Is opposition to homosexual marriage hate speech?
This assertion is utter nonsense, but unfortunately it carries the force of law in some countries that have adopted same-sex marriage. In fact, speech codes and “hate-crime” legislation seem to follow the approval of same-sex marriage. In Canada and Sweden, for example, speech is already restricted against homosexuality to the point that even pastors have been fined or jailed for quoting Bible verses!73
In the United States, Democrats continually put forth “hate-crime” legislation which may lead to the same result.74Why do advocates of “hate-crime” legislation ignore the fact that all crimes are “hate” crimes (there are certainly no “love” crimes)? And why do they ignore the fact that all people—including homosexuals—are already protected equally under existing criminal law?
Perhaps it’s because they are not really concerned with equal protection, fairness, or truth—they seek special protection because it will validate homosexual behavior. In other words, hate-crime legislation is about imposing political correctness, not punishing crime fairly. Why else would they advocate giving a stiffer punishment to a thug who beats up a homosexual than someone who beats up your grandmother?
Since both crimes are terrible and both victims are equally human, the perpetrators should be punished equally. In fact, hate-crime legislation actually results in unequal protection. Homosexuals get more protection than you or anyone else. While you have civil rights, homosexuals get super rights—rights that will trump any free speech or religion rights you have. “All opponents of same-sex marriage; you’re under arrest!”75
Now, why isn’t opposition to same-sex marriage hate speech? Because political disagreement is not hate speech. If it were, then homosexual activists would be guilty of hate speech toward heterosexuals for trying to change the definition of marriage. Moreover, disagreement with the radical gay political agenda does not make someone an enemy of homosexuals. I am opposed to the legal endorsement of a particular behavior. I am not opposed to the people who engage in that behavior.
Just because we disagree about political ends does not mean we hate those who disagree with us. Ironically, those of us who are reasonably pointing out the documented dangers of homosexual activity should be considered friends of homosexuals, not foes. After all, we are the ones trying to spare homosexuals from disease and death by telling the truth about the issue. Perhaps it is the activists who are suppressing that truth who are their real enemies.
73 Harry Jackson Jr., “The Massacre of the Pulpit,” April 23, 2007, posted on-line at http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/HarryRJacksonJr/2007/04/23/the_massacre_of_the_pulpit.
74 Incidentally, in the Spring 2007 debate over HR 1592 (the House version of the Hate Crimes bill), one Republican wanted to add unborn children as a protected class to the bill; others wanted to add military personnel, senior citizens, and the homeless, but Democrats rejected those amendments. Why give extra protection to homosexuals and cross-dressers but not to our military, senior citizens, and homeless? Because this isn’t about equal protection— it’s about special protection that validates homosexual behavior. In fact, Congressman Mike Pence (R) of Indiana offered a Freedom of Religion amendment to ensure that the law would not limit the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution. But Democrats refused to adopt that as well.
In the United States, Democrats continually put forth “hate-crime” legislation which may lead to the same result.74Why do advocates of “hate-crime” legislation ignore the fact that all crimes are “hate” crimes (there are certainly no “love” crimes)? And why do they ignore the fact that all people—including homosexuals—are already protected equally under existing criminal law?
Perhaps it’s because they are not really concerned with equal protection, fairness, or truth—they seek special protection because it will validate homosexual behavior. In other words, hate-crime legislation is about imposing political correctness, not punishing crime fairly. Why else would they advocate giving a stiffer punishment to a thug who beats up a homosexual than someone who beats up your grandmother?
Since both crimes are terrible and both victims are equally human, the perpetrators should be punished equally. In fact, hate-crime legislation actually results in unequal protection. Homosexuals get more protection than you or anyone else. While you have civil rights, homosexuals get super rights—rights that will trump any free speech or religion rights you have. “All opponents of same-sex marriage; you’re under arrest!”75
Now, why isn’t opposition to same-sex marriage hate speech? Because political disagreement is not hate speech. If it were, then homosexual activists would be guilty of hate speech toward heterosexuals for trying to change the definition of marriage. Moreover, disagreement with the radical gay political agenda does not make someone an enemy of homosexuals. I am opposed to the legal endorsement of a particular behavior. I am not opposed to the people who engage in that behavior.
Just because we disagree about political ends does not mean we hate those who disagree with us. Ironically, those of us who are reasonably pointing out the documented dangers of homosexual activity should be considered friends of homosexuals, not foes. After all, we are the ones trying to spare homosexuals from disease and death by telling the truth about the issue. Perhaps it is the activists who are suppressing that truth who are their real enemies.
73 Harry Jackson Jr., “The Massacre of the Pulpit,” April 23, 2007, posted on-line at http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/HarryRJacksonJr/2007/04/23/the_massacre_of_the_pulpit.
74 Incidentally, in the Spring 2007 debate over HR 1592 (the House version of the Hate Crimes bill), one Republican wanted to add unborn children as a protected class to the bill; others wanted to add military personnel, senior citizens, and the homeless, but Democrats rejected those amendments. Why give extra protection to homosexuals and cross-dressers but not to our military, senior citizens, and homeless? Because this isn’t about equal protection— it’s about special protection that validates homosexual behavior. In fact, Congressman Mike Pence (R) of Indiana offered a Freedom of Religion amendment to ensure that the law would not limit the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution. But Democrats refused to adopt that as well.
