Why is this momentous?  For starters, because it was done in the most underhanded way possible:  With the nation’s back turned, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., introduced the proposal as an amendment to the Children’s Safety Act—a necessary bill that protects kids by tightening the law against sexual predators.  Conservative lobbyists found out about the amendment barely 40 minutes before the vote took place—not nearly enough time to gather forces to defeat it or even educate most members on what it meant.  Such tactics in the aftermath of national tragedy appear to be a pattern for homosexual activists and their legislative allies:  California passed its so-called domestic partners law on Sept. 12, 2001, and its same-sex “marriage” bill, vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as contrary to Proposition 22, in Katrina’s aftermath.

Extending so-called hate-crimes protections to sexual “preferences” is also momentous because it is another attempt to expand the criminal realm of “hate” from acts like rape and murder to free speech—and perhaps even thoughts alone.  This is something some in the radical left have been trying to accomplish for the last 20 years; while they demand “tolerance” for their sexual choices and tastes, the one thing they won’t tolerate themselves is criticism.  With special-victims status granted by the federal government, the lack of public acceptance and approval homosexual activists get from those with faith-based opposition is something they soon will ask to have declared a criminal act, like their contemporaries in Canada and elsewhere have sought.  If they receive it, it will violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects free speech and exercise of religion.  But why let such a simple thing as the Constitution get in the way of a political agenda?

Creating special classes of victims in this manner also violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which can be argued to guarantee equal protection under the law to all victims of crime—regardless of race, religion, or whatever subcultures or categories to which they might belong.  But that didn’t seem to matter to the 30 Republicans who joined with 192 Democrats to pass Conyers’ amendment under the nation’s radar screen—even though no unbiased evidence exists to suggest that individuals engaging in homosexual or transgendered sex receive less protection under the law than anyone else.

Thankfully, a Senate committee removed the hate crimes amendment from their version of the Children’s Safety Act before they approved it Oct. 20.  Had this amendment eventually been enacted, it would have been the first federal law to suggest including “transgendered” persons instead of just those who claim they are homosexual.

Nonetheless, in times past, the Senate has passed legislation adding those who believe they are homosexual to federal hate crimes laws several times; those measures all died in the supposedly more family-friendly House.  Now Sen. Edward Kennedy is planning to attach his own hate crimes language (S 1145) to some other bill on the Senate floor.  The saga continues.

It will take years for the Gulf Coast’s wounds to heal and many weeks for the Supreme Court to hear a case with its new lineup in place—but if the Senate someday approves an amendment similar to the one that finally escaped the House last month, the damage could resonate for generations.