Will Church teaching on politically correct topics be outlawed?
BY DAVID FREDDOSO
REGISTER CORRESPONDENT
May 13-19, 2007 Issue |
Posted 5/8/07 at 8:00 AM
WASHINGTON — The White House has
promised a Bush veto for a House-passed bill that would involve the federal
government in local hate-crime prosecutions.
The bill, which passed the House of
Representatives on May 4 in a 237-180 vote, mostly along party lines, would
create a new protected status for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”
Several activist groups, including
the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, opposed the bill
vigorously out of concern that it could ultimately result in discrimination
against Christians and others who object to public homosexuality and speak out
against the establishment of same-sex “marriage.”
A spokeswoman for House Judiciary
Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., dismissed these fears in an interview with the
Register.
“I would hope, at this point, that
those concerns have been taken care of in the bill,” she said. “The chairman
has always been a huge proponent of civil rights. This is part of his civil
rights legacy.”
In a veto threat issued hours before
the bill passed, White House aides wrote that the bill is “unnecessary and
constitutionally questionable.”
The Local Law Enforcement Hate
Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 provides grants to state and local jurisdictions
to enforce their hate-crime laws, and creates a new cause for federal legal
action against anyone who commits a violent crime for reasons related to the
victim’s “race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity or disability.” It applies in cases where a defendant causes a
victim bodily injury or attempts to do so with the use of fire, firearms or
explosives.
Christian
organizations have complained that this bill will limit religious freedom, but
their argument is broader than this particular bill. While it is unlikely that
this bill will result in bishops, priests and pastors being hauled away for
preaching against homosexuality, opponents fear that it sets up a slippery slope.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., said that
it takes the first step toward government regulation of attitudes and beliefs.
“The worry here is that we’re on a
slippery slope — that a pastor who preaches on homosexuality could ultimately
be charged with aiding, abetting or inciting a hate crime,” he said.
Similar Amendment
Pence
noted that the amendment he offered in committee — which added a statement
protecting the free exercise of religion — was rejected. The committee did,
however, accept a similar amendment by Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., protecting
“any expressive conduct” and “any activities protected by the free speech or
free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution.”
Opponents are also concerned about
the money contained in the bill for grants to local prosecutors that bring
hate-crime cases to court — costing the government $20 million over four years,
according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. In theory, this
creates an incentive for local prosecutors and investigators to classify more
crimes as “hate-crimes” in order to collect grants and log extra hours.
The
biggest change made by this hate-crime bill, should it become law, is that it
would treat “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes —
essentially as if the practitioners of homosexual or transsexual lifestyles
were a separate race, gender or religion.
Hate-crime
bills have passed Congress on numerous occasions before. The first such federal
bills were designed to prevent the lynching of blacks in states where local
authorities refused to prosecute. More recently, in 2000 and 2004, similar
bills have passed as riders on the annual Department of Defense spending bills.
These have been designed to specially punish offenses against homosexuals, but the
current bill is the first passed that also adds “gender identity.”
The
new hate-crime bill differs from other versions in two ways. First, the bill
applies to many state-level offenses (for example, simple murder). Were this
bill to become law, the U.S. Attorney General would have the option to leave an
alleged hate-crime offense at the state level, or to bring up the defendant on
a separate federal charge of criminal civil rights violation. This carries an
added sentence of up to 10 years, or life if the victim dies or is kidnapped or
sexually abused.
All
that is required to federalize the crime is that a weapon involved cross state
lines at some point before or during the offense. “Previous federal hate-crime
legislation which has passed has always been attached to a federal crime,” said
Pence. “This bill effectively federalizes all hate-crimes.”
The
Bush administration also views this as a problem. The veto threat released by
the executive office of the White House states that “there has been no persuasive
demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of
violent crime enforcement.”
The
other change is intended to alleviate fears that some defendants might not
receive equal treatment in court because of their beliefs, publicly stated or
demonstrated in the past. For example, a defendant who has previously spoken or
written something against homosexuality or same-sex “marriage,” or attends a
church whose teachings discourage deviant behavior, could see his own free
speech and exercise of religion used against him in court, should he commit a
violent crime.
Effectively, he would be at greater
jeopardy than other defendants if he happened to commit a crime whose victim
was homosexual. The fear, as Pence put it, is that pastors may curtail their
exercise of free speech, “restrained by concerns about potential legal
exposure.”
Democrats
altered this year’s bill to add a provision excluding defendants’ speech,
religious practices and associations as evidence into a hate-crime prosecution
— only allowing evidence “specifically related” to the crime itself. Republican
aides argued that this language is too broad, potentially opening the door to
all kinds of free speech being used against defendants at trial.
The provision also states that
“nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of
a witness.” This could lead defendants in hate-crime trials to fear taking the
stand, even if they are innocent.
Christopher Anders, legislative
counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union, disagreed with these fears and
stated that the provision excluding certain evidence is sound.
“The ACLU did not support the
hate-crimes bill until a few months ago when this evidentiary provision was
brought in,” he said. “It’s an extra protection for people’s free speech and
association, and it’s pretty much unprecedented.”
Bush on Hate-Crimes
During
the 2000 election, when Texas Gov. George W. Bush was attacked for opposing a
hate-crime bill in Texas, he noted that such a law would have little effect. He
referred specifically to the men convicted in the brutal, racially motivated
dragging murder of a black man, James Byrd.
“The
three men who murdered James Byrd … they’re going to be put to death,” Bush
said in a presidential debate. “It’s going to be hard to punish them any worse
after they get put to death.”
The
White House’s veto threat contained similar thinking: “The administration
believes that all violent crimes are unacceptable,” reads the statement,
“regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly.”
David Freddoso
is based in Washington, D.C.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Make a Donation now!
Insightful. Informative. Uncompromisingly faithful. The National Catholic Register is more than a newspaper. It’s a cause. Your support for the Register funds important journalism that helps to build a Culture of Life in our nation, and throughout the world. Help us promote the Church’s New Evangelization by donating to the National Catholic Register right now.
.
