Right wing can't beat the Matthew Shepard bill - so they rename it!

Just when we thought the right wingnuts couldn't get any deeper into their lies and distortion about the Matthew Shepard act, they take it a step further. Of course, we shouldn't be surprised about this, really. The Shepard bill (S.909) is a long-needed bill that I've explored extensively. The lies, no matter how egregious or how blatant, continue to come down the pike.

The ugliest, of course, is the lie that says that "it would protect pedophiles." But they didn't stop at just saying that it protects pedophiles, now they "rename" the bill as the "pedophile protection act." Leave it to the freaks at World Nut Daily to capitalize on the lies about a bill that would provide federal assistance to local and state organizations to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.

I would ask, "how low can they go?" but I already know the answer to that.

Maybe someone will have the guts and the integrity to actually research the bill and realize that their distortions are complete fallacy. But then, maybe grass will turn pink too. I don't know what's more disturbing - the fact that these lies are becoming so mainstream, or the fact that so few people are actually willing to call them on their lies. Or... the fact that so few people even are willing to find out the truth for themselves.

Oh, sheep - wake up!

The Matthew Shepard Bill: a Law for the 21st Century and Beyond

Note: The following is an academic paper I finished a few weeks ago - posted here for your benefit!

Note: Some of the articles (specifically the Wyoming Tribune and New York Times articles) referenced require academic credentials to access the archived online articles, but they can also be obtained by reaching the publishers directly. The full reference list is provided at the end of this post.

The 1998 beating and murder of University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard sent shockwaves into the community and beyond. Within days, the crime gained national attention, and attracted demands for hate crime laws that included protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. By definition, hate crimes are committed based on the attacker’s bias against a particular race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin. Such laws have passed in several states since then. However, as of this writing, despite FBI reports of over 1100 violent crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) victims each year, the federal government has yet to pass even basic protections for LGBT persons. While overall hate crimes have decreased slightly over the ten-year period since Shepard’s murder, violent crimes with a bias against sexual orientation have remained consistent.  U.S. Senator Harry Reid introduced a new bill, S. 909, on April 28, 2009, along with more than 30 co-sponsors. It would provide federal assistance to state and local jurisdictions to investigate and prosecute hate crimes when they are either unable or unwilling to do so (New York Times [Times], 2009). Although conservatives and religious organizations oppose the bill, the merits of the bill far outweigh any perceived weaknesses and all-too-frequent misrepresentation.

The initial report of the Matthew Shepard’s death was a chilling, graphic picture of sheer human brutality. “For up to 18 hours, Matthew Shepard suffered unbearable agony as he was beaten, bleeding and left hanging on a fence post to die outside Laramie [Wisconsin]. During his torment, Shepard begged for his life. Later, after he was found with his skull smashed and his body burn-marked and cut, Shepard hung on unconscious for days on life support. Finally, the 22-year-old University of Wyoming student died at 12:53 a.m. Monday — a victim of bias and hate.” (MATTHEW SHEPARD DIES, 1998). It wasn’t the first murder in the United States that was committed with a strong bias against the victim’s sexual orientation, but it was certainly one of the most well known, partly because of its brutality.

Since then, Shepard’s murder became the namesake for federal hate crime legislation, which is presently under consideration in Washington, D.C. The Matthew Shepard Act “would be an important step forward in protecting all minorities from violence and a tribute to a young man whose life was cut short by bigotry” (Times, 2009). Hate crimes have been recorded and tracked by the Federal Bureau of Investigation since 1992, under direction of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990. The most recent hate crimes data that the FBI has compiled is from 2007. Overall, more than 1.4 million violent crimes were committed in the United States (FBI-Violent Crime, 2007). Of those, 7,624 incidents were classified as hate crimes. 1,265 (16.6%) were incidents with a bias against sexual orientation (FBI-Table 1, 2007). These numbers are generally consistent with those of 1998 (the year Shepard was slain), when 7,755 total incidents were reported, with 1260 (16.2%) of them listed with a sexual orientation bias.

Conservative and religious groups have heavily criticized the bill. One primary complaint is that the phrase “sexual orientation” is not defined in the Shepard bill. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council writes, “Because the bill doesn't define the term “sexual orientation,” some fear that pedophiles and practitioners of other bizarre sexual fetishes would try to claim protection under it. Democrats refused to amend the bill to explicitly exclude such “orientations”” (Perkins, 2009). However, the phrase “sexual orientation” is clearly defined by federal law in the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990 (which is directly referenced in the Shepard bill) as being “consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality,” (FBI: Statistics Act, 2004). Any further definition would be both unnecessary and redundant.

Conservatives also complained that the bill could stifle religious or free speech, resulting in crackdowns against pastors who wish to preach about their belief of the sinful nature of homosexual relationships. The reality is that the bill addresses only violent crimes, and even has a provision that constitutionally protected speech is not affected. Further, it clarifies that “The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence” (Reid, 2009). What’s more, free expression is not affected: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs” (Reid, 2009). In short, only speech that directly incites an offender to violently attack a person or group based on protected status would be scrutinized.

The Shepard Bill’s official intent is that it is “To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes” (Reid, 2009). The bill identifies violent hate crimes as a “serious national problem” and that “such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive” (Reid, 2009). Also, the bill illustrates the burden that local and state jurisdictions must bear on investigating and prosecuting hate crimes: “State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance” (Reid, 2009). In summary, federal assistance is needed to effectively investigate and prosecute hate crimes, where local and state jurisdictions are either unable or unwilling to do so.

Another common argument is the misconception that hate crime laws aren’t needed. After all, isn’t any murder a “hate crime?” Aren’t all violent crimes driven by hate? Some argue that we should simply prosecute people to the fullest extent of existing laws, and that hate crime definitions aren’t needed. The reality is quite the opposite. In fact, the bill itself illustrates the very need for hate crime definitions: “A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected” (Reid, 2009). Quite simply, a hate crime is an act of terrorism against a particular group, not just the individual victim. As a result, such crimes must be investigated and prosecuted in order to fully protect all Americans.

In conclusion, the Matthew Shepard Act of 2009 is an essential bill that should be passed, signed into law, and supported by all Americans. Misconceptions or misrepresentations about the bill have frequently led to confusion. Unfortunately, inaccurate information regarding this much-needed bill continues to be dispensed by opponents. Despite opposition, the bill is needed, well defined, and adds a level of protection and assurance to all Americans, including those in the LGBT community.

References:

MATTHEW SHEPARD DIES. (1998, October 13). Wyoming Tribune-Eagle (Cheyenne, WY) a1. Retrieved June, 3 2009 from NewsBank on-line database (Access World News) on the World Wide Web: http://infoweb.newsbank.com.ezproxy.bethel-college.edu:8080

Matthew Shepard Act. (2009, May 6). New York Times, The (NY) Late Edition - Final ed., 28. Retrieved June, 3 2009 from NewsBank on-line database (Access World News) on the World Wide Web: http://infoweb.newsbank.com.ezproxy.bethel-college.edu:8080

Perkins, T. (2009). Facts - What Homosexuals Hate. Washington Update. Retrieved June 3, 2009 from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU09D21

Reid, H. (2009). Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (Introduced in Senate). Retrieved June 3, 2009 from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.909:

U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1998). Hate Crime Statistics, 1998. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 3, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/98hate.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2007). Table 1: Incidents, Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_01.htm

U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2007). Violent Crime. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation.  (2004). Appendix A: HATE CRIME STATISTICS ACT. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 3, 2009 from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/appendix_a.htm

More exposure of the lies told about the Matthew Shepard Bill

While doing some research about the AFA's lies about the Matthew Shepard bill, I found that my friends at the Box Turtle Bulletin have done a phenomenal job of dismantling them one-by-one, especially the excremental claim that the bill would "cover 30 'sexual orientations.'"

I especially urge my conservative readers to go to the Box Turtle post to learn the truth. The writer even points out that the bill even references the 1990 Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which clearly defines "sexual orientation." By the way, that definition only lists heterosexuality and homosexuality. Sorry, AFA. Your lies just won't cut it.
Here's an excerpt:

But what if Federal law hadn’t already defined sexual orientation and we had to fall back on the American Psychiatric Association’s definition? Well, it turns out that the APA’s official definition is not much different from the federal government’s. The APA’s official handbook, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV-TR, 2000) offers a very precise definition of how clinicians should describe a client’s sexual orientation... Click to read more!

Prejean gets to keep her crown, so can we shut the hell up about it now?

While the country continues to languish in a deep recession, the right wing "religious" side of our country has found new life in their battle, a star of a hero, and an evil villain. It's a drama that's worth the pages of their newsletters, "action reports" and their on-air personalities. This battle is, of course, over legalizing gay marriage. The hero? The beautiful martyr who happens to be the sitting Miss California, Carrie Prejean. The evil villain? That awful gay "activist," Perez Hilton. And what did he do? He called her a "dumb bitch" and also said she was a... c... cu... Nope. still can't say it.

Let's be honest, here. Perez Hilton is about as much of a "c-word" as he ever accused Prejean of being, and doesn't represent me, nor the rest of the GLBT community. Quite frankly, I'm irritated that this has continued at such a feverish pace. I've chosen not to write on it until now(even at the urging of friends of mine) because I think the whole situation is asinine.

Prejean's views are her views. She has a right to her views. My problem with her is the fact that she apparently thinks she lives in a different country than the rest of us (in her "country." we have a choice for gay marriage or not - but in OUR country, only five states allow gay marriage — not in even her own STATE is that "choice" an option). Also, she just came across as a moron. What the hell is "opposite marriage" anyway?

The fact that the right has elevated her to some silly martyr status is beyond asinine. She got skewered, and rightly so, because she just had absolutely nothing intelligent to say. If she had just said, "I disagree with gay marriage, and I don't think it should be legal," that would have angered a lot of people, but it would have been thoughtful, reasoned, and intelligent. Not so with the blathering she put out there.

And has anyone, for even a second, realized that they're making a valley girl bimbo into a martyr for answering a question badly? Is the "religious right" so hard up for spokespersons that they need HER? Really.

As for that bitch of a blogger, Perez Hilton, he does NOT represent the GLBT community. He certainly doesn't represent me. He's a petty, prissy little twit of a man who made his blog famous by drawing doodles of penises, cocaine spills, and semen drips on photos of celebrities. Plus, he made himself famous by calling a sitting beauty pageant title holder a bitch and a "c-word" that I won't repeat. It rhymes with "bunt." Yeah, that's how to get influence in our society. Woo hoo.

Once again the "right" has latched on to him as the personification of everything that's wrong with the gay community. As if!

So in the end, she's dumb, and he's the bitch. It's not worth anyone's time except for the wingnuts over at Faux News who found another pretty Christian blonde face that's being dissed by the evil gay people. Seriously, this is as tiresome as it is stupid. She's hailed as heroes by morons like Bill O'Reilley and Sean Hannity.

She took a stand? Please. That wasn't a stand. That "answer" was nothing more than mindless, blthering drivel. She blathered. And she got called on it. And it cost her the Miss USA crown.

And this is "persecution?" Good grief. Is it persecution when someone says, "okay, she's a queen of morality, but poses for half-nude photos?" No. It's common sense. There was a lot of talk about whether or not she should be fired as a reigning Miss California. But over her views on gay marriage? Puh-lease. A majority of voters in California rejected gay marriage. Why should their reigning queen believe differently?

I do think they're wrong about that view, but that's my opinion. I think gay marriage SHOULD be legal. Once the California Supreme Court hands down its decision on the issue on whether Prop 8 is even LEGAL (which it's quite possible that it isn't), then we can finally move on and add another state to the "places where I can get married" list. It's just a matter of time, really.

This whole situation is a lesson in absurdity, and the fact that ANYONE is being elevated to ANY status, to me, is just ludicrous.

Donald Trump has rightfully argued that she gets to keep her crown. It's his business, and it's his pageant. Moving on, now. Both of them have their fifteen minutes, and this story is already well past its sell-by date.

Lies about the Matthew Shepard bill continue in desperation

Once again, hate crime legislation is making the rounds in Congress. But it's actually a good thing — the United States House of Representatives passed HR1913, the Matthew Shepard bill, just this past week.

Contrary to what some might have heard, this is not a bill that will "stifle religious speech." Quite frankly, I grow exceedingly weary of hearing this argument, since it's not true, and it's never been true. Just for fun, I decided to hunt down the text of the bill as it was passed (the link is provided above). It is, in short, a bill "To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes."

The big beef that some "religious" conservatives have with the bill is that it includes both sexual orientation and gender identity.

It's unfortunate that truth doesn't seem to resonate with some groups (especially the ones for whom truth is a religiously-required trait). There are a few specific examples of this kind of horrible distortion. The first is a rather disgusting blathering from Pat "Gays-Caused-9-11" Robertson, who wondered aloud whether or not pedophiles would be protected under the bill:

"Ladies and gentleman just figure this, you’ve got somebody who’s really weird, and his sexual orientation is he likes to have sex with ducks. Is he protected under hate crime? Is he protected if he likes to have sex with little boys? They haven’t made that clear. It’s sexual orientation, which is said covers about 30 different pathologies, and what are we going to do about that?"

No, Mr. Robertson. It's not "said" that "about 30 different pathologies" are defined as sexual orientation, you lying buffoon. And I'm not going to do a damned thing about it except cheer the passing of this much-needed bill. The only organization that's "said" anything remotely close to what Robertson claims is the freakish, homophobic, obsessive, right wing nutjob group, the Traditional Values Coalition, as they quoted an outdated APA manual. The Traditional Values Coalition has a long-standing section of their site devoted to demonizing gay and lesbian adults as pedophiles and sexual predators who are out to somehow destroy the fabric of society.

The word that Mr. Robertson is so desperately searching for is paraphilias, which are a list of sexual disorders which involve either harming another person sexually, or other compulsive or impulsive desires that involve objects, animals, and yes, children. It might surprise Mr. Robertson that sexual orientation is completely different from any of these things. But that would require truth, a concept with which he apparently has some difficulty.

It should be noted that Tennessee Democrats Bart Gordon, Lincoln Davis, and John Tanner all voted against the bill. It's so nice to know that spines are optional for Democrats.

The problem isn't that the conservatives are so adamantly opposed to the bill. I get that, really. They're opposed to a lot of things. The problem here is that they so regularly lie to make their point (and yet present themselves as the champions of morality). Really. Give me a break.

Their claim is that "sexual orientation" is not defined in the bill. Well, they're right. It's not. That's because these blithering hateful idiots don't want their constituents or followers to know that it's already been defined in federal law! 

Okay, David. Deep. Breath. Inhale. Exhale.

Sexual orientation was defined in federal law way back in 1990 (during the George H.W. Bush administration no less) in the Hate Crime Statistics act:

"As used in this section, the term "sexual orientation" means consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality."

I don't know how it could be any more clear. But no, they'd rather shrill about how it'll protect pedophiles. At least we now know what these people REALLY think about.

That's not all, though.

Bloggers across the world have properly blasted North Carolina Rep. Virgina Foxx for calling the Shepard-murder-is-a-hate-crime "a hoax." She allegedly referred to an ABC 20/20 segment which attempted to make the same claim, yet that segement ignored the fact that the two assailants admitted under oath that they singled out Shepard because he was gay. But hey, who cares about simple facts like statements under oath?

Finally, according to Fox News, Matthew Staver of Liberty Council made what I think is the most egregious claim of all: that this bill would somehow stifle religious speech.

"In and of itself this law can be applied to speech. The nature of assault -- putting someone in fear of their safety -- what will that mean for someone preaching against homosexuality?" said Mathew Staver, founder of the Liberty Council, a law firm that works on religious freedom cases.

On the Liberty Council website, the official press release characterizes the bill as it would protect "cross-dressers and pedophiles but not veterans or grandmas." First off, these people dismiss the fact that gender identity is a recognized medical condition. I've already adressed the "pedophile" excrement. And the "grandmas or veterans" jab is just plain nonsense.

The bottom line of the Shepard bill is this: As I said before, it is a bill "To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes." According to the text of the bill (which these rightwing people apparently hope we won't read), the bill is designed to give federal assistance to investigate and prosecute crimes where certain people were singled out for their status.

A hate crime is not a "thought crime," as some claim - which leads to the bogus "it will stifle religious speech" argument. A hate crime is a crime that is committed because of a person's status. They are singled out for their sex, race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, or their gender identity. This attack is not only against them, but against that entire group. It is, in essence, an act of terrorism.

When such a crime is not investigated, prosecuted, and the perpetrator(s) thrown in jail for extended terms, it leads to a layer of fear over the entire group of people in that class. Further, when someone is attacked for their status and their assailant gets away with it, it leads to encouraging others to do the same thing somewhere else.

Put simply, anyone who actually fights against such legislation is saying that it's perfectly okay to attack a gay or lesbian person or a transgender person.

Further, the reality is that speech is not mentioned at all - except when that speech is intended to incite an attack. So, if a preacher or other religious person wants to say how much they believe homosexuality or "cross dressing" (insert eye roll here) is sinful because the Bible tells them so, then that's perfectly fine, and perfectly legal. I strongly disagree with this sentiment, but that's what the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion is all about.

However, if a preacher wants to use Leviticus 20:13 in his sermon as to why all homosexuals should be killed, and that his parishioners would be doing God a favor if they stoned every gay person they found, then that's a violation of several federal laws, including the Shepard bill. I seriously doubt that anyone in the country has ever heard their pastor say such a thing - or ever will. Yet, the shrilling and the lies continue.

What's encouraging is that those lies are now being recognized as such, and the fanatical flying arms of the religious reich are finally being drowned out by simple common sense and Godly reason.