Here Come the Thought Police:
Why "Hate Crimes" Legislation is Bad Public Policy

Homosexual activists, civil liberties organizations, and others at both the state and national levels are discussing the possibility of proposing or amending "hate crimes" laws  in light of what they are declaring an "epidemic" of hate crimes regarding "sexual orientation." But this prompts a few questions:

• What exactly is a hate crime? How does it differ from a similar crime not presumably motivated by "hate"?

• Who decides on a definition of hate?

• Is there an epidemic of crime against homosexuals?

• Is this a disguised attempt to infringe on freedom of speech, in order for certain groups to gain political clout, while silencing their critics?

Laws already exist in many states and at the federal level which are loosely called "hate crimes" laws. Federal law does not cover sexual orientation at present, but only set up a mechanism for collecting statistics on so-called hate crimes against homosexuals (the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990). Several proposals for sweeping "hate crimes" law have been introduced into Congress, but to date none has succeeded. Some state laws include sexual orientation in their statutes; many others do not. It is this second category of states where much lobbying by homosexual activists is taking place now.

Ohio is a good example. Ohio currently has an ethnic intimidation statute which increases penalties for menacing, aggravated menacing, criminal mischief, criminal damage or endangering, and phone harassment, if it can be demonstrated that the perpetrator(s) acted out of prejudice against the victim(s) on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. The law was at one point overturned as unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court, but was reinstated in 1994 in view of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1993. An amendment first proposed in 1999 would add sexual orientation to this already questionable law.

Yet many public policy experts and commentators don't support the concept of hate crimes. The Columbus Dispatch wrote in an editorial, "Why should one variety of hate be punished more or less than another?" ("Hate crimes: Good intentions don't make good law," Feb.24, 1999)

We would agree that this is a problem. When some crimes are punished more because of certain types, but not all types, of prejudice or animosity, this undermines the concept of equal justice under the law for all.

Punishment should be given for acts, not for thoughts.

Another attempt to control speech

Proposed hate laws are nothing new. They are a frequent recourse of factions who desire increased political power, attempting to silence opponents and raise their own stature, through intimidation if necessary. But our Founders were wise in their construction of the Constitution, knowing that its "freedom of speech" clause should provide an equalizing effect and prevent abuses of power by one group or another.

Attempts at "speech codes" by universities have produced a mountain of litigation, mostly over nothing more than slurs or insults. These laws have been struck down as unconstitutional by federal and state courts throughout the country. Hate crimes laws are just a back-door attempt to get the same goal accomplished: to use force of law to elevate certain groups and individuals over others, and in some cases, to legitimize questionable social behavior.

Adding Sexual Orientation to the Law

Homosexual activist groups are proposing the addition of the fuzzy term "sexual orientation" as a protected class to both federal and state laws. There are many problems with such a proposal:

• Hate crimes laws are a bad idea to begin with, even for bona fide minorities like African-Americans or religious groups, simply because they don't solve the problems they set out to solve. Racism or prejudice are not discouraged by adding penalties for crime. Both Massachusetts and California have hate crime laws that include sexual orientation, and in 1996, the only two murders committed in the U.S. that were said to be based on sexual orientation occurred in these two states.

• And equality is not served when vandalism, for example, is more objectionable in some cases than others. Try telling that to the store owner whose shop was just ravaged by youths out on a pointless drunken rampage. Should the criminals looting the store of a minority owner get greater penalties? Why is this fair? Or if two African-American store owners' shops were both vandalized in the same day, but only one involved racial slurs by the criminals, it is this latter crime that would receive the most punishment   even if all other aspects of the crimes were similar.  How fair is this?  Was the other crime not as "hateful"?

• When "sexual orientation" is under consideration, most people assume this means homosexuality. But this is a very nebulous term. In many states this term is undefined. It can refer to men or women involved in homosexual acts   or it can mean cross-dressers, transsexuals, or sadomasochists. It could even refer to the sexual orientation of pedophilia, when the person is simply expressing a preference. Do we really want to enact laws that treat these activities and desires as worthy of protection?

• Homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals and so on cannot be easily identified. These are behaviors that can (and do) change and fluctuate. How is a society to protect these people? The reality is that the law will in essence will be protecting these behaviors, or the perception of these behaviors, on the part of anyone. That's means we will have passed a law to defend the rights of you, me, your neighbor, or her daughter  to practice these behaviors free from criticism. It puts a stamp of approval on homosexual and other questionable sexual activities, one that most people aren't ready to give. Homosexuality isn't something people are, but something people do. Claims that homosexuality is biologically-based remain unproven, and many people in our country are ex-homosexuals. The point is, one doesn't have to be involved in these behaviors, and there are many health and other risks that should prevent us from elevating their status.

• The incidence of "hate crimes" is exaggerated and statistics manipulated by homosexuals in order to engineer passage of these unconstitutional laws. While it is true that assaults, robberies, vandalism, even murder happen to people practicing homosexual behavior, a considerable percentage are perpetrated by other homosexuals. And often, the statistics kept on "hate crimes" against people practicing homosexuality are inflated with many incidents of non-criminal activity like name-calling. In addition, laws exist to punish real criminals now. A system is in place for bringing those who commit crimes against homosexuals or anyone else, for whatever motive, to justice. Why seek more? In order to try to silence through intimidation those who may object to their behavior. Case in point: the Matthew Shepard murder.

Matthew Shepard

The brutal killing in 1998 of Matthew Shepard, a student in Wyoming, has been used by homosexual activists in a calculated and manipulative manner that has lost all resemblance to truth. A similar case occurred later in Alabama, the murder of Billy Jack Gaither. There is no question that the murder of young people is always a tragedy. Yet the fact remains that Matthew Shepard was involved in high risk behavior, behavior that should not be exalted by our society. His murderers should be brought to justice, just as the murder of anyone in a like manner should be punished   severely. But it doesn't follow that his death should make us sympathetic to homosexuality.

Should those who are critical of homosexual behavior, and don't want it to be legitimized in public policy venues, be held up as "potential murderers" themselves after such an incident? That is exactly what happened in 1998. Every Christian group that has criticized pro-homosexual public policy   from same-sex marriage proposals, to the aggressive promotion of homosexuality in our schools   was held up as potentially "inciting" the Matthew Shepard murder!! By every measure of fairness, these groups   including ourselves (Mission America)   were treated, ironically, to a dose of hatred, venom and intolerance the likes of which have not been seen in this country for many years.

Stereotyping and slander of conservative organizations followed that murder in spite of its condemnation by ourselves and many other groups. We would never advocate such a thing, and to suggest this is outrageous. Yet GLAAD (the Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) accused a number of pro-family groups of contributing to a climate of hate. And Katie Couric on the Today show implied the same thing.

Labeling and irrational presumption of guilt will inevitably accompany hate crimes laws covering sexual "orientation." There will be suggestions that perhaps officials should "anticipate" who may be "potential" criminals (i.e., those who express any disapproval of homosexuality.) If the ballot box is any measure, this includes the majority of people. In the state of Hawaii in November 1998, a same-sex marriage ballot issue went down to a stunning defeat    68% opposed it. And Proposition 22 in California in March 2000, affirming that marriage should remain between one man and one woman, passed by 61% of the voters.

Is there to be no further debate on homosexuality? That wouldn't reflect the wishes of the majority, clearly.

Hate Crimes: Not Even Good Intentions

We have to disagree with the Columbus Dispatch, because we do not believe that those who propose hate crimes laws have "good intentions." We believe that the primary motive for advocating hate crimes law is an attempt to silence legitimate debate about homosexuality.

Hate crimes proposals are desperate attempts by people who have run out of talking points other than name-calling; are unable to defend indefensible behaviors; and who selfishly want to be granted privilege without demonstrating why it is deserved.

Let's hold all positions of advocacy to a higher standard. If groups want to gain public legitimacy, have them demonstrate why it is in society's best interests. Let's all have the courage of our convictions, and concern enough for general public welfare, to hold debates in responsible public venues   and not, because we selfishly believe we deserve more rights than others, try to implement a police state to penalize and silence people for what we think they believe.