I have read all kinds of rubbish over the years, but the conservative whining about the proposed Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 takes the cake.

Contrary to the tripe that I have read so many times, not all crimes are hate crimes. When a mugger pushes an old man to the ground and steals his wallet, the mugger does not necessarily or even usually hate the victim -- injury to the victim is incidental to the true motive of the mugger, which is to steal money. In such cases, the mugger often does not even know the name of the victim he or she is about to assault and rob. The mugger does not act out of a frenzied hatred of old men carrying wallets; he or she merely seeks to relieve the victim of his money. Such behavior can be classified as showing disregard for the rights of the victim, but that is a far cry from hating the victim. A tenant who fails to pay his or her rent does not hate his or her landlord -- the tenant merely seeks to remain on the premises without paying the rent.

Contrast the above, hypothetical crime of a mugger pushing an old man to the ground on the one hand with the crime perpetrated against Matthew Shepard on the other hand. This young gay man was pistol-whipped by two local Laramie thugs (one of whom was a professed Mormon) so hard that the bones of his skull were smashed to powder, following which he was driven to the outskirts of Laramie and tied, in a crucified position, to a split-rail fence (his attackers used a rope to crucify him). Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson initially stated that they beat Shepard (who died several days after being cut down from the fence without ever regaining consciousness) because Shepard made sexual advances towards them (as though it is acceptable to kill a person who makes unwanted sexual advances towards the individual concerned). During the trial of Aaron McKinney, McKinney's counsel advanced the "gay panic" defense, to the disgust of many Laramie residents. Both attackers were convicted.

Now tell me seriously that there are no qualitative differences between the above crime, which occurred in 1999, and the hypothetical crime posited earlier.

Shepard was killed because he was gay. Attempts have been made by various right-wing commentators and organizations to muddy Shepard's name and character. These attempts do not change the underlying motive or the facts. Perpetrators of hate crimes frequently engage in precisely the "overkill" behavior manifested in the attack on Shepard. The hatred that motivates such crimes is not directed only towards the individual victim -- it is directed towards all members of the class to which the victim belongs (in Shepard's case, gay Americans). When news of Shepard's attack circulated throughout the gay community, many members of that community felt threatened and vulnerable.

That is the difference between hate crimes and crimes such as muggings. Hate crimes are intended to intimidate all members of the class to which the victim belongs, whether that class consists of gay Americans, black Americans, Asian Americans, or any other group of Americans, the members of which share a real or perceived common characteristic.

The lies told about the proposed measure are almost beyond belief. On May 2, 2007, the "Human Rights Campaign" (HRC) -- a gay organization that lobbies Congress for the passage of measures such as the proposed addition of sexual orientation to the list of characteristics encompassed by the existing federal hate crimes statute -- released a statement cataloging the blatant lies and filthy tricks engaged in by some so-called "pro-family" and "Christian" organizations.

One of the lies circulated by these groups asserts that there currently exists no federal hate crimes statute at all, and that the proposed measure would therefore be the first, and only, piece of federal legislation addressing hate crimes, and that it would only enhance penalties for those hate crimes motivated by hatred of the victim's sexual orientation. In fact, the federal hate crimes statute has existed for 40 years, and already strengthens punishments for crimes motivated by hatred of the victim's race, color, national origin, or religion.  Religion, it should be noted, is already protected under the existing federal hate crimes statute.  This is something that should be remembered, in view of the claim that the proposed changes to the measure would confer "special rights" on gay Americans.

One of the most frequently promoted lies by the opposition is that the hate crimes law will make anti-gay bigots criminally liable for their hate speech. While the writer believes it to be un-American and un-Christian to embrace the message of white supremacists and hate groups, the religious right has nothing to fear from the hate crimes bill, as it applies only to acts of violence. Nothing in this act would prohibit the lawful expression of one’s deeply held religious beliefs. As ugly and inflammatory as these comments can be, people will remain free to say things such as: “Homosexuality is sinful,” “Homosexuality is an abomination,” or “Homosexuals will burn in Hell.” Yet we hear constant, incessant whining about the possibility of the proposed measure being used to prosecute religious figures who voice their disapproval of gay relationships and / or of gay people. This whining conveniently overlooks the fact that any attempt to apply this measure against religious figures would necessarily fall flat as a matter of constitutional law. The US Supreme Court, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), made it clear that speech or advocacy cannot be criminalized "...except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." (Obscenity is another form of speech which does not enjoy First Amendment protection, but that is not relevant to this issue.) Thus, a priest or minister of religion could not possibly be prosecuted under the proposed legislation, unless he or she actually incites a riot. Is that really what conservatives fear?

The organization that calls itself the "Family Research Council" (FRC) stands front and center in promoting the lie that the addition of sexual orientation to the existing federal hate crimes statute will result in ministers of religion and priests being prosecuted for preaching that homosexuality is “sinful” or wrong. The FRC is currently peddling a DVD that purports to show "shocking examples of how hate crime laws trample free speech, lead to arrests, and censor speech." This 40-minute DVD features Dr. D. James Kennedy (of the notoriously homophobic organization named "Coral Ridge Ministries," which peddles the lie that homosexuality is an illness that can be "cured" through faith in Christ and “reparative therapy”); Christine Sneeringer, billed as an "ex-lesbian;" pastor Ake Green; and pastor Danny Nalliah (among other figures). Pastors Ake Green was arrested under hate crimes legislation for anti-gay “witnessing,” and Pastor Danny Nalliah was prosecuted under hate crimes legislation for anti-gay “witnessing.”

What is intentionally and deliberately not mentioned relative to these prosecutions on the FRC Web site (at http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=DV07E01&f=AL07F05&t=e), however, is the fact that pastor Ake Green was arrested in Sweden in 2004 for anti-gay preaching under Swedish law, and pastor Danny Nalliah was prosecuted in Australia, under Australian law. Sweden included sexual orientation in its hate crimes legislation in 2004, and Green became the first person to be prosecuted under this law (as amended). The Swedish hate crimes legislation permits for the imprisonment of persons who demonstrate “disrespect” for gay people, and it was under this amended legislation that Green was prosecuted. What the FRC utterly fails to mention, furthermore, is the fact that the Swedish Supreme Court (upholding the judgment of an appeals court) overturned Green’s conviction. As discussed above, preaching that homosexuality is a sin cannot be prosecuted in the US, due to the fact that the US (unlike Sweden or Australia) has a First Amendment that guarantees all citizens near-absolute rights to free speech (see Brandenburg, supra).

Then there is the talk of "special rights" being afforded gay Americans by such legislation. Why is this assertion not made with respect to other groups protected by the proposed legislation? Only when sexual orientation is added to the language of the existing legislation do people cry out about "special rights" being afforded members of the gay community by such legislation. The FRC and other conservative groups do not seem to have any problems with hate-crimes legislation unless this legislation enhances penalties handed down to people convicted of committing hate crimes against gay Americans. Then, and only then, does the hard right claim that hate crimes legislation confers “special protections” on members of the groups included in the protective ambit of such legislative measures.

The US Supreme Court, throwing out a state constitutional amendment voted into existence by the citizens of the State of Colorado in 1992 ("Amendment 2"), had the following to say about the "special protections" supposedly sought by gay Coloradans:

"We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These are protections taken for granted by most people either because they already have them or do not need them; these are protections against exclusion from an almost limitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civic life in a free society." (see Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)).

Stephen Bennett -- a spokesman for the anti-gay group called "Concerned Women for America" (CWA) -- used his action network to promote the anti-gay videos of John Smith, a white-supremacist filmmaker with numerous videos posted on YouTube.com. Smith's hateful online video collection includes such titles as “Keep America White,” “Black Intelligence” (a video purporting to prove that blacks are mentally inferior to whites) and “Hitler” (a homage to Hitler on the occasion of his birthday). YouTube.com – which hosts movies made by ordinary people who wish to publish their movies – pulled these anti-gay videos, which violated YouTube.com's terms of service. Peter LaBarbera -- a former employee of both CWA and the FRC -- picked up where YouTube.com left off circulation of these anti-gay videos, posting them on a religious right Web site in Massachusetts.

In a particularly disgusting insult to the memories of the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, Tony Perkins (President of the FRC) and Matthew Barber (spokesman for CWA) wrote the following statements, respectively, to argue against enactment of H.R. 1592:

"Under this legislation, the crimes at Virginia Tech, which some are calling one of the deadliest rampages in U.S. history, would not be punishable to the level of these so-called ‘hate crimes.’ If the House approves H.R. 1592 and the Senate follows, a homosexual would have more federal protection under the law than the 32 victims of last week’s massacre." (statement by Perkins)

"The FBI’s latest statistics show that there were zero ‘hate crimes’ murders committed against homosexuals or those perceived to be homosexual in 2005; yet we already know of 32 so-called ‘hate crimes’ murders committed against perceived ‘rich kids’ in a single day. But under H.R. 1592, those ‘rich kids’ would shamefully be denied the same protections and justice as homosexuals. The whole ‘hate crimes’ concept really places logic and reason on its head." (statement by Barber)

Not to be outdone, the "Traditional Values Coalition" (TVC) created and disseminated a fake transcript of the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the hate crimes bill in an attempt to “prove” that the legislation would punish anti-gay thoughts. The falsified transcript did not even remotely resemble the official transcript of the proceeding (see http://tinyurl.com/yvncxp to view both the real transcript and the forged transcript). Not content with violating the Ninth Commandment (prohibiting the bearing of false witness), the TVC produced a “wanted poster” in which Jesus Christ, wearing a crown of thorns, is wanted for violating the proposed hate crimes bill. The poster states that Christ is “wanted for revealing the truth about homosexuality in "The Bible" and encouraging his followers not to offend God by committing such behavior.” The fact that Christ made absolutely no statements about homosexuality necessarily renders this invocation of his name vain.  The deep-seated, raw hatred of gay people that motivates such groups could not be more evident than is manifested by this depraved attempt to spread flat-out lies, using Christ's name in vain in the process.

Furthermore, critics of adding sexual orientation to the grounds included in the proposed legislation forget the fact that the legislation classifies on the basis of sexual orientation -- it does not protect only gay people. Just as a crime would be punishable under this legislation were it to be perpetrated by a heterosexual motivated by animus towards gay people, a crime would similarly be punishable under this legislation were it to be perpetrated by a gay person motivated by animus towards heterosexual people. Conservatives "forget" the fact that such legislation cuts both ways.

It becomes clear, when one conducts a more searching review of the proposed legislation and its impact, that conservatives are prepared to tell blatant lies in their efforts to derail the proposed legislation. Nobody could prosecute religious figures under this legislation. Nobody could punish thoughts under this legislation.

But truth never stood in the way of cultural conservatives, who have lied and spread disinformation up and down the country.


PHILIP CHANDLER

Anti-gay bigotry seems more firmly entrenched than ever when reviewing message boards dedicated to discussions of parenting. I recently visited a message board here in Townhall dedicated to a discussion of the role of parents in the upbringing of children; more specifically, I visited a column by Kathleen Parker pertaining to the culture's lack of respect for, and acknowledgement of, the role of fathers in the raising of their children. I predicted that the message thread would soon degenerate into open gay-bashing, and was vindicated.

See http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KathleenParker/2007/06/15/happy_fathers_day,_jerk
to review this column and the comments it elicited. One person, identified as "Chriss," made it clear that he believed that I, along with all gay people, will go to hell.

Chriss wrote the following:

****************
"I love gay people and I want to see them experience a transformation because, unless they are transformed, they are going to hell (along with a whole bunch of other deceived people). I don't want that to happen to anyone. It is a value I hold dear and a value I am imparting to my son." [emphasis added]
****************

My response is as follows:

I cannot express, in words, the extent to which comments of this nature both sicken and disgust me. I am openly gay, and am considered by some people to be a gay "activist." I have no formal legal training, but decided, many years ago, to learn as much about US Constitutional law as possible, because I concluded that the fight for gay equality and eventual full acceptance in the US will inevitably involve the federal and state court systems. I have been vindicated in this conclusion by a string of recent victories won by the gay and lesbian community. Few heterosexuals are aware of the fact that it remained illegal, in about 14 states, for gay Americans to have sex, even in the privacy of their bedrooms, up until June 2003. In 1986, the US Supreme Court -- packed by Ronald Reagan -- handed down a decision upholding the Georgia sodomy statute (and other state statutes criminalizing gay sex), which mandated that any person convicted under this measure receive a minimum prison term of one year and a maximum prison terms of 20 years (see Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)). A gay bartender named Michael Hardwick was arrested in his own bedroom in 1982 after the police, who were admitted into his home in error by a houseguest to serve Hardwick with a warrant for public drunkenness, found him engaging in oral sex with another man. Although the District Attorney declined to prosecute Hardwick under the sodomy statute, Hardwick filed suit against the State of Georgia, contending that this statute (and, by extension, similar statutes in 24 other states) violated his right to sexual privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The state Attorney General, Michael Bowers, appealed the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which found in Hardwick’s favor, to the US Supreme Court. In an opinion that stunned even many conservative Court-watchers, the Court upheld the sodomy statute as applied to gay sex, even when such sex occurred in the privacy of the homes of gay Americans. The tone of the 5 – 4 majority was sneering, contemptuous, and vitriolic; Chief Justice Burger’s concurrence piously observed that “to hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching” and “in constitutional terms there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.”

Justice Lewis Powell, who cast the deciding fifth vote in favor of the State of Georgia, admitted in October 1990 to the National Law Journal that he had made a serious mistake, and that, on reflection, he should have voted in Hardwick’s favor. Welcome as it was to hear that this Justice (who by then had retired) admitted that he had made a mistake, this admission did nothing to ameliorate the damage that Bowers worked in the lives of gay Americans up and down the country. Conservative federal judges expanded the narrow holding of the Court (which merely upheld the right of the states to criminalize gay sex) to create a “gay exception” to other Constitutional protections. Legislative bodies cited Bowers in all-too-frequently successful attempts to derail the enactment of anti-discrimination measures on the grounds that they could not pass legislation that would, by definition, protect a class of criminals from discrimination in employment, housing, and access to places of public accommodation. Lesbian mothers lost custody of their own children on the grounds that they were unconvicted felons. But while Powell deserved some measure of thanks for his acknowledgment that he had made a mistake, the behavior of Attorney General Michael Bowers was nothing less than risible, not to mention a case study in gross hypocrisy.

For almost an entire decade during the 1980s – while defending the right of his office to prosecute gay men and lesbians for having sex in the privacy of their own homes – Michael Bowers had been engaged in an adulterous relationship. At that time, adultery was a serious crime in the State of Georgia, carrying similar stiff penalties as those retained for gay sex. This did nothing, however, to slake Bowers’ prosecutorial thirst for the blood of gay Americans. In 1990, Bowers further attempted to slake that thirst by withdrawing a job offer that had been made to an openly gay woman named Robin Shahar, who had applied for and been offered a job working for the Georgia Attorney General’s office – on the grounds that, by entering into a commitment ceremony with her female partner, she was no longer fit for purpose. A deeply divided US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, applying the balancing test established by the US Supreme Court in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), determined that Sharhar’s First Amendment rights to intimate and expressive association were outweighed by Georgia’s interest “as an employer in promoting the efficiency of the Law Department’s important public services.” Attorney General Bowers apparently saw no conflict of interest in his personal criminal behavior and the “important public services” of his office. Hypocrisy triumphed over justice, in the very office responsible for advancing the interests of the latter.

For almost two decades following the blow dealt to the gay community by the US Supreme Court in Bowers, gay activists turned their attentions to the refuge offered them by state constitutional guarantees. Most state constitutions are more generous, either by their terms or as construed by state supreme courts, in the privacy guarantees they afford their citizens than is the US Constitution, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. A decision handed down by a state supreme court, finding a state statute unconstitutional on state constitutional grounds, cannot be appealed to the US Supreme Court. This is a fundamental tenet of our judicial federalism. The US Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of US Constitutional law and issues arising from interpretations of the US Constitution; a state high court, on the other hand, is the ultimate arbiter of state constitutional analysis and issues arising from interpretations of the relevant state constitution. Only when a state constitution is amended in such a manner as to deny to any of the citizens of that state a right which is guaranteed them by the US Constitution can the US Supreme Court (or any other federal court) interfere with or review a decision handed down by the state supreme court (for example, a decision striking down the amendment in question). Gay activists won their first victory by attacking state sodomy statutes in state court in Kentucky, and went on to win a string of victories in state after state.

On June 6, 2003, the US Supreme Court handed down a decision (Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)) explicitly and bluntly reversing Bowers. By this point in time, the number of states with sodomy statutes prohibiting consensual gay sex had dropped from 25 at the time Bowers was handed down, to about 14, reflecting the victories that the gay community had won at the state constitutional level. The grounds on which Bowers rested had also sustained serious erosion by a case involving the rights of gay Coloradans following the passage, in that state, of the infamous “Amendment 2” to the state constitution. Enforcement of this amendment was permanently enjoined by the District Court for the City and County of Denver (a state court) and never took effect (the US Supreme Court upheld the permanent injunction in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), using strong language to emphasize the dignity of gay Coloradans, thereby implicitly undermining Bowers). This state constitutional amendment had the “immediate effect” of repealing all ordinances, statutes, and executive policies, in both the public and the private sectors, insofar as these measures protected gay Coloradans from discrimination at the hands of heterosexual Coloradans. The amendment had the “ultimate effect” of permanently restructuring the political process in the State of Colorado by making it impossible for legislative or executive bodies ever again to pass similar, or more protective, measures protecting gay people from discrimination at the hands of heterosexual Coloradans, regardless of how rampant or severe such discrimination could have become. Existing measures, however, still protected heterosexual Coloradans from discrimination at the hands of gay Coloradans, and future measures could still have been passed protecting heterosexual Coloradans from discrimination at the hands of gay Coloradans. One class of Coloradans, and only one class of Coloradans (gay men and lesbians) was identified by “Amendment 2,” and the adoption of measures intended to prohibit any and all forms of discrimination against members of this class was permanently removed from consideration by the normal political processes within that state. For all intents and purposes, heterosexual Coloradans had granted to themselves an unconditional and unrestricted license to discriminate against gay Coloradans. The US Supreme Court held that “A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” The Court held that "Amendment 2" was nothing less than a facial violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and threw this amendment out in a strongly-worded opinion. The Court made it absolutely clear that gay Americans comprised an identifiable class for the purposes of equal protection analysis, and applied what has been described as "rational basis review with teeth" to the Amendment in question (more information about equal protection analysis will be forthcoming in a subsequent post).

Fundamentalist Christians and other gay-bashers repeatedly claim that gay Americans seek “special rights,” and the backers of Colorado’s “Amendment 2” made it clear that they intended this measure to prevent gay Coloradans being granted “special rights” or “special protections.” The Romer Court fulsomely eviscerated this claim, declaring that “We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These are protections taken for granted by most people either because they already have them or do not need them; these are protections against exclusion from an almost limitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civic life in a free society.”

Lawrence involved a fact pattern remarkably similar to that implicated in Bowers. On this occasion (on September 17, 1998), Houston sheriff’s deputies entered the home of a gay man (John Lawrence) and found him having sex with a partner (Tyron Garner) (a homophobic neighbor tried to get these openly gay men into trouble by filing a false complaint alleging a weapons disturbance, calculating that the police would arrive to find Lawrence and Garner having sex; this neighbor subsequently served a 30-day jail term for filing a false police report). This sexual act ran afoul of Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code, which prohibited same-sex oral and anal intercourse. Although the men were convicted by a trial court and although their convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District (an influential Texas state court of appeals), the men continued to fight, eventually petitioning the US Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. To the amazement of many legal observers, the US Supreme Court granted the writ, and insisted that both the petitioners and the State of Texas brief the Court as to whether Bowers v. Hardwick should be overruled (usually, the Court permits the respondent (in this case, the State of Texas) merely to rest on the record of the case in question). The decision was handed down on June 26, 2003; the US Supreme Court explicitly and bluntly reversed Bowers, actually apologizing to the gay community both for its failure to apprehend the true nature and extent of the liberty interest at stake in Bowers, and for the manner in which the Court had slighted and demeaned the gay community in Bowers. More specifically, the Court wrote that “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.” The Court also noted that “The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.”

In ringing tones, the Court observed that “Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

We do not live in a theocracy. We do not live in a society where the will of religious fundamentalists is inscribed into the criminal laws. We live in a multicultural, pluralistic society; a society in which people of vastly divergent belief systems live together, cheek by jowl. The sentiment expressed by the person who opined that gay men and lesbians are “going to hell” is illustrative of the extent to which religious intolerance is systemic in American society, and continues to disease the cultural discourse despite the opinions of developmental psychologists, clinical psychologists, cognitive psychologists, and psychiatrists, the overwhelming majority of whom concluded in 1973 that homosexuality is not a form of mental illness. It saddens and depresses me that such backward thinking continues to flourish in the US in 2007. But, given the opening of the joke in Kentucky referred to as the “Creation Museum,” I should have expected to encounter such flagrant hostility and cruelty on this message thread.

Nevertheless, I remain optimistic. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor observed that “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”

I am thankful for the fact that no religious extremists can change the laws to force people like me back into hiding. Soon, the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and its undergirding statutory justification will be repealed (Congress is already studying the manner in which other nations have integrated gay men and lesbians into the Armed Forces). Gay marriage is legal in both name and substance in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Gay marriage is legal in substance but not name in Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and at least one other state (in these states, gay marriages are referred to as “civil unions” or (in the case of Oregon) as “domestic partnerships”). Notwithstanding repeated efforts to condemn gay marriage, religious fanatics are losing the fight. This year, they did not even succeed in introducing the so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment” (last year, this proposed measure failed to garner even a majority vote in the Senate during a procedural vote to end debate). In Massachusetts, cultural conservatives suffered a stunning setback in mid-June 2007, when the state legislature failed to garner sufficient votes to put a proposed constitutional amendment banning future gay marriages in that state up for a vote via the referendum process. This means that the issue of gay marriage in Massachusetts cannot be addressed again until 2012. Representatives of organizations such as the "Family Research Council" are almost apoplectic with fury, asserting that the "will of the voters" was ignored by the legislature (notwithstanding the fact that the voters voted for the legislators who refused to subject the issue of gay marriage repeal via state constitutional amendment to the referendum process, in what was a perfectly free and fair election within the parameters of a representative state democracy).

I am presently visiting the UK. Gay marriage is legal in all but name here. Gay marriage is legal in both name and substance in Canada, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain, and South Africa. Gay marriage is legal in all but name in the Scandinavian countries (e.g. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, etc.). Gay marriage is also legal in all but name in many South American countries. The history of progress with respect to any social movement shows that a critical mass is eventually reached, at which point progress continues exponentially.

We have reached that “tipping point,” and gay marriage will soon be legal here in the USA, just as it is in the UK and in Canada.


PHILIP CHANDLER

Many of the entries in this blog reflect issues that I have already discussed in a blog maintained in a different domain at http://gayequalityandthelaw.blogspot.com/ bearing the same name as this blog (“Gay Equality and the Law”). The purpose of this blog is more specific than the existing blog (“Gay Equality and the Law” maintained at http://gayequalityandthelaw.blogspot.com/) in that entries posted to this blog on Townhall tend to discuss and debate contentious statements made by political and cultural conservatives within Townhall fora, specifically as pertain to issues such as gay marriage, the passage of sexual orientation non-discrimination statutes, the enactment of hate-crimes legislation, and other developments that reflect the progress made in these areas by the gay community within the US (as opposed to progress made in other nations, which is discussed in more detail in the more general blog maintained at http://gayequalityandthelaw.blogspot.com/). Consequently, there is bound to be some degree of overlap and redundancy between these two blogs, and I hope that discerning readers will be able to make suggestions as to how I can make this particular blog more relevant to Townhall readers, the vast majority of whom tend to be cultural and social conservatives. Your help in this regard would be most welcome, and I urge readers (regardless of whether or not they agree with statements made on this blog) to comment extensively and without reservation on how I can make this blog more readable and more relevant to the issues raised in the Townhall community.

The following biographical information is important in that it may be viewed by some readers as having a direct bearing on my current political and social value system. I was born in Johannesburg, South Africa, in the early 1960s, and was raised and educated in that country under profoundly abnormal social and economic conditions. I attended South Africa’s largest English-speaking University, graduating with a B.S. degree in Clinical Psychology and Computer Science in 1985. At that time, “apartheid” was in full flower, and racial integration was virtually non-existent. The only non-white South Africans whom I had ever known were so-called “maids” and gardeners; “maids” performed many of the functions of nannies in the US, and generally worked for one family in the white suburbs (where they received board and lodging, as well as a salary, for their services). The mechanics of apartheid made almost all forms of social interaction between white South Africans and non-white South Africans impossible or even illegal. Under the provisions of the “Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act” (Act No. 55 of 1949), marriages between white people and people of other races were strictly prohibited. Under the provisions of the “Immorality Act” (Act No. 21 of 1950, later amended by Act 23 of 1957), sexual relations between white people and people of other races were strictly prohibited (one of the first persons punished under this Act was a Dutch Reformed Minister who was caught having sex with a domestic worker in a garage; he was given a suspended sentence, and his parishioners bulldozed the garage to the ground). Mixed-race couples suspected of having sexual relations were tracked down under this Act; homes were invaded and doors were smashed open in the process, with bed sheets, underwear, and the temperatures of slept-in beds used as forensic evidence in court. The “Group Areas Act” (Act No. 41 of 1950) led to the forced creation of separate residential areas for white and non-white persons, with forced separation of members of different races (for example, so-called “Coloreds” living in “District Six,” near Cape Town, were forcibly removed and “resettled”). The “Suppression of Communism Act” (Act No. 44 of 1950) outlawed communism and the Communist Party in South Africa; communism was defined so broadly that virtually any form of dissent was punishable under the provisions of this Act. The “Internal Security Act” of 1982 superseded the “Suppression of Communism Act” whilst maintaining and expanding many of the provisions of the older Act. Under the provisions of these two Acts, more than 2,000 people were “banned” from 1950 to 1990.  A “banned” person was effectively declared to be a public nonentity; such a person was confined to his or her home (or magisterial district); could not meet with more than one other person at a time (with the exception of members of his or her immediate family); could not speak publicly; could not write anything (for personal reasons or publication); could not enter the premises of institutions of higher learning (e.g. universities or schools); and could not be quoted in any speech or publication, whether directly or indirectly.

Some forms of gay male sex (specifically, anal intercourse) were punishable under the provisions of the “Immorality Act,” although prosecution of openly gay white South Africans were not commonplace in the absence of political dissent. However, sodomy was classified as a “Schedule 1” offense, alongside rape and murder, and police officers were legally entitled to shoot any person in the back if that person was caught in the commission of sodomy and resisted arrest, or ran from the arresting officer. A more esoteric law outlawed any behavior “at a party” (defined as the presence of two or more men) that led to sexual gratification. A man could therefore be jailed for giving another man a “come-hither” glance if seen doing so by a third party, who could be the arresting officer. Although these statutes were seldom enforced directly, they were a real threat in the Armed Forces and in prisons. All white male South African citizens were forcibly conscripted into the “South African Defence Force” (SADF) upon completion of their high school educations, or immediately prior to or upon completion of their tertiary educations. I left the country before the SADF could conscript me (a later posting on this blog, pertaining to atrocities perpetrated against gay men by a Colonel named Aubrey Levin, will discuss cruel and barbaric attempts by some SADF officers to “reorient” gay male conscripts).

I left South Africa in 1986, and immigrated to the US. I was sponsored for a “green card” by a South African businessman and became a full US citizen five years after obtaining the “green card.” I spent the past 23 years working as a systems analyst, primarily for large Investment Banking and Brokerage firms in the New York City area (as well as for several state governments, all of which utilize a particular “fourth generation” applications development language). I have worked as both a full-time employee and as a consultant, and have traveled across the US in my search for employment in my particular field of expertise. My spare time is spent writing and studying legal issues that impact the lives of gay and lesbian US citizens, as well as similar issues in the UK.


PHILIP CHANDLER