Vince Avedon – 5/27/07

This page was last updated on May 28, 2007.

Pure bigotry; Vince Avedon; Beaver County Times; May 27, 2007.

As you read this, remember Mr. Avedon once wrote that a high school student who showed interest in enlisting in the Marines as a “was probably brought up to be a two-faced traitor to his country.”

While doing some research to respond to a comment by Mr. Avedon about my post about his letter (Man this is a bad sentence!), I became thoroughly confused about this issue. It’s what happens when you accept what you get from the news media and op-ed pieces.

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 [Public Law 103-322, (H.R. 3355 of 103^rd Congress, page 301)] already includes “sexual orientation” in the federal definition of a hate crime, and H.R. 1592 (the new proposed law) stipulates “the term ‘hate crime’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.” In other words, H.R. 1592 doesn’t change the definition of hate crime. Section 280003(b) of PL 103-322 requires “sentencing enhancement of not less than 3 offense levels for offenses that the finder of fact at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt are hate crimes.” Therefore, as far as I can tell, sexual orientation hate crimes already get special treatment.

Below is a detailed critique of the letter.

“Current federal law on hate crimes covers race, color, religion or national origin and applies to acts of violence against these individuals.”

[RWC] This may be news to Mr. Avedon, but we had laws against violence against everyone long before so-called “hate crimes” appeared on the scene as simply another means to group people.

As noted above, existing federal law already covers “sexual orientation” in its definition of a so-called hate crime.

“It stipulates penalties for crimes when the offense was motivated by bias against the victim in one of the above mentioned categories.

“President Bush said he will veto any bill that would include gays and lesbians in this existing hate crime law. His position is that there are already protections in place.”

[RWC] President Bush is correct. If you kill a homosexual, you will be prosecuted because our laws cover crimes against everyone.

As a reminder, President Bush has opposed so-called hate crime bills since his days as governor of Texas. While Texas governor, in 1999 Mr. Bush opposed a hate crime bill and as a result the bill was not passed by the Texas legislature.

I have one last point here. The bill (H.R. 1592) to which Mr. Avedon refers doesn’t mention homosexuals as his letter implies. The bill refers to “sexual orientation.” Because the bill refers to sexual orientation, and mentions no specific sexual orientation, this means the law would include so-called hate crimes against heterosexuals, not just those against homosexuals.

Inexplicably, the bill doesn’t include eye color, hair color, hair length, hair existence, education level, age, height, weight, marital status, ethnic ancestry, and many other traits. Is a hate crime committed against someone in these groups any less reprehensible than one committed against someone in the enumerated groups? Of course, I’m just kidding in this paragraph. The point was to show how silly groupism is.

“If that were the case, then why is there special legislation protecting race, color, religion, or national origin? Aren’t there already laws on the books protecting people of race, religion, or national origin? The answer is pure bigotry from this administration against gay and lesbian Americans.”

[RWC] There is special legislation simply because of past capitulation to groupism. The original hate crime bills were wrong and so is the current update.

Regarding the charge of bigotry, isn’t that always the reaction of groupists when someone doesn’t support special treatment for a special group? In the groupist mind, you must be a bigot of some kind if you believe in equal treatment for all.

If opposition to the bill is an example of bigotry by the Bush administration, Mr. Avedon needs to include both the Times and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette since both papers published editorials opposing the subject bill in particular, and hate crime laws in general.

Here’s one final point on the bigotry charge. Since the bill refers to “sexual orientation,” and sexual orientation covers both heterosexuals and homosexuals, doesn’t that mean people who oppose the bill are bigots against both heterosexuals and homosexuals?

What about crimes against blue-eyed white guys with thinning gray hair over the age of 50? Don’t they need special protection too? <g>

Finally, I wish someone would clarify something. Are lesbians “gay” or not? Mr. Avedon’s usage in this letter appears to indicate they are not. Why not just use “homosexual” and avoid the confusion? Oops, I’ll bet I’m a bigot for broaching this subject. <g>