Facts about hate crimes bill

On Crosswalk.com, Michael Craven is described as "Author, Speaker, Founding Director of the Center for Christ & Culture". His article, however, doesn't seem very Christian to me.

He writes,

Today, legislators in the House of Representatives are pushing for a “discharge petition” to force a vote on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2001, (LLEHCPA), H.R. 1343, another federal Hate Crimes bill that would add “sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability” to current hate crimes law. Introduced by Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Mark Kirk (R-IL), this one has more than 100 cosponsors. LLEHCPA would authorize the Justice Department to conduct local law enforcement hate crimes training, and to conduct expanded hate crimes investigations and prosecutions.

So, let's start with some simple housekeeping: I think he has made some errors here. HR 1343 is the "Health Centers Renewal Act of 2007", which has nothing to do with hate crimes. And, I don't think a current bill in the House of Representatives would be titled with "2001". The House web site doens't list a bill by that title, but it does list HR 1592, "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007", with those sponsors Mr. Craven lists, so I'm going to operate under the belief that Mr. Craven has somehow got the numbers mixed up.

He continues,

This legislation will ban alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation, whether actual or perceived, as well as “gender,” which include the categories of transgender, cross-dresser, or transvestite.

Uh, no. It bans violent crimes. You can't ban alleged anything, only actual crimes. But that's not the half of it. Mr. Craven claims,

The purpose of “hate crimes” legislation, in this instance, is to apply this preemptive aspect mentioned above, in order to render any speech opposing the legitimacy and promotion of homosexuality illegal, because such speech or even expressed thoughts constitute “hate.” Thus it inhibits the rights of those who resist the imposition of homosexual morality to disagree and brings the power of the state to bear on those who do.

Of course, that's 100% factually false in every way. First of all, as Mr. Craven himself points out in the very same article, banning speech in the US is unconstitutional, so a law can't do that. Further, the actual text of HR 1592 very clearly spells out that it is only applicable to cases of violent crime:

`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

`(a) In General-
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law , willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law , in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

So, first of all, it's my opinion that Mr. Craven is bearing false witness about the actual text and purpose of the bill. Further, I question whether a real Christian would be attempting to claim that a bill with the exclusive purpose of prohibiting extremely violent crimes would violate the rights of those who "resist the imposition of homosexual morality". What sort of resistance is Mr. Craven trying to protect, anyway? Can he seriously claim that Christians should want the right to use firearms and incendiary devices against gay people? But apparently that's exactly what he's trying to get you to defend, since he writes,

I urge you to contact your representatives today and voice your opposition to this destructive legislation.

It's destructive to ban violent crimes against gay people? I think Mr. Craven has a very un-christian agenda.

Rights radicalism

I have long considered it proof of the superiority of the gay rights movement over our opponents that while bigots regularly attack and occasionally murder gay people, the most prominent bigots of the anti-gay leadership seem to have little to no fear of us.

I suppose it was inevitible that an anti-gay leading bigot is now claiming that his life is in danger from gay people. It had to happen sooner or later, either from reality or from them manufacturing it so they can claim the false martyrdom that they're so fond of.

I was watching a PBS documentary a few nights ago which explained that in the 60's, african-americans were somewhat divided between those who felt that slow and steady progress toward societal acceptance was the right way, both morally and tactically, to win their civil rights, and those who believed that they had suffered long enough and that it was time to demand their rights immediately and settle for nothing less. Dr. King was a leader among the latter, and channeled the movement almost entirely into peaceful means of standing up against the oppresive might of a bigoted culture.

I see the parallels today. The gay community, after 30 years of slow acceptance, of officially "demanding" our rights while in practice accepting a long series of small steps, has decided to go for the brass ring: marriage. Certainly I understand: I've felt for 20 years or so that if I meet Mr. Right, I will accept a "civil union" over my dead body, and that I will never accept second class citizenship in my own nation. It seems to me to be the sign, though, that the gay community has reached its breaking point: gay people have become sufficiently self-empowered that we are no longer willing to accept the shackles of bigotry, and as a community we are beginning to stand up an refuse to do so.

My fear is that while culture is in some ways rushing to embrace us, it may not be moving fast enough to reach the end point when we do, and that there may conseqently be a successful backlash against gay rights. I fear the bigotry of America, I fear oppressive laws designed to make gay people's lives difficult or impossible, I fear the re-criminalization of homosexuality, and yes, I fear that the detention camps the Bush administration has been setting up could be turned into concentration camps in which to put us to our deaths.

The hate and bigotry of so-called "conservative" America can no longer be tolerated. It must be opposed to our last breath. We must never, even for a moment, allow the statements of hate and intolerance to stand unopposed, un-denounced, silently accepted. They called for a "cultural war" - it's time they get one.