“We must commit ourselves to living thoroughly authentic lives,” said one emotional speaker at the recent homosexual-rights rally in Washington, DC. Yet with gays already getting preferential treatment in much of American society - particularly in urban areas, and in the media, the arts, the universities, the courts, the government bureaucracy and the public schools - it seems like they certainly are living authentic lives.
Yet what about straight people like Carrie Prejean, the Miss California contestant who is a Christian and who very politely said she believed that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and who lost her crown as a result. Her reputation has been savaged by ongoing attacks from the “compassionate” left.
When was the last time you saw a homosexual kicked out of his high-profile job for being outwardly gay? Who is discriminating against whom? California even has declared May 22 Harvey Milk Day to celebrate a San Francisco homosexual who was killed in 1978. Is that authentic enough?
Today there is no constraint on living “thoroughly authentic lives” by anyone. Homosexuals have all the rights granted in the Constitution, which is as it should be. They are more socially accepted than many Christians are, often portrayed on television while hardly any Christians are. But they want more. They want to be treated in a special way. They even want the definition of “marriage” to be changed just for them.
Now we all need to be concerned that the US House of Representatives has passed a “hate crimes” bill aimed this time ostensibly at protecting homosexuals. "Hate crimes" legislation means laws that are supposed to, for instance, make murder somehow worse because the murderer was thinking certain things when he/she committed the murder, that he/she had "hate" in the heart.
USA Today offered this Orwellian description:
Assaulting people because of their sexual orientation would become a U.S. hate crime in legislation the House is set to vote on Thursday.
Which makes you wonder: Don’t we already have laws to protect people who are assaulted?
Answer: Yes we do, and always have. They are part of our criminal code. In fact self defense and the right to live free from threat is one of the cornerstones of our freedoms. Otherwise we can be assaulted or killed at any time even by our own government or with its complicity.
The recent passage of this "hate crimes" bill is especially worrisome because the whole concept of “hate crimes” is strictly subjective. So think about it: When a black person kills a white person, how much of it comes from racial hatred?
It is hard to say, but probably a lot. Because liberals from Jesse Jackson to Al Gore are constantly agitating blacks to say that “America is racist”, which is code language for “white America is racist so black people can retaliate against whites with impunity”.
Yet conservative white people do not believe that the roughly 900 murders of white people by blacks every year deserves any special classification under "hate crimes". Conservatives want simple justice. Period.
Interestingly blacks statistically have been snared by “hate crimes” laws in much higher proportions than whites...
And now gays are claiming that new laws are needed to protect them. So where is our "straight crimes" bills to protect those who vocally support our inter-sexual orientation, like Carrie Prejean, who has been savaged in the court of public opinion just for expressing her beliefs? Why can’t she sue homo-blogger Perez Hilton for defamation of character and loss of her job?
Where is the “hate crimes” legislation to extra-prosecute the 300+ male Catholic priests who destroyed the lives of thousands upon thousands of young Catholic boys in two mammoth decades-long homosexual pedophile schemes? After all, molestation is a psychological wound that never heals. A physical assault can.
There is no telling where this “hate crimes” crusade ends. That’s why conservatives oppose such legislation, and why a liberty-based nation always has relied on clearly defined statutes. So that a crime is plainly defined without grey areas. Then penalties are imposed according to the law. What could be simpler?
But no. Liberals, in their eternal quest to complicate everything and to add layers of meaning on top of other layers of meaning, are using such “hate crimes” legislation to gum up the criminal justice system as they have been doing for more than 50 years. The whole concept behind “hate crimes” legislation is to create areas of subjective judgment, and to further pressure our justice system with liberal political duress.
The new “hate crimes” bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a homosexual college student who was murdered in 1998. Yet according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 300,000 Americans have died of AIDS since the outbreak of the so-called AIDS epidemic in the late 1970s. The victims have been overwhelmingly male homosexuals infected by other male homosexuals through sexual contact. Yet nowhere in the media or in any federal or state legislation is there any discussion of ways in which those causing the infection might be held accountable. In the meantime, a tiny number of murders is considered vastly more significant.
USA today also has reported that:
The FBI says there are some 8,000 hate crimes reported around the country in a year. More than half of those are motivated by racial bias. Next most frequent are crimes based on religious bias at around 18% and sexual orientation at 16%.
So there are more crimes based on religious bias than sexual orientation. That is interesting... Yet where is the demand for a "Christian hate crimes" bill? After all, we know that most of the religious bias crimes in America are committed against Christians like the arson at Sarah Palin's home church.
So do the "sexual orientation" crimes include the homosexual pedophile Catholic priests as the perpetrators?
Not under this legislation. It is biased one way, only when homosexuals are the victims.
The fact is that “hate crimes” are a politically-motivated assault by the left on Constitutional America. We already have criminal codes, just as we already have millennia-long traditions of “marriage”. Yet homosexuals wish to change both. And in response, we should do everything we can to stop this undermining and corruption of our criminal justice system and our traditional understanding of our social structure. We cannot change everything just to accommodate one group and another. And another. Constitutional liberty has been proven best for all of the people.
During a 2007 gay-rights rally in Boston, Massachusetts, one lesbian held up a sign that said, 'We Got Married, Sky Didn’t Fall!'
Yet that is false. The sky is falling. Because our laws are being undermined and twisted slowly and almost imperceptibly. And while pro-homosexual legislation is being pushed in economically-distressed states like Vermont, California, New York and Massachusetts, the Democrats in those states are sidestepping the infinitely larger crises of jobs losses, economic decline and the flight of skilled and educated citizens by ignoring economic-growth legislation that would benefit all. Instead they focus on legislative action to benefit the few. All in the name of somehow leveling a playing field that is no longer even tilted to begin with.
Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more. You can print out for free my book, Right Is Right, which explains why only conservatism can maintain our freedom and prosperity.