Matthew Shepard, a gay University of Wyoming student, is dead. He was beaten, burned, brutally pistol-whipped and tied to a fence post where, the next day, bicyclists discovered him in near freezing weather. Police arrested two men, eventually charging them with murder, kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. Authorities also charged two women for accessory after the fact.
 
One female suspect says that Shepard was first a robbery target. But when the men learned of Shepard's sexual orientation, they lured him away by telling Shepard that they, too, were gay. What may have begun as a robbery, thus ended in murder. Very likely, Shepard would still be alive were he not gay.
 
President Clinton condemned the act, urging Congress to pass broader national hate-crime legislation. Twenty-one states include sexual orientation in their hate-crime statutes. Wyoming has no hate-crime law, arguing that it confers special privileges on certain groups. The state does, however, have the death penalty, for which the two murder suspects stand eligible. Punishment will be severe. How ironic, considering the anti-death penalty sentiments of liberal, gay rights activists.
 
Do we need anti-hate-crime laws? Should we increase the severity of punishment for crimes that specifically target people based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation?
 
For 1995, the FBI places the number of hate-crimes at 8,000, approximately 1,200 directed at homosexuals. Even assuming underreporting, the total reflects but a small fraction of overall crime in America. But isn't all crime, by definition, "hate" crime?
 
On the day Matthew Shepard died, "USA Today" ran a one-inch-long article describing a crime in Freetown, Massachusetts: "A fourteen-year-old boy who had a relationship with a twenty-year-old woman was brutally beaten and left naked in the woods by one of the woman's relatives, police said." No national outcry. No Presidential statement of condemnation. No candlelight vigil.
 
Did this fourteen-year-old suffer any less because all parties share the same race? Do we say to other victims and victim survivors, "Your attacker gets treated more leniently because he had the good sense not to assault someone of a different race or sexual orientation."
 
Is someone any less dead if shot by a car-jacker, or by a Mein Kampf quoting Klansman? Recently, in Santa Monica, California, four suspects shot a German tourist who resisted a robbery. A hate-crime? Bias, perhaps, against Germans? In the movie "Thelma and Louise," Susan Sarandon, to avenge a sexual assault against her friend, shot and killed a man. Louise, a hate-criminal?
 
The activist Human Rights Coalition says, "There is a climate right now of intolerance that we believe is being fostered by religious political organizations...They hear these messages and say, 'I am going to go out and beat up a fag because they are bad.'" Really? Does this make the Green Bay Packers' Reggie White, who called homosexuality a "decision," responsible for this "climate of intolerance"? What about Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, who calls homosexuality a "sin," or "problem," or "addiction." Yet Lott says that people can and should love the "sinner," while condemning the "sin." Is there blood on Senator Lott's hands?
 
For many gays, the push for hate-crime legislation becomes another way of saying, "Please accept me for what I am." Face it, many Americans will never accept the "gay lifestyle" as a legitimate, healthy alternative. Acceptance ought not be the goal. Rather, all Americans should demand that government perform its fundamental task&emdash;to protect people against force.
 
Gays' desire for acceptance gives power to the wrong-headed. If one bases self-esteem on a referendum of approval from others, personal insecurity and unhappiness follow. How would I feel if I moved into a predominately white neighborhood, and my next-door neighbor promptly pounded a "For Sale" into his front lawn? Hey, good-bye, good luck, and good riddance. Besides, maybe the next guy will be friendlier&emdash;never know when you might need a cup of sugar.
 
Recently thirteen minority students at Boston College received e-mail saying, "BC is for white men." To protest, nearly 1,000 students gathered in the campus auditorium to condemn the act. In describing the gathering, one e-mail recipient said, "People were screaming, yelling, crying." Screaming, yelling, crying? All because some coward sent a racist e-mail, an act, by the way, which succeeded in provoking the very response the sender intended! Don't you kids have exams this week?
 
Remember, the Elvis factor. 10% of the American people believe the King still lives, and 8% believe if you send him a letter, he will get it. Yes, armed and dangerous nut cases like those who killed Mr. Shepard, exist. We must remain vigilant, but we ought not live in a cloud of paranoia based on the actions of the few, the loud and the sick.
 
Home ] Economic Illiteracy ] Minority Progress ] Gore ] The Race Card ] Victicrats - The Blame Game ] Spending Your Money ] There's nothing well about Welfare ] Solutions That Work ] Educational Issues ] Media Bias ] Guns ] Good Intentions, Bad Results ] Those Evil Drugs ] President Clinton ] Your Congress Hard at Work ] LA City Council ] Getting Involved ] Healthcare and the Government ] Laugh A Little ] Gangs ]

Copyright © Larry Elder & Associates  - All rights reserved.
Send mail to Larry@larryelder.com
www.larryelder.com
page modified: August 30, 1999