LETTERS From CAMP Rehoboth |
Capital Letters |
by Hastings Wyman |
Hate Crimes Compromise in the Works? The bill expanding the federal government's role in prosecuting hate crimes should pass the Senate soon. Moreover, there's a slim chance it could also pass the House of Representatives and become law. Once known as the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the legislation has been rechristened the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, or S. 625. The measure's sponsors are Senators Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). When the bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, nine Democrats and two Republicans voted for it, while seven Republicans opposed it. But legislative staffers of Senator Orrin Hatch (Utah), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, have made it clear that if the bill's sponsors are willing to compromise on a provision critical to Hatch-who opposed the bill in 2001-then he will support the measure. That would mean the Senate would pass it by a lopsided vote. The sticking point for Hatch involves the federal government's jurisdiction to prosecute certain hate crimes, normally the prerogative of state and local authorities. Hatch contends that because the bill's current language includes crimes against women in addition to other groups, it could potentially affect 60 percent of the population, vastly expanding the federal government's criminal enforcement authority. The bill's critics also note that state authorities are doing their duty, pointing to the convictions of the murderers of Mathew Shepard in Wyoming and James Byrd in Texas. And statistics on hate crimes are sketchy at best. However, Advocate writer Chris Bull, who spent a year researching antigay violence for the Alicia Patterson Journalism Foundation, says there's a "geographic patchwork" across the nation on dealing with antigay crime, with plenty of jurisdictions where "police don't take the crimes seriously enough...and juries and judges are lenient on perpetrators." Despite differences of opinion, the bill's supporters are willing to talk to Hatch about a compromise that would both protect minority victims against neglect by local authorities and prevent arbitrary federal intrusion into criminal law enforcement, traditionally the responsibility of the states. "I would have to look at the language," openly gay Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told me, indicating the bill's sponsors might be willing to "tighten" the federal intervention provision. Similarly, Winnie Stachelberg, political director for the Human Rights Campaign, says, "Clearly, Senator Kennedy and Senator Smith would entertain Senator Hatch on suggested changes," if it looks like it would help pass the legislation. Even if no compromise is reached, the bill is expected to pass the Senate. And if Hatch can be accommodated, the White House might signal its approval of the legislation. That's because during a campaign debate in 2000, candidate Bush-when asked about hate-crimes legislation-said that he agreed with Hatch's position. Whether the president would adhere to his 2000 statement is uncertain. However, the Bush administration signaled that it takes antigay crime seriously when Attorney General John Ashcroft announced his department would prosecute the 1996 murders of lesbians Julianne Williams and Laura Winans under an existing hate-crimes law. (The two hikers were killed in the Shenandoah National Park, giving the federal government jurisdiction that does not apply in most cases.) Presidential support for a hate crimes measure combined with Senate passage by a large vote would put a "double pincer," as Log Cabin GOPer Rich Tafel puts it, on the Republican controlled House of Representatives, whose leadership is the bill's major stumbling block. If Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.), House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Tex.), and House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (Wis.) refuse to let the bill come to the House floor for a vote, then it dies in committee. But if the president supports the measure, then Hastert and company would have to think twice before sticking with their old standpat strategy. Although the bill's supporters are amenable to compromise, they aren't convinced that is the key to success. "If a compromise were adopted, would the House Republican leadership bring it up [for a vote]?" Stachelberg asks skeptically. And Frank doubts-even if the White House got behind the bill-that the House GOP leadership would let hate crimes legislation come up for a vote. "They're not going to do anything that puts sexual orientation where it's in a protected category," says Frank, mainly because "they're eager to keep their [socially conservative] base happy." Whether a compromise will result in presidential support and a change of heart in the House isn't at all clear, but it's worth the effort. Not so long ago, perpetrators of violence against gay people-gay men especially-were routinely given a slap on the wrist, if the matter ever even got to court. For a number of reasons, that is no longer the case. I'm not so sure that a hate-crimes bill-with or without an expanded federal jurisdiction-would do much to decrease antigay crime. However, for Congress to pass and the president to sign hate-crimes legislation that includes protections for gay people would send a powerful message to the country, reinforcing the progress toward equality that gay people are making on a number of fronts. For that reason alone, it is important for the two sides to find common ground. The Catholic Crisis Reaction to the on-going scandal in the Catholic Church has been relatively quiet in the nation's capital. In some ways, the scandal feels familiar, involving as it does sex and power, two staples of misdeed-gay or straight-in official Washington. But the revelations of priests having sex with minors-mostly adolescent boys-also involves religion, and politicians are reluctant to plow through that particular minefield. Few Protestant or Jewish officeholders want to risk sounding anti-Catholic. Some Catholic members of Congress have spoken out about the need for the church to be responsive to its members. In the main, however, this is a scandal for New York and Boston, not Washington; for newspapers and television, not congressional hearings. Even the homophobes of old have been strangely quiet. Senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) is temporarily out of commission, having just undergone heart surgery (who knew he had one?). And Senator Robert Smith (R-N.H.), a Helms wanna-be, commented to The Hill newspaper about the scandal, "I have enough problems without getting into that one." The capital's two largest gay groups, however, mindful of the antigay sentiments that the crisis has elicited from some apologists for the church hierarchy, have both issued statements on the crisis. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's (NGLTF) condemned pedophilia, but also took to task those who would confuse that sin with homosexuality. HRC's statement began with a reference to the abuse of "minors," an inclusive term that would include teenagers, but thereafter focused solely on explaining that pedophilia-sex with prepubescent children- is less prevalent among gay men than straight men. Similarly, NGLTF made no mention of sex with adolescents in its condemnation, but only of abuse of "children." Perhaps because they don't want to provoke the "intergenerational sex" defenders-sadly, there are some-within the gay community, neither HRC nor NGLTF addressed the main problem among the Roman Catholic clergy, that of adults having sex with teenage boys. This used to be known as pederasty; more recently, as ephebophilia. Thus, while the statements by HRC and NGLTF are appropriate as far as they go, they do not address the major problem in the current Catholic scandal, which is the climate of forbearance within the church hierarchy for priests having sex with adolescent males. The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) did note the distinction. In a letter to the national media, NLGJA President Robert Dodge criticized the homosexual-equals-pedophilia canard that some Catholic clergy have resorted to, but he also noted the ephebophilia problem. Dodge wrote that continuing revelations suggest the church's major problem is not with pedophiles, but with "individuals exclusively attracted to adolescents." Dodge then cited a professor's view that "There are every bit as many heterosexual men giving into sexual temptation with female adolescents." However, the pattern of sexual abuse among Catholic clergy does suggest a gay problem. While estimates aren't hard numbers, reasonable observers believe that at least 30 percent, and perhaps as many as 50 percent, of Catholic priests are gay, but that 90 percent of the cases of sex with adolescents that have come to light in the church involve teenage boys, not girls. Do the math. As a Protestant, I am reluctant to tell the Catholic Church how it should conduct its affairs. The church, however, will have a major personnel shortage and a major public relations problem if it removes its gay priests. The more pragmatic and fairer approach is to adopt a one-strike-and-you're-out rule. At a minimum, if there is credible evidence that any priest has engaged in sexual behavior with a minor of any age within the past five years or so, he should be removed. If that results in a higher percentage of gay men than straight men leaving the priesthood, so be it. While the gay community does not speak with one voice, I hope many gay leaders will take an explicit, unequivocal stand-the kind most American Catholics want from their church leaders-against adult males, in or out of the clergy, having sex with minors of any age. The imbalance of power between a grown man and the relative vulnerability of adolescents has led civilized societies to outlaw ephebophilia, with the age of consent varying. The risk of harm to the innocent is too great to do otherwise. Of course, one can cite examples where such behavior has not been harmful. But that sort of slicing and dicing is for the judge and jury, not for religions or legislatures. Hastings Wyman publishes Southern Political Report, a nonpartisan biweekly political newsletter. He may be reached in care of Letters from CAMP Rehoboth or at HWymanSPR@aol.com. |
LETTERS From CAMP Rehoboth, Vol. 12, No. 05, May 17, 2002. |