Conservative Reaction: 'Hate Crimes' Amendment Unnecessary, Discriminatory
by Bill Fancher and Jody Brown
June 17, 2004
(AgapePress) - Many conservatives say an amendment passed by the U.S. Senate this week which makes homosexuality a special class under the "hate crimes" law really doesn't make any sense.
In a 65-33 vote on Tuesday, the Senate added the amendment to the $447 billion defense authorization bill for next year. The measure would add three new categories of protected groups -- sexual orientation, gender, and disabilities -- to the civil-rights-era law on hate crimes. Joining all Senate Democrats in approving the amendment sponsored by Democrat Ted Kennedy were 18 Republicans, one of them being co-sponsor Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon.
"I cannot think of a more decent and Christian thing to do," Smith told the Washington Post in reference to the amendment's passage. "When people are being stoned in the public square, we ought to come to their rescue." The Oregon lawmaker supports a ban on same-sex message, but told the press he thought it was important for the Senate to act against hate before dealing with the marriage issue. According to press reports, the Senate is expected to act on the Federal Marriage Amendment on or about July 15.
But Republican Senator Sam Brownback, who voted against the amendment, does not believe the legislation is necessary. "Crimes against another person are crimes of hate, regardless of who the individual is," the lawmaker from Kansas says, adding that the new law would just make more work for those prosecuting the crimes. "Some may say this is an additional tool, but it's an additional burden [to prosecutors] to prove mental intent of what ... the perpetrator intends to do."
Conservatives feel the whole premise of hate crimes is contrary to free speech in the U.S. One of those is Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families, who says the Senate's action promotes discrimination.
"It gets the government in the business of trying to determine what a criminal is thinking when he commits a crime and whether he was motivated by hate," Bauer says. "Crime is crime -- and whether somebody is assaulting an 80-year-old grandmother or a 20-year-old gay man, the penalty ought to be severe in both cases."
Bauer contends the Senate was attacking a "straw man" when it stuck the amendment to the defense spending bill. "There are many laws on the books, all of which are enforced, to stop crimes of violence against any American regardless of their party affiliation, their sexual habits, their religion, or any other extraneous factor," he says.
Bauer says singling out specific punishments for crimes against certain groups is not compatible with equal justice for all.
Another pro-family advocate describes the amendment as a "blueprint for tyranny." Andrea Lafferty of Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) contends the legislation -- which she believes is backed by homosexual activists as a way of gaining special legal protections under federal law as a minority -- is designed to silence all opposition to the homosexual political agenda. Her organization has been a long-time opponent of Kennedy's hate crime bill because it criminalizes a person's thoughts.
"Under hate crime legislation, it is likely that a sexual sadist who rapes a women would get a lesser sentence than a hate monger who beats up a homosexual," she says. "Where is the justice in that? Both are criminal acts and both are hateful. One shouldn't be treated differently than another."
Lafferty says TVC will be contacting churches nationwide, encouraging them to fight against what she describes as an "unneeded and dangerous threat" to freedom of religion and speech.
Traditional Values Coalition has published a list of the roll call vote on the amendment, which indicates Republican senators such as Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Virginia's George Allen and John Warner, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania supported its passage.
