Lisa Linsky takes the piss out of the New York legislature for failing to legalize gay marriage in the Empire State. She does so by speaking frankly, persuasively, and about how the institutional bigotry practiced by 44 states affects families like hers. She’s convincing, eloquent, and goddamned right.
And then, when she should have ended the damn article, she throws the Matthew Shepard card.
Matthew Shepard was a 21-year old college student who was brutally murdered in Wyoming in 1998. There was no doubt that this was a hate crime committed because of Shepard’s sexual orientation as a gay man. His killing, and the trial of his murderers, highlighted the need for federal hate crimes legislation that would punish individuals for committing crimes of violence against others based on sexual orientation. (source)
I went from “right on sister” to “shut the fuck up, you crowing harpy” in three sentences.
Think about it. The douchebags who killed Matthew Shepard… do you think those hick assholes sat there and thought “well, we could get the death penalty for this, it being a murder and all, but by golly… at least we won’t get convicted of a hate crime. Lets kill the kid!” ???? Will the next Matthew Shepard style crime be prevented now that we have hate crime legislation that includes homosexuals as a protected class? Will some redneck piece of shit have a gun to a homosexual’s head, and just before he pulls the trigger, his buddy pulls up in a pickup truck (sporting truck nutz, no doubt) and say “Dag gum, don’t pull that there trigger! This here would be a hate crime!!!”
Equal rights? I’m all for them. Marriage should be extended to homosexuals, because there’s not a goddamned thing that is ambiguous about the word EQUAL in the “EQUAL PROTECTION” clause. That’s that.
And that’s the same word – EQUAL – that makes hate crime legislation constitutionally repugnant.
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
‘I went from “right on sister” to “shut the fuck up, you crowing harpy” in three sentences.’
Those do seem to be your two speeds.
I have a question about hate crime laws. They always seemed middling idiotic to me, but then someone asked me, ‘Is spraypainting swastikas on a Jewish nursing homes worse than spraypainting happy faces? Is roasting a marshmallow on a bonfire outside a black family’s house the same as roasting a marshmallow on a burning cross outside a black family’s house?”
I didn’t really know how to answer, but I don’t know the law.
And I think what’s ambiguous about ‘equal’ in this context is this: I’m straight. I already _have_ a fairly comprehensive protection against violence targeted against gays. Men already have fairly comprehensive protection against violence against women. Whites already have fairly comprehensive protection against violence against non-whites. (Though not _complete_ protection, of course.)
The idea, I think, is to work to achieve some facsimile of equality between groups when only one group is vulnerable. It strikes me that saying that hate crime legislation is unequal because it primarily protects the people who are vulnerable makes as much sense as saying hate crime legislation is perfectly equitable because it protects everyone equally: if I’m targeted because I’m gay, the hate crime laws apply even though I’m not actually gay, right?
“Those do seem to be your two speeds”
Heh… I am not sure that is 100% accurate… but I’ll plead guity.
I like your discussion there — where you compare swastikas to happy faces — but the fact that one is “worse” than the other isn’t relevant to me. If I spray paint “I love you” or “fuck you” on someone’s house, I’ve still vandalized the house, and that is the only crime that should be prosecuted. I don’t think that the thoughts I harbor for the residents should be the basis of prosecution.
You make an interesting point… that I don’t *need* protection against violence targeted against certain groups, but why should those groups get unequal protection? Well you do deal with that:
Who is more vulnerable to getting their head kicked in? I mean, it just strikes me as ludicrous. If it is already illegal to beat the shit out of someone, why add on a constitutionally repugnant law that makes the penalty greater just because the victim happens to be able to play the race, gender, or sexuality card? All this is — political grandstanding and thought crime. Its the same kind of pandering that the Right engages in when they pass religion-based laws to pander to their base. The Left panders to its equivalent by passing these laws that mean nothing, except that if I am going to get in a bar fight, I better make sure that its not with a black guy.
A happy face and a swastika both seem to be fixed by the same can of paint and a days labor. So I don’t really see how one is worse than the other. Sure one of them prooves the vandal is a asshole who isn’t worth talking to, but everybody knows there are assholes out there.
Still this example seems different than most hate crimes that are talked about. Usually the violent offense is itself repugnant. How about if I stab an elderly jewish man 100 times and then carve a happy face into his forehead. Does that rate substantially less punishment than if I carved a Swastika into his forehead instead? They both seem equally repugnant to me. The Douchebags in the Sheppard case deserve to rot in jail because they tortured and killed somebody. I personally couldn’t care in the least why they did it.
Huh. I’m a little baffled, now. I’m pretty clear on the idea that free speech is all about protecting the ugliest sorta speech, or it means nothing at all. So in most situations, I agree that swastikas deserve as much protection as smiley faces. I’m a card-carrying member of the ACLU and all of that.
But swastikas and burning crosses on people’s homes strikes me as a different _kind_ of thing than a hearty ‘fuck you.’ Maybe because both of my examples can be read as threatening violence? And on the homes, they’re directed at someone in particular.
Is it different, legally, to write ‘fuck you’ on someone’s front door, than to write ‘I want to murder you in your sleep?’
Because if so, there are -already- legal protections against that kind of speech, and there’s no reason to add more. On the other hand, if there aren’t laws targeting speech that threatens violence, why add them for swastikas if you don’t have them for death threats?
Hm. I think I’m agreeing with you.
And I see your point about the ‘thought crime’ stuff. I think the problem is a real one, a lot more real than you seem to, and that much of this is motivated not (only) by grandstanding, but by real concern. On the other hand, I’m not sure that matters in the slightest. And it’s true that I can’t imagine a single situation in which hate crime legislation would actually act as a deterrent, while I can imagine a shitload of situations where it’d screw over some poor idiot.
Isn’t there some legal saying like, ‘The law against sleeping on park benches doesn’t discriminate against the homeless because it also applies to people who have houses?’ I’m not sure how that applies in this case, but I suspect it does.
Oh, and aren’t there already ‘thought crimes’ all over the place? Everything I know about the law I learned from TV, for which I apologize in advance, but isn’t the difference between manslaughter and murder (or something) all about ‘intention’.
Is it different, legally, to write ‘fuck you’ on someone’s front door, than to write ‘I want to murder you in your sleep?’
It is. And along that vein of thought, you would have a point. If the swastikas on the wall or the burning cross were to be considered to be “true threats,” then *poof*, no more First Amendment protection. I can see how both might be considered to be one.
I can’t imagine a single situation in which hate crime legislation would actually act as a deterrent, while I can imagine a shitload of situations where it’d screw over some poor idiot.
Precisely true.
Isn’t there some legal saying like, ‘The law against sleeping on park benches doesn’t discriminate against the homeless because it also applies to people who have houses?’ I’m not sure how that applies in this case, but I suspect it does.
“There is a cruel irony in THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s reliance on our decision in Brown. The first sentence in the concluding paragraph of his opinion states: ‘Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin.’ This sentence reminds me of Anatole France’s observation: The majestic equality of the law, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.’ THE CHIEF JUSTICE fails to note that it was only black schoolchildren who were so ordered; indeed, the history books do not tell stories of white children struggling to attend black schools.”
J. Stevens, Parents_Involved_(127_S.Ct._2738 2007)
I just don’t see how this applies. You mean the hate crime laws would apply to everyone but would only be enforced against certain groups?
If that is what you mean, I wouldn’t agree. In fact, these kinds of laws almost inevitably come back and bite the “disadvantaged” groups on the ass.
Ha! And they say that CSI: Miami doesn’t provide a real grounding in the law.
Whenever I look at comments discussing hate crime laws – its always apparent that your average layman really don’t know what they are. More often than not – my gay friends will want to prosecute someone for a ‘hate crime’ for just calling one of them a naughty name.
In school I received more grief for having red hair then for ever being gay – where is the Ginger Protection Act?!?! Will someone think of the gingers?
Yoshi,
Until worthless academics can devote a career (that is get more than a couple of publication offers) out of “studying” Ginger discrimination, nobody will give a shit. Well, except me. Free the Gingers!
Hey, I’m getting ready to return to grad school. I could study discrimination against the gingers! I must admit though, I’ve always been fond of red hair.
In all seriousness, though, and with due respect to Marco’s point about how the Left is pandering to it’s base, aren’t these laws a bit of a response to reactionary thought? There seems to be a lot of “my-liberty-allows-me-to-intimidate-minorities” thinking floating around the ethos. It’s disappointing.
Is it okay if I want to throw an apple at the stupid broad? Oh nuts, I insulted her as a woman; hate-crime.
Thought crime… I love the Orwellian references that pop up frequently in this blog and comments thereto.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH