Why
a Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity “Hate Crimes” Law Is Bad for You
Part 1: Promoting
hatred of people opposed to homosexual practice and transgenderism
by Robert
A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
May 28, 2009
To
print a clean copy with proper formatting and pagination go to the pdf
version here.
The
so-called “Local
Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” (H.R. 1913), passed by the
U.S. House of Representatives along party lines on Apr. 29 and introduced
into the U.S. Senate shortly thereafter by Ted Kennedy (S. 909), is
improperly named. The bill is really a hate-promotion bill as
regards the inclusion of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” among
the groupings slated to receive special protection.
Supporters
of this bill who rightly believe homosexual practice to be unnatural and
sinful have been duped into thinking that this bill is primarily about
protecting homosexual and transgendered persons from violence. They hear
the rubric “hate crimes” and think: Who can be for violence toward
homosexual and transgendered persons?
The real
objectives of the “hate crimes” bill (hint: it’s not about crime)
Supporters
of this bill who believe homosexual practice to be immoral rarely stop to
consider that all necessary laws are already in place protecting
everyone from violent physical attacks or verbal threats to do bodily
harm, including persons who engage in homosexual and transgendered
behavior. Even homosexual columnist Andrew Sullivan has recently
commented: “The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of
human beings from crime. There are already laws against that—and Matthew
Shepard's murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of
the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time.” There is
absolutely no evidence that state prosecutors are systematically
ignoring genuine crimes against homosexual and transgendered
persons, once reported to law enforcement officials.
So why pass
“sexual orientation” and “gender identity” so-called “hate crime”
legislation? The reason has more to do with foisting an expansive
homosexualist agenda on the nation than with concerns about crime. The
bill serves the following vital aims of that agenda:
-
It gets the federal
government to enshrine in federal law “sexual orientation” (i.e.
homosexuality and bisexuality) and “gender identity” (i.e.
transsexualism and cross-dressing) as identity markers worthy of
special protection and promotion alongside racial and gender diversity.
-
This in turn gives
federal backing to hatred of all persons who express opposition to
homosexual practice and transgenderism as the moral equivalent of
racists and misogynists (sexists), no matter how loving that
expression of opposition may be.
-
It also lays the
foundation for a litany of future “sexual orientation” and “gender
identity” bills that will markedly abridge the civil liberties of all
who express moral disapproval of homosexual practice and transgenderism.
The foot in the door
This “hate
crimes” bill is the proverbial foot in the door or camel nose in the tent
that makes possible—indeed inevitable—all future laws involving “sexual
orientation” and “gender identity.” By simply placing “sexual orientation”
and “gender identity” alongside of “race,” “color,” “national origin,”
“gender,” and “disability,” this “hate crime” bill does most of its
damage. It ensconces in federal law the principle that homosexuality,
bisexuality, and transsexuality are as benign as race, gender, and
disability—an aspect of human diversity that must be affirmed and
celebrated. Those who refuse to go along with this principle then
become encoded in law as hateful, discriminatory bigots.
Note that while “religion” (an identity marker involving
choice) is one of the protected categories of this “hate crime” bill, the
bill mainly makes a connection between “sexual orientation” and “gender
identity” on the one hand and a host of benign innate conditions on the
other (i.e. the five other protected categories of the bill). I’ve never
heard an advocate for homosexual practice and transgenderism make the
connection between these behaviors and religious belief. The analogy is
always made with race and gender.
The thought crime of
“prejudice” against homosexual and transgender behavior
Make no
mistake about the fact that this is an Orwellian thought-crimes bill.
Suppose a young man and a 70-year-old grandmother push each at roughly the
same time. The man does so after shouting out “You bigoted homophobe!”
while the grandmother does so after responding “Well then, you are a
sexual pervert!”
This “hate
crime” bill would apply only to the grandmother and would do so solely on
the basis that she believed that homosexual practice was a perversion of
the natural sexual order. For the bill establishes this conviction to be a
“prejudice,” stating that the federal government can intervene when “a
crime of violence … is motivated by prejudice based
on the actual or perceived … sexual orientation [or] gender identity … of
the victim” (emphasis added). The bill effectively (but wrongly, go
here) declares this conviction to be a hate that society must
prosecute vigorously by enhancing penalties and calling for massive
federal intervention.
However, the
bill shows no concern for classifying as hateful prejudice the alternative
conviction; namely, that advocates of a male-female requirement for sexual
relations are hateful, ignorant bigots. Rather, the bill promotes
this alternative conviction to society at large. It essentially declares
to all sectors of society that it is “open season” on hating and
ostracizing persons who find homosexual behavior and transsexualism to be
morally repugnant, much as society hates and ostracizes members of the Klu
Klux Klan or skinhead Nazi groups.
Recent cases
in point are the widespread intimidation tactics employed by homosexualist
opponents of California’s Proposition 8 against its supporters (for
example, go
here,
here,
here,
here,
here) and the smear campaign against Miss California, Carrie Prejean,
for daring to disagree with a homosexual pageant judge’s affirmation of
“gay marriage” (note that the point holds whatever Prejean’s deficiencies
may be as a role model for Christian sexual modesty). Why shouldn’t those
opposed to homosexual practice or transsexualism get special protection
from the federal government? The reason is simple: They’re bigots.
The analogy of other sexual orientations
This bill
thus goes beyond protection of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered
persons (who are already protected) to promotion of hatred—hatred toward
those opposed to homosexual and transgendered behavior. If you have any
doubt about that, consider whether adding pedophilia (‘pedosexuality’) to
the list would imply promotion of pedophilic behavior by the state and
antagonism by the state toward perceived opponents of pedophiles. Surely
it would.
Sadly, this
may not be the best example since Rep. Steven King unsuccessfully
introduced an amendment to the “hate crimes” bill in the House that would
have excluded pedophilia from the definition of “sexual orientation.” If
you can believe it, the Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee
defeated the amendment along party lines, 13-10. To be sure, the Democrats
are right that both “pedosexuality,” sexual desire for children, and
“polysexuality,” sexual desire for more than one person concurrently, are
“sexual orientations.” Where the Democrats err is in failing to recognize
that this is a good reason for not having a “sexual orientation”
provision.
Conclusion
So don’t
fall for the line that, if you really love “gay,” lesbian, bisexual, and
transgendered persons, you will support this “sexual orientation” and
“gender identity” “hate crime” bill. No, support for this bill does not
mean that you oppose hateful, violent acts against persons who
self-identify as homosexuals, transsexuals, and cross-dressers. Existing
laws already make that point. Rather, it means that you support
stigmatizing, marginalizing, and penalizing people who, lovingly or not,
oppose homosexual practice and transgenderism. This is a hate-promotion
bill.
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. is associate
professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author of
The Bible and Homosexual Practice:
Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press) and co-author of
Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Fortress Press).