WASHINGTON (ABP) — The Senate stalemate over the Iraq war claimed another victim July 18: a hate-crimes statute that supporters had hoped to attach to a defense bill.
But although the attempt to add gender, sexual orientation and disability to the categories protected under federal hate-crimes laws has been halted, the rhetorical war over it continues. Some conservative Christian groups are making a concerted effort to defeat the bill, saying it will threaten Christians' freedom of speech and religion. Meanwhile, other Christians accuse the bill's opponents of willfully lying and misrepresenting its scope to scare voters.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pulled the defense bill from the Senate floor July 18 after some of the chamber's Republicans blocked an attempt to amend it with a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
One casualty of the yanked bill was another amendment that would add the new categories to existing hate-crimes laws. It was identical to the “Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007” (H.R. 1592), which the House passed in May by a wide margin.
A White House statement released after the House bill's passage suggested President Bush would veto it. In an attempt to make it more difficult for Bush to do so, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) made plans to attach it to the defense bill.
Several large religious conservative groups then leapt into action, encouraging their supporters to oppose the bill.
“A bill in Congress makes it a crime for pastors and churches to speak against homosexuality,” read the subject line of a July 14 email “action alert” that the American Family Association sent to supporters. “The proposed law would make it a crime to preach on Romans Chapter 1 or 1 Corinthians Chapter 6. Or even to discuss them in a Sunday school class. If churches and individuals want to keep the government from telling them what they can and cannot preach and teach about homosexuality, they better get involved now!”
But supporters of the bill said that simply wasn't true, because the bill deals only with prosecution of violent crimes motivated by a victim's real or perceived characteristics. H.R. 1592 also contains a provision explicitly stating that nothing in the bill should “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.”
Harry Knox, director of religious outreach for the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign, said the fact that opponents of the bill usually do not mention that provision shows they are being disingenuous at best.
“[I]t is abundantly clear to anyone who actually reads the bill that no clergyperson is going to be muzzled in a pulpit from saying anything he or she believes is true, under God; it couldn't possibly be more clear,” Knox, a former United Methodist minister, said. “Therefore, it has to be said that people who are saying something to the contrary are simply telling a lie — and they're doing it, unfortunately, in Jesus' name.”
Other conservative groups have been more subtle in their rhetoric opposing the bill. In the July 17 edition of his email newsletter, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the proposal would create inequity in law enforcement and also create a “slippery slope” toward censorship of anti-homosexuality views.
“By protecting some victims of violent crime (such as homosexuals) more than other victims of equally violent crimes, this amendment would change our time-honored understanding of Equal Justice for All to Special Justice for Some,” Perkins wrote. “And although the current proposal is ostensibly limited to acts that cause ‘bodily injury,' it would set us on a slippery slope that could ultimately jeopardize free speech rights, especially those of religious leaders.”
The bill doesn't protect only gays, lesbians and transgendered persons from hate crimes — it also claims additional penalties for crimes motivated by a person's perceived sexual orientation. And, theoretically, it would also provide the additional penalties for crimes against heterosexuals, if the attackers were motivated by the victim's heterosexuality.
Bill supporters also note that few, if any, opponents are arguing for the repeal of existing hate-crimes laws, which have been on the books for decades. Those laws already provide additional punishment for crimes motivated by the victim's race, religion or national origin.
Representatives from the American Family Association and the Family Research Council did not return requests for comment.