Court Throws Out Pro-Family Activists' Challenge to PA Hate Crime Law
by Allie Martin and Jenni Parker
July 13, 2005
(AgapePress) - A lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's hate crime law has been tossed out. The legal action was filed two years ago, shortly after the controversial legislation was signed into law, thus adding gender identity and actual or perceived sexual orientation to the state's hate crimes statute.
Diane Gramley, president of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania, says the hate crimes law, amazingly, began as a bill (H.B. 1493) dealing with vandalism of agricultural property. "It's very concerning to us," she notes, "that the common law court saw no problem with a bill that had started out as an agricultural vandalism bill, then overnight the state Senate took that, scratched every line -- I mean every line in the original bill is marked out -- and [the legislators] insert the sexual orientation, gender, and gender identity wording in there."
The AFA of Pennsylvania contends that, in June of 2001, H.B. 1493 was essentially hijacked in the State Senate and gutted of all its original language. Content that dealt with eggs, milk, crops, fruit trees, and other agricultural products and property was replaced in its entirety by wording that included "actual or perceived ancestry, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity."
The Pennsylvania Senate voted 32-15 to pass what had been turned into a hate crime bill. Then on November 26, 2002, despite warnings of potential First Amendment rights violations, the State House also approved the legislation by a vote of 118-79, and it was subsequently signed into law.
Shortly afterward Gramley sued, along with fellow pro-family plaintiff Frances Bevan of the Pennsylvania Eagle Forum, the concerned, pro-family citizens contending that the hate crime bill violated the U.S. Constitution. Their suit was unsuccessful, however; the Commonwealth Court voted 6-1 against allowing the suit to proceed, and the judges never even addressed the constitutional questions raised. Instead, they ruled that Gramley and Bevan did not have "a substantial, direct and immediate" interest in the outcome of the case and therefore lacked standing to sue.
The AFA of Pennsylvania president disagrees, however. She insists that she and all pro-family Pennsylvanians who believe homosexuality is wrong are endangered by the hate crime law because of its potential to encourage infringements on their First Amendment rights. "Anyone who publicly expresses opposition to those who are pushing the homosexual lifestyle or acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, will be directly affected," she contends.
Gramley says she and other pro-family advocates are shocked that the legal challenge to the Pennsylvania hate crime bill was thrown out. She urges other concerned Christians nationwide to remain vigilant. "I would just encourage folks to be aware of what's going on in their state capitol," the activist says, "because this type of situation, where homosexual activists are actively working to insert actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity into our hate crimes laws -- these efforts are going on almost continually around the nation."
An Associated Press report notes that Judge Dan Pellegrini, the sole dissenter to the Commonwealth Court's opinion, expressed strong support for the plaintiffs and warned that all Pennsylvanians will lose out if residents are not permitted to issue timely challenges to what they view as legislative shenanigans. Gramley says an appeal of the court's decision is being considered.
