As a Christian and as a queer man and as a religious professional, I have long wrestled with the concept of what is typically called “hate crime legislation.” I’ve done so knowing that I was not in the larger company of GLBTQ individuals and to “come out” as just having genuine and serious questions raised the specter of being ostracized from polite GLBTQ society. It would be tantamount to questioning the work, for example, of the Human Rights Campaign (which some have done) or any other popular-at-the-time gay cause.
I even sponsored a discussion of “hate crime legislation” at the Unitarian Universalist congregation for which I used to work, having two gay men, each representing the opposing sides of that question, and I did catch a little flack from members of that fellowship for even presuming that there was more than one position to take on the issue.
I watched today as President Obama signed into law the Department of Defense (DOD) funding bill—which had attached to it, the James Byrd Jr. and Matthew Shepard Act—wondering at what cost that victory was achieved. Not that I don’t think there is violence perpetrated on folks for their perceived identity. There is. I, myself, long before the phrase “hate crime” was ever invented, was on the receiving end of such violence (I was in the 7th grade). I know parents of young people who have died as the result of such attacks. There was, in the not so distant past, a young man tragically killed here in my hometown allegedly because he was gay, though local law enforcement begged to differ. But I’ve always wondered, in addition to the philosophical and theological issues contained in that discussion, about two things in particular: one, the effectiveness of such legislation, and two, what cost are we GLBTQ folks prepared to pay for it?
The philosophical and theological issues remain open for discussion. Whether such legislation, good as it may be in intent, reduces the number of crimes of violence committed against persons motivated simply by—to paraphrase the President from the signing ceremony—the color of their skin or who they love or the faith they profess and practice, is a matter still yet to be determined. According to some law enforcement bodies, it does not; no more than the death penalty deters people from killing people. So we can’t look to that to justify our desire for enhanced penalty assessment on certain crimes of violence. Our justification must come from somewhere else.
About today’s (Oct. 28) signing into law of the Byrd-Shepard Act, I do know this—and it was eloquently pointed out, too, by Chris Hedges in a recent truthdig column: the irony of this legislation was probably lost on most GLBTQ folks who, so understandably giddy with the law, took no notice of its context. They were so elated, and rightly so, to finally achieve some legal recognition federally, that the awful truth of the bill escaped them. To wit, a measure designed to enhance protection of innocently attacked people was attached to a larger measure designed to enhance the ability of the United States to continue to kill innocent men, women and children in far off countries.
The title of Hedges’ post is telling: War Is a Hate Crime.
Even the highly respected and clear-thinking Dennis Kucinich did not vote for the bill which is now law. In an interview with Hedges, he said: “To have people have to make a choice, or contemplate the hierarchy of hate crimes, is cynical.”
I agree with Hedges when he argues that the brutality which was seen in the vicious attack on Matt Shepherd simply because he was gay, is indicative of a society in which violence and sadism is not only tolerated, but glorified in so many ways; from people vying for election by giving away AK-47’s—as happened in my own home state of South Carolina—to the blood-soaked video games my partner’s little cousin plays; from gun-toting vice-presidential candidates who shoot defenseless animals from helicopters simply for the sport and pleasure of doing so, to comments my father used to make about turning various Middle East countries into parking lots by the use of nuclear devices.
Hedges writes:
Militarism crushes the capacity for moral autonomy and difference. It isolates us from each other. It has is logical fruition in Abu Ghraib, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with our lack of compassion for our homeless, our poor, our mentally ill, our unemployed, our sick, and yes, our gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual citizens.
I would hope that as thousands of my fellow GLBTQ citizens celebrate this day for which they have so long worked, and so hard, that they not lose sight of the cost which has come with it: a bill authorizing billions of dollars to continue to, and come up with more creative, effecient ways to, kill people.
I’m not going to argue the validity of war or armed conflict here. That’s not the point of this post. The point is, there would have been a much better, more morally clear way of gaining deserved federal recognition—having such a measure passed on its own merits and not attached to any other bill. Politically more difficult? Perhaps. Morally more clear? Definitely.
Hedges references Theodor Adorno writing: “… Adorno wrote, in words gay activists should have heeded, that exclusive preoccupation with personal concerns and indifference to the suffering of others, beyond the self-identified group, made fascism and the Holocaust possible.”
And so to my GLBTQ brothers and sisters, I say rejoice, for sure, and celebrate recognition, finally, of our plight on a federal level; but don’t forget that our celebration in this case comes at a terribly high price—the suffering of hundreds, if not thousands, of others equally innocent.
I’m not sure I’m comfortable with that; I’m not sure my understanding of the teachings of Jesus will allow me to be comfortable with that.
Tags: chris hedges, hate crimes, lgbt, lgbt rights, lgbtq, obama, war
I can't go as far as saying the LGBT community is so selfish that this act could lead to fascism. Certainly, we must watch our step and our motives - but I think that's taking things a bit far.
I would have preferred the hate crime legislation come as a stand alone bill, but it has never survived as such, so had to be attached to a piece of legislation that would almost certainly pass - and unfortunately, that is a defense spending bill.
It does speak of our screwed up principles in this nation and in our world - protection for some at the expense of others' lives. What a tangled web we've woven in our world when we can celebrate on such terms.
I would have hoped that Congress would have turned down any more spending on war. They can end the war if they so choose, but they have not chosen such a noble path.
I celebrate the passage of the hate crime measure and its subsequent signing by Pres. Obama, and I continue to grieve our warring ways.
It is a Crusade. We are taking the little energy we have left and investing it in showing we were right all along.
Probably because I'm sick of being disappointed. But I felt the hate crimes act was a major triumph. Even if one disagrees philosophically with the idea of "hate crime legislation," we were finally, and without rhetoric, acknowledged as a group singled out for violence. As a group, let me emphasize. One gay-bashing is a bashing against all of us, because it signals that we are targets. And wow, our federal government didn't just issue platitudes; it said, yes, we're going to try to do something about it.
So I'm very happy, even if it is attached to a military budget. And in fact, that military budget at the very least put a stop to a huge chunk of money that could be going to things like health care, education, poverty, etc.
At least hypothetically, anyway.
Clearly there is no small amount of irony in a hate crime provision being attached to a military spending bill. I am not sure that somehow makes this a question of competitive suffering or solopsism. These kind of strange bedfellow bills are more common than not in American politics.
I do find it odd that people who so readily saw the terrorist acts of 9-11 as only addressable by military action are now the ones who would deny the terrorist implications of hate crimes. What I find sad is that many of those militaristic deniers would find legitimation for their belief structures in their understanding of religion. One wonders what kind of blood thirsty god would require costly invasions and occupations to deal with terrorist actions while denying the soul-robbing terrorism of the most vulnerable children of G-d in our daily lives. This sounds more like Freud's thanatos at work than anything remotely close to Tillich's ground and source of all being.
You make it sound like the only way the defense appropriation bill would pass is if the leadership sweetened the deal by adding the Matthew Shepard act. This is misleading and more than a little disingenuous. Sure it would be a show of strength to pass this measure unencumbered, even better if it was unanimously approved. Yes, there is irony in the parliamentary maneuvers behind passage. You grasped that it had something to do with the bill it was attached to but missed the fact that it forced opponents to choose between their overwrought and vocal support for 'the troops' and their instinctive rejection of any measure that acknowledges homosexuality. That is the irony.
You could have extended the 'pushing to protect a minority "made fascism and the Holocaust possible"' routine a bit more. Really play up the idea that the only possible outcome to accepting the existence of a minority group is the violent suppression of the other.
Finally, the gripe that since the death penalty doesn't stop murder we shouldn't increase the penalty for gay-bashing is a little silly. We, as a country, have decided to make some punishments longer than others. If we are going to keep people off the street longer in some cases of assault, than we certainly should pick individuals who use bigoted rational for that lengthened sentencing. If the number of crimes decreases, we succeed. If the perpetrators are not attacking people because they are behind bars, we succeed. The discussion of rehabilitation vs. imprisonment is best settled in a different column.
Overall I give your attempt to throw cold water on a celebration a 4 out of 10. The fear-mongering was a little weak, the attempts to distract were silly and idea that people should be saddened by it’s attachment to a war time spending bill is wrong.
Actually, I'm inclined to think unfortunately the only way the hate crimes act would pass was to be attached to a bill that not many would vote for, to wit, the DOD bill. And I think you misunderstood both Hedges and Adorno. Moreover, I did not argue that we shouldn't increase the penalty for "gay bashing." You seem to have misread the entire piece. Had you not, you would not characterize it as an attempt to throw cold water on anything; just a call for a little reflection of the context in which Byrd-Shepherd was passed.
. . . it is okay to kill people. That is the message of this bill. Sort of a reverse demonization. We should be ashamed to link our own protection to the certain death of distant innocents.
What? There is no way a rational person, let alone one who claims to have any sort of moral compass, would say this. Breathless hyperbole mars whatever you were trying to say. Take a deep breath then try to articulate what these two bills have in common, other than the number on the top.
What? You are misrepresenting and misinterpreting my comment, Gillespie's piece, sarcasm, irony, and hyperbole, breathless or otherwise. But here is a fine example of "breathless hyperbole," from your own comment: Overall I give your attempt to throw cold water on a celebration a 4 out of 10. The fear-mongering was a little weak, the attempts to distract were silly and idea that people should be saddened by it’s attachment to a war time spending bill is wrong. I would suggest you take a deep breath and rearticulate your own comments in a way that speaks to what has actually been written. Your comments so far, ironically, actually make Gillespie's arguments for him. The idea that people should be saddened by it’s attachment to a war time spending bill is not wrong or silly, but truly compassionate. Peace.
The Idealist part of me agrees with this post.
The Realist part is glad that this part of the bill was passed no matter how it came about.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.