Churches want to the right to hate speech against gays tries to call it free speech.

Story Highlights• Bill expands hate-crime laws to include sexual orientation, gender-based attacks
• White House says state and local law already cover such crimes
• Critics of bill say it would have chilling effect on clergy
• Supporters point out bill applies only to violent crime
From Carol Costello
CNN Washington Bureau

Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House has threatened to veto a bill passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday that expands hate-crime laws to include attacks based on sexual orientation or gender.

Under current law, hate crimes are subject to federal prosecution only if the acts of violence are motivated by race, religion, color or national origin. Federal prosecutors get involved only if the victim is engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting or participating in interstate commerce.

The White House says there is no need for the expanded bill because state and local laws already cover the crimes it addresses, and there is no need for federal enforcement.

In addition to allowing greater leeway for federal law enforcement authorities to investigate hate crimes, the House bill -- which was passed on a 237-180 vote --provides $10 million over the next two years to aid local prosecutions.

A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate, but no date has been set for a vote.

Addressing freedom of speech
Critics of the bill say it would have a chilling effect on clergy who preach against homosexual behavior.

"We believe that this legislation will criminalize our freedom of speech and our ability to preach the gospel," said Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Lanham, Maryland.

Supporters disagree. The bill, they say, applies only to violent crime and, in fact, specifically addresses freedom-of-speech issues.

"Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution," the bill says.

Intense debate on the House floor
House representatives got into a heated exchange Thursday as they debated the bill.

"They [hate crimes] are more serious than a normal assault because they target not just an individual, but an entire group," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York.

Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Florida, said it is unfair to single out specific groups for protection under the law.

"What it does is to say that the dignity, the property, the life of one person gets more protection than another American. That's just wrong," he said.

Both sides cited the case of Matthew Shepard of Wyoming, whose brutal 1998 murder was linked to his sexual orientation.

"Matthew's death generated international outrage by exposing the violent nature of hate crimes," said Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, the only openly lesbian member of the House of Representatives.

But Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, argued that Shepard's killers got harsh sentences without hate-crimes provisions.

"Those perpetrators that did that horrible act -- both got life sentences under regular murder laws," he said.

If President Bush vetoes the bill, it would mark the third veto of his presidency. His second came Tuesday, when he vetoed a $124 billion war spending bill that included a deadline for U.S. troops to pull out of Iraq.

Hate crime bills are an abomination. They punish based on thought, not the crime itself.

Anyone committing a crime should be prosecuted but punishment should not be greater based on the motive for the crime.

If you punch somone in the nose that is a crime. It is a crime if the victim is white, black, straight, gay, male or female. You don't bleed more if you are black, gay or female. The crimes should be considered legally equal and the punishment should be equal.

People should not be allowed to attack people for any reason but it should be the crime of attacking and not the reason that should be prosecuted.

Hate crime bills are an abomination. They punish based on thought, not the crime itself.

Anyone committing a crime should be prosecuted but punishment should not be greater based on the motive for the crime.

If you punch somone in the nose that is a crime. It is a crime if the victim is white, black, straight, gay, male or female. You don't bleed more if you are black, gay or female. The crimes should be considered legally equal and the punishment should be equal.

People should not be allowed to attack people for any reason but it should be the crime of attacking and not the reason that should be prosecuted.Precisely. Another issue is, how do we decide which factors are included in hate crime legislation? If race, gender, and sexual orientation can be included then why not age, occupation, economic status, appearance, etc? Crimes are committed out of hatred towads a whole variety of things. We can't possibly include all of them, and it's quite unfair to include only some of them.

I agree a "hate crimes" law is stupid an unneccesary. It pretty much ammounts to an Orwellian Thought Crime law. they decide what you were thinking and punish you more on top of what you are already being punished for the crime that got you arrested in the first place. this is the kind of thing that will eventually lead to the thought itself being the crime, regardles if another crime has been commited.
I agree a "hate crimes" law is stupid an unneccesary. It pretty much ammounts to an Orwellian Thought Crime law. they decide what you were thinking and punish you more on top of what you are already being punished for the crime that got you arrested in the first place. this is the kind of thing that will eventually lead to the thought itself being the crime, regardles if another crime has been commited.

I agree a "hate crimes" law is stupid an unneccesary. It pretty much ammounts to an Orwellian Thought Crime law. they decide what you were thinking and punish you more on top of what you are already being punished for the crime that got you arrested in the first place. this is the kind of thing that will eventually lead to the thought itself being the crime, regardles if another crime has been commited.
I agree a "hate crimes" law is stupid an unneccesary. It pretty much ammounts to an Orwellian Thought Crime law. they decide what you were thinking and punish you more on top of what you are already being punished for the crime that got you arrested in the first place. this is the kind of thing that will eventually lead to the thought itself being the crime, regardles if another crime has been commited.Weird... I got deja vu when reading that post. :D

Hate crime bills are an abomination. They punish based on thought, not the crime itself.

Anyone committing a crime should be prosecuted but punishment should not be greater based on the motive for the crime.

If you punch somone in the nose that is a crime. It is a crime if the victim is white, black, straight, gay, male or female. You don't bleed more if you are black, gay or female. The crimes should be considered legally equal and the punishment should be equal.

People should not be allowed to attack people for any reason but it should be the crime of attacking and not the reason that should be prosecuted.
I agree completely.

However, I also think that as long as hate crime legislation exists, sexual orientation should be included in it. But ideally it wouldn't exist at all.

Hate crimes are dumb, but like Borg said, if you are going to have a dumb law then may as well make it all inclusive.

The only part of this I like is the idea that clergy can be prosecuted for their bigotry

Hate crimes legislation has to either be expanded to include every single group or abandoned completely. You can't have some groups more protected than others. If Blacks, non-Whites, gays, Jews, Muslims, and women are considered protected groups so should the elderly, Whites, Christians, and any other sub-group you can identify.