becomes pockmarked with endless policy amendments. The Constitution was never intended to set social policy.”

However, I cannot agree that the Massachusetts case was judicial overreaching.  I admit I am not looking at it in a technical, legal sense, and do not know all the facts of the case; but I get the impression that most other commentators do not have a legal scholar’s perspective either, since I have yet to hear any reasons for that opinion.  The accusation of “judicial overreaching” just seems to be a forceful way of saying one does not agree with the opinion.  It seems to me that the only sensible approach that would avoid this accusation is the one proposed by Chief Justice John Roberts as described by E. J. Dionne (i.e. the less a court decides in a case, the better; therefore a court’s decisions should be based on the broadest possible agreement among the justices; cf. Romans 12:17).  It seems to me, moreover, that if you try to empathize a little with the Massachusetts judges, who were making decisions in a highly charged partisan environment, you can begin to imagine why they might have come to their conclusion.

If Massachusetts was anything like it is in Pennsylvania, then the main objections being vehemently argued against same-sex marriage were made by religious people.  And the types of arguments used are often not very sound (as illustrated in the May 21 post below) and therefore suggest a source in irrational bias. Religious people face a huge problem communicating their worldview in modern society, and it does not translate well when the topic of communication is such an emotional one.  Given the legal requirement of equal opportunity for homosexuals, judges in such circumstances would reasonably conclude that “only animus against gay people could explain why anyone would want to treat opposite-sex and same-sex couples differently.” It’s as simple as that, and that is a reasonable conclusion since what appears to be shallow reasoning to deprive someone of what they want will naturally appear to be motivated by animus against them.  The legal prohibition against sexual discrimination had established the social policy of equality for gays; and the case was specifically about their requests for same-sex marriage, so it was not unreasonable for the judges to reach their conclusion given a lack solid arguments against it.  They found no basis in the law for denying those requests. 

It is this loophole in the law that marriage protection advocates are attempting to fill; but they are going about it by castigating the judges who made honest decisions as far as we can tell.  And they are further exacerbating the discrimination against homosexuals by all their emphasis on the “homosexual agenda” and the threats posed by social change in this area.  In other words, they are providing the documentation for a judicial judgment that there is animus against gays in Pennsylvania, and that it is only discrimination against homosexuals that deprives them of the benefits of same-sex marriage!  Since there is already a Pennsylvania law disallowing same-sex marriage, the only effective purpose of the proposed “marriage protection” amendment is to disallow civil unions or their equivalent - to deny gays any family or marriage related rights at all!  So for the most part the marriage amendment campaign is perceived as directed against homosexuals.  And some seem to wonder whether the angry focus against judges is actually a substitution to allow covert venting against homosexuals.

In Pennsylvania we have already started going down the same road that Massachusetts has taken, but we are making it easier for judges to reach the same conclusion they reached there.  All you have to do is carefully examine who is supporting the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment and who is not - AND notice what arguments they use and the tone of the arguments they are using.  A representative sampling of significant contributions readily available online is listed on the sidebar of this blog.

A truly Christlike approach to this social conflict would not focus on just one side of the conflict or the other, but would attempt to meet the needs of ALL the people involved, including the many children who are dependent on the social environment that the political order supports - children in both traditional and nontraditional families.  Jesus could not have been more explicit:

You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.  Matthew 5:43-48 NIV

This might well be called political action principle #1 according to Jesus.  The phrase “He causes his sun to rise” may be seen as alluding to the rule of God over all creation, which was established when God created the sun and appointed human beings as regents; and the phrase “sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” is a reminder that after the destructive rains of the great Genesis flood, God promised to never again enact such devastating judgment by that method.  Jesus specifically taught that his message was to instruct and to construct, but not to condemn - that a final judgment would come at the end of the age.  In God’s kingdom the good and the bad would be allowed to grow together until that judgment. His call to love is actually a call to model the love God demonstrates in relation to all of creation - it is a demand that we demonstrate love to both “the righteous and the unrighteous” in fulfilling the creation mandate.

Jesus said that he came to bring God’s truth and that God’s truth would make us free.  But at the same time he instructed that we should be attuned to maintaining good relationships with our fellows and should proactively restore relationships with others as part of our obligation toward God.  God’s truth should make us free to love others, even those who are opposed to us.  This ethic underlies the Apostle Paul’s instruction to his readers who were living in a pluralistic environment even more hostile than ours: “as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”  The Apostle Peter also said Christians should “show proper respect to everyone.”  Jennifer Moses describes how this lifestyle can look from an appreciative non-Christian perspective, but she also notes how Christians have been misunderstood and manipulated by political leaders.

When you see Christianity from this perspective, representing both the truth and love of God, it is very difficult to see people who publish “a newspaper ad citing Scripture verses condemning homosexuality” as representing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  John Templeton holds these people up as exemplars of the right to express their religious convictions, but they can just as easily be viewed as people who are creating social agitation.  They may be exercising legal rights (which are now being understandably questioned), but they are not acting in Christian character.

Now, our society normally allows for a great deal of conflict and social agitation, but when widespread prejudice against a minority group becomes intense enough, then that group will receive protected status.  Unfortunately, enough prejudice against gays has already been sensed that in Pennsylvania they have been granted that status for their protection.  People who purchase newspaper ads against them create the need for that protection.

John Templeton warns:

Pennsylvania’s Hate Crimes Law is now a loaded revolver in the desk of any district attorney who wants to attempt to bring to Pennsylvania the sort of prosecutions we have seen in Sweden and Canada.

Templeton seems to be mainly worried about religious speech. But ironically, given the ardent advocacy against homosexuality by so many of the groups advocating for the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment, the more ominous threat for them is not so much that any of them will face prosecution by a district attorney, but that they are ensuring that someday judges will come to the same conclusion they did in Massachusetts - that only deep-seated prejudice would deny gays equal rights to marriage.  They are their own worst enemies!

In a March 2006 report on the tax implications of the religious activism for the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment, the New York Times reported that “Pennsylvania appears to be the sole state where advocacy groups are pouring so much into working with churches so early. The outcome of the effort, and the way the tax agency responds, could have an influence far beyond the state.”  The high level of political activism in Pennsylvania churches therefore appears to be a unique phenomenon, but like all human endeavors it is subject to the law of unintended consequences, and it is beginning to look like some of those consequences are self-defeating.

Pennsylvania Senator Bob Ronola and Representative Scott W. Boyd wrote in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (6/21/06) -

No one can legitimately claim that Pennsylvania’s Defense of Marriage Act will not be challenged in court. The testimony of gay-marriage advocates in Harrisburg confirms it is not a matter of if, but when.

These elected officials want the decision about gay marriage to be made by a public vote, not by judges.  The problem, as we have noted, is that the way the Christian political action groups are organizing their public campaigns is actually contributing to the perception of bias against homosexuals.  At root this misperception is occurring because so many politically active Christian leaders are taking one side in a polarized discussion rather than making proposals to solve the very real social problems that are involved in this conflict. They incessantly deny that gays have any legitimate problems to gripe about by countering with the repeated mantra that the proposed amendment will not take away any rights the gays already have. By emphasizing use of the alienating tools of political campaigns to appeal to fear and uncritical thinking, these campaigns end up resembling the crusades of the middle ages rather than the holy war the conservative Christians supporting them believe them to be.

John Templeton has put the advocates of the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment on notice: Pennsylvania has a law against discriminating against homosexuals (who are already legally denied the right to marry).  So the way they have been aggressively advocating for the amendment heightens the perception that only animus against gays would deny them the right to same-sex marriage.

If Pennsylvania judges reach the same conclusion the Massachusetts judges did when the challenge finally comes to court, it will be hard to say they are wrong given all the opposition against gays generated by this Christian political action. Such a ruling would appear even more outrageous here since it would go against an already established Pennsylvania law specifically outlawing gay marriage, whereas there was no such law in Massachusetts. But the louder that Pennsylvanians push for even stronger restrictions on gays than already exists, the more they are making the case that the underlying social dynamic is discrimination against them. It’s too bad that God’s truth has not yet made so many Christians free to love homosexuals, judging by the way they’ve been acting lately.