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is the freakish, homophobic, obsessive, right wing nutjob group, the Traditional Values Coalition, as they quoted an outdated APA manual.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.