Matthew Shepard was a student at the University of Wyoming who was murdered near Laramie, Wyoming in 1998. His murder shocked the nation and spurred activism against anti-gay violence.
Matthew Shepard
Today, the Matthew Shepard Act, or the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, passed Congress. If signed by President Barack Obama, the act will expand the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
Barack Obama will sign this bill into law shortly, unless he has some sort of sudden change of heart. Basically, attacking someone for his/her sexual orientation will now be a federal offense, akin to attacking someone because of his/her skin color.
Some conservatives who opposed the act originally did so fearing that this act would muzzle free speech regarding homosexuality. They were afraid that making comments stating that homosexuality is immoral would be construed as inciting violence against them.
The act as passed contains the following provision, “Nothing in this Act…shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.” The inclusion of this provision alleviated some concerns regarding the prohibition of speech regarding homosexuality.
How do you feel about the Matthew Shepard Act? Should anti-gay crimes be viewed as the same as racist crimes?
July 21st, 2009 at 11:11 am
I think it is kind of pathetic that we have to pass laws against Heterosexuals, who apparantly cannot prevent themselves from mudering and abusing THE VERY GAY CHILDREN THAT HETEROSEXUALS THEMSELVES CREATED.
But alas, it seems that the Heterosexuals can not be trusted to raise children that are taught to respect human life. Even the Gay lives they are so capable of creating yet so uncapable and unwilling to protect. I wonder what God thinks of them for their treatment of their very own Gay & Lesbian creations???
Morality indeed, Heteros. Morality indeed.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:30 am
Bill, your feeble diatribe is rather pathetic. Lumping all “heteros” together in one lump is as bad as me lumping all queers as skinny, AIDS infected, twink loving fashionistas. Take your hate speech somewhere else, perhaps there is a Mormon temple somewhere you can direct your hate at.
As for the act, do we really need additional legislation to tell us killing someone is bad? What does the motivation matter, if you kill someone you either go to jail for life or get the death penalty, who cares if hate was the motivation or not. This is just feel good bullcrap legislation to appease a special voting block.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:44 am
It’s simple Bryan – the original hate crimes protections were created because people (generally white, generally men, and generally very, very angry) were committing acts of violence against others merely because of their skin color, etc. Justice was frequently not served and the penalties so miniscule that it was not a deterrent to go ahead and put on that robe and hood and do it anyway.
Now, that protection will be extended to the GLBT and other communities who have been victimized by generally straight, generally male, generally very, very angry people who think it’s okay to pound on or kill someone just because they are who they are. It happens every single day, Bryan.
The added threat of extra punishment is a deterrent. If it deters one single person from committing violence out of bigotry, fear, or misplaced rage, then it’s worthwhile to have that protection available.
If a child is murdered, there is a hue and cry across the land that justice be served. If a drag queen walking home from work at midnight is pulverized, no one really cares. It’s the way it is and therefore needs to be met with additional protections under the law.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:51 am
SO DON’T GET CAUGHT!!!
July 21st, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I don’t have any real problem with the legislation, if it makes you feel better to have it passed, fine, I just find it kind of a waste of time and resources. Research shows that that death penalty doesn’t really deter people from committing murder, so I don’t see how this legislations makes the GLBT community in safer. Dumb, ignorant people are always going to be around, if they hurt or murder someone they should get to a jail for a long time, regardless of the motivation is all I’m saying.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:15 pm
it is true that most violent crime is committed by men, that is world wide, but it is not true that white men are somehow more violent or angry. there are just more white men in this country, sooooo they commit the most crimes.
percentage-wise of the population though, more african american males are convicted of violent crimes and are victims of violent crimes than white men.
in fact, something like 95% of all black murder victims were murdered by an african american.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:34 pm
You are correct lisab. African-Americans comprise only 12% of the population but are responsible for over 50% of the murders commited each year. White people are also killed by A-A’s at twice the rate that whites kill them.
It’s a shame that lori had to go back 50 years to draw a parallel. Perhaps she should tend to the family of 800 pound gorilla’s in her living room.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:36 pm
The whole idea of hate crimes is stupid. If you’re gonna commit a violent crime, you’re gonna hate the guy you’re committing it against, at least for a few moments. Every violent crime should be punished severely, and EQUALLY. Whether a person commits a violent crime because the victim is gay/black/white/female or the victim slept with his wife, the action of the crime doesn’t change at all. So why increase or decrease the severity based on the motivation?
July 21st, 2009 at 12:48 pm
the justification comes from “deconstructing the white man’s hegemony”, i think that is the expression.
basically, there was a time — not too long ago and certainly within living memory, a black man could not get a fair trial in the south and perhaps anywhere in the usa, if he killed a white person, even in self defense.
these laws are suposed to balance this out.
it is certainly true that black men who kill white people are more likely to get the death penalty than a white person murdering a white person.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:54 pm
number of people who received the death penalty for murder, i.e. got the needle, for an interracial murder.
White Defendant / Black Victim (15)
Black Defendant / White Victim (243)
these laws are supposed to fix that — i am not supporting the laws, just explaining them. generally mostly white juries from mostly white communities are more likely to ask for the death penalty than a mostly black jury from a mostly black community.
source
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976
July 21st, 2009 at 1:19 pm
The way I see it, a crime is a crime, no matter who the victim is and who the perpetrator is. Trying to categorize crime based on ethnicity, lifestyle, etc leads us down a dangerous path. It strikes at the fundamental idea in our society that we are all equals.
That’s not to say I’m OK with hateful ideology. Show me a neo-N*zi, and I’ll show you someone I’d love to spit on. But if that person decides to take action on his ideas and commit a violent crime, there are already laws that aim to punish that behavior. The crime itself should be the issue, not the motivations behind it. Considering those motivations opens the door to all sorts of legal differentiation that is antithetical to our open society.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:37 pm
it is the same principle as affirmative action.
the fact is most of the ceo’s in the country are white men. most of the doctors are white men. most of the upper middle class are white. if you did not have affirmative action laws, this would continue because white doctors will continue to have sons that go on to be white doctors. thus, you need to have laws that accept minorities to medical school over the white doctor’s son.
same principle here. mostly white juries are harsh to black men who attack whites. since most juries are mostly white, this will continue, unless you have separate laws.
it may be true that a mostly black jury would be just as harsh to a white man who attacked an african american, but that situation rarely occurs. few juries are mostly black.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:41 pm
i am using race above because it is the most obvious example, but it applies to gays as well.
a gay man who kills a heterosexual man is tried in front of a mostly heterosexual jury … maybe 100% heterosexual.
a heterosexual man who kills a gay man is also tried by a mostly heterosexual jury. again, maybe 100% heterosexual.
since many heterosexual men are uncomfortable with gay men, the outcomes will likely be different without separate laws.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Just out of curiosity, is comparing it to affirmative action supposed to convince me to approve of the concept?
Besides, I don’t agree that the jury issue is the sole motivation here. If that’s the problem, it can (and should) be addressed by making it clear to jurors that race is not a factor in the case at hand. If a man is guilty of murder, convict him of the crime. If not, don’t.
The terrible crimes against Matthew Shepard (and many others like him) are patently illegal and punishable with severe penalties — in many places death. That’s been true for a long, long time. I don’t see why it needs to go beyond that.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“is comparing it to affirmative action supposed to convince me to approve of the concept?”
no, not especially.
“If a man is guilty of murder, convict him of the crime. If not, don’t.”
these laws are actually not about conviction. juries are fairly good THESE days about convicting people fairly.
where juries fail is in punishment. these laws make the outcomes similar — i.e. a jury that convicts a hetero killing a gay man as a “hate crime”, will result in a similar punishment to a gay man killing a hetero man.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
for example, i grew up part of my life in provincetown, massachusetts and part of my life in the boston suburbs.
provincetown has a big “artist community”, if you take my meaning (wink wink), and everyone pretty much gets along.
but, when i went to public middle school for a brief time in a suburb of boston, i remember one of the “cool boys” just daily beating the snot out of a much weaker boy, who was likely gay, but not necessarily — i have really bad gaydar. every time the “cool boy” saw the other boy in the hall he would punch him for no reason other than that he existed.
i am sure you know many similar examples from your own life. gay men just do not get treated fairly … and we need them.
who would do my hair or run the retail clothing stores i shop at if it was not for gay men?
July 21st, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Isn’t there already a law against murder? Bill is right. This is a pathetic and unnecessary bill.
Since we are bantering around statistics, it’s interesting to me that Gay Males perpetuate an even higher rate of crime than even black males or white males. Don’t we need special laws against all these angry, gay villains?
July 21st, 2009 at 2:15 pm
as an aside, one thing that always surprised me is that the gay community is very split between lesbians and gay men. the lesbians supported gay men like you would not believe when the AIDS crisis first hit … gay men really never paid them back.
men were literally dying in the street back in the 1980’s from AIDS, and lesbian groups were in the fore front of getting attention to the problem.
gay men have not really been that helpful on gay marriage, something which lesbians really want.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Poor Lori, suffering from white guilt. Hate crimes give special treatment to those rare instances where a white murders a black but no special treatment for the much more common act of a black man killing a white.
Hate crimes are 100% b.s. Special privileges for special victims.
When gay murderers are found guilty, they typically get stiff sentences (no double entendre intended).
July 21st, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Welcome to slavery. Let me know how it feels. I’m going off of the grid now. Bye, bye. You used the plight of my relatives, the plight of my great grandfather, and compared your sufferings to the sufferings of African Americans who’s families still have yet to fully recover. You compared your plight to that of those whose decedents are incarcerated more today than ever before! More decedents of slaves are in jail today than in school! Yet, you used my people–you used the suffering of my grandparents so that you could have sex as you wish without having to hear a word from ignorant folks who will always exist. VANITY. I’m outraged. And now, we all go into slavery in this country. Welcome to 1984–your mind is no longer your own. We just lost America.
YOU CAN’T MAKE OPINIONS AND THOUGHTS A CRIME. YOU HAVE JUST MURDERED THIS COUNTRY. YOU HAVE CROSSED THE LINE BETWEEN THOUGHTS AND ACTS AND CODIFIED THIS INTO US LAW. ITS OVER. WE ARE NO LONGER FREE PEOPLE. I CAN’T STOP CRYING. I CAN’T BELIEVE LUST AND SEXUAL DESIRE AND DIFFERENCES OF OPINION COULD DRIVE SOMEONE TO DO SUCH A HORRIBLE THING TO A NATION. TO THOSE WHO SUPPORT HATE CRIME LAWS: YOU ARE SELFISH!!!! SHAME ON ALL OF YOU WHO SUPPORT HATE CRIME LAWS, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME ON ALL US TRAITORS, THOUGHT POLICE.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Do any of you remember reading about Jesse Dirkhising’s torture and murder at the hands of two homosexual lovers eleven months after Matthew Shepard was murdered? Probably not. The thirteen-year-old boy was drugged, strapped down, sodomized, tortured, and killed by two adults living in an apartment that ‘reeked of excrement and was littered with drug paraphernalia.’ Like Matthew’s murder, it was a horrible crime — almost unfit to print. But that’s not why most newspapers across the country refused to tell the story. The real reason? It didn’t fit their agenda! It wasn’t politically correct!
Today, the hate crimes bill was passed in Congress. It will be approved by B.O. The law stinks. It will judge the motives of people. It will make having wrong thoughts punishable by the law on top of the actual act. Another day in this great land of ours where another of our freedoms have been stolen from us. One of the reasons our forebears came to this land was to have freedom of thought and expression. When I was young, we were always told that it was not against the law to say anything you thought. That is not true today. Freedom of speech is no longer a fact in America.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Foolish people, can’t you see what is happening to our country? The very country that provided folks with the space to be gay is being destroyed in turn. Nice… way to go, silly activists.
1984 on the Horizon: Congress Moves to Regulate Thought Crime
Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2289400/posts
Ever-vigilant for opportunities to quash anything contrary to the liberal worldview, Leftists in Congress are working on new ways to silence any dissent.
Most of us know about the “Fairness Doctrine” that they got away with for years to harass and control the opposition. Most of us also know the liberals have been trying for years to bring it back.
Their latest attempt is HR 1966, ostensibly to fight “cyber bullying,” but it could very easily be used to prosecute “hate crimes,” or essentially any electronic communication that hurt someone’s feelings.
David Rittgers of the Cato Institute discusses this Orwellian measure on Fox News in the video below.
This paragraph within the bill gives you an idea of the ominous scope:
“Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” – HR 1966 Sec 3, Sec 881A
It is also said to violate “double jeopardy” Constitutional protections, in that if you are tried and convicted, but the federal government believes you weren’t punished severely enough, they can retry you to seek a harsher sentence.
It is no stretch whatsoever to see homosexual activists use this against someone like myself or broadcasters at Focus on the Family any time we tell the truth about the moral and health dangers of homosexual behavior.
Here are just a few items from an article I wrote a couple of days ago on how “hate crime” legislation is already being used against people for exercising their opinion, free speech, and freedom of association, both internationally and already here in the United States:
* Last year a Catholic priest in Canada, Fr. Alphonse de Valk, who was investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) for the “crime” of teaching what the Bible says about homosexual behavior (that it is a sin) and marriage (that it is between a man and a woman). * The Ontario Human Rights Commission slapped Protestant printer Scott Brockie with a $5000 fine for refusing to print homosexual-themed stationary. * The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal fined Hugh Owens several thousand dollars for quoting the Bible in a letter to the local newspaper. * Mayor Diane Haskett in London, Ontario, was fined $10,000 for refusing to proclaim a gay pride day. * Swedish Pastor Ake Green in 2004 was sentenced to 30 days in jail for preaching a sermon in which he defined homosexual behavior as sinful and harmful to society. * A British couple were questioned by police on possible “hate crime” charges after they wrote a letter-to-the-editor of their local newspaper criticizing city officials for distributing brochures at city hall promoting homosexual behavior. * In Canada, Focus on the Family must cut out any portions of their broadcasts dealing with homosexuality for radio stations in that country. * Last year the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal ruled that youth pastor Stephen Boissoin was guilty of writing a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate which might expose homosexuals to hate and contempt (Boissoin’s 2002 letter said homosexuality was immoral, physically dangerous and should not be promoted in schools). * Not content with their success in quashing open refusals to bow at the altar of political correctness, the Canadian pro-homosexual group EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) is calling for the Canadian postal system to censor the mail for “hate mail” * Catholic Charities in Boston was forced out of the adoption ministry because they refused to put children in homes of homosexual couples. * Boston school teachers have been threatened with termination if they fail to cast homosexuality in a positive light to students. * The University of Toledo fired a black administrator for writing a “letter to the editor” of a local newspaper about the inconsistency of comparing homosexuality to ethnicity. * Christians in Philadelphia were arrested for reading Bible verses and praying out loud during a homosexual festival. * The state of New Mexico issued a fine of $6,600 to a Christian photographer (a private businessman) who didn’t want to photograph two lesbians make a commitment to each other. * A Colorado law passed last year to allow men to use women’s restrooms and shower rooms if they “felt like a woman” also contained provisions which prohibits the publication for public consumption any material which is “discriminatory” against homosexual behavior. So while churches can (for now) continue teaching within their own walls what the Bible says about homosexual behavior, they cannot publish anything in public which does. This includes any Christian book publishers or other ministries in Colorado.
We all understand the need to criminally punish assaults on persons and property. We also understand the need to restrict direct threats of violence against persons and property.
1984BookBut this measure and others like it seek to punish thoughts and opinions. Even without a threat of violence against persons or property, this type of regulation can be used to brand you a criminal and punish you for expressing a value statement about a particular issue or behavior.
This bill is a direct assault on the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This is what we get when we put Leftists in power in our government. Leftists have no interest in fairness or in the freedoms of the “little people.” It is all about the consolidation of power and exercising any government control over the individual–including speech, thoughts and opinions–they consider contrary to their socialist ideology.
Remember this, and remember that the next time you vote.
July 21st, 2009 at 7:20 pm
the guys who committed this murder already had serious antisocial issues in coping and resorted to violence and property crime. In their encounter with this victim they already were steeped in “issues” of their own orienteation and violence suggesting to me thay had dysfunctional amydala’s co-opted by the macho kulture of the loco area with god knows what kind of parenting and community issues. They were just like sliders snowboarding thru one crime to another, or what I call gateway criminals looking for any opening in the hedgeblock of tame society. I think some of the bloggers fail ro recognize the “illness” of these attackers and their conglomerated sociopahthy as a function of primary undignosable brain disease(as of yet) stick them in a pet scanner and measure their amygdalas and hippocampus and you will see. Test their short term working memory and then we will all know. They are lacking proper neuroconnections.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:24 pm
It would be less confusing if “hate crimes” were called what they are, more accurately: terrorism.
Can you see the difference between killing someone you hate as an individual, who happens to be an American, and killing someone because they are American, while chanting “Death to America!”?
It is the same difference between killing someone who happens to be gay and killing someone *because* they are gay. The latter is an act of violence against an entire group, and is rightfully considered more serious.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:30 am
Kateri, your post is an good reminder that we have to stay vigilant to protect the equal rights of all of us. Because people in Canada stayed vigilant, the CHRC dismissed the charges against Fr. Alphonse de Valk; the decision against Hugh Owens was reversed by a higher court… any such rulings, condemning someone for speech or opinion, should be challenged. If you tell the world that i am the doguther of Satan Herself, I will not consider you guilty of hate speech and I will defend to the death your right to voice your own opinion.
The cases of Scott Brockie and Mayor Dianne Haskins are not a case of expressing their own opinion. They refused a service to one group or person that they provided to other members of the public. Any individual’s rights are limited by the equal rights of others. A restaurant owner does not have the right to refuse service to someone because they are black, or Jewish, or Mormon, or gay. A Mayor does not have the right to provide parade permits to Christians and deny them to Jews. If a printer can refuse to print any material he does not personally agree with, what becomes of the freedom of speech of everyone else?
The case of Catholic Charities in Boston is similar; the people you personally agree with don’t get more rights than the people you disagree with. The Catholic Church has every right to express it’s beliefs about homosexuality. Everyone else on earth has an equal right to believe otherwise. The Catholic Charities is a 501(c)3 set up to be independent of the church itself so that, among other things, it can receive government grants. The conditions under which it gets government support also require it not to discriminate in either hiring or services. They cannot deny services to anyone, including gays or lesbians, that are legal under Massachusetts law. Rather than comply with state law requiring them to treat everyone equally, they chose to stop providing adoption services at all.
The “hate crimes” law does not punish thoughts or speech. You can legally hate anybody and everybody for whatever reasons you please. If you act against someone because they are a member of a group you hate, the evidence that your attack was against that entire group can be used to increase the severity of the charge and the penalties if it’s proven.
I have Christian friends who consider homosexuality to be a sin. Not one of them will defend terrorism.