This new section of our
website will evolve and be under construction
during quarters
1, 2, and 3 of 2009
Templates
for Conservative Leadership
About
20twentytwelve12
(5) Hate Crimes Bill
Infringes First Amendment Rights
by Representative Louie Gohmert
Human Events
Posted 04/27/2009
The new Federal Hate Crimes bill, which is about to pass the House,
intrudes on First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion. It’s another
great leap forward on the “gay rights” agenda.
We’ve been sliding down this slope for too long.
When I joined the American Bar Association, I understood it was about
making better laws and lawyers. It wasn’t supposed to have a social
agenda, left or right. For example, the ABA offered model codes regarding
appropriate objectivity and fairness from judges and lawyers that the
attorneys in each state were to consider as the most appropriate rules for
governing their professional actions.
In the 1980's lawyers with a social agenda began filling the ranks of the
ABA. It began to show itself in the resolutions being made and passed. By
1988, the Association adopted a policy urging its members not to hold
business or professional functions at clubs that discriminate on the basis
of sexual orientation. In 1989, the ABA adopted a policy of urging the
federal government, state governments and local governments to enact
legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
in employment and housing. I recall seeing in the ABA Journal that states
should be encouraged to send more homosexual delegates to the convention
around that same time. Also, the ABA passed a controversial resolution in
support of keeping abortion legal. Even some members who were pro-choice
felt that the ABA was not the place to be pushing social issues. But the
bar association had become the place to get social engineering done.
The model code of conduct for judges, called the ABA Model Code of
Judicial Conduct, actually was improved in a number of ways by the early
1990's. One of the changes for judges, though, was that "A judge shall
not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest
bias or prejudice . . ." followed by a list of things most would agree on
including "race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age . . ."
The laundry list then added a surprise to many in attorneys as it inserted
the words "sexual orientation" as well as "socioeconomic status."
This created concern in some circles that the ABA was now into social
engineering and trying to move an agenda with vague language that created
problems for judges. Some writers following the new model code expressed
concern that it would prevent a judge from even mentioning that a lazy,
able-bodied defendant being put on probation should get a job and start
making something of himself rather than being a burden.
States were pushed to adopt the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct and
come out, as the social engineers felt, of the dark ages. Some
states' legal elites did not want to be considered intellectually
inferior, so they began to give in. Even in Texas, where the Texas
Supreme Court decides on such changes to its own code for all judges, the
court was mostly composed of strong conservative jurists at the time.
However, they too did not want to be accused of intellectual inferiority,
so they quickly moved to adopt it. Chief Justice Tom Phillips and Justice
Nathan Hecht were both considered very conservative, socially and
politically. But, all nine signed on to the new provisions to make
it the guiding ethical rule for all state judges in Texas.
When Judge Cynthia Kent and I with other Smith County judges expressed
concern to our friend, Justice Hecht, he felt we were over-reacting.
I said that this new change will ultimately prevent a child
custody judge from considering that one of the spouses practices
homosexual conduct in front of the child. He said, "It will never
come to mean that on my watch." He was wrong.
As I pointed out then and continue to point out in the hate crimes debate,
words have meaning.
And although right now "sexual orientation" may be said by
some to include only heterosexual and homosexual preferences, someday some
judges will begin to say that "sexual orientation" means exactly what it
says. It means whatever you are oriented toward sexually cannot be held
against you. So, if you are oriented sexually toward children, or toward
animals, or corpses, or shoes, or whatever, that's ok. Who are we to
judge?
In the Hate Crimes hearings last week, the Democratic proponents made
immensely clear they did not want any definition in the bill to restrict
its application. It was mentioned during debate that there was a
definition of the term in another law that restricted its meaning to
heterosexuality and homosexuality, but there was no reference allowed in
our bill to that definition, so it does not control the Hate Crimes bill.
We pointed out that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders IV had at least 30 different types of sexual orientation.
Surely, we felt, the majority would allow at least some restriction to
keep the new law from being too offensive. So, Steve King offered an
amendment to at least exclude pedophiles from the special class of extra
protection. However, this was voted down on party lines.
Every Democrat voted against excluding pedophilia from heightened
protection, and each Republican voted to exclude pedophiles from any more
protection than anyone else in America gets. As I pointed out at the
hearing, other types of sexual orientation could be included if the term
is given its plain meaning and even listed in the current DSM, including
exhibitionism, voyeurism, or even necrophilia.
So far, 40 states plus the District of Columbia have been coerced into
basically adopting the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct for judges.
Under it, no state judge can say anything about sexual
practices without risking grievances being filed and potentially being
sanctioned or even removed from office.
The battle in Texas to insert the "sexual orientation"
language into the model codes for all attorneys was probably typical of
some other states as well. Some lawyers objected to being muzzled
permanently, but narrowly the new change passed the vote of the State Bar,
thus becoming the rule for attorneys.
In debate over whether lawyers’ religious beliefs about
sexual orientation should be stymied by the new lawyers’ ethical cannons,
a major argument was that the judges had to comply so why shouldn’t the
lawyers, too. So the first step was to control the judges; then
parlay that to prevent all lawyers from expressing their religious beliefs
on sexuality if it differed from those who had overtaken the ABA.
After the model codes for all judges and lawyers prevented them from
saying or doing anything to reflect the belief that such conduct was
inappropriate, things could move more smoothly for anyone pushing a gay
rights agenda.
How could it not? Any judge or lawyer who said there were
any orientations that were not appropriate risked then be skewered and
deemed unethical. Unsuspecting litigants wanting to uphold traditional
values of marriage or heterosexuality were walking into courts with the
decks completely stacked against them.
If a judge supported their position, he was unethical.
So, should we be surprised by the judicial holdings in states like
tradition-oriented Iowa regarding gay marriage when no lawyer there can
ethically claim that homosexuality is inappropriate?
Overlapping that period, there has been a noble fight to finally diminish
and defeat unfair prejudice based on race, creed, color, or gender. In
that battle, those seeking to overcome unfair racial or gender bias have
welcomed help from all sources.
As the civil rights advocates were joined by those with a
homosexual agenda, they were glad for the company. Homosexual advocates
hitched their wagon to the racial and gender civil rights movement and
attempted to equate all rights movements. Many of the civil rights
warriors were driven by their Christian beliefs that all races should be
treated equally as we are equal in God's eyes.
Many of those same ministers have seen societal damage to those who have
practiced what the ministers saw as sexual immorality.
Those ministers never dreamed that after the homosexual
rights proponents arrived on the civil rights platform that those same gay
rights advocates would someday turn and say, "Now you ministers have no
right to say my homosexual conduct is inappropriate." They had no idea
that they would now be muzzled by the same people who rode their movement
to the capital.
It was a great honor for me to stand with dozens of African-American
ministers who understand what sexual immorality can do to the foundation
of a nation. Chuck Colson once pointed out that you cannot demand the
morals of Woodstock and not expect a Columbine.
The truth is that when a society is guided by "If it feels
good, do it," then it is deteriorating into the most base of animal
instincts. We leave behind the ability to override base animal instincts
for the good of society.
Animals do not have the ability to override instincts. They
can choose between instincts as to which takes priority, but only humans
can choose to override all base instincts including self-preservation,
fight or flight, or even sexual instincts for a higher good of those
around us. For example, if you are hungry as are strangers around you and
you find food, you could choose to share with perfect strangers. Animals
cannot set aside all instincts for societal good. Humans can.
Hate crimes legislation may bring an end to the ability to advocate that
sexual immorality is unhealthy, as propounded in many religions including
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. In the legislation before the
Judiciary Committee this week, hate crimes proponents claim that religious
objections are specifically protected. The bill says that it does not
restrict Constitutionally-protected speech, unless it relates to the
underlying offense. But that’s clearly untrue: the underlying offense can
be religious teaching or even quotes from religious books. There is no
protection for religious speech negatively addresses sexual orientation.
That, after all, might induce someone to do something violent.
The hate crimes legislation purports to address only crimes of violence or
attempted crimes of violence. However, under Article 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) of
the Federal Criminal Code: "Whoever . . . aids, abets, counsels, commands,
induces or procures" a crime's commission, is punishable just as if he is
the principal.
Here is one scenario about which every minister, rabbi, and imam would
have to worry. A minister, rabbi, or imam preaches that homosexuality is
wrong and leads to the ultimate destruction of moral society. Perhaps one
might even quote language in sacred writing saying homosexuality is an
"abomination."
Then some nut who hears such preaching goes out and shoots
a homosexual. When arrested, the mental defective says that the teaching
of the minister/rabbi/imam is what "induced" him into committing the act.
The minister/rabbi/imam could be argued to have induced the shooter. It
raises a fact question, that a prosecutor could demand, be submitted to
the jury at the religious leader's trial.
It also would follow that someone reading scripture that indicates
homosexuality is wrong might be attempting to induce a Hate Crime.
Criminal attempts can get someone arrested as well. Even if a minister
were not convicted, arrests alone have a way of sending chills throughout
the religious communities.
Any atheist might say he could care less about the foregoing arguments.
But, if he is honest, he cannot disagree with the facts.
The facts are that hate crimes are not an epidemic as some
claim.
There are horrible case scenarios which proponents of the
bill say justify federal legislation. One such case is the horrible
dragging death in Jasper, Texas. Yet, two of the three defendants in that
case received the death penalty under state murder law (not hate crime
law), and the third was sentenced to life in prison. No proposed Hate
Crimes bill enhances the sentences there.
I, personally, could probably have supported a sentence in that case that
allowed the victim's family to choose the method and location by which the
defendants would be dragged to death. But, that is not before us in any of
the hate crimes proposals, which would do nothing to alter the cases that
are most often touted as reasons to have hate crimes legislation. I even
offered a death penalty provision for the federal Hate Crimes bill so that
would at least be an option in some states that did not have it. That too
was voted down in committee on a party line vote.
There was the tragic case of Nicholas West in my home county where the
young man was clearly targeted for being a homosexual, was kidnapped, and
brutally killed. The defendants were charged with Capital Murder,
convicted and have had the death penalty already inflicted. There is no
proposed hate crime law anywhere that would have meted out a tougher
penalty or had any affect on that case.
FBI statistics show that the incidence of hate crimes has declined over
the last ten years for which we have available data. The FBI statistics
show that the number of crimes alleged (many self-reported) to have
involved some type of bias or prejudice in 2007 is actually lower than it
was in 1997.
Alleged “hate crimes” comprise a fraction of one per cent of the actual
violent crimes in America. There is no epidemic, yet proponents keep
saying the evidence is clear that the instances require action.
They won’t cite evidence to support their idea, but they
will say it is out there and everyone just knows. Instead they constantly
site terribly egregious cases in which hate crime legislation would have
made no difference.
Every potential victim deserves protection. Every victim deserves help.
Who one sleeps with should not be a reason to give that person heightened
protection over any other victim. Hate Crime laws do.
We even offered amendments to say that if you are
determined to set up these special classes of people who deserve more
protection than others, let’s include the military in there too. That was
voted down on party lines as well. Every Democrat felt it was more
important to protect someone because of whom he or she sleeps with than
those who protect our very freedoms.
It just seems insane to this former judge that a defendant charged with a
federal Hate Crime could literally come into court having committed a
heinous attack on someone and his defense could be that he randomly
selected his victim. He just wanted to hurt somebody, anybody. Therefore,
if he convinced the jury of his random selection for his brutality, he
would have to be acquitted of all federal hate crime charges. According to
the Hate Crime bill, we just don’t think randomly select victims deserve
as much protection.
The bottom-line message of all Hate Crimes legislation is this: If you are
going to hurt me, shoot me, brutalize me, but please don't hate me. Make
it a random, senseless crime of violence instead. You’ll walk free from
the federal charges under the new Hate Crimes bill if you do.
Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Louie Gohmert, a Republican, has
represented the First Congressional District of Texas in the U.S. House of
Representatives since 2005.
Note: You can also read a
LightBookproductions commentary on this issue from several years
ago.
(Click Here)
We are not surprised that the liberals in Congress now
with a majority are pushing for this pointless legislation. What
does crime have to do with designer labels? Well, now you know.
It
is nothing more than the attempt to codify social engineering.
Serious legislation,
considered worthy of even a vote, at the
very least should point toward a corresponding rationale
supported with a reasonable amount of indisputable facts in the real
world, and, to start with, this legislation simply does not.
Hopefully the Senate
will refrain from creating a Senate version of this bill.
