red fuzzy jesus

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al: Initial Thoughts

Obviously, I’m thrilled with the decision because it went the right way.  But, there are additional things to point out to explain why the decision was even better than expected.  Nobody who followed the oral arguments would think Judge Walker, or any judge, would uphold Proposition 8.  But, he went further than just striking it down.

 

The reaction to the decision on the right has been shrill but stuck to a familiar canard.  Judges should not overturn the clear will of voters.  It is an indictment of judicial review rather than any real reason why California needs Proposition 8.  It is an interesting political strategy but not a valid legal one.  An attorney arguing before a judge needs to expand his or her argument beyond, “Your honor, you shouldn’t be hearing this case.”   

 

But, did they throw the case intentionally or were they subconsciously aware the case in favor of Proposition 8 was so weak.  Remember, it was the pro-Prop 8 side that fought over and over again to keep evidence from being released and to keep the hearings as secretive as possible.  They did not want the public to see the facts in the case.  Their call for the unchecked will of the majority is distorted by their efforts to conceal information from the public. 

 

They say now that they never had a chance because Judge Walker is gay.  Supposedly a gay sexual orientation robs a legal professional of his impartiality.  But, at one time during the trial, Judge Walker expressed concern that the pro-8 side had called just two witnesses and begged them to mount a stronger defense.  They didn’t.  And no prominent figure in California politics came forward to defend 8.  It was limited to far-right interest groups.  Even though Governor Schwarzenegger is the named defendant in the case, he wouldn’t come near it.  On the day the Perry decision was released he said,

 

"For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.

"Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people.”

 

Then, Governor Schwarzenegger asked the judge to no stay his decision,

 

“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called today for the immediate restoration of same-sex marriage in California, urging the federal judge who overturned Proposition 8 to impose his ruling while the case moves through the higher courts. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry "is consistent with California's long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect," said a legal brief written on behalf of Schwarzenegger.” 

 

Oh my word!  So much for defending that terrible proposition.  The only groups willing to argue in favor of it are those that make a career out of anti-gay animus.  It further weakens their case that they cannot find a single politician or expert or anyone who isn’t already on the payroll of one of these groups.  If the harm they argue is real, one would think it would be apparent to someone outside the shrinking religious right echo chamber.

 

I am still perplexed as to what this meant.  There are possibilities:

1. Their strategy all along was to lose and then blame those awful activist judges.
2. They knew their side has weak arguments and delivering some of them in court and having them rebuked would hurt an overall political campaign against equality.
3. Deep down they know there is no harm and that their position is based on animus.  You can translate animus into fear in a political campaign (the gays are taking over your children’s schools, etc.) but you’re unlikely to scare a judge that way.  You need actual facts, precedent, and legal theory to argue a case before a judge. 

 

It may be a combination of these and things I’m not even considering.  Jeremy Hooper ran a fascinating piece on Good As You called ‘Eating Their Own’ in which one anti-gay legal strategist criticizes another for their handling of Perry.  But, as I said in my letter to Peter LaBarbera, is it a question of strategy?  Is it really that they aren’t selling the product better or is it that the product is an empty can nobody wants to buy after looking inside?

 

One thing that was so amazing about Judge Walker’s decision in Perry is that he calls the can empty.  He looked at the arguments presented by both sides and realized, clearly, that one side just had more to say.  There was more substance including sound research, documentary evidence, legal arguments, legal precedents, on and on.  The other side had a nebulous claim of pending harm that – even when pressed very hard by Judge Walker – could not be defined.  Remember the “Coming Storm” ad from NOM.  The coming storm is a metaphor for… I’m not sure.  Apparently those who made the ad are not sure either. 

 

The decision in Perry was also great because it applied strict scrutiny and suspect class status to gay citizens.  Put too simply, that means California needs to have more than just a rational basis for Proposition 8 and the specific exclusion and political targeting gay people have endured for decades must be considered when reviewing a law that targets and excludes them.  This will make it virtually impossible for the Pro-8 side to win on appeal. 

 

So, the case will almost definitely be appealed to the 9^th Circuit where I would be shocked if the decision were overturned.  Then the pro-8 side is likely to ask for it to be reviewed by all the justices on the 9^th Circuit with a similar result.  The next stop is the Supreme Court, which doesn’t have to hear the case.  They grant cert to a very small number of federal cases that request it.  But, this one will be a big one and by that time the roster of the Court might have changed.  So, either the 9^th Circuit’s decision will become the law of the land for that region or the Supreme Court will take up the issue.  Who knows what the outcome would be at that point.  However, if gay marriage was considered by the Supreme Court I would want it to be within the context of a case about Proposition 8 because, as Judge Walker pointed out, the Proposition 8 campaign was so seedy and had so much willful misinformation that the Supreme Court would have a hard time justifying reinstating it. 

 

There is another option that is extremely unlikely.  The pro-8 side might stop at the trial court level, where the fallout is limited to California.  They may even try to fight the political battle again rather than a legal one.  I don’t think this will happen but it’s possible.  If so, they can contain the damage from Prop-8 and lose the issue in a state that was likely to overturn 8 via voting next election cycle anyway. 

 

That brings me to a final point.  Part of me wishes there had been a political victory rather than a judicial one.  I think the “activist judges” crap is nonsense from the right.  But, I can remember election night watching the Presidential election get called quickly for Obama only to focus, nervously, on California’s election returns.  The final vote took days to be announced and I kept refreshing my computer as hope faded.  I want to see the rights of a minority – my minority – win in a political arena.  And it’s happening.  It will happen some more. 

 

Those that argue against “activist judges” need to be questioned on the major civil rights cases of the 20^th century.  Were those also not the purview of the courts and instead the sole domain of a panicked and bigoted public?  They should also answer larger questions about how a liberal democracy is to protect against tyranny of the majority or guarantee equal protection without courts playing such a role.  There’s a discussion to be had there and there are solid arguments against judicial review.  But they do not make those.  They cry about judicial activism but run to those same “judicial activists” to overturn majority based policy whenever some kid isn’t allowed to wear an offensive t-shirt at school or when college Christian clubs intentionally exclude some members of the student body while taking activity funding from everyone. 

 

They don’t really want to argue against judicial review.  They want to cry about gays being treated as equal to them because they don’t have much of an argument to make other than a guttural aversion to that form of difference.  And they know that doesn’t play well in courts no matter who the judge is. 

 

One thing is sure.  Times are changing.  They are changing quickly.  They are changing because animus can be stimulated for short-term political gains but is not a long-term education, political, or legal strategy.  And, though the right refuses to admit this, there are just too many parallels with previous civil rights battles.  We’ve seen this movie before and the movie always seems to go by quicker with subsequent viewings.  It’s an exciting time to be alive! 

Letter To Peter LaBarbera following the Prop. 8 decision.

This is the letter I emailed Peter LaBarbera after the decision in Perry et al, v. Schwarzenegger et al (the Prop. 8 decision) came out.  Perry was released on the eve of Peter's "Truth Academy".  LaBarbera claims the point of the academy is to train people better in countering the "lies" of the "homosexual agenda" and provide a venue to discuss issues in a way disallowed by the "Gay Thought Police" in academia.  But, one should note that the people in charge of the political campaign and judicial defense for Prop. 8 had the most training in countering the so-called agenda.  And, LaBarbera took CIA-worthy measures to screen students for his "academy" out of fear a "homosexual activist" would sneak in.  So much for free thought, but what about training?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take a lot of solace that your “Truth Academy” is happening right after the Prop. 8 decision was announced.  You purport to teach people how to counter the “homosexual agenda”.  However, the people in charge of the Prop. 8 campaign in 2008 and the legal team established to defend it were educated people extremely skilled in their various professions.  Skilled politicians tasked with selling a message and skilled attorneys experienced at litigation went before the judge.  And still, Prop. 8 was called what it is, irrational discrimination. 

 

“It [California] has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.”

 

You can claim that there is harm.  However, when forced under oath to demonstrate harm it is impossible because there IS NO HARM.  The problem for your side isn’t a lack of training.  The people working to sell Prop. 8 to California voters and defend it in court have a lot of training.  The fault is a fundamental flaw in your position. 

 

You can blame “activist judges”, as I’m sure your side will do.  You never once look at your losses and blame inadequate argumentation.  You continue to lose in court over and over again and fail to realize that the argument is the problem rather than a lack of training or obstinate judges. 

 

All your side had to do was go into that courthouse and demonstrate the harm.  The National Organization for Marriage had an ad about a coming storm.  It’s a nice metaphor but if there really were some coming threat or harm that should have been easy to explain in court.  Instead, Judge Walker saw both sides present their best arguments for and against Proposition 8 and concluded:

 

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

 

Simple.  Straightforward.  Correct.

 

Proposition 8 was about discrimination and saying, without any basis, that one group of people is better than another.  Your Truth Academy can train people in messaging but the facts behind the message do not change.  It’s not a matter of training to sell something better or get better at arguing the ridiculous.  When given equal time for two sides to make their case, one side wins and the other side loses because only one side is grounded in rationality while the other relies on subjective religious interpretation that is unconvincing in court. 

Holding My Breath

Although I voted in VA this morning, I am more concerned about electoral outcomes in Maine and Washington.  If we lose I will shrug it off with the assurance of inevitability... i.e. it's not if but when.  If we win I will be elated because it will show we are on the other side of the apex while I am still relatively young. 

Demographic Changes?

I am hesitant to believe anything CWFA says but I still think this is a very interesting discussion from the opposite end of the political spectrum.  According to this brief radio piece, failing to identify a personal faith is outpacing religious labels.  They use the term "churning" to describe a skeptical approach to religion.  I don't think this is anything new but rather a neo-Enlightenment mindset.  I wonder if CWFA even realizes their contribution to this cultural trend by reducing religion to a spiteful tool of political activism.  Unlike these women, I see the reintroduction of skepticism over dogma a refreshing change in culture. 

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.  

Gore Vidal Interview

Gore Vidal: ‘We’ll have a dictatorship soon in the US’

The grand old man of letters Gore Vidal claims America is ‘rotting away’ — and don’t expect Barack Obama to save it.  - Tim Teeman

full (excellent) article: 

“I’m not into partnerships,” he says dismissively. I don’t even know what it means.” He “couldn’t care less” about gay marriage. “Does anyone care what Americans think? They’re the worst-educated people in the First World. They don’t have any thoughts, they have emotional responses, which good advertisers know how to provoke.” You could have been the first gay president, I say. “No, I would have married and had nine children,” he replies quickly and seriously. “I don’t believe in these exclusive terms.”

Impaired mobility doesn’t bother him — he “rose like a miracle” on stage at the National — and he doesn’t dwell on mortality either. “Either you accept there is such a thing or you’re so dumb that you can’t grasp it.” Is he in good health? “No, of course not. I’m diabetic. It’s odd, I’ve never been fat and I don’t like candy, which most Americans are hooked on.”

There is a trace of thwarted ambition about him. “I would have liked to have been president, but I never had the money. I was a friend of the throne. The only time I envied Jack was when Joe [Kennedy, JFK’s father] was buying him his Senate seat, then the presidency. He didn’t know how lucky he was. Here’s a story I’ve never told. In 1960, after he had spent so much on the presidential campaign, Joe took all nine children to Palm Beach to lecture them. He was really angry. He said, ‘All you read about the Kennedy fortune is untrue. It’s non-existent. We’ve spent so much getting Jack elected and not one of you is living within your income’. They all sat there, shame-faced. Jack was whistling. He used to tap his teeth: they were big teeth, like a xylophone. Joe turned to Jack and he says, ‘Mr President, what’s the solution?’ Jack said, ‘The solution is simple. You all gotta work harder’.” Vidal guffaws heartily.

Pierre Manent - Lecture on Liberalism Excerpt

Europe and the Turkish question

 

              Let us try to review the political elements of the situation in which the phenomenon of secularization is central. Grossly enough, we can distinguish three elements, or levels : the individual level, the social level, the properly political level.

      About the individual level, it is impossible to say anything pertinent. Statistics say nothing, even less than nothing, about what is going on in individual souls. None of us can know with any certainty what is happening in his or her own soul. Can I say « I believe » without moving away, however faintly, from sincerity ? It is impossible to say anything pertinent at this level, but it is important to remember that it is impossible. It is the secret heart of things.

      I have insisted that it is impossible to treat the other two levels separately. The social level, the level at which secularization operates and acquires its present meaning and import, appears to be self-sufficient – it is part of the way it operates to appear to be so - , but it is closely related to the way the political whole defines itself. In fact, these two levels combine three elements : the secular society, the neutral State, the Christian nation. Only one element is univocally determined and does not occasion much uncertainty : the neutral State. We do not fear, or in any way expect, that in any Western country, the State will abandon its neutrality in the foreseeable future. The uncertainty concerns the relation between the secular society and the Christian nation.

      Some will say that the former is simply the new, contemporary form of the latter. I have stressed that the secular society could never completely break free from the Christian nation, that the purported transformation could never be entirely completed. So that the question of the Christian character of the body politic cannot fail to crop up again at some junction, depending on the vagaries of fortune. In the case of European nations, the Muslim challenge will not fail to reactivate the effort toward collective self-definition. Not to beat around the bush : every passably perceptive person in Europe understands, or at least feels, the fateful character of the Turkish question, whether one is favorable or hostile to Turkey’s becoming part of the European Union. And he or she gathers that the orations about « democratic values » are just malarkey, that the real issue is the Muslim character of the Turkish nation. The extreme secularists, who until recently held the reins in Europe, did not pursue a simply political project, however ambitious. They intended, and still intend, to prove the religious, or quasi religious, point, that no difference, especially no religious difference between human groups can be legitimately taken into account in any human, including or especially political,  endeavor. So that Turkey should be introduced into Europe not because the Turkish State is secular – it is by the way nothing of the sort – but because the Turkish nation is Muslim. If these extreme secularists achieved their aims, they would accomplish the contrary of what they set out to accomplish. If the political body called Turkey became part of the European councils, we would not contemplate a « simply human » Europe as a result, but, in a very definite sense, a Muslim Europe, a Europe with a « Muslim mark ».

      But secularism is a two-way street. Just as some secularists would islamize Europe in the name of secularism rightly understood, other ones, hitherto undisturbed by the incessant erosion of Europe’s Christian character, now dismayed at the ever growing presence in Europe of a religion with little understanding of religious neutrality, are led back, in an often confused or muddled way, toward the original definition or experience of the European nation. However secular, however unchurched, Europe is the scene of a political and religious battle as momentous as any in her long history. However thinly attended our church offices, the question of our religious collective self-definition needs to be answered as urgently as at any time in the past. It is because of the urgency and significance of this issue for Europeans that the American insistence on our making room for Turkey is so ill-conceived, no, so outrageous. To incessantly prod us to take this irreversible decision is to behave like an enemy, because it means to force us to do something which will destroy our self-respect, or what remains of it.

      Looking at the Turkish question in a more theoretical perspective, we see how deceptive this notion of secularization is, how it comes to the fore and takes on a kind of self-evidence only when we lose sight of the two principal realities : the individual souls on one hand, the political wholes, or bodies, on the other hand. The phenomenon of secularization is not a figment of the imagination indeed, but it is nevertheless determined by political and religious factors which point beyond secularization, or which at least prevent us from ever finding a solid and lasting home in this our secular condition. Under the deceptive allure of a « simply human » society, the incessantly gnawing question : Of which whole am I a part ? Of which community am I a member ?

Michael Jackson, Madonna VMA Tribute

Ever since Michael Jackson died in late June I have struggled to find the words to express exactly how I felt about him.  In general, my dominate emotion is just sadness with a good bit of pity.  It is weird to consider pitying one of the richest and most famous people in the world and yet in spite of all those things he still seemed very sad and lonely.  And I wonder how often he wished he could just be “normal”.  In interviews he said many times that he wished he could just be a normal kid playing when he was forced to be a performer. 

 

What kind of inner turmoil leads someone to do that to his face?  What did he lack that made him so incapable of accepting himself?  Was his sexuality confused or non-existent?  Did he deserve the constant accusations and stories?  Did he make himself a weird monster, did his father, or did we? 

 

Fortunately, this past week, Madonna of all people said a lot of the things I had been trying to find the words for.  Her tribute speech at the VMAs was self-serving, but only a bit.  She related the experience of her life and her relationship with fame to his and concluded losing her mother at a young age was still better than the “childhood” Michael had.  Her full tribute speech is included below.  The part where she takes blame for abandoning Michael is particularly poignant and I wonder, as a once and newly renewed fan, if I am guilty of the same. 

 

Madonna: Michael Jackson. [Cheers] I have a little bit more to say than that. OK, here we go again. Michael Jackson was born in August 1958. So was I. Michael Jackson grew up in the suburbs of the Midwest. So did I. Michael Jackson had eight brothers and sisters. So do I. When Michael Jackson was six, he became a superstar, and was perhaps the world’s most beloved child. When I was six, my mother died. I think he got the shorter end of the stick. I never had a mother, but he never had a childhood. And when you never get to have something, you become obsessed by it.

I spent my childhood searching for my mother figures. Sometimes I was successful, but how do you recreate your childhood when you are under the magnifying glass of the world?

There is no question that Michael Jackson is one of the greatest talents the world has ever known. That when he sang a song at the ripe old age of eight he could make you feel like an experienced adult was squeezing your heart with his words. That when he moved he had the elegance of Fred Astaire and packed the punch of Muhammad Ali. That his music had an extra layer of inexplicable magic that didn’t just make you want to dance but actually made you believe you could fly, dare to dream, be anything that you wanted to be. Because that is what heroes do and Michael Jackson was a hero.

He performed in soccer stadiums around the world, and sold hundreds of millions of records and dined with prime ministers and presidents. Girls fell in love with him, boys fell in love with him, everyone wanted to dance like him. He seemed otherworldly — but he was a human being.

Like most performers he was shy and plagued with insecurities. I can’t say we were great friends, but in 1991 I decided I wanted to try to get to know him better. I asked him out to dinner, I said “My treat, I’ll drive — just you and me.”

He agreed and showed up to my house without any bodyguards. We drove to the restaurant in my car. It was dark out, but he was still wearing sunglasses.

I said, “Michael, I feel like I’m talking to a limousine. Do you think you can take off your glasses so I can see your eyes?”

Then he tossed the glasses out the window, looked at me with a wink and a smile and said, “Can you see me now? Is that better?”

in that moment, I could see both his vulnerability and his charm. The rest of the dinner, I was hellbent on getting him to eat French fries, drink wine, have dessert and say bad words. Things he never seemed to allow himself to do. Later we went back to my house to watch a movie and sat on the couch like two kids, and somewhere in the middle of the movie, his hand snuck over and held mine.

It felt like he was looking for more of a friend than a romance, and I was happy to oblige. In that moment, he didn’t feel like a superstar. He felt like a human being.

We went out a few more times together, and then for one reason or another we fell out of touch. Then the witch hunt began, and it seemed like one negative story after another was coming out about Michael. I felt his pain, I know what it’s like to walk down the street and feel like the whole world is turned against you. I know what it’s like to feel helpless and unable to defend yourself because the roar of the lynch mob is so loud you feel like your voice can never be heard.

But I had a childhood, and I was allowed to make mistakes and find my own way in the world without the glare of the spotlight.

When I first heard that Michael had died, I was in London, days away from the start of my tour. Michael was going to perform in the same venue as me a week later. All I could think about in this moment was, “I had abandoned him.” That we had abandoned him. That we had allowed this magnificent creature who had once set the world on fire to somehow slip through the cracks. While he was trying to build a family and rebuild his career, we were all passing judgement. Most of us had turned our backs on him. In a desperate attempt to hold onto his memory, I went on the internet to watch old clips of him dancing and singing on TV and on stage and I thought, “my God, he was so unique, so original, so rare, and there will never be anyone like him again. He was a king.”

But he was also a human being, and alas we are all human beings and sometimes we have to lose things before we can appreciate them. I want to end this on a positive note and say that my sons, age nine and four, are obsessed with Michael Jackson. There’s a whole lot of crotch grabbing and moon walking going on in my house. And, it seems like a whole new generation of kids have discovered his genius and are bringing him to life again. I hope that wherever Michael is right now he is smiling about this.

Yes, Michael Jackson was a human being but he was a king. Long live the king.

Dominionism and Epistemology

I have decided to post the main piece of writing I've been working on this semester as a PDF.   It has been submitted to several Political Science journals and is awaiting peer review.  Below is the précis only followed by a downloadable  copy of the full document.  Enjoy:

Précis

Dominionism is an authoritarian ideology that combines political hegemony with metaphysical certitude.  A key impediment to any authoritarian leadership is the capacity of subjects to question and counter its claims to power.  Human reason and critical analysis provide the inspiration to subvert an authoritarian regime.   This paper examines an American political movement that works within the confines of liberal democracy to supplant liberal democracy.  Critical to its agenda is the undermining of institutions that cultivate reason in citizens.  The underlying difference in the conflict between dominionism and reason is best understood as a competition of epistemologies.

Download dominionism_and_epistemology.pdf

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.