Haberer seems unaware that free speech rights even in this country do not extend to "intimidation"; that is, to words or conduct that the alleged victim perceives as threatening. It is through such a loophole that hate crime legislation can be used to override free-speech protections. Moreover, as an Alliance Defense Fund paper notes, "section 4 of the Act could arguably authorize the Attorney General to prosecute violations of non-violent state or local 'hate' crime laws at the request of local officials" since "some existing state and local 'hate' crime laws make 'simple assault' or 'intimidation' prosecutable offenses" (see, for example, New Jersey, Washington, and Illinois law; ADF Memorandum on H.R. 1592 to members of Congress, by Glen Lavy, p. 5).

Just a couple of weeks ago two 16-year old girls from Crystal Lake South High School (Ill.) were arrested on felony hate crime charges for posting and distributing at their high school fliers containing anti-homosex comments and showing two men kissing. A state attorney for McHenry County, Thomas Carroll, is reported as saying: "You can be charged with a hate crime if you make a statement or take an action that inflicts injury or incites a breach of the peace based on a person's race, creed, gender, or perceived sexual orientation" (emphasis added). Another state attorney for McHenry County, Lou Bianchi, is reported as saying: "This is a classic case of the kind of conduct that the state legislature was directing the law against. This is what the legislators wanted to stop, this kind of activity."

See reports here and here for further information on this story. The Illinois Hate Crime Law permits prosecution for assault (i.e., a threat or action that puts a person in apprehension of bodily harm prior to any actual harm), property trespass, "disorderly conduct," or "harassment by telephone" or "electronic communications." "Disorderly conduct" is defined in Illinois law as a person who "does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace" (emphasis added).

Haberer seems unaware of the extent to which religious rhetoric against homosexual practice has been tied to acts of violence, real and imagined, against homosexual persons. Because fulfilling a desire to engage in same-sex intercourse is directly correlated with sin in Scripture, as a significant evil against God's creation, Christians who defend this view are put in a wholly different position than, say, Christians who advocate for traditional women's roles. The latter have not been alleged to promote violence; the former have.

Even the Congressman who introduced the free-speech protection clause to H.R. 1592 acknowledged that a pastor could be held legally liable if a parishioner who committed a violent act against a homosexual person construed the pastor's sermon as an inducement to violence (see my online article, "Let the 'Sexual Orientation Hate' Bill Pass and Invite Your Own Oppression"). In this connection it is important to remember that Democrats turned back a Republican proposal that nothing in the bill should be understood to "limit the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution." I wonder why.

Of course, exemptions for free speech or even for religious freedom are being, or would be, used simply as part of a bait-and-switch tactic. Once "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" infiltrate (one is tempted to say, penetrate) the federal legal system, they will ultimately prevail over any exemptions, including religious and speech ones. Haberer fails to see that a "sexual orientation hate" crime bill does virtually all its damage in establishing "sexual orientation" as a category of being that is worth the federal government's vigorous protection. A person who has a problem with the behavior arising from homosexual "orientation" will be legally established as a "bigot," even if he or she does not commit a violent crime.

That status becomes codified in law. Once a hate-speech bill of this sort is passed, passage of a so-called "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" (ENDA) becomes inevitable, which in turn leads to discrimination in the workplace against any persons who cannot support "coming out" celebrations or other attempts in the workplace to establish a "zero toleration" policy toward "homophobia." From there nationally mandated "gay marriage" and all the rest is but a hop, skip, and a jump away.

If H.R. 1592 would not have the effect of creating official societal acceptance of homosexual and transgendered behavior, then why are supporters unwilling to include "pedosexual" or "pedophilic" orientation under the rubric of "sexual orientation"? The answer is clear: Such an inclusion would suggest societal validation for pedophilia. The very opposition by supporters to including pedophilia under "sexual orientation" is tacit acknowledgment that this bill provides implicit endorsement of homosexual practice and transgenderism.

Although Haberer says that we must support this bill to protect homosexual persons from violent acts, he completely overlooks the fact that all persons in the United States are already protected against violent acts. The main point of the bill is to make it possible for homosexual advocacy groups to intimidate legally, with the full weight of the federal government, any who have the temerity to question the acceptability of homosexual practice.

Nowhere does Haberer demonstrate that adding a "sexual orientation" component to federal hate-crime legislation will decrease the incidence of actual violence against persons who act out on same-sex attractions. This is not a bill about "loving your neighbor as yourself," contrary to what Haberer falsely claims. It is a bill that will ultimately lead to a legal definition of "love your neighbor" that mandates support of homosexual practice.

Finally, here's my "put your money where your mouth is" call to Haberer and others like him in the PCUSA. Since Haberer is absolutely convinced that a federal "sexual orientation hate" crimes bill could never lead to the attenuation of civil liberties, either in itself or by virtue of its establishment of a specially protected "sexual orientation" category in federal law, then let him sign a notarized statement saying that he will pay all court costs and any loss of income incurred by persons who, in the next 15 years, are prosecuted or terminated from employment for speaking out against homosexual practice in a nonviolent way. I'll even pay any costs that he himself incurs in getting such a statement notarized and in getting a copy made of it for my own files.

The only reason that Haberer might have in not signing such a statement is that he might fear the substantial financial risk that it would create for him. In other words, it would underscore that he doesn't really believe his own assurances to us that we have nothing to fear from the passage of "sexual orientation hate" crimes legislation.

Well, how about it Jack?

---Robert Gagnon is Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. Note: Viewpoint articles are unsolicited essays that we believe deserve to be highlighted. Viewpoint articles often do not express the opinion of Presbyweb.