The Big Question
Hate crime laws are enacted based on the principle that bias-motivated crimes are crimes against both the individual and the identifiable community to which the individual belongs--that they are, in other words, acts of terrorism. Because of this, federal law (18 U.S. 245) and the laws of 44 states mandate additional penalties for those who commit illegal acts on the basis of race, color, religion, or perceived national origin. Yet federal law, and the laws of 20 of those 44 states, include no such protections for those targeted on the basis of their sexual orientation, or perceived sexual orientation. Is it time to expand this definition of hate crimes?
Recent Legislation: Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005
In January 2005, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) introduced the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005 (H.R. 259), which would have increased federal prosecutorial authority over violent crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, disability status, as well as the established hate crime criteria of race, color, religion, and perceived national origin. The bill died in committee, but will likely be resurrected in 2007 under the new Democratic Congress.
Hate Crimes and "Free Speech"
Opponents of sexual orientation-based hate crime legislation often claim that the laws would criminalize religious condemnation of lesbians and gay men. This concern is entirely baseless. No U.S. law criminalizing anti-gay speech has been proposed, much less passed. Hate crime bills only increase penalties and investigative powers with respect to acts that are already classified as illegal; they do not criminalize any behavior that is currently legal.
The Philadelphia 11
On October 10th, 2004, a group of eleven anti-gay activists attempted to disrupt the OutFest National Coming Out Day Block Party in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania by verbally abusing attendees and blocking a public street. When police officers asked them to move, they refused to do so and were arrested. Other anti-gay activists immediately began to mischaracterize the nature of the eleven protesters' offense, claiming that they had been arrested for merely "[quoting] what the Bible has to say about homosexuality in public." The protesters were ultimately acquitted. Mainstream religious conservatives, to their credit, didn't fall for the hype; even Bill O'Reilly condemned the protesters' behavior as "overly aggressive and anti-Christian."