Why
a Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity “Hate Crimes” Law Is Bad for You
Part 3: Inroads
against personal freedom already made in the United States by homosexual
and transsexual political activism
by Robert
A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
June 18, 2009
To
print a clean copy with proper formatting and pagination go to the pdf
version here.
Many
proponents of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” legislation
contend that “sexual orientation” legislation will not endanger civil
liberties in the United States—in Europe, Canada, and
Brazil, but not in the United States. The evidence to date suggests
otherwise.
An
example of hate-speech prosecution in Philadelphia
In Part 2 I
cited the example of two teenage girls being prosecuted for sexual
orientation “hate speech” under Illinois law. Another example occurred in
Philadelphia a few years ago. District Attorney Lynne Abraham prosecuted a
small group of Christians who were peacefully demonstrating at a
homosexual parade in Philadelphia in 2004 (go
here for video). The group comprised eleven persons from an
organization called “Repent America,” including two grandmothers and a
17-year-old girl. All eleven spent 21 hours in jail. After a preliminary
hearing Judge William Meehan ordered four of the eleven to stand trial on
three felony charges and five misdemeanor charges (a fifth person, the
teenage girl, was required to stand trial in juvenile court). The three
felony charges were “ethnic intimidation” (proclaiming that homosexual
practice was a sin), possession of instruments of crime (a bullhorn), and
inciting a riot (reading from the Bible passages dealing with homosexual
practice). These four Christian defendants faced up to 47 years in prison
and fines of $90,000 each.
Although
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Pamela Dembe subsequently
dismissed the criminal charges (after comparing the Repent America group
to Nazis and the Klu Klux Klan), had the prosecutor Lynne Abraham been the
judge (or perhaps had Judge Meehan been the judge instead of Dembe), the
verdict would have been quite different. That the prosecution was
undertaken at all indicates that some legal authorities already believe
that peaceful speech against homosexual practice is prosecutable. Expect
judges to side with city prosecutors as the homosexualist agenda gains
greater ascendancy through the passage of national “sexual orientation”
legislation. Of note is the fact that in 2007 U.S. District Judge Lawrence
Stengel ruled that the city of Philadelphia had a right to “exclude
persons expressing contrary messages” from the vicinity of the “Outfest”
parade even though the event was a admittedly a “public forum” conducted
in a “public place” (namely city-owned streets and sidewalks; go
here).
Other
instances where “sexual orientation” legislation has already led to an
abridgement of civil liberties
Certainly
infringements of speech liberties have already taken place in all
other Western democracies that have “sexual orientation” “hate crime”
laws. In Canada, for example, among those fined thousands of dollars and
threatened with imprisonment for repeat offenses of speech are:
-
Father Alphonse de Valk and
Catholic Insight Magazine for speaking against homosexual
behavior.
-
Bill Whatcott, a Catholic
activist, for producing pamphlets that called homosexual practice
immoral (Whatcott was also “banned for life” from criticizing
homosexuality).
-
Stephen Boisson, a pastor,
for a letter to a newspaper denouncing homosexual practice as immoral
(also ordered to desist from expressing his views on homosexual practice
in any public forum; for a video go
here).
The argument
that free speech protections in the U.S. Constitution will prevent such
abuses from taking place rings hollow in view of the inducement to
violence provision in Title 18.2 and in view of the fact that even U.S.
Supreme Court justices have taken to citing precedents in foreign law
(e.g., with regard to the Lawrence sodomy decision). Moreover, we
already have instances in the U.S. where “sexual orientation” laws have
led to abridgements of other liberties in three main areas:
-
Mandatory
indoctrination of children in public schools. Owing to state and
local “sexual orientation” laws, children in many school systems
throughout the country now face compulsory indoctrination, from first
grade on, regarding the acceptability of both homosexual practice and
transgenderism. Teachers are forbidden to say anything critical about
any “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” and must undergo
“sensitivity training” that normalizes such practices. Curricula at all
levels are required to celebrate the homosexual and transgendered life.
Provisions for parental notification and child opt-out provisions are
refused on the grounds that the state has already declared “sexual
orientation” and “gender identity” to be specially protected legal
classifications. For examples go
here,
here,
here,
here, and
here.
-
Terminating employees
critical of homosexual practice. In 2008 an African-American
woman, Crystal Dixon, was removed from her position as associate vice
president for human resources at the University of Toledo simply because
she wrote an op-ed in a newspaper saying that homosexual behavior should
not be compared to being black (go
here). In 2007-8 a community college professor in California, June
Sheldon, was fired for leading a brief discussion on the nature vs.
nurture debate as regards homosexuality. Rolf Szabo, Richard
Peterson, Kenneth Gee, Annie Coffey-Montes, and Albert Buonanno are
previous examples of persons fired from their corporate or government
jobs for not wanting to “celebrate” at their work station “sexual
orientation” and “gender identity” diversity. For details go
here,
here,
here (pp. 10-17).
-
Forcing people against
their conscience to promote the homosexual agenda through goods and
services. The New Mexico Human Rights Commission just this past
year ordered a female photographer to pay over $6000 to a lesbian couple
for declining to photograph their commitment ceremony on the grounds
that it violated her Christian beliefs. A national Christian dating
service (Harmony.com) was dragged into several years of litigation by
the state of New Jersey for not providing services for homosexual
partnering, until finally, out of financial desperation, the company
capitulated to the state earlier this year. A Christian ministry in New
Jersey has been subject to state investigation for refusing to allow a
lesbian civil union ceremony to be conducted on its property. In
California a doctor was sued for declining to artificially inseminate a
woman in a lesbian relationship. In Georgia a counselor was fired just
for referring a lesbian woman to another counselor for relationship
advice. The Boy Scouts in Boston were no longer allowed free use of city
facilities as a result of their policy against having scout leaders
attracted to the same sex; they now had to pay tens of thousands of
dollars to use the same facilities for which they previously paid not a
cent. In New York City a school of medicine under Orthodox Jewish
auspices was forced to rent married housing to homosexual couples under
a “sexual orientation nondiscrimination” law, while in California a
Lutheran high school was sued for expelling two girls in a lesbian
relationship. Catholic Charities of Boston had to get out of the
adoption business because it did not want to place children with persons
engaged in a homosexual relationship. For details and further examples,
go
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here (2nd half),
here,
here.
Even legal
experts who support homosexualist causes such as Eugene Volokh (UCLA) and
Chai Feldblum (Georgetown University) have acknowledged that sexual
orientation laws and their inevitable corollary, “gay marriage,” will
ultimately force the end of “discriminatory” practices against homosexual
persons by even “private entities, including Boy-Scout-like organizations,
churches, religious universities, and other institutions” (so Volokh; go
here and
here).
Don’t be
fooled by “religious exemptions”
Even if
religious exemptions were to be added to any piece of “sexual orientation”
legislation, they would be of little help, for two reasons.
First,
religious exemptions are used as bait-and-switch tactics. As homosexualist
forces tighten their hold on political rule expect such exemptions to be
whittled away and ultimately eliminated. Just these past few weeks the New
Hampshire House initially balked at providing the religious exemptions
asked for by the governor in connection with a “gay marriage” bill.
Eventually the House had to compromise with the governor to get the bill
passed. The point here is that if homosexualist forces had the votes, they
wouldn’t even have considered the exemptions. As culture continues to
change, they and other legislative bodies will have the votes to refuse
exemptions or overturn existing exemptions.
Second, in
the interim let’s not forget that religious persons overwhelmingly work in
secular venues where “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws and
policies coerce their conscience and marginalize their existence to the
equivalent of racists.
What does
the future hold?
What else
can we expect for the future? Religious institutions that “discriminate”
against homosexual and transgender persons, including churches, will
probably lose tax-exempt status. Religious schools will likely lose, in
addition, federal grant money, access to student loans, and accreditation.
Certainly these penalties already apply to religious institutions that
discriminate on the basis of race (so the case of Bob Jones University).
“Sexual orientation” laws equate sexual orientation with race as benign
congenital conditions. Therefore we should expect the same rules to apply
to religious institutions when they “discriminate” on the basis of “sexual
orientation” and “gender identity.” All employers will have to subsidize
homosexual relationships. Professional licensure for lawyers, mental
health workers, etc. will require affirmation of homosexual unions and
transgenderism. The list goes on and on.
Conclusion
Don’t
believe anyone who claims that this “hate crimes” bill, with its special
protections for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” won’t lead
down the road to an abridgement of civil liberties for those who
disapprove of homosexual and transgender behavior. All the evidence
suggests otherwise. If you are tired of fighting these battles, just tell
yourself that you haven’t seen anything yet. If this bill passes, the
situation will continue worsening, not only for you but also (and
especially) for your children. Is this an important issue, even a litmus
test issue for determining which candidates for political office you will
vote for? Well, can you think of any other religious belief that you hold
for which you and your children could some day be ostracized, fined,
fired, or worse? I can’t.
For Part
1 of this series click
here; for Part 2 click
here.
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).