Gay Leaders Setting the Bar Too Low

David Mixner asks if in this era of "yes we can" the gay community is setting its sights too low:

We have nothing to lose as a community to carefully and respectfully discuss what makes sense as our agenda this coming year. Just simply to pass a civil rights bill that was written decades ago, while symbolic, might not be the correct course. Clearly Hate Crimes continue to escalate in the country but quite honestly with our margin in the senate and President-elect Obama in the White House, the passage of such legislation should be a slamdunk for the LGBT community. If it isn't, then we have to seriously question our Democratic friends.

Hate Crimes: Entitlement for Vengeance?

"...it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." -- Thomas Jefferson

I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation, and recent events in Jena, Louisiana have not led me to change my mind. Far from it, I wonder if part of what we're seeing in Jena is a sense of entitlement for vengeance from a class of people given permanent victim status by hate crimes laws.

This WaPo article got me thinking that. Consider this:

The outrage over the Jena 6 arose initially after the teenagers were charged with attempted murder. Moreover, critics complained, three white teenagers who had hung three hangman's nooses in a tree at the high school in August 2006 -- the incident that began a spiral of events that culminated in the December altercation -- were never prosecuted for committing a hate crime.

The Post story says the fact that white cretins who hung the nooses on the tree were never "prosecuted" for a hate crime...a failure that led to the mob beating of Justin Barker (no relation).

As I understand them, Hate Crime laws don't punish non-criminal actions. Hate Crimes laws tack on more severe punishments and reporting requirements for violent acts actually committed. Unless LA has a statute on the books that prohibits symbolic noose hanging, this act -- while hateful -- was not a crime. It should have been (and was) punished by the school (the students involved were expelled, then the school relented and only suspended them, a mistake, I think). The noose hanging, however, does not appear to be illegal.

However, I don't think that's the popular understanding of hate crimes laws. Because those white boys did something hateful, some in the Jena community (according to the Post) thought they had committed a crime. When the government didn't punish them for that crime, feelings of injustice were stoked. And the community then felt justified taking matters into their own hands which led to a mob beating of Barker, who, from what I have seen in the media, had no connection to the nooses.

There are many other issues at play here, notably the inequity of punishment of blacks compared to whites. I'm just wondering what, if any, role the mis-perception of hate crime laws played in creating a sense of entitlement to vengeance by the mob.

A timeline of events in Jena here.

A list of Louisiana hate crime laws here.

Hate Crime Protection because Gays are Weak?

That's the message of several bloggers who are using the Michael Sandy case as an example of why gays need hate crime protection.

Michael Sandy was a gay man who was lured to a Brooklyn location by three men after an online chat. According to Pam, their intent was rob him believing him weak because he was gay.

Sandy fled his assailants, climbed a fence and hoped onto the Belt Parkway, where he was struck by a car. The three assailants then searched him for drugs and money and, finding none, they went home and drank beer. Sandy later died.

These three thugs deserve harsh sentences because of what they did, not because of what they thought. Selling legislators on the idea that gays are targeted because people think we are weak and therefore we need special protection serves us in the long run how? Yes, surely some people target gays because they think we may be an easy mark, or because they hate us, but people are targeted for all kinds of reasons -- from the clothes they wear to the neighborhoods they live in.

Sandy's assailants should be dealt with severely -- not because of who Sandy was but because of what they did to him.

Unpersuaded on Hate Crimes

Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney, the neanderthals who murdered Matthew Shepherd, are serving life sentences for their crime. They will be in jail the rest of their lives. They are being punished for their heinous crime without the benefit of a federal hate crimes law covering gays.

I have been undecided on hate crimes legislation for some time. But in reading the writings of those pro and con, I have to say I am more persuaded by those con. Those for it don't seem to have much muscle in their arguments.

Joe Solmonese, head of the Human Rights Campaign argues in a Wash Blade op-ed that hate crimes legislation should be passed because, well, HRC needs a victory. It should be passed, he says, because it is "mature." That doesn't make it right.

Dale Carpenter, a gay professor who was the victim of anti-gay violence himself, argues that the law is no more than symbolic. Saying that supporters of hate crimes laws for gays have failed to cite one crime that has gone unpunished because due to lack of resources, Carpenter argues that hate crimes legislation would do nothing substantive in deterring crimes against gay people:

We now have almost 40 years of experience with these laws, yet there’s no evidence they have actually reduced hate crimes. A new federal law will not likely deter future violence.

Here’s why. Bias crimes are especially irrational, welling up from deep hatreds, resentments, and fears that law can hardly touch. They're often committed by young males in their teens and early 20s who don’t know the nuances in criminal law and whose animalistic behavior is probably not very responsive to nice legal incentives. Neither the prospect of federal (as opposed to state) prosecution nor the threat of additional time in prison (beyond what the offender would get anyway) will deter bias attacks.

He also makes a point that this symbolic legislation will give Democratic politicians cover from tackling thornier issues of real significance (like the more than 1,000 federal benefits denied to gay couples).

It may give the new Congress a "pass" -- allowing Democrats to say they have done something “pro-gay” and freeing them to avoid the harder and far more consequential questions of military service and protecting gay families in the law. These are issues, unlike hate crimes, about which Congress really can do something of practical value.

Solmonese seems to agree that the bill is symbolic, as he writes of it's "symbolic impact" on opponents. He also takes to task Carpenter's assertion that it will give Congress a "pass:"

We simply do not believe that passing hate crimes “forestalls” other legislation any more than the six o’clock train “forestalls” a later one.

That's a lousy metaphor...politics is not a railroad, where efficiency is prized. It's more like an unsatisfactory Christmas. "Hey, I may not have given you everything you wanted, but I gave you something. Now shut up and eat your turkey." HRC should know this as they've been the leading cheerleader of the "yeah, the Clintons gave us DOMA and DADT but they were nice to us in other ways" mantra.

Finally, Malcontent argues that:

The sine qua non of the gay-rights movement has been "equality." Yet hate-crimes laws are the very essence of inequity. In singling out favored groups for protection, you must necessarily afford lesser protections to others.

The pro-hate crimes folks have failed to make their case. Hate crimes legislation will likely pass. The real test for the gay rights movement will be what of real consequence we can accomplish.