« Military wife speaks out against the war | Home | The Leaf Chronicle: Get the facts before discussing Iraq »

Breaking down myths of the Matthew Shepard bill

By David W. Shelton | August 19, 2007 |

The Matthew Shepard bill, also known as H.R. 1592, the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007″ and S. 1105, “A Bill to Provide Federal Assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes” has been the topic of much debate in among pundits and pastors over the last year.

One of the most die-hard myths surrounding these much-needed bills is the absurd notion that they would jeopardize the free speech and religious expressions of pastors who wish to preach (and often do preach) that homosexuality is sin.

Of all of the hate-crime bills (that include sexual orientation and gender identity language) that has come down the pike in recent years, this is the first that was endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union. That’s an immediate red flag to many conservatives, but it shouldn’t be. The ACLU endorsed this bill precisely because it would not interfere with guaranteed first amendment rights, specifically free speech and freedom of religion.

A colleague and fellow activist pointed out to me that there was a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee that the bill could infringe on free speech. When asked about his source, he then provided a link to the transcript of the meeting in question which included that quote. After searching through all 319 pages of the transcript, I came to understand the bill even more.

The bill’s co-sponsor and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) opened the discussion and said:

“And if I may begin the discussion on this, I would like to point out that 1592 offers federal protection in conjunction with states and local officials for victims of hate crimes targeted because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability……H.R. 1592 provides critical assistance to state and local enforcement agencies. It amends current law to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of violent, biased-motivated crimes. The bill, however, only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech, religious expression or writing in any way. The bill applies only to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech, religious expression or writing in any way.”

The language that many conservative commentators and preachers have a problem with is that this bill would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the hate crime laws. My colleague said that a member of the subcommittee said that it would infringe on free speech. What I found was very revealing. The language came from conservative representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), who did exactly as I suspected: He put on public record a blatant falsehood which gave fodder that right-wing organizations lapped up for their own bias.

One of the few deficiencies of the bill is that it does not define “sexual orientation.” However, upon further reading, it was pointed out that “sexual orientation” has already been defined in the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1994 which called for recording statistics on crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation. It defined “sexual orientation” as either being heterosexual or homosexual.

In a sickening attempt to gut the bill, Louie Gohmert (R-TX) offered an amendment to strike “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from every section of the bill. Thankfully, it was soundly rejected 13-18 (with one more member recording a ‘no’ vote just after the vote was tallied).

However, Artur Davis (R-AL) not only supported the bill, but presented an amendment to the bill which covers EXACTLY the free speech issue. It was overwhelmingly approved, and the bill later received the 20-14 majority vote it needed to be presented to the house floor.

Chairman Conyers even later clarified the Davis amendment:

“That amendment said, “Nothing in this act or the amendments made by this act shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution.”“That amendment was supported by members on both sides of the aisle, including the gentleman from Indiana. The committee addressed the issue that the gentleman from Indiana raises in this amendment earlier with the Davis amendment and more completely.“The Davis amendment completely makes sure that no one can construe this bill to inhibit in any way freedom of speech or freedom of religion.”

The transcript of this series of meetings makes the issue even more clear. The “pastors could be arrested” argument is nothing more than a red herring, and is a completely moot point. The bill passed overwhelmingly in the house, and it will probably pass in the Senate as well.

Further, there were two letters that were submitted, one with nearly 180 signatures from pastors who shared the religious expression concerns. I guess they never got wind of the Davis amendment; or they chose to ignore it.

On the flip side, a “stack” of letters that was “almost a half an inch thick” was submitted in support of the bill.

I am forced to ask whether or not those who continue to spout this myth are aware that it is based on a statement that was addressed and rendered irrelevant. They should be aware that this bill only addresses acts of violence and has nothing to do with free speech. If they’re not, then they should be ashamed for their abject ignorance. If they are, they should be exposed for their clear and utter hypocrisy that they would resort to lying to get their way.

Either way, it’s pretty sad. Myths apparently have a life of their own. Maybe this one will finally fade away as we become aware of the critical importance of this bill.

As posted on www.skippingtothepiccolo.com

About David W. Shelton

Posts by David W. Shelton are copyright (c)2006, 2007, 2008 by the author. All rights reserved. David W. Shelton is a writer, speaker and activist in Clarksville, and serves on the Clarksville Human Relations Commission. His passions include film and complete equality for all people, and he has worked in various capacities to work toward this goal. He is currently an illustrator, graphic designer, trainer, and is the owner of Imagine Media Solutions. He is an Adobe® Certified Instructor in Photoshop®.

Web Site: http://www.skippingtothepiccolo.com/

Email: dwshelton@att.net

Sections: Issues, Politics
Topics: H.R. 1592, John Conyers, Matthew Shepard, S. 1105

2 Responses to “Breaking down myths of the Matthew Shepard bill”

1. Winghunter Says:
   August 19th, 2007 at 4:10 pm

   H.R. 1592 as well as the other 60 some “demands” homosexuals have for the 99% is merely their unobtainable quest for their own sense of acceptance in “normalcy”. Believing activism will place us under their thumbs they will find some sort of innerpeace with themselves…nothing could be farther from the truth. Creating “thought police” is not a road wide enough for us to turn back from and assuredly a dead-end.

2. David W. Shelton Says:
   August 19th, 2007 at 4:25 pm

   This only proves my point. Most people who speak out against this bill don’t even know what it says. Winghunter, speaking from ignorance doesn’t become anyone. I hope you take the time to read it for yourself and realize that this bill would cover ONLY acts of violence.

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Feeds

• Full
• Comments