THIS PAGE
TO A FRIEND
Family Policy Network Opposes Adding “Sexual Orientation” to List of “Hate Crimes” Categories
Adding ‘Sexual Orientation’ to ‘Hate Crimes’ Categories: An Unnecessary Evil
Sunday, May 6, 2007
By Alex Mason
Federal lawmakers are currently debating whether to add ’sexual orientation’ to the national list of ‘hate crime’ categories. Various state legislatures consider similar legislation each year and several states have already passed it. This policy paper explains the reasons for Family Policy Network’s (FPN) opposition to this kind of proposal.
REASONS WHY FPN OPPOSES ‘HATE CRIME’ PROTECTION ON THE BASIS OF ‘SEXUAL ORIENTATION’:
REASON #1:It is Unconstitutional
Equal protection under the law is guaranteed by the XIV AMENDMENT, which states “No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”(1) The lives of those engaging in homosexual activity, for instance, should not be more valuable than the lives of those who choose not to engage in such activity.The Constitution requires that every citizen enjoy the same protection from harm afforded by the government as anyone else. Therefore, any attempt to provide special protection to some people, based on their private sexual misconduct is an unconstitutional act, which would make some people’s lives more valuable simply because of their deviant bedroom behavior.
REASON #2: It is Predicated on a Crime that Rarely Occurs
Homosexual activists have openly admitted that their goal is to “portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.”(2) Over the past several years, these activists have often resorted to either mislabeling or staging “hate crimes” in order to distract attention from the perversions of homosexual sex. Sadly, the only real victim in each of these cases is the truth about homosexual behavior.For example, homosexual activists claim the death of homosexual college student Matthew Shepard was “homophobic” and frequently cite it as a reason to add “sexual orientation” to the federal “hate crimes” statute. However, in 2004, ABC’s 20/20 found that the murder was not based on “homophobia”, but rather a drug-related robbery gone wrong.(3) Regardless of the evidence proving no “hate crime” occurred, the Senate version of the “hate crimes” bill (S. 1105) is named in Shepard’s “honor.”
In 2006, Boise State University homosexual student Alex McGillis informed police that he had been violently assaulted by a male who had struck him from behind and in the face several times while using anti-”gay” rhetoric. Two weeks later, police announced that McGillis had admitted to staging the “hate crime” by actually beating himself with his own fists as well as a stick in order to exact the injuries he later reported.(4)
In February 2007, the manipulative tactics of homosexual activists were exposed after another alleged “hate crime” turned out to be a fabrication. The death of Anthony Anthos, who homosexual activists said was beaten with a metal pipe “just for being gay”, caused an uproar among other homosexuals anxious to pass a “hate crimes” bill. In March, however, Detroit police issued a statement ruling out a “hate crime” assault and confirmed that Anthos died of a degenerative disease affecting his spine.(5) Ironically, this is another “hate crime” used to justify the introduction of the “hate crimes for homosexuals” bill in Congress.
REASON #3: It Does Not Target the Most Common Perpetrators of Violence Against Homosexuals
Homosexual advocates claim that “hate crime” status for homosexuals will reduce crime against homosexuals. However, the biggest threat of violence toward people who engage in homosexuality is other homosexuals. This reality is evidenced in statistics gathered from liberal homosexual advocacy groups like the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP).The NCAVP is a self-described pro-homosexual organization that gathers statistics on “hate crimes” committed against homosexuals and same-sex domestic abuse. According to data compiled from the NCAVP, during the 1999-2003 period, homosexuals were 244% more likely to be the perpetrators of violence against other homosexuals than were heterosexuals.(6)
These statistics are significant because they reveal that homosexual activists are more concerned about vilifying Biblical teachings against sexual immorality than they are about protecting people from acts of violence. In their efforts to silence opposition to their perverted lifestyle, they ignore the true threat to a homosexual’s safety: other homosexuals.
REASON #4: It Validates Unhealthy Sex Practices
Statistics indicate that, in the case of homosexuals, lifestyle choices are leading millions to an early grave.(7) In one study conducted by Oxford University and the International Journal of Epidemiology, researchers found that if a man begins practicing homosexuality by age 20, he has only a 50 percent chance of reaching the age of 65.(8) One pro-homosexual newspaper admits: “Reports at a national conference on sexually transmitted diseases (STD) indicated that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. . . . and the increased number of STD cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men.”(9)Adding “sexual orientation” to hate crimes categories is wrong because it endorses behavior that is unhealthy. By passing such a law, the government extends legitimacy and approval to the deadly lifestyle.
REASON #5: It Does Not Reduce Violent Crime
A prominent homosexual activist and self-described “hate crime” victim believes it is pointless to add legal protection based on sexual behavior to current “hate crime” laws. Dale Carpenter, who is a homosexual law professor at the University of Minnesota and known in homosexual circles for his activism against the Federal Marriage Amendment, penned a column in April 2007 urging fellow homosexual activists not to waste their time on an issue with such “little practical value.”(10) He writes:I am skeptical about the practical value of hate-crimes laws. . . We now have almost 40 years of experience with [hate crime] laws, yet there’s no evidence they have reduced hate crimes. A new federal law will not likely deter future violence. . . Further, the investigation and prosecution of violent crime, with a few exceptions, has traditionally been the job of the states. There is no evidence that local and state authorities are systematically ignoring hate crimes under existing laws.(11)
While Carpenter urges homosexuals to concentrate on other “important” issues (i.e., employment “non-discrimination, repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”) that he believes can be affected by the Democrat-majority Congress, it is no small thing that he admits that “hate crimes” legislation is a “bad idea” and that the prosecution of those who commit crimes against homosexuals can be done “without creating special categories of protection [for homosexuals].”(12) Indeed, the argument of pro-family groups opposed to this legislation is exactly that: Crime is already against the law.
REASON #6: It Puts Christian Religious Freedom at Risk
“Hate crimes” legislation is an experiment in thought control and is a precursor to the abridgment of our constitutional freedoms for speech and religion. Putting a secular-humanist government in charge of determining what constitutes “hate” has proved to be a dangerous prospect for Christians. In countries such as Canada, England, and Denmark where physical crimes against homosexuals receive heftier punishments, scripture passages such as Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1 that call homosexuality an abomination against God have been deemed as “hate speech” and Christians have been denied their right to speak out against this dangerous and unbiblical lifestyle.Even in America, such legislation is being used to persecute Christians for taking a biblical stance on homosexuality. In 2004, eleven Christians in Philadelphia were arrested and jailed for merely preaching the Gospel on a public sidewalk at a homosexual parade.(13) Four of the 11 Christians were charged with five misdemeanors and three felonies, including a “hate crime” (for preaching homosexual behavior as sinful). They faced up to 47 years in prison and thousands of dollars in fines. While the charges against them were eventually dropped and they were released, the incident served as an ominous foretaste of what could come if ‘hate crimes’ legislation is passed.
Other Reasons
Actual statistics are often ignored
The prevalence of “hate crimes” against people who engage in same-sex behavior is overstated. In 1997, the year before Matthew Shepard was killed, the FBI reported a total of three murders in the United States committed against homosexuals because of their perceived sexual behavior.(14) In 2004, out of the 16,137 murders committed in the United States, only one was classified as a “hate crime” against a homosexual.(15,16)Local law enforcement already does the job
The concept of ‘hate crimes’ is also an affront to local law enforcement officials who prosecute criminals based on the crime they committed, not their motives. It implies that those officials don’t prosecute certain crimes sufficiently. Mandating that a homosexual’s killers should be punished more severely for their crime than those who murder someone randomly undermines the justice system’s responsibility to mete out justice fairly.Crime is already illegal
All crimes, no matter what the motivation, are already illegal under existing state and federal laws. The notion that some crimes should be ‘more illegal’ because they were committed against certain persons is illogical and unfair.Crime isn’t based in love
Most crimes, especially murder, are rooted in hatred. It is wrong to attempt to punish one type of hatred more than another or suggest that while all victims are equal, some are ‘more equal’ than others.“Sexual orientation” can be widely defined
The inherently broad nature of what constitutes “sexual orientation” is another reason to oppose this legislation. What will prevent the heinous acts of bestiality or pedophilia from being considered a sexual “orientation” and protected as such under “hate crimes” laws?Sex habits are changeable
Existing laws against ‘hate crimes’ allow certain minorities to receive protection based upon inherent, undeniable characteristics such as race or sex, not on their lifestyle choices. Adding the phrase “sexual orientation” is an attempt to classify homosexual behavior as an inherent trait, rather than a lifestyle choice. No credible evidence exists proving that homosexual behavior is an immutable genetic characteristic. The stories of thousands of former homosexuals attest to the life-changing power of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
A LOGICAL CONCLUSION…
Christians must realize that efforts to pass ‘hate crime’ legislation is part of a larger attempt by homosexual activists to portray sexually immoral behaviors as inherited traits, and to legitimize their sexual proclivities. There are many reasons to oppose the legislation: all citizens already have equal protection under the law; the reasoning behind adding “sexual orientation” to existing “hate crimes” laws is based on lies; the homosexual population is more of a danger to itself than any outside group; the government should not endorse dangerous and deadly lifestyles and if passed, this legislation could pave the way for governmental abridgment of certain rights such as the freedom of speech, religion and conscience.
RESOURCE:
-View FPN’s “Hate Crimes” Policy Paper Statistics Supplement here.
Endnotes:1. United States Constitution, Amendment 14. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/
2. Kirk, M., Madsen, H. (1989). After the ball: How America will conquer its fear & hatred of gays in the 90’s. New York: Doubleday. p. 183.
3. New details emerge in Matthew Shepard murder. (2004, November 26). ABCNews.com. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1
4. Mayes, D. (2007, January 16). City prosecutor summons BSU student to appear in court for false report. The Arbiter. http://media.www.arbiteronline.com/media/storage/paper890/news/2007/01/16/News/City-Prosecutor.Summons.Bsu.Student.To.Appear.In.Court.For.False.Report-2599039.shtml
5. Schaefer, J., Swickard, J. (2007, March 29). Anthos’ death blamed on hate is not that at all. Detroit Free Press. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070329/NEWS01/703290305/1003
6. See FPN’s “Hate Crimes” Statistics Supplement, as found at http://familypolicy.net/homosexuality/?p=553
7. Dailey, T., Sprigg, P. (Eds.). (2004). Getting it straight: What the research shows about homosexuality. Washington, DC: Family Research Council.
8. Hogg, R. “Modeling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men,” International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657-661. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1021138136284
9. Roundy, B. (2000, December 15). STD rates on the rise. New York Blade News, p. 1.
10. Carpenter, D. (2007, April 12). The hate crimes mirage. The Bay Area Reporter. http://ebar.com/columns/column.php?sec=outright&id=42
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Christians arrested at homosexual event. (2004, October 15). WorldNetDaily.com. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40929
14. Hate Crimes Statistics 1997. Federal Bureau of Investigation. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc97all.pdf
15. Murder: Crime in the United States, 2004. Federal Bureau of Investigation. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html
16. Hate Crimes 2004, paragraph 14. Federal Bureau of Investigation. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/section1.htm
Prepared by FPN Policy Analyst Alex Mason.NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
