red fuzzy jesus

Equality March Recap

The Equality March was pretty incredible and inspiring today for the usual reasons such events are.  There were tons of people from all walks of life.  There were unexpected allies and celebrities there.  There was moving music and some really clever signs. It was a good pick-me-up but I'm not sure how useful it is.  I don't mean to always play the cynic but I question how effective any such march is.

When I worked in downtown DC near the White House there was some sort of protest or demonstration every single day.  Granted, few were as large as this but I think politicians understandably build up an immunity to demonstrations.  A large crowd of people carrying signs and chanting rhyming slogans only does so good.  The follow-up is what's important.  It's heartening to see so many people so frankly pissed off by the administration's inaction.  But I wonder how many of them are also going to make a donation to the fight in Maine or Washington. 

I find a lot more value in making a donation or calling or writing a representative than marching and chanting.  The latter makes the participant feel better.  The former makes the contributor's life better.  

Hate Crimes: Fact and Fiction

For several months now the Democratic lead Congress has batted around the idea of adding new categories to already existing federal hate crimes laws.  The house approved it but the Senate attached it to a defense bill that had to be shelved till a later date.  The new categories are gender, disability, and sexual orientation.  Predictably, America's professional anti-gay activists have launched into apocalyptic seizures over the idea of including sexual orientation. 

The religious right, however, has not come up with a single argument against hate crimes laws.  After reading the right wing "news" sites and activists propaganda for months I have noticed that not one religious right group has argued against hate crimes laws in their totality.  This is because to argue against current hate crimes laws they would have to somehow explain why religion and race should not be protected categories. 

The strategy they have chosen to follow instead is two fold.  First, they claim adding sexual orientation to hate crimes laws would give the government the power to punish thoughts and words.  Second, they argue hate crimes law protect certain classes of citizens over others.  Both of these claims are absurd and would be comical if not for the power and influence of these bigots. 
 

MYTH 1: Hate crimes laws are a new concept currently being debated by Congress.

FACT: To read the materials on the religious right web sites one could easily conclude that hate crimes laws are not a reality already.  The fact is, hate crimes laws have been around for four decades.  The questions before Congress now is whether to add new identity categories to existing federal hates crimes laws.  Since the mid 1960s hates crimes laws have added specific punishments when an act of violence is used to threaten a community based on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion.  At issue now is whether to add sexual orientation, disability, and gender to the list of protected categories. 

When the religious right argues against hate crimes laws it is important to note that they have enjoyed the protections of hate crimes laws for forty years.  They do not argue against the existence of hate crimes laws, per se, only expanding the protections to people other than them. 

MYTH 2: Hate crimes laws make it less of a crime to attack a straight person than a gay person. 

I have already addressed this ridiculous scare tactic at length in what I call the "grandma delusion."  The religious right stretches the truth to claim that somehow you won't be punished for beating a straight, white person.  It is a pathetic claim.  Nothing in the text of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act ranks people based on who they are. 

If a person breaks spray paints his name on the front of your store they are guilty of vandalism.  If a person spray paints his name and "kykes go home" on the front of your store with swastikas and anti-Semitic slogans then they have not merely committed the crime of vandalism.  They have vandalized a storefront AND used that act of vandalism to send a threatening message to the Jewish community causing Jewish people to live in fear or not do business in that area.  Hate crimes laws recognize the duel crime of the latter situation.

Likewise, if a person mugs someone for money they have committed a violent robbery.  However, if a person is picking off guys leaving a gay bar for brutal beatings with homophobic slurs, that attack is not just against the individual but used to threaten the community as a whole.  A hate crimes law would punish both aspects of the crime. 

It is important to note, again, that this understanding of a hate crimes law has protected Christians and people of any faith for forty years.  Hate crimes laws were originally passed as a response to church burnings in the South.  People recognized then that burning a black church is not a simple act of arson but arson with an explicit threat to the black community.  The religious right has enjoyed hate crimes protections for years and hidden behind them when attacked for their often hateful and bigoted rhetoric.  They do not oppose hate crimes laws, they oppose others being protected by them. 

MYTH 3: Expanding hate crimes laws to include gays and lesbians is equivalent to passing thought crimes laws.

This is a pervasive lie repeated ad nauseum on all the religious right sites.  A small sampling of this hysteria can be seen in the following:
"[T]he bill would elevate homosexuals to a special protected status. So if a pastor stands up in the pulpit and says homosexuality is a sin ... it will be considered hate speech, …and if this law passes, the federal government will go after people who say those kinds of things."  cite
"This is an effort to silence people who want to step up and talk about morals because some [people] don't want to be made to feel guilty,"  cite
"What they're attempting to do here in America, the birthplace of freedom, is to criminalize Christians for simply sharing the truth of God's Word -- and we cannot stand for that," cite

Hate crimes laws specifically address violent crimes; not speech, not thoughts.  Nowhere in the text of the law is there any prohibition on speech or thoughts.  Furthermore, such a law could never survive judicial review even if it somehow got passed. 

It is worth asking why the religious right makes up a reason to oppose adding sexual orientation.  There is no way possible that a law is going to pass Congress or be held up in court that bans specific speech.  There are no good reasons to oppose adding sexual orientation to hate crimes laws so in order to keep gays and lesbians from being protected they have to manufacture a threat to speech with no evidence this will or has ever occurred. 

MYTH 4: Pastors who preach sermons giving the "biblical" view of homosexuality could be prosecuted.

What the religious right calls the "biblical" view of homosexuality is their own unhistorical interpretation of select verses that have little or nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.  That said, they have the right to preach whatever view about whatever god they want. 

No pastor or any person is in legal jeopardy for expressing an opinion about homosexuality or any other matter.  After forty-some years of hate crimes laws it is still legal for a pastor or anyone to stand before a congregation and spew all sorts of hatred.  The KKK can still march down any street in America and hold any rally they want.  Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and any other faith imaginable has the unrestricted right to believe whatever and teach whatever.  The only time a pastor can be prosecuted for inciting violence is when he or she specifically directs an audience to go attack someone and a listener follows orders.  Inciting someone to commit violence has nothing to do with hate crimes laws. 

For four decades there is no evidence that any pastor has ever been arrested for preaching about something that supposedly violates a hate crimes law.  If this had ever happened the religious right would repeatedly tell the story in all their propaganda.  In many states and cities, gays and lesbians already have hate crimes protections.  The issue now is whether to add that category to federal hate crimes laws.  Although no one in the religious right can name a single instance in which an existing hate crimes law in any state or city has resulted in pastors being targeted for their speech, they still espouse the idea that somehow adding gays and lesbians to hate crimes laws puts pastors at risk.

They oppose adding gays and lesbians to federal hate crimes laws because they have an irrational animus toward gays and lesbians.  Rather than just be honest about that animus they make up false threats like the fear mongering about pastors and free speech. 

One could argue against the existence of hate crimes laws altogether.  One could say that having any protected category violates the Equal Protections clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  I would probably still disagree with that person but at least that argument would be intellectually honest.  However, as shown over and over again, intellectual honesty is not the religious right's forte. 

HOLDING MY BREATH

Like a lot of people, I was a little surprised when the Democrats narrowly took over the Senate.  I expected the House to fall but I was pessimistic about some candidates' chances.  I was at the Democratic Sheraton and saw Senator Clinton make her acceptance speech along with Elliot Spitzer.  Then, supporters and campaign staff stood around television screens throughout the hotel as results poured in.  We eventually moved to a bar down the street and bit our nails over Virginia.  I finally went to bed around 5a.m. and had to be at school the next day to teach by 7.  It looked good, but I was still pessimistic.

Then, over the next couple days, Senator John Tester was declared the winner and finally, George Allen conceded and it was official…  the Dems held both houses.  Almost immediately Rummy resigned and although I was exhausted, it became one of the best and surreal days in a long time.  The Democrats had a wave lift them in the House and a razor thin majority in the Senate.  It looked good, but I was still pessimistic. 

And now, two weeks later committee assignments are being handed out and there seems to be some coming together in the House after a dust up over Majority Leader.  Murtha deserves it, but there was hesitation his ethically questionable past made him the best pick to replace an ethically challenged Republican Congress.  And finally, groups that have been on the defensive for so long now have a realistic chance of making some progress on their agendas. 

The flip side of that is the slim chance other groups have of advancing theirs.  Think about it.  No reactionary court nominees.  The Federal Marriage Amendment may finally be dead.  Stem cell research may take a step forward.  There are a lot of priorities of the nutty extreme right that just won't see the light of day.  But I'm not as sure the converse will get much attention either.  It looks good, but I am still pessimistic.

As soon as the results were in for 06 commentators looked toward 08.  That happens every midterm election.  Some assumptions predict the Democrats signed a two-year lease on power that is unlikely to be renewed.  The country is still just as red but animosity toward the Bush regime compelled a victory that won't be repeated.  It seems I'm not the only pessimist looking at these things.  If that assumption becomes the conventional wisdom the Dems might play it safe on some issues and that would be a mistake. 

If you're going to run as an alternative you need to present an alternative.  And if you elected one big giant smack to W and company you need to go ahead and keep smacking when you're in office.  Get some progressive policies on the table and pass a few while you're at it.  Investigate some, not all, of the dodgy components of the Bush years including the lead up to the war in Iraq.  The Democrats finally got a spine just in time to win a few seats.  I hope they keep those spines now that they're in them. 

I'm glad the Republicans took a "thumpin'," but I don't have any dissolutions the Democrats are the torchbearers for my pet causes.  I'm reluctant to get too giddy because I've had my heart broken before.  There are some positive signs some key pieces of legislation now have a shot.  And there's hope the next two years could feature a ballsy bunch of Democrats that confront Bush with the one thing he cannot stand - accountability.  And there's even hope this wave is not a fluke and there may be some good nominees on the horizon.  (I'm looking at you Obama.)  Right now, things look really good.  But I am still pessimistic.