Join The Debate!

Dallas -- our discussion.......

Dallas,

The truth is that I have been somewhat strident and angry in this exchange, which I regret. You have educated me with respect to the horrible crime perpetrated against Mary Stachowicz -- I went through numerous articles, from Wikipedia entries to some of the harshest right-wing Web sites (which are using what happened to this woman as a springboard to assail the gay community), and I do agree that this woman was murdered in an incredibly cruel and brutal fashion by a violent man who was deeply disturbed. Illinois does have a hate crimes statute on its books (according to the Anti-Defamation League, at http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/provisions.asp), and it was therefore up to the prosecutor to decide whether or not to prosecute this crime as a hate crime. The fact that the prosecutor (apparently) did not make this choice suggests that the murderer acted without premeditation (which even the most vociferous and ugly right-wing groups concede), or that the crime occurred prior to the enactment of the hate crimes statute. Nevertheless, this was a horrible crime.

Hate-crimes statutes do work in both directions, which not many people realize, because instead of identifying specific groups of people, they identify an attribute shared by all people (e.g. sexual orientation) and enhance penalties for crimes motivated by hatred of the victim’s expression of that attribute. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 merely seeks to add sexual orientation to the protective ambit of the existing federal hate crimes statute. I become particularly angry when this issue is discussed because right-wing groups tell blatant lies about this Act (e.g. that it grants “special protections” to gay people). The “Family Research Council” (FRC) and the “American Family Association” (AFA) are the worst offenders; they claim that this Act would grant “special rights” to gay people. They had no problem with this Act, however, in its current form (in which it protects people on the basis of religious belief, or lack thereof); it is only when legislators consider adding sexual orientation to the protective ambit of this statute that the Act suddenly becomes unconstitutional in the eyes of these organizations. Where were these concerns when the Act was first proposed, without sexual orientation being included in the sweep of this statute?

I hope that you understand that I am trying to secure nothing less than fulfillment of the promise made by this nation’s Constitution – the Fourteenth Amendment promises that no state may “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Although the gay community was handed two major victories by the US Supreme Court (in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), the Court made it absolutely clear that gay people do constitute a recognizable group for the purposes of equal protection analysis, and reaffirmed the principle (first enunciated in United States Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973)) that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group can never constitute a legitimate state interest for the purposes of equal protection analysis; and in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the Court overturned a monstrous precedent (Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)) and struck down all state sodomy statutes as applied to private sexual conduct between consenting adults, as well as stating that “…[m]oral disapproval of this group, like a bare desire to harm the group, is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause…”), we are still treated as second-class citizens, and we have little hope of seeing this change under the Roberts Court. State constitutions are in most cases more generous in the protections that they grant their citizens than is the US Constitution – particularly with respect to such issues as the right to privacy – and we are now fighting at the state constitutional level for the right to marry (the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts handed down its gay marriage opinion on the basis of state constitutional analysis).

You were right when you said that we have more in common than I realize. I don’t agree with your view that contraception is selfish, but you are absolutely entitled to comport your life according to the dictates of your conscience.

You have a lot more power than you realize (you mentioned that you have no control over the laws). A letter to your Congressman or Congresswoman (preferably a “snail-mail” letter) can work wonders and can be the first step in the long process of enacting a law. Donations to organizations that litigate are particularly effective (Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, at http://www.lambdalegal.org), fought vigorously to overturn all state sodomy statutes, finally succeeding when the US Supreme Court handed down Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)).

I wish you well, and thank you for a very interesting discussion.

PHILIP CHANDLER