Reply #5: When you write "what would you say to him?" [View All]

[InternalDialogue]

It all depends on why he opposes it.

If he's doing it for purely partisan political reasons, it won't matter what sort of convincing you do.

But if he might change his tune if the issue were framed in a way he could defend, then there are several things I might say.

Some thoughts:

In a perfect world, no one would hold prejudices against others for any reason. In a slightly less perfect world, people would hold prejudices, but they would never voice them nor let them affect behavior. In a slightly less perfect world than that, people would hold prejudices and they would voice them, but they would never let them affect their behavior. And in the world we live in, people hold prejudices, they voice them, and they sometimes commit crimes because of them. None of the first three scenarios above involve any illegal behavior, but the fourth scenario does. Regardless of Ward's personal opinion of homosexuality, it is incumbent upon the state to ensure a society that protects the right of people to live safely and retain their individual civil liberties without regard to their personal beliefs or identity. Even if Ward is wholeheartedly against homosexuality, defeating language that includes protection for gays in a hate crime bill is granting permission for those who hold prejudice or hatred against gays to act in a manner that may infringe on those liberties for no reason other than the victim's sexual orientation. If someone is the victim of a crime and just happens to be gay, our laws appropriately assign punishment to the criminal. If someone is the victim of a crime BECAUSE he is gay, the state has on obligation to act more strongly, because the criminal has broken not just a statutory law, but because he has stepped across the bounds of civil society and taken his prejudice not just to a place where he (legally) voices it, but to where it affects, sometimes drastically and mortally, the rights and life of another citizen.

And a crime based on acting specifically against someone's political, racial, sexual, or religious identity should be punished more strongly than a similar crime not based on any prejudices. We categorize murder and other crimes in the same way: First, second, third degree murder all have the same result -- a dead victim. But they differ based on the intent and pathology of the killer's thoughts and actions. A court should be allowed to assign more severe punishment when it is determined that the motive for a crime is the infringement on another person's right to identify himself in any way he sees fit.

To say, "I am gay," is protected free speech that a civil society tolerates. To respond, "I hate gays," is also protected free speech that a civil society tolerates. To put action to that response and commit a crime is more than just a crime -- it is a crime compounded with a prejudicial intent that a civil society cannot tolerate.