I realize that this headline sounds too outlandish to be true. Sadly, it is not. The U.S. House of Representatives voted 249 to 175 mostly along party lines to add the words "sexual orientation" to a list of extra-protected groups under federal hate crime laws. Pedophilia (child molestation) is just one of the paraphilias the American Psychiatric Association defines as a "sexual orientation." The American Family Association delineates 30 of the 547 paraphilias or "sexual orientations"as defined by the APA. Paraphilias," Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 2000), pp. 566-582
During debate in the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa (YouTube), offered this very simple amendment: "The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia."
It was rejected.
Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert's response (YouTube) in committee clarified what that means:
If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class. There are other protected classes in here. I mean simple exhibitionism. I have female friends who have told me over the years that some guy flashed them, and their immediate reaction was to hit them with their purse. Well now, he's committed a misdemeanor, [and] she has committed a federal hate crime because the exhibitionism is protected under sexual orientation.
And having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words. The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse). … It could include urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them – they've committed a misdemeanor; you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong.
When the bill came before the House, again Rep. King (YouTube)tried to make is colleagues understand exactly what they were enacting. He pointed out that they were about to give extra-protected status to 547 different orientations.
Then, shockingly, Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., agreed and admitted that this bill will protect all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or "Paraphilias" listed by the APA. Here's what Hastings said on the House floor (YouTube):
This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'Philias' and fetishes and 'isms' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.
Apparently, Rep. Hastings and the vast majority of his fellow Democrats, as well as a handful of Republicans have absolutely no problem with sexual deviants, including child molesters and exhibitionists, getting an elevated level of protection. I wonder if they would have voted the same way if one of their children or their spouse had fallen victim to one of these deviants? I doubt it. So why don't they offer the same protection to the rest of us.
Is this a joke?
Posted by: Earl | May 07, 2009 at 12:37 PM
I'm curious if you looked for any views other than the ones advanced by a few partisans?
I suspect the issues and the debate are considerably more nuanced than this. This reads like a fund-raising letter.
Posted by: John Meunier | May 07, 2009 at 02:20 PM
Does "bearing false witness" mean anything to you???
You and I will wait until Judgement Day for someone to actually get off for child molestation using this provision. Like John said, this is the same type of "reasoning" one expects from a right-wing fundraising letter or fear-mongering from the political people at Focus.
Posted by: Creed Pogue | May 07, 2009 at 02:30 PM
Apparently this is not a joke. Given the circus that is currently being run in washington, it was reasonable to hope that this legislation was a joke.
From a review of the links provided it would appear that in this case, liberal democrats have managed the impossible... they have kicked themselves after the manner of that sterile hybrid that represents their party. This is one time when no effort need be made by conservatives to expose the lack of thoughtful consideration that could possibly lead anyone to support such a bill. In this case of this law, ignorance is no excuse.
Posted by: Earl | May 07, 2009 at 03:20 PM
It's too bad that John M & CP can say nothing that rationalizes this bill being passed. Perhaps it's because there can be no rational reason.
Posted by: John B | May 07, 2009 at 04:31 PM
John,
I'm not defending the bill, I'm asking for some reasonable discussion of it.
If you were framing the discussion of some left-wing agenda with the same acceptance of the party-line, I'd question that as well.
Here is a summary of the bill produced by the Congressional Research Service:
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 - Authorizes the Attorney General to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that: (1) constitutes a crime of violence under federal law or a felony under state, local, or Indian tribal law; and (2) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the state, local, or tribal hate crime laws. Directs the Attorney General to give priority for assistance to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one state and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary investigation or prosecution expenses.
Authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to assist state, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies with such extraordinary expenses. Directs the Office of Justice Programs to: (1) work closely with funded jurisdictions to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties are addressed; and (2) award grants to state and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.
Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit willfully causing bodily injury to any person because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of such person.
Amends the Hate Crimes Statistics Act to expand data collection and reporting requirements under such Act to include: (1) crimes manifesting prejudice based on gender and gender identity; and (2) hate crimes committed by and against juveniles.
Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the exercise of constitutionally-protected free speech.
I have no problem with people who say the federal government should not be taking on local prosecution of hate crimes, but the heated rhetoric from the right - and the suggestion that anyone who supports the bill is in favor of child rapists - is just plain absurd and not at all charitable.
Posted by: John Meunier | May 09, 2009 at 02:26 PM
Merry Christmas! I wish you a lot of gifts and luck in the new year.
Posted by: JOBS_frend | December 25, 2010 at 10:09 PM
Happy New Year! The author write more I liked it.
Posted by: school_dubl | December 29, 2010 at 04:04 AM
Interesting site, always a new topic .. good luck in the new 2011. Happy New Year!
Posted by: Realestate | January 10, 2011 at 04:41 PM