garysher

"Hate Crimes" Legislation: A License To Kill The First Amendment
By Alan Sears, Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Is Congress protecting the wrong victims, or pursuing the wrong enemy?

Maybe both, with the so-called "hate crimes" bill passed this week by the U.S. Senate, under the vigorous urging of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy (D).

On the surface, this new legislation purports to offer federal protection of those individuals most likely to be endangered by their fellow citizens. But the bill's prime movers have a severely limited view of what constitutes "hate," American style.

House Democrats allowed as much before the bill even left their Judiciary committee. They ignored the fact that federal law already prohibits acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color, or national origin. They ignored the many state laws that already allow for the aggressive prosecution of such "hate crimes."

They spurned efforts by Republicans to expand the bill's protections to embrace such perennially high-profile targets of violence as pregnant women, senior citizens, police officers, and U.S. military personnel.

So, if this legislation is not about stopping "hate crimes" (no law can accomplish that)...

...and it's not about creating needed laws (where the laws are needed, they already exist)...

...and it's not about extending the existing laws to protect the broadest possible array of likely victims (Democrats in committee nixed that idea)...

...what is this "hate crimes" law about?

Primarily, it's about punishing people of traditional faith who dare oppose homosexual behavior.

The full-scale cultural assault just isn't working. For all the constant push for acceptance on television and in the movies, on the cable networks and the evening news programs, in popular magazines and news journals and websites … a significant segment of the American people, like former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Peter Pace, still declines to embrace homosexual behavior.

They refuse to endorse same-sex marriage. They won't concede that something the Bible condemns is, in fact, morally acceptable and amenable.

Do they believe those who practice immorality should be beaten, flogged, tortured, or shot? No. Do they believe they should be publicly ostracized or humiliated? No. Do they want to see those who practice sodomy mocked or persecuted for their choice? No.

But neither will people of traditional faith say something is okay that God has said is not okay. Nor will they stand idly by while their children are taught to admire, and perhaps experiment with, homosexual behavior. And they won't start editing the Bible to say only what people want to hear.

That puts them on a collision course with those pressing the demands of the homosexual political agenda – including, sadly, many in the U.S. Congress.

So the Christians have to be silenced. That's where this new "hate crimes" law comes in. It is, in effect, a Congressional gag order on anyone voicing meaningful public opposition to homosexual behavior.

Democrats have made that clear. Introducing the bill on March 20, Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan) described it as an effort "to provide basic rights and protections for individuals so they are protected from assaults based on their sexual orientation." Since the legislation includes "intimidation" as a form of violence, it could soon be less of a crime to beat up a pregnant woman than it is to criticize homosexual behavior from a pulpit.

Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee tried to head off that travesty by adding an amendment to protect the rights of people of faith. Their amendment, offered by Congressman Mike Pence, R-IN, said "Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution." Every Democrat voted against that amendment, and it failed.

Incredibly, Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office, calls the new law "a milestone for both First Amendment rights and civil rights." Only the ACLU (and its Congressional co-conspirators) could declare legislation that so openly violates the Constitution a triumph for the First Amendment.

And make no mistake: this law is unconstitutional. As former Attorney General Edwin Meese recently wrote, "Congress only has express constitutional jurisdiction over three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy on the high seas. Because the federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers, Congress must find authority in other constitutional clauses to federalize particular crimes."

Otherwise, Meese says, "such acts would violate federalism principles, the Tenth Amendment, or other structural limits in the Constitution."

In fact, there is no such authority … so Congress has decided it can live with the violation. Its members are flagrantly rewriting the law to suit the extreme and inflexible demands of their politically-correct power base. But don't let them kid you that they're just trying to stop "hate crimes."

What they really want is to keep their most vocal supporters pouring money into campaign war chests. And they can do that by voting to silence those who oppose homosexual behavior.

They won't succeed. Some courts may play along. Some Christians may be intimidated.

But in the end, these politicians' problem is with God. And God won't be gagged.


Alan Sears, a former federal prosecutor who held various posts in the departments of Justice and Interior during the Reagan Administration, is president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth
Townhall.com::"Hate Crimes" Legislation: A License To Kill The First Amendment::By Alan Sears

__________________

mytmouse57

I might not agree with everything this guy says, but the basic principle of this article is right on the money. I've long said there is going to be a HUGE backlash against the GLBT rights movement if it continues on its present course.

It's not just "Christians." As a Baha'i, I've been told I'm "hateful" by default, I've had my religion likened to Nazi doctrine and told that it's dangerous to the point of being deadly -- simply because it -- like nearly all Orthodox faiths -- states that marriage is only between men and women and that God does not approve of homosexual behaivor.

The GLBT rights movement was right on the money to condem such clowns as The Rev. Fred Phelps. But then the circle of those considered "hateful" began to grow and expand to include more and more people. Now, faiths that are veiwed my most as moderate, or even a little liberal, are being labled as "extreme" or "hateful" -- simply because they won't re-write religious law to celebrate homosexuality and embrace gay unions within the church, synogauge, mousqe, temple or other house of worship.

I had one particularly militant poster in another forum say that as a person of means and a large employeer, it's becoming one of his main goals in life to "maginalize" those who practice "anti-gay theology."

Well, bully for him, everybody should have goals in life. But I think he -- like many of the more adamant wings of the GLBT rights movement -- is in for a rude awakening if they think they can simply "maginalize" what could very well be upwards of 70 percent, or more, of society.

I'm optomistic about the future.. and I think the push and pull over this issue will work itself out in a way that's ultimately benifical for all. Gays deserve to be freed from the chains of fear, isolation, real bigotry and ridicule.

But I think that GLBT movement in general still has a hard lesson to learn in that just yelling "hateful" at anything and anybody that disagrees even one wit with them is, in the long run, really hurting nobody but themselves.

__________________
If at first you don’t succeed – try, try again and then quit. There’s no sense in making a damned fool of yourself. – W.C. Fields

tristanrobin

myt - I think that a lot of what you said is true

however, when somebody advocates the discrimination and barring of rights from certain law-abiding segments of the population, it IS hateful. I don't CARE if they use religion as a validation for it. There are people who consider elements of Islam hateful and have no problem saying it.

Not everything said about gay people is hateful - but there is a line (which is WAY before you get to Fred Phelps and his ilk) over which 'hateful' is a perfectly reasonable adjective.

__________________
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

"know this is EXACTLY why people think you shouldnt have equal rights" 2/11/08 Grace

fxashun

There are several "law-abiding" segments of the population that have their "rights" curtailed in certain areas of society. Sometimes, it is up to society to determine exactly what they want to condone and support.

__________________

pensacola_niceman

I wonder if it would be considered a hate crime to call a gay person a "poo-poo head?"

CrazyFlamingos

Only if you do it while flinging poo at their head.

__________________
unfknblvbl


"I will hold up America to the lightning scorn of moral indignation. In doing this I shall feel myself discharging the duty of a true patriot; for he is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins." -- Frederick Douglass

fxashun

Isn't that a euphemism for "tossing salad"? Poo-poo and head...I'm not sure. That may be quite insensitive toward a gay guy.

__________________

mytmouse57

Tristan, I agree with you.
For example, there ARE (what I would consider to be mis-practiced) elements within the Islamic world that are hateful.

As for the rights of law-abiding citizens, I've always held that secular law should be as libretarian as reasonably possible. As I understand religion according to my studies of it, the Prophets have all said let the world and the people in it go the way they will.

And I agree with that. I don't think gambling, prostitution and the recreational use of certian substances are moral. But I think making them illegal is stupid and pointless.

Marriage, or unions (pick your term) as gays are trying to seek it, is a civil, legal matter -- not a religious/moral matter.

And even within religion, I have a right only to criticize that within MY religion. If another religion debates it among themselves and decides they want gay weddings in their church, it's not my place to tell them what to do.

__________________
If at first you don’t succeed – try, try again and then quit. There’s no sense in making a damned fool of yourself. – W.C. Fields

tristanrobin

my feelings exactly

__________________
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

"know this is EXACTLY why people think you shouldnt have equal rights" 2/11/08 Grace

tristanrobin

__________________
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

"know this is EXACTLY why people think you shouldnt have equal rights" 2/11/08 Grace