On October 8, the House of Representatives voted to expand the definition of "hate crimes" related to "sexual orientation." According to the New York Times:

The House voted Thursday to expand the definition of violent federal hate crimes to those committed because of a victim’s sexual orientation, a step that would extend new protection to lesbian, gay and transgender people.

Democrats hailed the vote of 281 to 146, which brought the measure to the brink of becoming law, as the culmination of a long push to curb violent expressions of bias like the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming college student.

“Left unchecked, crimes of this kind threaten to ruin the very fabric of America,” said Representative Susan A. Davis, Democrat of California, a leading supporter of the legislation.

Under current federal law, hate crimes that fall under federal jurisdiction are defined as those motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion or national origin.

The new measure would broaden the definition to include those committed because of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It was approved by the House right before a weekend when gay rights will be a focus in Washington, with a march to the Capitol and a speech by President Obama to the Human Rights Campaign.

Thus the self-appointed newspaper of record engaged in a textbook example of "burying the lead." The timing of the action by the House was no doubt driven by the imminent arrival of the lavender lobby; in the manner of members of a stenographic pool nervously awaiting the arrival of their employers, the whisper went round the hallowed halls of Congress: “They’re coming! Look busy.”

Entering into a discussions of "hate crimes" and "sexual orientation" generally means one has thrown reasoned jurisprudence into the dumpster and filled the vacated spot with notions of political crimes. "Sexual orientation" is simply a catchall phrase which appears to be necessary to concisely summarize the burgeoning plethora of perversities which would otherwise have to be tediously repeated every time such a topic is engaged. It avoids the initialism creep which has otherwise run amok in such circles. (TG/TS and LGBT are only the start; I suspect it will soon be difficult to summarize them in less than ten letters.)

In any discussions of "hate crimes" and "sexual orientation," the politicization of language in already in force. As George Orwell observed in “Politics and the English Language” (1946): "As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse."

Thus the hum of buzzwords on a busy workday in the Henhouse of Representatives.

According to the FBI, attacks motivated by sexual orientation are already defined as a hate crime: “A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.” Thus, any action defined as a “hate crime” was already a criminal act to begin with; what ostensibly made it even more criminal was the motivation for committing the crime. Thus, if you stab someone and steal his wallet that is merely a crime; if you select your victim based on race, gender or orientation, stab him/her and steal his/her wallet/purse, that is a hate crime. Choosing one's victims without discrimination is the morally superior posture for all respectable felons.

But in our post-modern, over-analyzed society, the guardians of ideological purity are often quick to tell us proles that we don’t even understand our own motivations. (They shaped such lines of reasoning in the study of literature, where a mainstay of academia has long been figuring out what an author’s “real” motivations were, without regard to the stated authorial intentions.) The result is something which sounds like a bad stereotype of a Jesuitical casuistry, in which the mavens of political orthodoxy know someone’s hearts better than he knows himself, and the confessor (or, more accurately to this discussion, inquisitor) may explain a person’s motivations with a clarity which is beyond ordinary mortals. "You will know you have committed a hate crime when we tell you."

What is in danger of being forgotten in such concerns over motivations (alleged or actual) is that the crime itself may be minimized. A reprehensible crime should be punished, regardless of the motivation. The logic of the “hate crime” is that certain thoughts make a criminal act more reprehensible; but this would presumably lead to the equally valid assessment that other thoughts make a criminal act less reprehensible — perhaps even a mitigating circumstance.

Defining crimes in terms of race and class led to truly horrific results in the last century; there is no need to risk building on that tragic legacy. A just society should punish criminals because of their violation of a uniform code of justice; the confessional should be overseen by those entrusted with that responsibility.

Rt. Rev. James Heiser has served as Pastor of Salem Lutheran Church in Malone, Texas, while maintaining his responsibilities as publisher of Repristination Press, which he established in 1993 to publish academic and popular theological books to serve the Lutheran Church.  Heiser has also served since 2005 as the Dean of Missions for The Augustana Ministerium and in 2006 was called to serve as Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). An advocate of manned space exploration, Heiser serves on the Steering Committee of the Mars Society. His publications include two books; The Office of the Ministry in N. Hunnius' Epitome Credendorum (1996) and A Shining City on a Higher Hill: Christianity and the Next New World (2006), as well as dozens of journal articles and book reviews.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Ellen Christine Smith said:

They slipped in crimes deemed to be rendered against disabled... As a Canadian, of course I cannot speak with credibility to the issue of lobby groups which address the issue of ethenasia in America; I can only presume as our cultures are so alike in many ways, there most likely are similar battles being fought in our respective federal legislative bodies -- but I will say this. Here in Canada, the groups which do support this new issue are often those which also support such issues as same sex marriage. This particular item discussed here, addressing a bill which renames or designates certain crimes as hate crimes, and which defines a hate crime as one which is deemed to be rendered against a person because of race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, I find disturbing because the same people who want to see us have the freedom to put a person to sleep based on their level of perceived suffering (as in the case of a severely handicapped person), also have the gall to pretend to want to protect those people by providing a higher penalty for assaulting or murdering them. Will this create a conflict in the lawcourts I wonder? No - I think not. I doubt anyone is even aware of this gaping hole in logic which this whole scenario presents.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 12, 2009
Votes: +3

DDW said:

	I challenge all of you To take a very close look/listen to those in favor of "hate" crime legislation. I can assure you that they themselves are filled to the brim with hate. I'm convinced that this whole charade is nothing less than a smokescreen.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 12, 2009
Votes: +2

RP said:

... The only thing I can think of that should be considered a "hate crime" is voting for hate crime legislation. Isn't hate/greed/jealousy/envy really at the center of ALL crime? Are straight white Christian males the only ones who can hate? If I were to shoot someone for cutting me off in traffic, I would indeed be a very terrible person and should be severely punished. If that person were black or gay or muslim I am an even worse person and should be doubly punished? What a crock!

report abuse vote down vote up

October 12, 2009
Votes: +2

Pat Henry said:

	Orwell Crime is transgression of a law. "Hate crime" is thought crime, and against the very fabic of law represented by blind Justice.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 12, 2009
Votes: +2

CabotAR said:

... When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty…Thomas Jefferson Hate Crime laws is just another way to put fear into Americans who resist tyranny. During this times of a police state, telling the truth is a Revolution act. For everyone, there is a new, underground book just out that parallels modern day times to the American Revolution times. It’s about real people in a small, American town that stands up to federal tyranny & starts the 2nd American Revolution. It’s great, cause those issues, back in colonial days, are present today (high taxes, govt. tyranny, etc.). I bought it for a friend & recommend it to all. Find out what’s next & what each of us need to do to prepare for dangerous days coming. Power to the People…......It’s We the People….not you the government www.booksbyoliver.com

report abuse vote down vote up

October 12, 2009 | url
Votes: +1