America: One Tick Closer to God

My partner, David Bohnett, and I sponsored the Wednesday afternoon White House reception honoring President Obama's signing of the Hate Crimes Bill. The crowd was a noble and dignified collection of invincible fighters. GLSEN's executive director Dr. Eliza Byard was there. So were the Shepards, James Byrd's proud sisters, and those who have learned the hard way that anger and hate are the ugly antithesis of anything Jesus, Mohammad, G*d, Buddha, or any other religious leader ever would want for their flock.

Unless you've lived in a box, you're aware the Hate Crimes Bill was bogged down in committee and Congress throughout the Bush years. It's hard to imagine a more hateful time in America than those Bush years. The anger was enervating, the vitriol was exhausting, and the overall tone of right wing rhetoric was un-American and backward. Finally, for the first time in over a decade, with the swing of a pen, President Obama turned his back on the right wing's ridiculous rhetoric by doing the right thing.

The old law defined a "hate crime" as one motivated by religion, race, national origin, or color. The new hate crimes act expands the federal definition of hate crimes to include assaults based on sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity. The lion's share of the law states:

Whoever . . . willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person . . . [shall be liable for criminal penalties stated in this legislation].

Appended to the hate crimes amendment was a statement ensuring that a religious leader or any other person cannot be prosecuted on the bases if his or her speech, beliefs, or association. In other words, if a person peaches against homosexuality, people of color, or any group -- and a listener goes out and commits a lynching, the speaker cannot be held responsible.

According to 2006 FBI statistics, hate crimes based on sexual orientation constituted the third highest category reported and made up 15.5 percent of all reported hate crimes. Only race-based and religion-based crimes (almost all anti-Semitic) were more prevalent than hate crimes based on sexual orientation. Now all three of these categories of Americans are protected under this legislation.

Of course Pat Robertson bellowed his gloom and doom saying that America's religious rights are threatened and inferring that America is run by a bunch of liberals who want to lead the United States to the burnished gates of hell. It's his usual brand of bitter loathing and fear that has made him very rich and powerful. But he's even protected under this law.

America is not further from God by Obama's signing of this bill. We are one step closer to being a more embracing nation that leaves any final judgment up to the Almighty. By professing a stronger legislative disdain for hate we are honoring God's love, power, and delight for all of us.

During Obama's East Room speech, I was standing in the front row. There among the disabled, the black, the Jewish, the Muslim, the Native American, the Christian, and the disenfranchised, I was not looking at our President, but watching Judy Shepard. It's impossible to imagine what she went through when she received the news of her son's assault. Matthew Shepard had been beaten so brutally that his face was covered in blood, except where it had been partially washed clean by his tears. But now a mother's pain was right in front of me, the ripples of that brutal murder welling out of her eyes. She wasn't crying because America was going down some fear monger's road to hell, but simply because she had brutally lost her son, and finally through her steadfast efforts, his death was not in vain.

Her tenacity is America. That's what we must mark as true. We cannot surrender to turmoil and heartache, but get up, find peace in doing, and make tomorrow a better day.

Judy, Dennis, and Logan Shepard fought hard for Wednesday, Matt would be very proud. They're American heroes. I'll take their lead over the naysayers any day. Bravo America, continue the evolution.

Comments

[Daniel Brooks]

There will probably always be those who break the law. There is no good reason why they should have any influence over the existence, nonexistence, form or interpretation of any law.

Civilization depends on the fundamental premise that there will, hopefully, always be many, many more who follow the law. If a law says an action is outside the boundaries of acceptable behavior, then there will be fewer occurances of that action.

I think it's important to point out that one does not actually have to be homosexual to suffer the injustice of another person's homophobic prejudice. This law makes it safer for everyone.

[hoosier96]

Hate crimes: Because some victims are just better than others.

[Eric Mann]

No, because some crimes are more henious than others. What planet have YOU been living on?

[hoosier96]

Earth, but if I get killed by a Martian instead of an earthling, does that make the crime more henious?

[JohnJames]

Once again for those posting here who can't get this through their heads - adding the category of sexual orientation does not amount to some special protection for gay people. The category is sexual orientation, not homosexual orientation. Anyone who can muster a smidgen of reason should recognize that the fact that gay people are not known to commit crimes motivated by antipathy toward heterosexuality is completely irrelevant. This absurd thinking says, in effect, that if homosexuals only behaved as badly as some heterosexuals in this regard then the legislation would be OK. Blame the victim for not also being a victimizer, in essence.

[Mover]

Just because you are not aware of "gay people" committing "crimes motivated by antipathy toward heterosexuality", doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

The purpose of this bill is to add acceptance for thought crimes.

[Zanti]

I see. That's why it focuses on assaults?

[mommaserene]

I'm against the hate crimes bill. Now, before you get all up in arms at me, listen. (or read, LOL)
The criminal justice system USUALLY considers intent / motive as part of the crime. Hence murder 1, 2, voluntary / involuntary manslaughter, etc.
I don't think it's ok for the government to single out minority groups for any situation-­-including EEO quotas, hate crimes, etc. It propogates more prejudice.
Crime is crime.

If my white husband gets tied to the back of a pickup and dragged down the road, his attackers deserve the same punishment as if he was black or gay or female. What's wrong is just plain wrong.

[JohnJames]

Where's the minority in the category of race or religion or national origin or sexual orientation or gender identity? I'm looking but can't see one.

[Eric Mann]

minorites in race-Black, Latino, anyone who is not a W.A.S.P.
sexual orientatio­n-homosexu­al, bisexual
gender identity-t­ransvestit­e, transgendered

[hoosier96]

It doesn't matter. The point is, the government is increasing the punishment just because the criminal is different from the victim. It's silly.

[CollinJE]

Why do you feel the need to invoke God in making a case for hate crime legislation?

The only arguments we should be making for any legislation is of the legislation's own merits alone. Not some call to becoming closer to a divine being.

[Zanti]

It's his answer to Pat Robertson. A rebuttal. Mr. Gregory is using an advanced literary device called writing--I guess it caught you unawares.

[superstition]

"Obama administration again defends DOMA in court, says gays have no 'fundamental right' to marriage benefits" October 30, 2009
http://www.americablog.com/2009/10/obama-administration-again-defends-doma.html

"The Obama administra­tion...say­s it has an obligation to defend laws enacted by Congress while they are on the books and can be reasonably defended."

John Aravosis:
"Except they don't. But they'd like you to believe they do.

Here is a former senior aide to President Clinton explaining how it actually works in the Oval Office when a president wants to oppose a law in court. And here are examples from Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II where the White House didn't defend laws it didn't agree with. So it's an outright lie for the administration to say it has an obligation to defend all laws enacted by Congress.

Not to mention, this White House has already refused to enforce laws it didn't like - on immigration and medical marijuana - so don't lecture us about how you had to side with the religious right because of your respect for the rule of law. We simply weren't important enough."

[gutenmorgen]

Sorry Tom. The president did not sign a hate crime bill. He signed the appropriation for the DoD in which the hate crime bill was embedded.

[cybexg]

Which is still BETTER than what happened over the last 8 years

[carsntrucks]

Oh you mean the past eight years where physically harming anybody was a crime, and not a special crime like it is now? Oh yeah. We're going a long way to ending actual violence against LGBTs by saying it's a "hate crime". As if beating or murdering someone is ever not hateful.

I really hate my own party sometimes.

[cowtippor]

this is called a "the only way to get a hate crime bill passed in this country" maneuver.

[jmyoung666]

I have mixed emotions about this.

On the one hand, I do not believe crimes based upon someone's sexuality should be treated any different from those based on race, creed, or gender.

On the other I ppose all hate crimes legislation, generally. If someone commits premeditated assault, that person commits premeditated assault. It generally should not matter what the purpose was unless it was part of a broader pattern of intimidation against a community.

Prejudices aren't something that can or should be legislated away.

[UVA1983]

Please take a class in criminal law. You would then understand that even without the recognition of hate-based criminal prosecutions, our justice system recognizes differences in crimes based on motives and the severity of the crimes already. Adding a further nuance to these crimes' prosecutions and the attendant punishments is what judges entertain in their courts on a daily basis. Criminals' punishments today without this legislation are not as clear-cut and simple to prosecute as you would seem to believe. That's why we have 1st degrees, second degrees, etc....

[Badbone]

But never before have those crimes been given harsher sentences simply because races or orientation of the two parties. If the “hate crimes” were prosecuted evenly, you may have a point. But they aren’t. They are applied so UN-evenly that it is clear just what they are. Laws intended to add an extra layer of punishment to politically unpopular defendants.

[jmyoung666]

I am a lawyer. I understand that the reasons for a crime can make a difference in sentencing. What I do not like is a law that suggests committing harm because of a prejudice can be a special crime unto itself. However, another poster below has actually provided a much stronger reason.

[Mover]

I don't believe that motives are prosecutable. Motives are important in finding the criminal, but there is no law against motives. Well, until now anyway.

However, the way the crime was committed makes a big difference in degrees of an offense. As has been stated, a planned murder is a first degree murder, while an accidental killing could be just manslaughter.

[Cea80]

You have a good point. Like many important and controversial issues of today there is no simple correct answer that does not have complications (like abortion). I think you can sympathize with the need for hate crimes legislation, but be wary of its unforeseen consequences and constitutionality.

[cowtippor]

unforeseen consequences? like what? too much hate in prisons?

[WilliamBradford]

I agree. This concept implies that it is somehow "less bad" to hurt or kill someone just because you were in the mood to do so. It also means that certain reasons for hate are more important than others; if you kill a wealthy white person because you hate wealthy white people, that is a lesser crime than killing someone in one of the "protected" classes.

We have laws against behavior. We should not discriminate between crimes based on the alleged reason that the victim was chosen.

[JohnJames]

What a confused comment. First, the category of sexual orientation was simply added to the other categories like race and religion that were already on the books. How do you infer from that this new category is legally deemed more important? Second, hate crimes necessarily intimidate an entire community. They are BY DEFINITION motivated solely or primarily by a person belonging to an ENTIRE CLASS of people. Third, unless you think prejudice is a good thing then it should be legislated away. Of course it cannot be. But when our government, government of for and by the people and the omnipresent teacher, as it's been called, sends the message that violence based on prejudice and bigotry is unacceptable it does send a powerful message that the hatred itself is nothing to be proud of and the fact is that too many insecure people in our society embrace hatred of gay people to affirm their own moral worth.

[jmyoung666]

Reread my post. I never said it was being treated as more important than other hate crimes.

If I kill you because you have red hair, should that be a hate crime?

[Aaror]

The biggest reason for "hate crimes legislation," is to create a federal crime when a local jurisdiction would otherwise look away. From 1865-1960 (and later in some areas), crimes against blacks in the south by whites were generally not prosecuted. Making it against the law to commit a crime against someone just because they are black allows the feds to investigate crimes the locals ignored, which then forces the locals to join the suit (or blatently ignore murder, beatings, rapes, etc. even while the "hate crime," portion goes through the court).
If there was an assurance that every murder, rape, and beating would be investigated, even when local law enforcement thinks the person "deserved it," for dressing in too little clothing or having a different skin color or sexual orientation, then we would not need hate crimes legislation.

[jmyoung666]

Now this is a good argument for hate crimes legislation and very concise. If it's hate crimes legislation or defacto legal lynchings, then I support hate crimes legislation.

I would say that such laws should not be used to add additional charges if someone is being tried for the crime they committed or to up an act of vandalism to a federal crime.

[Rmath]

Listen to the ire from the opponents of this legislation.

It's law now. As with the election, just get over it. After a few arrests and convictions, you will begin to understand that hate crimes are no longer tolerated in America.

[DUSAA-1775]

All men are created equal.... it's just that some are more equal than others

[superstition]

Some of us know what a hate crime is -- a crime that affects/targets a class of people.

Some of us can, for instance, differentiate between vandalism (painting "Tommy + Rachel 4 Ever" on someone's front door) and a hate crime (painting "AIDS kills gays dead") on someone's front door.

[rocketman69]

Why aren't age related crimes included?

[cowtippor]

when was the last time someone beat a 5 yr old for being too young?

[Eric Mann]

Um, age IS a protected class. It may not have been mentioned in this article or in this law, but in courts it is just as protected in every way, shape, and form as race, gender, and now sexual orientation and gender identity.

[KrautMan]

Bit of weird reasoning in this piece. The second and third highest categories of hate crimes (crimes based on opinions regarding religion and sexual orientation) are both firmly rooted in religious motivations and one could argue that racial discrimination, the number 1 category, has a fair share of religious influence too. The author's religious angle to comment on this ("By professing a stronger legislative disdain for hate we are honoring God's love, power, and delight for all of us") sounds extremely surreal to me.

[Zanti]

In the very first paragraph, the author offers "that anger and hate are the ugly antithesis of anything Jesus, Mohammad, G*d, Buddha, or any other religious leader ever would want for their flock." That explains his "religious angle." Maybe you accidentally skipped the first paragraph?

That is to say, he's writing in accordance with HIS point of view, not yours.

You seem to be misusing the FBI statistics. To wit, they state that religion plays a big role in defining the hate-crime categories in question. Does this mean we can flip the statistics--i.e., use them to conclude that religion is defined in a big way by those hate crimes? Hardly. That would be irrational in the extreme.

Hopefully, that's not what you're trying to do.

[KrautMan]

Well, if the author would have written in accordance with my point of view I hardly would disagree, would I?

I did not "accidently" skip the words you quoted, they basically are the cornerstone of my criticism: Like every person of faith the author takes the liberty to interpret what "god" (actually a whole range of different gods and their prophets) wants for his flock. And this is exactly the same notion that fuels religion-based hate crimes - the idea that an obviously wrong deed is in effect right in the eyes of a higher being. Does god (whichever) want me to embrace my gay/hereti­cal/differ­ently colored brother or does he want me to subdue him? Or enslave him? Or torture him? Or burn him? A rhetorical question I'm afraid - because nobody knows. Not the author, not you and not the guy who just committed the hate crime. And don't try to look for hints in scripture or from religious authorities - they are ambiguous at best.

So I repeat: The author's choice to comment on this legislation from a religious perspective strikes me as surreal. But maybe you have a private line to the god of your choice and know more than me. Fine with me, but then why not keep it private?

[Hegemoneyhoney]

I think the concept of "hate crimes" is an abomination, regardless of the protected group. The institutio­nalization of that concept into law, regardless of the protected group included, is antithetical to the judicial system of a society based on equality and equal justice. To make distinctions among various "labelled groups" is to imply that one life is valued higher than another, and that is un-American!. Crime is crime and a crime against any human being should be treated the same. Isn't ALL crime "hate crime", after all? And even if one accepts the concept of "hate crimes", why wouldn't crimes against women and children - much more pervasive and ubiquitous and numerous - be given that status first and foremost? In my opinion, the existence - and ongoing expansion - of the concept of "hate crimes" in American jurisprudence only serves to dilute the law, trivialize all life and justice, make unequal treatment implicit in the law, and may even increase feelings of hostility in those given to such feelings against those protected groups - because Americans have traditionally been viscerally opposed to injustice. We should all oppose ALL crime against ANY person in the United States of America, without sub-text of hierarchy of crime based on factors extraneous to the basic fact of one's human status!

[Rogan]

You're totally misunderstanding the whole "hate crimes" thing. It's not that such legislation picks and chooses among victims, elevating one's suffering over another. What it's about, is elevating some CRIMES above others, and elevating the punishment of the criminals.

It has absolutely nothing to do with, for instance, if the victim is homosexual. What it's about, is the criminal who personally considers that homosexuality hung a target on his victim. THAT criminal has brought special, and specially evil, motivation to the crime, and that's what the legislation is about. The victim's perceived or actual "otherness" is not relevant; only the criminal's perception of it, is.

[SonofLiberty1]

Actually I agree with Hedgehoney...it's elevating some crimes...some are more equal than others...

Crime is crime...

Is a drug murder or a drive by shooting or another shooting any different?

Nope

In the end...if someone points a gun at you and shoots or uses a gun and it richochets and hits you and kills you...

You are dead period.

There are many here on huffpost that have a "majority" but in real life they are a minority.

[redplanet]

This bill has nothing to do with the god or gods. Why bring in this stuff? "One tick closer to god" - what does that mean? Absolutely nothing.

[truthartbeauty]

It is a step closer to decency and fairness and what is RIGHT! maybe that's what he meant

[Mover]

The vast majority of human beings believe that when they die there will a judgment made on how they used, or abused, the gift of life they were privileged to have for such a short time. Many of them believe that much of that judgment is based on how they treat their fellow human beings. So, I suppose Mr. Gregory believes that using the force of law to make people act in a way that he approves of will get them closer to a passing grade when they meet the legendary St. Peter (or pirate or whatever holy person/thing they believe will be greeting them).

[richdibo]

Thank god for the secular humanists whose effort also contributed to this legislation. Give them some credit.