"Supporters of unequal justice continue to push for assigning value to victims’ lives, as if some are worth more to society," columnist J.R. Labbe wrote on today’s Opinion pages about a House vote last week to expand hate-crime laws. Labbe asks: "Would my son be any less dead if he were shot during a robbery than your son, who was shot because he’s black, gay, Jewish or disabled?" It’s not a crime to hate; the crime is the action. "In a just society," Labbe wrote, "punishment is exacted for aberrant behavior, not for the idea that motivated it."
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Raptor on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- BobChi on Moran correct about Cuba
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
81 Comments
Saying hate crimes laws “value” one life more than another is typical radical-conservative red-herring BS.
Society makes all kinds of distinctions in law and punishment. None of them place any kind of “value” on the victim – rather, the heinousness of the crime is the determining factor.
For instance, last year, Kansas enacted a version of “Jessica’s Law,” that provides extreme penalties for adults who commit sexual crimes against children. According to the radical-conservative view, a child killed during a rape has the same “value” as an adult killed during a rape. If true, why do we have “Jessica’s Law?” Easy: Society says that crimes against children are so vicious and heinous that the perpetrators deserve the most severe punishment we can mete out.
Hate crimes laws at the Federal level, and in the states that have them, already cover religion, which is a fundamental choice each of us make in our lives. I’ll believe the radical-conservatives in their condemnation of hate crimes legislation the day they repeal the provisions protecting religion. Until then, their complaints are nothing more than radical-conservative BS.
Having grown up in the Deep South with the KKK I might have a slightly different perspective on this. I think the idea behind hate crime laws is to attempt to break the cycles that lead to sever violence including murder.
Thus, fairly somple things like the ‘n-word’ and harassment can be prelude to lynching. After all, the target is not really a human so what does it matter?
In a similar vein – the ‘men’ who beat the guy in Wyoming and left him tied to a fence to die considered themselves to be doing God’s work. They even said that since God has forgiven them that they should be set free. Add to that the Kansas Christian Church that went to Wyoming to support them and to harrass family and friends of the murder victim.
Me, I’d simply offer to hasten their meeting with their “God”; in fact it would be nice to see that Kansas church bunch go there as well.
Ben you and I know there are radicals on the right and left. Does this change because a church that calls itself Christian and obviously isn’t. I don’t think so.
I can agree in some ways what you are saying Tom but by the same token how do we determine a mindset after the fact?
In the Matthew Shepard case the fact that the killers had voiced their intention before it happened was pretty easy, but they are not all that clean cut.
I just think it is a layer I don’t want to inject into our legal system.
ksgrm – you are absolutely correct that there are nutcases on both left and right. And the Pharisee Phred bunch are REAL nutcases!
In the Matthew Shepard case the fact that the killers had voiced their intention before it happened was pretty easyPosted by: ksgrm | May 11, 2007 at 02:07 PM
Duh. And that’s the only kind of case where a prosecutor is going to get a hate crime conviction. That’s the only kind of case where they SHOULD get a hate crime conviction.
Ksgrm,
One more thing: the “layer” is *already* in the legal system. Your religious beliefs – a free choice of yours – are already protected by Federal and state hate crimes statutes. When you work to repeal the protection YOU have, I’ll stop pushing for equal treatment.
I agree with that Tom but I also see it being used in all the wrong cases the way we see temporary insanity and the like today.
How can you ever prove hate? If an vocal anti-gay person hits a gay man while he is crossing the street and the sun was in the drivers eyes, would he be charged with a hate crime because everyone knows he hates gays?
Your religious beliefs – a free choice of yours – are already protected by Federal and state hate crimes statutes.
Posted by: Tom | May 11, 2007 at 02:11 PM
Tom I’m not sure what you mean by this. I may be dense today but it is Friday thanks goodness.
Maybe I should accuse Capn America of a hate crime because I’m a disabled vet. He is constantly referring to it in a hateful manner.
However, I won’t – I know he is just an “attention whore.”
I recall of some cases in Illinois I think where KKK and Neo Nazi groups were doing all sorts of things against Jews, blacks and other groups I suppose.
Not sure, but I got the impression that this was one source of reference for the passage of the hate crimes bill.
Anyone know the history, who passed it and what is included in the law?
Granny,”Your religious beliefs – a free choice of yours – are already protected by Federal and state hate crimes statutes.
Posted by: Tom | May 11, 2007 at 02:11 PM
Tom I’m not sure what you mean by this. I may be dense today but it is Friday thanks goodness.”
The Civil Rights Act of 1965.
Jed it was in 1964 I believe and it did protect someone against discrimination when applying for a job, or training program and said that reasonable effort must be made by the employer to accomodate the relegious practice of the individual. It doesn’t say someone can’t hate me because of my relegion or that if they kill me because of that belief that it would be a ‘hate’ crime.
Did I miss something?
Hate-Crimes bills are just the latest attempt to circumvent the freedom of speech. Just like the infamous speech codes at many colleges it does nothing to stop the thoughts. Instead it can only drive wackos underground. I would rather they were out in the light of day telling me who they are.
Legally, you can already punish murder differently based on the circumstances. Premeditated is not accidental which is not a “fit of rage”. To argue that you should have a different sentence based on an arbitrary “protected class” status is to create different legal systems. It only says that one class of people are more worthy and hence the punishment must be more severe.
Besides, any prosecutor today can argue that the victim was chosen based on whatever stats (gender/race/etc.). That only bolsters a murder charge into the premeditated category. So do you really need stiffer sentencing? Just try the accused on the more serious charge from the beginning.
“Hate-Crimes bills are just the latest attempt to circumvent the freedom of speech”
How does a Hate Crime bill affect freedom of speech?
There is no part of any such law that limits speech – just actions.
Ksgrm,
There is a Federal hate crime law on the books that protects your religious observance and faith. 18USC245 http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/245.htm
If you get protection based on your religion, I want equal protection based on my sexual orientation.
WSC,
When you evaluate laws you have to go past the words and the intentions of the bill. You must evaluate the chain of events that are likely to happen once the bill becomes law.
For instance, increasing criminal penalties based on speech will only cause people to speak less. You may not have outlawed speech, but you sure did make it uncomfortable to practice.
“For instance, increasing criminal penalties based on speech will only cause people to speak less”
There is nothing is the Hate Crimes Bill(s) that makes speech illegal – only actions.
Proudman,
Do you advocate repealing the current hate crimes statute that protects your free exercise of religion?
I have already stated my general bias against hate crimes legislation. I understand the logic behind the other side of the coin, though I can not truly “get” it because I am not part of any minority. I simply believe that you do the crime, do the time. DOesn’t matter if it was for 50 bucks, for a pair of shoes, or because the person is different. I see no need for sentencing enhacements, or for “new” crimes than can be charged. Not now, not ever. However, I have also stated that if we are going to have them for one group, we should have them for all. Either repeal them all, or add them all. I can agree with either action
Hate crimes law are thought crimes laws, intended to protect and value some of us more than others. They are no part of equal justice under the law. Defeat hate crimes laws.
Littlejohn,
As always, you are one of the most honest posters here. Thank you for your thoughtfulness on these issues.
Tom
Parkay,
I’ll ask you the same question I asked Ksgrm, Proudman, and others: Do you advocate repealing the current hate crimes statute that protects your free exercise of religion?
If not, you’re a hypocrite.
Tom-
Thanks. It means a lot. I do not always do well, but I am trying.
That’s stage one thinking WSC. The increased penalties, which is what the bill basically does, will cause people to tip-toe around.
Tom,
“Do you advocate repealing the current hate crimes statute that protects your free exercise of religion?”—-I was not aware you did not have the right to practice your religion. Are you not in the U.S.?
Granny,”Did I miss something?”
Yes, you did. You would be prosecuted for your crime under state law. Then you would also be prosecuted for denying them their civil rights. That’s how the KKK members were prosecuted for their murders of civil rights leaders and workers.The law allows you to be a cruel and hateful bitch, if that’s your pleasure, but it doesn’t allow you to inflict your cruel and hateful acts on the rest of society.
Nice try at sophistry, Proudman. You say you’re opposed to hate crimes laws, yet you refuse to speak out against the one that protects you. Instead, you try to play a little semantic game with me about my place of residence.
Basically, what you’re implying here is it’s okay to beat the crap out of me because I’m gay, but it’s _not_ okay to beat the crap out of you because of your religion.
I just love the smell of overcooked hypocrisy.
Tom,
You do relize that most Jews are killed because of their religion, so that is probally not a fair comparison.. or did I get the question wrong??
BG,
You do realize that like the Jews, European gays and lesbians were herded into concentration camps, executed and starved to death, right?
You do realize that violent gay-bashings happen every month in this nation, some of them fatal, right?
There are crimes that are committed against people only for their membership in a group.
A crime committed against one, two or three people is done to “send a message” to the rest of the members.
This is a very different kind of crime than, “I have a personal beef against you.” If the crime is intended to threaten large numbers of people because of their race or gender orientation, it’s a greater crime than one directed solely at the small number of injured parties.
Criminal statutes have never been purely punitive, they have been designed to discourage crime. They have always been intended to affect THOUGHT. Not to punish unacted-upon thought per se, but to get people who think about committing crimes to also think about the consequences, and then put the crime-commission thoughts out of their minds as not worth the punishment entailed.
Hate crimes laws remind me of “Animal Farm”.
“All crimes are equal. Crimes against minorities are more equal.”
Fleettwood,
Do you advocate repealing the current hate crimes statute that protects your free exercise of religion?
A simple “yes” or “no” answer will do.
“Do you advocate repealing the current hate crimes statute that protects your free exercise of religion?”
I don’t know what you are talking about.
Fleettwood: 18USC245. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/245.htm
“”Do you advocate repealing the current hate crimes statute that protects your free exercise of religion?”"
That would be yes.
That would be yes.Posted by: fleettwood | May 11, 2007 at 04:39 PM
Good. Let me know how that works out for you. Once you get it repealed, I’ll stop insisting I get treated as fairly as the law currently treats you.
tom-What in the world are you talking about?
The conservatives love to argue about a so-called “special class” of victims which is pure bullshit. The FACT is that a hate crime is just that- a crime motivated by hate. If a group of blacks attacks you in NE Wichita for being white, you too have been the victim of a hate crime and they can and will be charged for it.
If a Muslim family moves into my neighbourhood and my son develops a liking to their teenage daughter and he goes over and paints “I Love You” on their garage door, he has committed the crime of vandalism. If he goes over and paints “Get Out Of My Neighbourhood You Terrorist Scum”, he has also committed the crime of vandalism. However it would be STUPID and FOOLISH to look at these as being equal because the damage done to the family and the larger community is much greater with the second crime while only a garage door was damaged in the first. That is why we need HATE CRIME laws.
“Hate-Crimes bills are just the latest attempt to circumvent the freedom of speech. Just like the infamous speech codes at many colleges it does nothing to stop the thoughts.”That is NOT true. You can stand on the corner in a white sheet and yell “I hate n___ers” all you want. That is your free speech and in a free country we have to put up with idiots like the Klan, the Nazis, the skinheads, Ben Laden supporters, flag burners and Westboro Baptist Church. But when you step one inch over the line into ACTIONS instead of words, the law ought to come down on you like a ton of bricks.
Hate crimes are committed by minorities against the majority too.
I was with a friend recently. I bought a toy for my parrots to chew up. I sort of viewed this wide-mouthed construction as inspired by teenage mutant ninja turtles. She saw it as a watermelon eating black caricature.
Long story cut short: I said, “Do you know, you’re racist.”
She challenged me: “How many blacks did you have in your high school?”
“Two”.
“What about middle school?”
“Not very many, we had a lot more Mexicans.”
Then she told me about being, at age 12, being “asked” “Want some of my chocolate?”
I thought, That’s nice, somebody offering to share her candy.
She disabused me of my misunderstanding, telling me that it was a black 13 year old male handling his penis (in pants) 6 inches from her face.
She told me about black girls who threatened, “I’m gonna cut you,” with knives.
She was only a 12 year old child.
I said, “Well your parents should have sent you to private school to protect you.”
She told me that she never informed her parents about these hate crimes.
And then I thought about my experience in middle school. Not bringing things home was normal.
This is my first comment but I can’t let this pass. One thing that the anti-hate crime crowd forgets or doesn’t care about is that hate crime laws allow the federal government to investigate when the locals won’t because, “the fag deserved it.”
My other favorite straw man is that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and doesn’t deserve protection. By that arguement, neither should religion get any protection. After all religion is much more of a choice than sexual orientation.
Good job, Jade, your comments are greatly appreciated. Welcome to the board.
Thanks. I read this blog multiple times a day and I’ve thought about posting before, but never got motivated enough to do it. This subject however, gets my blood boiling.
A quick intro. Mid 30’s, married with three special needs kids, stay at home mom. And since it will become very obvious, I’m a flaming liberal!
Again, welcome and the best of luck to you, your husband and your kids.
Rock on!
ohhhhh I might like her…
Jade:
I’m a conservative, unapologetically so, thus it’s likely we’ll disagree. A lot. But welcome aboard, nonetheless. More voices who write with reason are always welcome here, on any side.
Your point about giving the feds an in when the local good-ol’-boys won’t prosecute is very well taken, and to me, is the best (and perhaps only) justification for federal hate crimes legislation. I wrote on this the last time the topic came up; suffice it to say I’m not a fan of hate crimes legislation in general, for legal/prosecutor-specific reasons mostly, and because these laws flirt with “thought crimes.”
In addition, there is a case to be made that this particular statute may be unconstitutional, due to the lack of any rational nexus to a protectable federal interest through the Commerce Clause. There’s a SCOTUS on the topic, Morrison, I think (VT do yoou remember?). I’ll have to find the cite again; I’ll try, if anyone’s interested.
In any case, Jade, welcome. I hope we hear from you often.
Jade,Welcome aboard!I’m old enough to remember when victims of gay-bash murders were ruled by the authorities here to be “suicides.” Hopefully, we’ve made it past that, but there is still a long way yet to go before gay and lesbian people are allowed an equal opportunity in this society.
” Mid 30’s, married with three special needs kids, stay at home mom. And since it will become very obvious, I’m a flaming liberal!”
You forgot to mention your welfare status Jade. Its fairly obvious your on the government tit.
Tom,
You are putting forth a strawman argument. I simply gave you what you are attempting to put to me.
Proudman,
18USC245 is the current Federal hate crimes statute. Your free exercise of religion is covered by this statute. Do you support repealing this statute, or not? Or do you just oppose extending the same equal protections to others?
It’s a fairly easy concept.
Tom,
If you don’t like my opinion then say so. I’m not playing 20 questions until you find something to harp on.
Simple enough of a concept or do I need to treat you like a child?
Proudman,
How can I not like your opinion if I don’t know what it is? Yesterday afternoon, you wrote a fairly vague attack on the subject of hate crimes legislation. What I want to know from you is very simple: If you dislike hate crimes legislation, do you support _repealing_ the CURRENT Federal hate crimes statute that protects your free exercise of religion? I’ve repeatedly cited the code: 18USC245, and repeatedly linked to it: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/245.htm
If you don’t support repealing the current statute, then why would you opposed adding sexual orientation?
Wow! My first personal attack. I’m so honored.
GMC, this country has had hate crimes laws on the book for decades. It covers race and religion. When has anyone gotten prosecuted for thought crimes?
Tom,
I’m against the so-called hate crimes legislation. As my first post or two stated, the criminal acts are already covered by existing laws. Murder is illegal and already has varying degrees to account for the circumstances of the crime. To write laws to single out race/gender/religion is unnecessary. Such laws have unintended consequences and create a legal double-standard.
With all due respect, I’m not going to spend my time reviewing every law that catches your fancy. If you haven’t figured out my opinion by now then you will just have to stay in the dark.
I’m not going to spend my time reviewing every law that catches your fancy. If you haven’t figured out my opinion by now then you will just have to stay in the dark.Posted by: ProudMan | May 12, 2007 at 08:36 AM
This isn’t about “every law that catches my fancy.” It’s about the law that this thread was posted to discuss. You’re clearly here to discuss it, yet you refuse to familiarize yourself with what it says? You have an opinion of the law, yet you refuse to read it, even when it’s conveniently linked for you?
In the very first posting on this thread, I said this:
********”Hate crimes laws at the Federal level, and in the states that have them, already cover religion, which is a fundamental choice each of us make in our lives. I’ll believe the radical-conservatives in their condemnation of hate crimes legislation the day they repeal the provisions protecting religion. Until then, their complaints are nothing more than radical-conservative BS.”********
You say you don’t want to play “20 questions,” but ProudMan, you pretend not to understand the difference between “20 questions,” and the same question asked 20 times. Even Fleettwood was eventually honest enough to say what he believed. It’s disappointing that you are unwilling to show similar character.
Tom,
If you read my posts you will see where I stand on such things. I am not going to re-state it 20 times till you figure it out. It’s disappointing that you won’t try.
Proudman,
Do you support the repeal of 18USC245? Yes or no?
Are you even trying?
Trying to get a straight answer from you? Yep. Succeeding? Nope.
Your willingness to keep dancing around this, instead of just answering a very, very simple question, tells me quite a bit. It tells me that you’re willing to keep the protections already extended on the basis of religion and race, but you’re unwilling to see that other Americans get the same fair treatment.
I think I have my answer.
Tom:
If I’m not mistaken, the proposal currently before Congress is a far cry from the current hate crimes statute. If all Congress were doing were amending the current statute to add more protections, I think my objection would be far less. But it is more far-reaching than that.
It is arguable that the current proposal is unconstitutional, as it lacks a rational relationship to interstate commerce. The old statute did have such a link, it protected persons in federal service or in a federally funded activity, if I’m not mistaken. But I think the current proposal has no such link, and attempts to argue that “hate crimes” themselves, in and of themselves, anywhere, are linked to interstate commerce. Such an idea has already been struck down by SCOTUS, interpreting the Violence Against Women Act. (Morrison, I think).
And Jade, just this thought. The ACT being prosecuted is the murder, assault, etc., as it should be. When the racial or other motive is added as an element of the offense, two things happen. 1) the prosecution becomes more difficult, as motive is generally NOT an element of the offense, and 2) you are focusing on, and punishing specifically, a motive – a THOUGHT, not an act. That comes dangerously close to thought crimes.
These types of hate crimes are mostly political pandering. Few prosecutions are brought, for a number of reasons. But it permits members of Congress to demonstrate how caring they are, and costs them nothing to do so.
If I’m not mistaken, the proposal currently before Congress is a far cry from the current hate crimes statute.Posted by: GMC70 | May 12, 2007 at 01:54 PM
GMC,
You might be right. I’ve read the proposed legislation, and it does seem more broad than the current statute. As far as its Constitutionality goes, I don’t have the knowledge to evaluate that. I do know that the proponents have lawyers who are at least as skilled as you (no sarcasm intended here, seriously), and I hope they took sufficient care in drafting this bill so that it would pass SCOTUS review.
All that said…
This blog entry of Brownlee’s borrows terminology from an editorial written in Texas that echos the radical-conservative arguments against _any_ hate crimes legislation that includes sexual orientation. The editorial Brownlee quotes doesn’t make the Constitutional argument you make. It argues against hate crimes legislation as being morally suspect, primarily by using a new variant on the old trick of “blame the victim.”
My position is the same as it was on the May 3rd, when we last had this discussion: I’ll buy the radical-conservative argument that hate crimes statutes are unnecessary and immoral the minute the _current_ hate crimes statute protecting religious expression is repealed. They say that homosexuality is not a choice and doesn’t deserve protection. If they are intellectually honest, they’ll agree that religion is just as much a choice as homosexuality, and that it’s not deserving of any special protection under the law.
Until that day, I’m going to continue to insist that I be treated fairly, and receive the same protections under law as my radical-conservative friends.
On rereading my 2:09 post, someone might get the impression I believe homosexuality to be a choice. I don’t – I was postulating the opposing argument.
I have to agree, Tom, that if chosen classification is protected, then sexual orientation should be protected also.
I am not of the opinion that orientation is a choice, but religion obvious is. If the radical fundamentalists insist that their religion be protected, then they must also insist that sexual orientation be protected also.
That kind of turns their arguments on their heads.
Tom and WS -
I have made my position clear, that either protect them all, or repeal them all. I personally would just add sexual orientation to the existing statute. It is the only fair thing to do. However, just as a discussion point, I think religion is explcitly convered under the Constituion, whereas sexual orientation is not.
I am interested in the “is sexual orientation a choice” discussion. I have always felt it to be so, but I have known a few gays that attempted not to be, and made a mess out of things, so I am no longer sure. I have heard different advocates say that is and is not. What is the prevailing thought these days?
Tom,
When I wrote:
“To write laws to single out race/gender/religion is unnecessary.”
That was your answer! Notice the religion part? Even before that you had your answer. I’m against hate crime laws. I think that the other laws (against murder/assault/etc.) are sufficient.
So why didn’t I just clarify for you? Because every time I go to a political meeting I run into someone like you. Someone who has their little pet peeve about a law and badgers you about it. It’s the main reason the LP doesn’t attract more members.
My reasoning for just adding sexual orientation to the statute, when I am basically against hate crime legislation? Practically speaking, it is the only action that can possibly happen. Removing hate crime legislation never will. To many vested interests, and repealing laws is almost impossible anyway, seems to me.
Littlejohn,
As KEC chair, I travel around Kansas quite a bit, and also have contacts and attend conferences with my peers around the country. I meet many, many gay and lesbian Americans. As far as the “is sexual orientation a choice” question, I have never met a gay man or woman who has ever told me otherwise.
The choices we have are these: Are we honest with ourselves, our families, our faith? Do we live our lives with openness and integrity?
You mention gay friends who tried to live as someone they’re not, and note that they “made a mess of things.” In my opinion and experience, that’s exactly what happens when one tries to live a lie. To live that way, one has to first lie to oneself; this is a prescription for mental illness.
I do not believe my sexual orientation is a choice. I _do_ get to choose how I express that orientation, such as whether I’m monogamous or promiscuous, whether I’m “out” or closeted, whether I set a good example for others or lead poorly. But I could no more choose to be heterosexual than I could choose to be from Mars.
Tom,-
Thank you for that answer.
And this:
“The choices we have are these: Are we honest with ourselves, our families, our faith? Do we live our lives with openness and integrity?”
Very well said, for all of us.
Littlejohn,I have a friend, a psychologist who retired recently, who built a thriving practice putting back together gay people who had been destroyed by Exodus Ministries. She was booked solid for years, and had to refer many prospective patients to colleagues. I have yet to see one confirmed case of them changing anyone’s sexual orientation. Further, the gay people I know are quite satisfied with their lives, or would be if churches quit pasting targets on them.
Exodus – what a joke. I may not have the details exactly right, but I believe that the first two (male) directors of Exodus got married – to each other.
There was a South Park episode mocking exodus the kid kept killing themselves
Didn’t conservative champion the the recent law that gives pregent women special status?
Tom – contrary to what some like to say about me – I’m not anti-gay in any sense of the word.
If I harass farmie – it’s because I don’t like HER as an individual – not because she is a lesbian.
But, I’m going to be REALLY honest here and it might piss some people off.
I have been told – as a kind of a side-joke, that gay men are the best men – and that gay women are the worst women. It was a gay guy who told me that.
Why is it that gay men (many of them, anyway) are very attractive, very clean – great dressers, great designers, chefs, architects, and also excel in many of the fields where they are visible and have an effect on other’s style?
I can appreciate that – but I don’t understand that many (not all, obviously) gay women are not very attractive, not great dressers, etc.
I’m just saying this as an observation. I know some straight men think of lesbians as a beautiful thing – for fantasy observation purposes, I suppose, but the reality seems to be a little different.
Then again – perhaps I am hanging around a very selective group of gay men – and not enough gay women.
What say you?
AH, one of the most beautiful women I’ve ever met was a lesbian. I’ve have the priviledge of knowing some lesbians in our town who would give the shirts off their backs.
And I’m so furious right now at my cousin! I could SO go on this huge anti-gay rant right now over him…but fortunately I know better ones than him, and the others do not deserve it! Gay men should so kick him out of their club!
GS,I hate to tell you, but your observations are inanely shallow and stereotypical. If a sense of style and mode of dress and physical appearance are how you judge people, then you’ve missed out on almost all that is beautiful in life. I pity you.
Excuse me folks, I made an error upthread when I referred to the christan outfit that attempts to change gay people’s sexual orientation as Exodus Ministries (a religious group that works with transitioning prisoners released into the community). My actual target was Exodus International. Sorry about that!
GSheridan,
All too often, people see the stereotypes they want and expect to see. All too often, people ignore the reality around them when it conflicts with their view of the world, or with the view they’re told to have.
On March 21, 2003, the first day of the Iraq invasion, USMC Staff Sergeant Eric Alva stepped on a land mine and lost his right let. Here’s what the Marines had to say about SSgt Alva:
“SSgt. Alva is a credit to the Corps. We are grateful for his faithful service and proud to honor him…”http://www.defendamerica.mil/profiles/jul2003/pr072803a.html
President Bush personally awarded SSgt’s Alva’s Purple Heart. He was lauded as a “true American hero” in press reports at the time. What few people knew then, but what became common knowledge a few months ago, is that SSgt Alva is gay.
Gay men and women work in every profession in every community in this country. Many, like SSgt Alva, serve our nation in uniform, whether as soldiers, Marines, firefighters, and police officers. A close friend of mine has been a telephone company lineman for 25 years. Another is a mechanic and member of a pit crew for a famous NASCAR team.
There is a famous 9/11 photo, of New York City firemen carrying the body of their beloved, openly gay Chaplain, Mychal Judge, from the rubble. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mychal_F._Judge
One of the men who probably helped wrestle Flight 93 from the 9/11 terrorists, Mark Bingham, was a gay rugby player from California. http://www.unitedheroes.com/Mark-Bingham.html
The man who broke the NAZI Enigma code and helped the Allies win World War 2, Alan Turing, is widely considered to be the creator of modern computer science. He was hounded into suicide in the 50’s because of his homosexuality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
I could go on. And on. But I won’t.
Look beyond your stereotypes, GSheridan. Look past your silly prejudice that says gay men are sissies and gay women are unattractive. Open your eyes, open your mind, and accept reality for what it is.
Thanks.
Tom,Yes, good men all. But you really don’t need to look so far afield to find heroes; any gay man or woman who lives openly and honestly and lovingly in a society as hostile and lethal as this one has proved to be is truly courageous! you’ve got heroes all around you.
Jed,
Yes, you’re right that we’re surrounded by brave people who are unafraid to live openly.
The point I was trying to make, however, is that no matter what field of human endeavor you look at, gay people are there. SSgt Alva was the first American wounded in Iraq. Fr. Judge was the first “officialy recorded” victim of 9/11.
The people I mentioned didn’t set out to be heroes. They just happened to be in a place at a time when heroism was called for. They did no more and no less than the other Americans whom they worked beside. I used these examples to show GSheridan and others that gay Americans fight, bleed, and if necessary die for this country, and that the common stereotypes are false.
Tom,”The point I was trying to make, however, is that no matter what field of human endeavor you look at, gay people are there.”
Certainly, there are. I hope, or maybe wish, that it was a point so obvious it didn’t need to be made. GLBT’s have done their share and more in the making of our country; I cannot for the life of me understand why so many people would work so hard to deny them the benefits they have earned!