President Bush Joins in Gay-Bashing

I'm no fan of hate crimes laws. I'm of the belief that violent crime is repugnant, regardless of the motivation of the perpetrator. However, I agree (as usual) with Andrew Sullivan, who agrees with me, but also feels a coherent position can be taken in favor of hate crimes laws. He puts it this way: "The other coherent position is the view that hate crimes somehow impact the community more than just regular crimes and that the victims of such crimes therefore deserve some sort of extra protection under the law. The criteria for inclusion in such laws is any common prejudice against a recognizable and despised minority. The minority need not be defined by an involuntary characteristic - religious minorities are so protected - and they choose their faith. Nor need the minority be accurately idetified. If a gentile is bashed because the attacker thinks he's Jewish, the hate crime logic still applies. I disagree with this, but I can accept its coherence."

It is ridiculous, however, to deny hate crimes protections on the basis of sexual orientation, especially since such crime can effect both gay and straight people. If a straight man is mistaken as gay, and beaten or killed because of it, the motivation of hate is still there. If a member of the KKK mistook me for a Jew (not likely, but work with me here), the crime could still be punished under hate crimes law, regardless of the fact that I am Gentile.

President Bush, however, doesn't see it this way, and has threatened to veto a bill passed by the house extending hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation, gender and disability. Why? The administration gives no truly logical reason, stating that "All violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly." I'd like to ask the president that, if that's so, would he be in favor of the repeal of existing hate crimes law which allow for harsher punishment for crimes based on race or religion.

The Chicago Tribune's story on the threatened veto states that, "Under the legislation, a group of conservative House Republicans said in a letter to Bush, "religious leaders promoting traditional morality could be made subject to compulsory legal processes -- and forced into court -- simply because their religious teachings may have been misconstrued by a deranged criminal, particularly as prosecutors blur the line between what constitutes a 'hate crime' and what they deem as hate speech."" So if I claim to head a church that believes being born Asian is a sin against God, and I were sued for inciting hatred that led to a specific act of violence, I could also seek protection under the First Amendment right to free speech? I mean, just because your God says I'm a sinner doesn't give you the right to incite hatred or to seek protection for your hateful speech. And that's what these Christianists seem to be saying. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family says the "true intent of the legislation," is to "muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality."

Back to Larry Kramer: what have we done to make you hate us so?