Spring Break
'Gay' crimes should be hate crimes
Julie Lord
Issue date: 3/5/08 Section: Opinion
As the campaign season plows along, the public seems to have set aside that pesky question: "Are we ready?" Are we ready for a black president? Are we ready for a female president? These questions seem to have run their course, especially as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are doing well on the campaign trail. People seem to be paying more attention to the issues.
And now, finally, we are beginning to see the candidates tackle an issue that has been largely avoided to this point: discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The prompt for discussions on this topic may stem from a recent tragedy in California in which a 15-year-old homosexual male was murdered at his junior high school by one of his male classmates: a classmate who, just days before the attack, received a valentine from the young boy.
Lawrence King, an 8th-grader who had recently been living in foster care, was openly gay - and openly ridiculed for it. Though he endured regular taunting and bullying, his classmates claim they never thought it would go that far. According to reports, his attacker entered the computer lab where Lawrence was working and shot him in the head. The media is calling the attack a hate crime.
Is Lawrence's murder a hate crime? Well, let's look at the facts. The boy had declared himself homosexual. He was bullied and teased mercilessly by some of his peers. He gave another boy a valentine - that same boy shot Lawrence in the head. By all accounts, intolerance of Lawrence's homosexuality does appear to be the cause of his murder.
Federally speaking, however, Lawrence's murder is not officially a hate crime. That is because the Matthew Shepard Act - legislation that would make brutality motivated by a victim's gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity or disability a federally punishable act - has never been enacted. Though it has been a decade since the landmark case for which the legislation was named, this bill has stalled out in Congress, never so much as gracing our president's desk.
And now, finally, we are beginning to see the candidates tackle an issue that has been largely avoided to this point: discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The prompt for discussions on this topic may stem from a recent tragedy in California in which a 15-year-old homosexual male was murdered at his junior high school by one of his male classmates: a classmate who, just days before the attack, received a valentine from the young boy.
Lawrence King, an 8th-grader who had recently been living in foster care, was openly gay - and openly ridiculed for it. Though he endured regular taunting and bullying, his classmates claim they never thought it would go that far. According to reports, his attacker entered the computer lab where Lawrence was working and shot him in the head. The media is calling the attack a hate crime.
Is Lawrence's murder a hate crime? Well, let's look at the facts. The boy had declared himself homosexual. He was bullied and teased mercilessly by some of his peers. He gave another boy a valentine - that same boy shot Lawrence in the head. By all accounts, intolerance of Lawrence's homosexuality does appear to be the cause of his murder.
Federally speaking, however, Lawrence's murder is not officially a hate crime. That is because the Matthew Shepard Act - legislation that would make brutality motivated by a victim's gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity or disability a federally punishable act - has never been enacted. Though it has been a decade since the landmark case for which the legislation was named, this bill has stalled out in Congress, never so much as gracing our president's desk.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 23
Joe
posted 3/04/08 @ 11:09 PM CST
Is this an article about hate crimes or Just an excuse to bash the current administration? Anyway, most states (that I am aware of) have some sort of hate crime statue. (Continued…)
Joe
posted 3/04/08 @ 11:11 PM CST
...Statute...before you cry about spelling in lieu of no argument.
Stephen Stocker
posted 3/05/08 @ 12:05 AM CST
Yep Joe. Just like the state statute in Mississippi (and elsewhere) protecting the rights of blacks in the early '60s.
With all the disasters of the current administration, why would anyone need to use the murder of an innocent 15 year old boy as an "excuse" to "bash" it?
Bob Zuley
posted 3/05/08 @ 10:03 AM CST
Sorry, but you're misinformed on this one. It is indeed a senseless tragedy that Lawrence King was executed in his school by a classmate, but Hate Crime laws won't bring Larry or any other victim back. (Continued…)
Jason
posted 3/05/08 @ 10:07 AM CST
The first comment is correct. This article was just one more reason to attack Bush.
The author ignores their own admission that "this bill has stalled out in (the Democratic) Congress" in 2007. (Continued…)
John K.
posted 3/05/08 @ 11:55 AM CST
Jason: The federal government HAS enacted this sort of legislation with respect to race and national origin. If it doesn't have the power to do so, the Supreme Court has not yet stated so. (Continued…)
Alouiscious
posted 3/05/08 @ 2:24 PM CST
QUOTE:
"When hatred of a group of people begets violence or other criminal action, it becomes a hate crime. It does not matter if the crime is based on race, religion, sexual identity, disability, age or gender: Hate is hate. (Continued…)
Jase
posted 3/05/08 @ 11:25 PM CST
Only in 20 states are GLBT persons protected under the law from hate crimes and discrimination. That does NOT equal "almost all states". Federal legislation is needed because it would be the foundation for equal treatment for all states when you cross from one into the other. (Continued…)
John K.
posted 3/05/08 @ 11:54 PM CST
Joe: It can stand on it's own in the Congress; that is, it can get a majority in both houses, but REPUBLICANS in the Senate can filibuster it, requiring 60 votes (not exactly "the will of the majority" that anti-gays love to talk about), and a REPUBLICAN president refuses to sign it anyway. (Continued…)
John K.
posted 3/06/08 @ 3:50 PM CST
My apologies, I was confusing you with Jason, who suggested before that we should be blaming the Democrats. Consider the comments I made on the subject directed at him. (Continued…)
Post a Comment