Let the “Sexual Orientation
Hate” Bill Pass and Invite Your Own Oppression
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
May 2, 2007
For a PDF version of this article go
here
For a letter to members of Congress:
here
For
an exchange will a homosexual man upset with this article:
here
The U.S. House of
Representatives will be voting this week, possibly Thursday, on the
passage of a “Hate Crimes” bill that seeks to make “sexual orientation”
(i.e. homosexuality, bisexuality) and “gender identity” (i.e.
cross-dressing, transsexuality) specially protected legal categories (HR
1592: the so-called “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act”).
At first glance one
might ask, “Who could be against criminalizing group-hate?” The problem
comes in the interpretation of “hate.” As regards the volatile issues of
homosexuality and transgenderism, one person’s definition of love is
defined by another as hate. If you believe that true love means loving
homosexual and transsexual persons but not their error—as Augustine once
said, “Love not in the person his error, but the person; for the person
God made, the error the person himself made”—then it is important for
you to know that this ‘Hate’ Crimes bill will legally treat your love as
hate. This is not pluralism, tolerance, and diversity. It is
oppression.
Since genuine
intimidation and violence is already covered by the existing legal code,
the ultimate purpose of such a bill can only be to intimidate those who
speak out against the endorsement of homosexual practice and
transsexualism. In the current political climate—obvious cases in point
are repeated oppressions of any who dare speak against homosexual
practice in Canada, England, and Scandinavia, to say nothing of sectors
of the United States—one cannot assume that there is a common definition
of what constitutes hate against homosexual and transsexual persons. Any
public words against homosexual practice could be treated legally as
words that incite others to violence and/or discrimination against
homosexual persons, and thus subject to criminal prosecution.
All that one needs to
know about such a hate-speech bill can be summed up by the following
conversation between two members of the House Committee on the Judiciary
on Apr. 25, 2007, Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), who opposed the
“sexual orientation hate” law, and Congressman Arthur Davis (D-Alabama),
who supported it (note that all 23 Democrats in the committee supported
the Hate Crimes bill; all 17 Republicans opposed it).
Congressman Gohmert: If a
minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and
woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does
an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or
induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under
your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the
minister?
Congressman Davis: No.
(transcript
here, quote from p. 206)
In other words, Gohmert was asking whether Davis’s
amendment allegedly safeguarding free speech would prevent a pastor from
being held legally liable if a parishioner who committed a violent act
against a homosexual person misconstrued the pastor’s sermon as an
inducement to violence. Davis’s answer was “no,” such a pastor might be
held legally liable in such circumstances.
Democrats also turned back an amendment proposed by Congressman Mike
Pence (R-Indiana) to the effect that nothing in the bill should be
construed as to “limit the religious freedom of any person or group
under the Constitution.”
Of course, even if a
religious exemption amendment were passed, it would ultimately come to a
bait-and-switch tactic. Once “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”
infiltrate (one is tempted to say, penetrate) the legal system, they
will ultimately prevail over any exemptions, including religious ones
(recent developments in Britain make this clear). A “sexual
orientation hate” crime bill does virtually all its damage in
establishing “sexual orientation” as a category of being that is worth
the federal government’s vigorous protection. A person who has a problem
with the behavior arising from homosexual “orientation” will be legally
established as a “bigot,” even if he or she does not commit a violent
crime. That status becomes codified in law.
If such a “sexual
orientation hate” law would not have the effect of creating official
societal acceptance of homosexual behavior, then why are supporters
unwilling to include “pedosexual” or “pedophilic” orientation under the
rubric of “sexual orientation”? The answer is clear: Such an inclusion
would suggest societal validation for pedophilia. The very opposition
by supporters to including pedophilia under “sexual orientation” is
tacit acknowledgment that this bill provides implicit endorsement of
homosexual practice and transgenderism.
Once a hate-speech bill
of this sort is passed a so-called “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA)
is as certain to follow as night follows day. Indeed, already such
legislation has been introduced into the House by homosexual
congressman, Barney Frank. What could be wrong with that you ask? Surely
persons applying for a secular job, who do their work without trying to
foist acceptance of their behavioral practices on others, should be
allowed as much safeguard against termination as, say, persons who
engage in consensual adult incest or persistent adultery and
fornication. The problem is that we have already seen in the corporate
world that “diversity” policies around “sexual orientation” have been
repeatedly abused. ENDA endangers your freedom of speech and your
freedom of religion. It will turn out to be an EDA—an Employment
Discrimination Act—against any who do not give their support to “Coming
Out Days” in the workplace or who oppose “affirmative action” policies
for self-identified “gays” and lesbians.
Any critical remark
against homosexual practice will carry the same legal and professional
liability as any critical remark against an African American or a woman.
You will say: But an impulse to do something that God expressly forbids
in Scripture cannot be compared to an inherently benign, non-behavioral
condition such as ethnicity and sex/gender. Your protest will not matter
because the law will classify “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”
as comparable categories to race and sex.
Numerous outcomes, some
that will be manifested in the very short-term and others in the
long-term, will arise from giving special federal protections to “sexual
orientation” and “gender identity.” These include:
-
Suspension without pay from one’s place
of employment and even outright termination if one declares in any way
one’s opposition to homosexual practice or transgenderism, even if, as
a white-collar employee, one makes such a declaration in a “letter to
an editor” outside the domain of the workplace.
-
Severe fines and, ultimately, loss of
license for any media outlets (television stations, radio stations,
newspapers, etc.) that allow messages critical of homosexual practice
or transgenderism.
-
Forced indoctrination of children as
young as kindergarten in the public school systems into the
acceptability of homosexual and transgendered behavior and the
labeling of their parents’ contrary religious views as “bigotry” and
“hatred,” through required readings, “GLBT studies,” and mandatory
attendance at special diversity convocations or diversity workshops;
also, mandatory “sensitivity training” for all teachers on the value
of sexual orientation diversity.
-
Loss of federal funds, including
hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal funds for student loans,
for any Christian college or seminary that does not hire homosexually
active teachers, or that forbids students to engage in homosexual
practice, or that allows a teacher at its institution to speak against
homosexual practice; ultimately, the threat of loss of accreditation
for Christian colleges that do not condone homosexual behavior and
transgenderism; likewise, loss of tax-exempt status for any church
that promotes such teaching.
-
Large fines if one owns a business and
does not allow GLBT (“gay,” lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered)
activists to make use of the business’s services to advance the GLBT
agenda; moreover, having to pay the court costs of the government
agency that prosecutes the case.
-
Imposition of national gay marriage by
the courts, through appeal to this newly formed federal civil
liberties category of “sexual orientation.”
-
Private civic organizations, as well as
Christian camps and retreat centers, being fined or shut down if they
do not allow their facilities to be used by persons or groups for
homosexual activities (e.g., to host a “wedding” by a homosexual
couple or for a meeting of a “gay choir”).
-
Corporations forced to institute
affirmative-hire programs for GLBTs as a necessary precaution against
potential federal or civil lawsuits for “sexual orientation”
discrimination.
-
Students and employees required to get
counseling for the alleged mental health condition of “homophobia” or
risk expulsion.
-
Having one’s child (whether a foster
child, adopted child, or, eventually, one’s biological child) removed
from one’s house if the parent opposes the child’s declaration of
homosexual identity and activity.
For more than a dozen
other likely negative outcomes go
here. For those who contend that such outcomes could never
occur in the United States by creating “sexual orientation” and “gender
identity” as federally protected categories, let them simply put their
money where their mouth is and sign a notarized statement saying that
they will pay the court costs and loss of income of anyone over the next
ten years who finds him- or herself facing legal action or loss of
employment over such matters. I doubt that there will be any takers.
If the bill passes the
Democratic-controlled House this Thursday, as it likely will, it will
then go to the Senate. Contact your members of Congress toll-free at
1-877-851-6437 or 1-866-220-0044, or toll at 1-202-225-3121 to express
your views about H.R. 1592 and any ENDA legislation. For direct contact
information to your representative and senators, go to
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/. Also, call the White House at
202-456-1414 or 202-456-1111 (ask for the comment line) or send an email
at
president@whitehouse.gov or by using the
White House Contact page. Urge the President to declare his intent
to veto both pieces of legislation, should they pass in Congress. Do it
for your children who, if they faithfully hold to a man-woman
prerequisite for acceptable sexual behavior, will be treated legally and
professionally in the United States as the equivalent of racists.