Hate Crime:
“Die, Fag, Die”

What did this say? “Stop Lively” or some such?

To be equivalent to “Die, Fag, Die” it would have to say “Stop Breeder’ or “Stop Christians”

This identifies him as a person.

There is a huge difference between “Jews must die” and “Bernstein must die”. A huge difference between “Go Away Darky” and “Go Away Robinson”

It wasn’t directed at Lively as part of a class of people. It was directed at Lively specifically, and because of what he has specifically done. Not for a group he belongs to, but for what he, as a person, as an individual, has done.

Dude, you just stepped in it. Homosexuality is a behavior.

What behavior is it? Precisely, Harry, without being graphic or overly profane, just tell me exactly what behavior defines homosexuality?

Oh yeah, and if you’re a Christian why dohn’t you follow the golden rule and treat others as they would like to be treated? Do you love your enemy? Like Peter LaBarbera, for example?

I didn’t say that I was a particularly successful Christian, but yes I do try to treat people the way I want to be treated. Usually. When I remember to.

Interestingly, there are quite a few commenters who can back up my claim that I do try to keep this website civil to people who disagree. Sometimes to the annoyance and frustration of gay folk who really want to let them know what they think.

But I try – as much as I can – to treat anti-gay activists with courtesy and decency while also disputing their views.

This is one of the odd and mostly unknown peculiarities of gay blogging. Anti-gay and pro-gay activists not infrequently will email each other; partly to make sure a quote is correct or a view is accurately expressed, but also to just talk about an issue.

They are people and we are people and sometimes even a tentative and qualified friendship develops. And sometimes we honestly care about each other – though we are each determined to have our views prevail.

My relationship with Peter is cordial but we are not regularly in communication.

And as for love… that’s tough. I’m not going to lie and give the conservative Christian definition of love (the one that could double as hate). And I certainly am not sufficiently full of grace so as to exhibit all of Corinthians 13′s definition of love towards Peter.

But on a human level to the best of my abilities I love him. I mostly see him as a victim of the world he created for himself. He’s trapped in a viewpoint that simply doesn’t stand up to reality and increasing (very rapidly) those whom he has always considered to be safe allies are growing away. His is a changing world and his influence is shrinking.

Frankly, in about five years, Peter’s going to be really hurting. His entire life has been devoted to a cause that is losing and which, if he allows himself to be honest, he probably really doesn’t believe anymore. Ironically, Peter has so involved himself in monitoring gays that he knows too much to continue forever in his beliefs.

So I guess I pity Peter. I don’t wish him ill. I have compassion.

But… I’m still working on love.

Has Victor just committed a hate crime against a whole class of people, known as bullies? Does Victor have an irrational hatred of bullies simply for who they are? Is Victor a hypocrite for expecting tolerance of his gayness while he’s intolerant of the bullies’ sincerely held beliefs? I assume Harry T. would answer “yes” to all those questions.

That’s pretty dumb, Harry. Gayness is a same sex attraction. People are gay regardless of their behavior, be they virgins, sexually active, or celibate. Some people are gay even though they are in a heterosexual sexual relationship.

Harry, you wouldn’t know a valid reason if it bit you in the rear. There is no evidence that this incident was intended to terrorize a group of people rather than an attack on an individual so it is not a hate crime – case closed.

The standard for what is, and what is not a hate crime changes depending on who the supposed victim is. It’s amorphous like jelly.

So Priya Lynn will try to provide reasons why she the hate crime in not really a hate crime, but these reasons were summarily pulled out of her ass. They aren’t reasons, they’re rationalizations.

“And this is why hate crimes laws are stupid. Vandalism is vandalism.”

Yup. Hate crimes laws are incredinbly stupid. Matthew Shepard is exhibit A. He was BRUTALLY murdered. Some people think it was because of his sexual preferences, although the evidence for that is very thin. It’s more likely that he was killed by a strung out meth bisexual head who wanted his money to buy more meth. But seriously, does it matter? Would it be any less heinous if it was done for money?

It’s rare to see someone like Andrew on this site make sense. It’s usually self-centered emotionalism.

And now, without the slightest iota of evidence, I see people accusing LaBarbera of doing it himself.

Uh..what?

Dude, you just stepped in it. Homosexuality is a behavior. Your inclination toward homosexuality doesn’t erase this fact. You just demonstrated the exact reason why your whole argument is absurd on its face.

Oh yeah, and if you’re a Christian why dohn’t you follow the golden rule and treat others as they would like to be treated? Do you love your enemy? Like Peter LaBarbera, for example?

Here’s a tick-list to help you understand:

1. Is the victim part of an identifiable group? (And you may have a hard time identifying one here. For example, “Christian” isn’t going to work. I’m Christian and should it prove to be vandalism, I’m pretty sure I’m not in the vandal’s sights.)

2. Is the group defined by actions or identity? (Be careful with this one. Some claim that anti-gay hatred is based in “behavior” but in reality they hate anyone they think is gay without any distinction – or even any way to know – as to who is engaging in what behavior.)

3. Is the victim known to the perpetrator? Do they have interaction that might provide other motivation?

4. Is there indication on animosity based on the group rather than on the individual? Is this purely a “stand in” for the group or could it be based on the person? (This should be tied to number 1 above)

5. Is the severity of the crime one that is in proportion to other motivation? (e.g. Some people claim that Matthew Shepard was just a robbery victim. But the severity of the crime was horrific – far far beyond what the local police had ever seen – that it manifest a motivation that “robbery” simply couldn’t explain.)

6. Was it evident that the crime was intended to be a message or threat to the group? (e.g. a burning cross on a black family’s lawn; a swastika on a Jewish family’s house; “die fags” on a gay family’s wall)

This can be a fuzzy area. And that’s one reason I’m not generally fond of hate crimes enhancements. But it is seldom that a hate crime is prosecuted as such and even less often that a conviction is found on that enhancement. Policy, prosecutors, and juries are hesitant to apply this injudiciously.

But I think if you go through the above questions – honestly, that is – you’ll see that this situation simply doesn’t fit.