Hate Crimes Revisited

With the upcoming adjournment of Congress for the benefit of the 435 House and 34 or more Senate seats up for grabs, the push for Hate Crimes legislation seems to be stronger than ever on the part of both select members of the House and Senate as well as the White House in what is President Bill Clinton’s desperate attempt to leave a legacy that will be more lasting than the stain on Monica Lewinsky’s dress.

One of the biggest pushes is for hate crimes legislation, and two of its biggest sponsors (each with their own bill) are Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT). I would add here that both of them are up for reelection this year - Kennedy for his seventh six-year term, and Hatch for his fifth. Both of these men are lawyers, and I suspect that they are trying to get this legislation through as a means of trying to convince voters back home that they are really making a difference on improving race relations and coming up with other cures for America’s social ills.

I’m sorry, but you cannot legislate people’s attitudes. They’re going to think what they want, regardless of what the law may say on paper. Besides, the chances of getting an identical version passed through both Houses and off to Clinton for signature remain slim to none before adjournment and that suits me fine – and I am by no means a bigot.

I have previously argued that hate crime legislation is unconstitutional on First, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. Were hate crime legislation passed, we could find ourselves with what could best be described as ‘thought police’, and the effects on free speech (First Amendment) would be chilling – even more so than the ‘political correctness’ movement that began to spread through America’s campuses beginning in the 1980’s. One of America’s strengths and its principal universal appeals is the ability to speak your mind, provided that said speech is neither seditious or life threatening in nature. From the First Amendment, we go on to the Tenth Amendment, which pertains to the rights of the individual states.

A couple of years ago, Matthew Sheppard was brutally murdered at the University of Wyoming. It turned out that Matthew was gay, and this murder had the gay community in a major uproar. They demanded that the feds step in, when both in fact and as a rule of law, it was simply not necessary – again, the rights of the states as provided for in the Tenth Amendment. Shepherd’s killers were caught, tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison – all in state court as it should have been, and not in federal court where it had no business belonging. Had this case gone to federal court, it would have been nothing more than a show trial, and if convicted, it would possibly have been overturned on appeal.

The Fourteenth Amendment pertains to civil rights, and nowhere does it allow for a special class of protection to what amounts to an invisible minority, which sexual orientation is. Race was included in the 1964 Civil Rights Act inasmuch as race is a visible minority, such as in the case of Blacks, Hispanics and Asians. As such, they were the well-deserved beneficiaries of this overdue and much-needed legislation. Passing hate crimes legislation would be unconstitutional on these grounds as well, yet we continue to have politicians advancing its cause for no other reason but to advance their own careers, and that is not only unfortunate, but also tragic.

There is no room in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to allow for special protection on grounds of sexual orientation, and to include it is not only unconstitutional, but also laughable when you look beyond the initial scope of what the Act intended to accomplish. All of us know at least one or more persons who profess to be either gay or lesbian. Of all the people we may either see or have contact with during the course of the day, a few (maybe 2 percent) are gay and the overwhelming majority are not. We have no way of telling that they’re gay by looking at them and unless they disclosed their orientation to us, we will never know, and that is just as well. After all, sexual orientation is a private matter and should not be a protected civil right. To make it one would be to pander to a small, vocal minority at the expense of the majority.

Lastly, we – as in all of us – need to remember that as a people, we are to treat all people with kindness, respect, honor and dignity in our dealings with them, unless our past dealings with them tell us otherwise. By doing this, we will be able to help in negating the need for politicians to grandstand in their pathetic efforts to pander to the lowest common denominator in humanity which they so often do in their quest for 50 percent of the vote plus one needed to hang on to their House and Senate seats.

While they do work long hours both on the Hill and in their home districts, they all too often seem to get too wrapped up in the power structure and get ‘high’ on the atmosphere within the Beltway, and though I am opposed to term limits, I can see that as a factor in favor of them.

As a matter of law and as a matter of equity for all Americans, hate crimes legislation should leave skid marks as it circles the bowl and die a quiet, ignominious death. Should said legislation make it into law, it is hoped that the Supremes will visit the issue and declare unconstitutional these measures which never should have seen the light of day in the first place.

You can e-mail your comments to Timothy at trollins@idirect.com.

Copyright © 2000 by Timothy Rollins.
All Rights Reserved.

-Published with permission