Homophobes

Ms. Neita G. Trollinger, of Salem OR, writes that she is "sick and tired" of being called a homophobe. To be honest, I think she should change her mind and learn to like it; it's an attempt to be kind.

You see, what else are we, as gay people, to think of people who would deny us equality under the law? Who would deny us health insurance? The right to visit our loved one in the hospital? Inheritance rights? The right to make medical decisions to save our loved one's life? Who would see our children suffer in single parenthood when a loving person who wants to be the second parent is at hand? Who fought to maintain the criminalization of our deepest expression of love?

Ms. Trollinger says that Christians do not kill or name-call "homosexuals", and yet in saying so she does so, since we choose to be called "gay" and she insists on naming us "homosexual". Indeed, she compares us to murderers, thieves, adulterers, and liars. If it is true that Christians do not "name-call" us, then Ms. Trollinger should be asking herself if she is truly Christian.

And to claim that Christians do not kill us is a flat falsehood. People who have been convicted of murdering gay people have been well studied, and many have stated bluntly that they did so in whole or in part because of something their church told them about us, such as that we are minions of the devil or that we are trying to recruit their children or that we spread AIDS.

Ms. Trollinger should accept the moniker of "homophobe", because in calling people like her that, we are attempting to be charitible and believe that they do the horrible things they do to us because they are frightened for some reason, perhaps because they are ignorant or misinformed, and that maybe it doesn't mean they're really bad people. The alternative is to believe that they really know what they're doing, and believe they're bigots.

California marriage bill

"Earned Media" reports:

The California legislature once again flouted the will of the people by passing a homosexual marriage bill from the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Passed on a party line vote, AB 43 would allow "gender neutral" marriage in California. This directly contradicts the people's will in passing Proposition 22, which clearly stated marriage in California is between one man and one woman.

And the will of the people is always so perfect? Remember, it used to be the will of the people that people who weren't white couldn't have civil rights, yet today we recognize that that was horribly wrong in every way.

"Yet again the California legislature has shown that it will arrogantly ignore the will of the people," stated Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. "Even though the vast majority of citizens oppose homosexual marriage, radical activists continue to push their agenda."

The vast majority? What, exactly, is this "vast majority"?

"61% of California voters believe that traditional marriage is so important that we must protect it," continued England.

61% isn't a "vast majority". It's a little bit over half. Further, when Ms. England claims that 61% believe that "traditional marriage" is so important, she's... well, let's be polite and say she's not factually correct. What would be more true would be to say that 61% believed that gay marriage must be legally stopped, when Proposition 22 was passed, 7 years ago. In the past decade, opposition to gay marriage has dropped significantly. It's even possible that a majority of citizens of California now support civil marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. But, Ms. England presents a 7 year old statistic as if it was current. That's a rather significant error regarding a contemporary issue about which opinion is changing very quickly.

Facts about hate crimes bill

On Crosswalk.com, Michael Craven is described as "Author, Speaker, Founding Director of the Center for Christ & Culture". His article, however, doesn't seem very Christian to me.

He writes,

Today, legislators in the House of Representatives are pushing for a “discharge petition” to force a vote on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2001, (LLEHCPA), H.R. 1343, another federal Hate Crimes bill that would add “sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability” to current hate crimes law. Introduced by Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Mark Kirk (R-IL), this one has more than 100 cosponsors. LLEHCPA would authorize the Justice Department to conduct local law enforcement hate crimes training, and to conduct expanded hate crimes investigations and prosecutions.

So, let's start with some simple housekeeping: I think he has made some errors here. HR 1343 is the "Health Centers Renewal Act of 2007", which has nothing to do with hate crimes. And, I don't think a current bill in the House of Representatives would be titled with "2001". The House web site doens't list a bill by that title, but it does list HR 1592, "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007", with those sponsors Mr. Craven lists, so I'm going to operate under the belief that Mr. Craven has somehow got the numbers mixed up.

He continues,

This legislation will ban alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation, whether actual or perceived, as well as “gender,” which include the categories of transgender, cross-dresser, or transvestite.

Uh, no. It bans violent crimes. You can't ban alleged anything, only actual crimes. But that's not the half of it. Mr. Craven claims,

The purpose of “hate crimes” legislation, in this instance, is to apply this preemptive aspect mentioned above, in order to render any speech opposing the legitimacy and promotion of homosexuality illegal, because such speech or even expressed thoughts constitute “hate.” Thus it inhibits the rights of those who resist the imposition of homosexual morality to disagree and brings the power of the state to bear on those who do.

Of course, that's 100% factually false in every way. First of all, as Mr. Craven himself points out in the very same article, banning speech in the US is unconstitutional, so a law can't do that. Further, the actual text of HR 1592 very clearly spells out that it is only applicable to cases of violent crime:

`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

`(a) In General-
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law , willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law , in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

So, first of all, it's my opinion that Mr. Craven is bearing false witness about the actual text and purpose of the bill. Further, I question whether a real Christian would be attempting to claim that a bill with the exclusive purpose of prohibiting extremely violent crimes would violate the rights of those who "resist the imposition of homosexual morality". What sort of resistance is Mr. Craven trying to protect, anyway? Can he seriously claim that Christians should want the right to use firearms and incendiary devices against gay people? But apparently that's exactly what he's trying to get you to defend, since he writes,

I urge you to contact your representatives today and voice your opposition to this destructive legislation.

It's destructive to ban violent crimes against gay people? I think Mr. Craven has a very un-christian agenda.

Recommended article

Hate by any other name