Separate but Unequal Protection
By Matt Barber

Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) have quietly re-introduced the federal thought crimes bill, H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling "hate speech" laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle. The bill is expected to be marked up Wednesday before the full House Judiciary Committee.

Under the 14th Amendment, victims of violent crime are currently afforded equal protection under the law regardless of sexual preference or proclivity. If passed, H.R. 1913 will change all that. It overtly and, most likely, unconstitutionally discriminates against millions of Americans by granting federally preferred status, time and resources to individuals who define their identity based upon aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e., "gay" and lesbian "sexual orientation" or cross-dressing "gender identity").

Of course, this entire concept flies in the face of the 14th Amendment. It inarguably codifies unequal protection under the law, creating a two-tiered justice system made up of first-class victims such as those who self-identify as homosexual or "transgender" and second-class victims such as the elderly, children, pregnant women, veterans, the homeless and others who choose not to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors.

There is exactly zero evidence to suggest that homosexuals or cross-dressers do not currently receive equal protection under the law. In fact, you need only look to the most famous "hate crime" of all – Matthew Shepard – for proof. Although the evidence determined that Shepard's murder was not a "hate crime" by definition (a misconception still widely propagated by the homosexual lobby, the media and liberal lawmakers), the two thugs who committed the crime nonetheless received life in prison – and rightfully so. (Shepard's murder turned out to be the end result of a robbery for drug money gone from bad to horrible).

Likewise, the murderer of Mary Stachowicz – a devout Catholic grandmother who was brutally killed by a homosexual man in Chicago merely for sharing the Bible – was also given a life sentence. The system worked in both cases and both victims received equal justice under the law apart from any discriminatory "hate crimes" legislation.

Yet, proponents of H.R. 1913 claim it's needed to curb an epidemic of so-called "hate crimes" committed against homosexuals and those who suffer gender identity disorder. This is a lie that is knowingly and intentionally cultivated by a very well funded and intrinsically deceptive homosexual lobby. The alarmist propaganda simply doesn't square with the facts.

According to the latest FBI statistics, in 2007 there were about 1.4 million violent crimes committed in the U.S. Of those, only 1,512 were reported as "hate crimes" motivated by "sexual orientation" bias. Over two thirds of those were allegations of "hateful" words, touching, intimidation, pushing or shoving. There were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths) allegedly motivated by "sexual orientation" bias nationwide. In each case, where appropriate, offenders were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and victims were afforded the exact same justice guaranteed every other American.

The entire push for federal "hate crimes" legislation is rooted in fraud. In fact, many of the most high-profile reports have turned out to be false. For example, investigators determined that the very "hate crime" (Andrew Anthos in Michigan) exploited by liberal lawmakers to justify the same legislation in the last Congress, was a false report. It never happened. (See report from Detroit News [PDF]) And instances of such fabricated and politically motivated "hate crimes" continue to pile up.

So, if proponents of H.R. 1913 are neither justified nor motivated by an actual need for the bill – as clearly demonstrated – then what drives them? The answer is twofold. First, passage of "hate crimes" legislation would place the behaviorally driven and fluid concepts of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" on an equal footing with legitimate, neutral and immutable "suspect class" characteristics such as skin color or a person's true gender.

This creates both a sociopolitical and legal environment wherein traditional sexual morality officially becomes the new racism. Those who publically express medical, moral or religious opposition to the homosexual lifestyle are tagged by the government as "homophobic bigots" to be treated no differently by law enforcement, the courts or larger society than the KKK or neo-Nazis.

In short, this bill places newfangled "gay rights" in direct conflict with our enumerated constitutional rights. It becomes the first step in the official criminalization of Christianity. It's a zero sum game and someone has to lose.Ultimately, what we lose are our First Amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of speech, religious expression and association.

But the threat is not just some shadowy phantom looming in the near future. It's a clear and present danger. While debating the notion of "conspiracy to commit a hate crime" in the last Congress, Representative Artur Davis (D-Alabama) admitted that the legislation could be used to prosecute pastors for merely preaching the Bible under the concept of "inducement" to violence.

Furthermore, under existing criminal statute if H.R. 1913 becomes law, actual violence or injury need not take place for a "hate crime" to occur. For example, if a group of Christians are at a "gay pride" parade and a one of them gently places his hand on a homosexual's shoulder and shares that there is freedom from homosexuality through a relationship with Jesus Christ, then, voila, we have a battery and, consequently, a felony "hate crime."

But the Christian needn't even touch the homosexual. If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in "apprehension of bodily injury" by the Christian's words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony "hate crime." The FBI has included mere words – "insults" and "intimidation" – in calculating "hate crimes" statistics and – under the current political regime in Washington – there's every reason to believe they'll subjectively consider "insults" and "intimidation" (read: traditional sexual morality) for purposes of prosecuting "hate crimes."

Yes, it's a brave new world and with H.R. 1913 – among other things – a once free America has moved, both literally and figuratively, a quarter of a century beyond Orwell's 1984.


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=498106

Get ready, America. Congress is set to make various sexual orientations legally protected.
Your call is needed today!

April 27, 2009

Dear Friends,

Congress is set to give legally protected status to 30 sexual orientations, including incest. Because of pressure from homosexual groups, Congress has refused to define what is meant by "sexual orientation" in H.R. 1913, the "Hate Crimes" bill. This means that the 30 different sexual orientations will be federally protected classes.

To see the orientations that will be protected by the Hate Crimes bill (H.R. 1913), see http://www.afa.net/sexualorientationshr1913.asp

The U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on H.R. 1913 in a matter of days. Right now, there is still time to kill this bill, but time is short.

Please go to this site to get the direct telephone number for your representative, along with suggested talking points for your call. Call your representative today to demand politely, but firmly, that he or she vote against H.R. 1913.
http://capwiz.com/afanet/callalert/index.tt?alertid=13208656&type=CO


www.afa.net

Thank you.

OK... sooo... protecting gay, lesbian, and 'cross genders' from being bashed is a bad thing???

How does giving someone protection and equal rights to not be bashed affect you?

And when did Christians become the only ones with the rights to the First Amendment???

good point....missed this thread (stupid cough meds)

sorry but my rights haven't been taken away....yet. and legalizing same sex marriages doesn't take away my rights either.

i'm confused...maybe it's the cough meds or the article???

Good. I say it's about time. And when you say even "incest" you do realize that doesn't mean pedophillia or child abuse. Even Einstein married his cousin. We even had at least one president married to his cousin if I remember correctly.
Not saying I agree with marrying my cousin, but there's a lot of couples who have. And well, if they're happy and not hurting anyone, more power to them. I think they should have the right to not get beat down and bashed because of it.
I'm not about to go beat them down with the bible and tell them how wrong they are and right I am.
Blessed Be

FDR...I believe

I thought so too... One our most beloved presidents.

Why aren't Christians rallying around the gay and lesbian population and helping to protect them from the random beatings, killings, and bashings they take on a daily basis. Where's the love??? OOOHHH I forgot. You can't love people that gay and lesbian cuz they are wrong and against God. Gotcha. Makes sense.

some think that way. i would defend anyone and their rights. and would do all i can to protect someone

Churches should be allowed to say whatever they want, but if they start getting (overtly)involved in politics (as they have been doing in recent years), then they should lose their tax exempt status.

exactly. Gay, lesbian, Bi, mixed, White, Black, ANYONE deserves to be protected legally from physical harm, slander, and abuse. All humans should get this basic right. And yes, that includes gay and lesbians too... no matter how evil some people think they are, they are human just like the rest of us.

I agree they should be able to say whatever they want, within reason. You shouldn't have the right, no matter what church it is, to go bashing ANY group of people. Based on race, sexual orientation, or any other reason. If you want to preach in your church that being gay and lesbian is wrong, then do so. If that's your faith, then go with it. But the violence has to stop. There shouldn't be any arguing that they should be protecting against being phyisically harmed. And people that run around bashing others and causing harm should be legally prosecuted for hate crimes.

jill...i 100% agree with you.

I completely believe in protecting everyones rights. No one should be bashed for their sexual orientation, race, or religion!



Equal rights? You are able to speak in opposition to Christians, our President, or whatever else and no one is threatening to throw you in jail. Did you read the article?

To quote the above article:

There is exactly zero evidence to suggest that homosexuals or cross-dressers do not currently receive equal protection under the law. In fact, you need only look to the most famous "hate crime" of all – Matthew Shepard – for proof. Although the evidence determined that Shepard's murder was not a "hate crime" by definition (a misconception still widely propagated by the homosexual lobby, the media and liberal lawmakers), the two thugs who committed the crime nonetheless received life in prison – and rightfully so. (Shepard's murder turned out to be the end result of a robbery for drug money gone from bad to horrible).

Likewise, the murderer of Mary Stachowicz – a devout Catholic grandmother who was brutally killed by a homosexual man in Chicago merely for sharing the Bible – was also given a life sentence. The system worked in both cases and both victims received equal justice under the law apart from any discriminatory "hate crimes" legislation.




Who is silencing others from their views and making it a crime, punishable by law, to speak about it?

I'm sorry but I didn't see where it stated you would be thrown in jail for preaching or simply stating your opinion against gay and lesbians?

This really should be alarming for all people!

Again, to quote the article:

This creates both a sociopolitical and legal environment wherein traditional sexual morality officially becomes the new racism. Those who publically express medical, moral or religious opposition to the homosexual lifestyle are tagged by the government as "homophobic bigots" to be treated no differently by law enforcement, the courts or larger society than the KKK or neo-Nazis.

In short, this bill places newfangled "gay rights" in direct conflict with our enumerated constitutional rights. It becomes the first step in the official criminalization of Christianity. It's a zero sum game and someone has to lose.Ultimately, what we lose are our First Amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of speech, religious expression and association.

YR, yet...is the key word!

who is this taking away the rights of christians?

I fail to see anything here that suggests how.



That would be quite a stretch unless it's a pastor who promotes violence and hatred toward such groups. And sadly there are so called pastors who do such things.
If those pastors have to take a fall under the new laws well that's fine by me.

Aren't they using the RICO act for that already?