Democrats Refuse To Exclude Pedophiles In ‘Hate Crimes’ Bill

Time is running out to defeat this anti-Christian, anti-free speech bill.

By TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon & TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty

April 23, 2009 – We have just finished sitting through about 8 hours of debate in the House Judiciary Committee hearing room over the last two days. The so-call hate crimes bill H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act was passed out of committee by a partisan vote of 15-12. A vote of the entire House is expected next week --- on Wednesday, April 29. [Take action here]

The so-called hate crimes bill is the crown-jewel of pro-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) agenda. The LGBT crowd has been trying to get this legislation passed and signed into law for more than a decade – and we’ve been able to defeat them.

These anti-Christian crusades against pastors is precisely why we work so hard on Capitol Hill. Your financial help is needed to continue this and other fights. Won't you please help by clicking here?

The debates yesterday and today reveal how determined the LGBT lobby and their allies in Congress are to get this legislation passed. Why? Because H.R. 1913 will turn gays, lesbians, bisexuals, cross-dressers, drag queens and transsexuals into federally-protected classes under our civil rights laws. And, this law will be used to determine the “thoughts” of a person who commits a violent crime against an LGBT person. If the “thoughts” are hateful against a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, then the person gets an enhanced prison sentence – as much as ten years. The Democrats refused to clearly define the ambiguous terms “gender,” “gender identity,” or “sexual orientation.”

At every turn, the Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee fought valiantly to protect religious freedom and to expose the hypocrisy of HR 1913.

Throughout the two days of hearings, Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) repeatedly cut off debate or was challenged by Republicans for stopping the clock too soon. On a vote dealing with pedophilia, when a Republican asked for a recorded vote, it was rejected. When lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) requested a recorded vote, it was approved.

Video: Gohmert Lays Out Dangers of Hate Crimes Bill

Automatically Generated Transcript:

Mr. Gohmert: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yesterday and today in the full Judiciary Committee we've been taking up a bill called by most people the Hate Crimes Act. It sounds like something that everybody would be for. You know, who favors hate? Nobody. Perhaps the only kind of hate we should be in favor of is the hatred with which we hate hate. But that's not what it's about.

It is about creating new law, new crimes that are duplicates of what's in every state in the union. Now, there are 45 states already have hate crime bills but even there most are unnecessary. The case that we often hear that is a reason we need hate crimes is the James Byrd case where this poor gentleman, African-American was drug to death. Now, I would be in favor of allowing the victim's family to pick the terrain and the manner of dragging the defendants once they're convicted, but that's not allowed. The death penalty amendment was even voted down. So there's no enhancement, nothing that would affect the poster cases that are constantly raised as a reason to have hate crime -- the hate crime laws. And in fact, when we hear over and over there's these epidemics of hate crimes that we have to stop. Actually, there were nearly a million assaults in 2007. 242 assaults included some kind of bodily injury in which there was some motive attributed to bias or hatred because of a selected group. 242. And, again, there was a killing of a poor young man named Nicholas West killed because he was a homosexual. His perpetrators were not charged under a hate crimes law. They were charged under a capital murder law for kidnapping and they've already got the death penalty. Just like the worse perpetrators in James Byrd's situation.

So what is this about? Well, perhaps it's about trying to create a special class of protected people who maybe shouldn't have protection. One of the last amendments we made today was going to at least in this -- the term sexual orientation is included -- we kept trying to confine it to things that were not just an aberration. And even the amendment to it least excludes pedophiles from the protected class was voted down on a strict party line. Every Democrat there voted to protect pedophiles and every Republican voted to exclude them at least from the definition of sexual orientation. We were told, well, there is a definition in one of the other laws about sexual orientation. It confines it to heterosexuality. There's no reference to another law. So as a former appellate judge I would be left in reviewing the law saying, what is the plain meaning? You can consider other definitions. Well, some judge will do the right thing that a judge is supposed to do and say, hmm, sexual orientation means what it says, if that's toward child -- and the diagnostics statistics manual has about 30 different types of sexual orientation. So -- that includes voyeurism. It includes the pedophilia. It includes things like exhibitionism. It includes corpses. But even under this law since exhibitionists are not excluded, then if you -- and i've had women tell me they have had people flash themselves, men flash themselves and they immediately react and hit them with a purse. Under that scenario, under this law the exhibitionist committed a misdemeanor and the woman that hit him with a purse committed a new federal felony under the hate crimes law. That is absurd. We don't need this law. There is no reason for it. We've even tried to include in there specifically the kinds of churches that were invaded and attacked for supporting the California marriage amendment. And that was voted down on a straight party line. There should be no special classes, and the other thing here that will silence Christian ministers and eventually rabbis or imams from quoting the Bible, the Tanakh, the Koran where it condemns sexuality because under this bill if a minister, a rabbi, imam quotes from those scriptures and says homosexuality is an aberration or whatever word they use, it hurts society and some nut hears them, goes out, commits a crime of violence, then under 18 u.s.c. 2-a they could be charged -- arrested, charged as a principal. This is a bad bill. and it was a bad day for the law.

Conyers also claimed he had not heard any outcry from Christians and Christian leaders over H.R. 1913.

Democrats were clearly on the defensive yet also very arrogant. They were angry with the topics of the Republican amendments and by the number of amendments offers.

Pedophiles Will Be Protected In Bill

On the second day of markup, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) offered an amendment to H.R. 1913 that would have excluded pedophiles from being included as a “sexual orientation” in the legislation. As King pointed out, since Democrats refuse to define sexual orientation in this bill, this term can include any variety of sexual behaviors, including men sexually molesting children. King insisted that his amendment be included to avoid providing specially protected status for pedophiles who may be victims of violent hate crimes.

The basis of the fight over the pedophilia language was that it is within the American Psychiatric Association’s list of bizarre definitions of sexual orientation which Traditional Values Coalition has exposed. Republicans thought that certainly pedophilia should not be included as a protected class. But the LGBT community wants to protect all those bizarre behaviors so that once the bill is signed into law the behaviors will all be classified within the protected class of sexual orientation. Thus, they did not want any amendment to clarify the definitions of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Democrats grimaced and flinched when they realized they would be forced to vote against the King amendment to remove pedophilia as a protected class under “sexual orientation.”

Lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) expressed opposition to excluding pedophiles from the bill. She claimed that pedophiles would not be protected as a “sexual orientation.”

She asserted that sexual orientation refers to heterosexuality or homosexuality but also refused to put this definition into the bill. King’s amendment was defeated.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) expressed his outrage that the committee would vote against King’s amendment to exclude pedophiles and challenged Baldwin’s repeated statements that crimes against LGBT individuals are widespread and well-documented in our society. Gohmert pointed to TVC’s often quoted FBI statistics from 2007. In those stats, only 242 LGBT individuals actually experienced bodily harm in 2007. Gohmert pointed out that this 242 figure proves that Baldwin is wrong. There are no widespread violent crimes being committed against LGBT persons in the U.S.

Bogus ‘Findings’ Removed – Didn’t Pass The Straight Face Test

The first act of the Democrats during the first day of the mark up was to remove the ridiculous “findings” from H.R. 1913. Traditional Values Coalition had hit the Democrats hard on these absurd claims. Those “findings” asserted – without evidence – that LGBT persons were so persecuted that they were fleeing to other states to avoid being beaten up. And, that they couldn’t find jobs or purchase services in their home states because of this persecution. They claimed that LGBT persons were fleeing to other states so that this could be an interstate commerce issue – giving the feds the right to intervene in local law enforcement.

Traditional Values Coalition proved that the foundation of the bill was a lie and the Democrats were essentially forced to cave. The removal of the findings was an admission by the Democrats that these findings were fraudulent. This, of course, doesn’t matter to them. By removing the findings, the Democrats continue to prove our point: The only reason H.R. 1913 is being pushed is to make LGBT behaviors into federally-protected classes under the law.

H.R. 1913 should more accurately be described as a Thought Crimes law, because this is what it does. It criminalizes the thoughts of a person who commits a violent crime against any LGBT person. Democrats admitted that a person’s “animus” (hostility) toward a victim will be used to give the perpetrator an enhanced prison sentence. Democrats also admitted that this bill is designed to protect a special group of politically-correct individuals, not all Americans.

Religious Freedom Threat

Former judge, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) repeatedly noted during the hearing, federal law currently stipulates that anyone who “incites” or “induces” a person to commit a violent crime against a protected class, can be prosecuted for aiding or abetting in the crime. This could include a pastor who preaches against the gay lifestyle. A pastor’s sermon could be considered “hate speech” under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on any “sexual orientation.” The pastor could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a hate crime.”

Rep. Gohmert offered several amendments to protect religious freedom and free speech. These were voted down by the Democrats.

During the debate, Republicans offered numerous amendments to add new classes of individuals who should be protected by any hate crime law. They offered amendments that included protecting: pregnant women, unborn children, senior citizens, military personnel, and American nationals threatened targeted by illegal aliens. All of these amendments were quickly voted down. Rep. Gohmert offered an amendment to add the death penalty to the hate crimes bill. This was voted down, too.

If these crimes are so heinous and so numerous, why not give the death penalty to those who commit these crimes?

Lesbian Activist Refuses To Define Terms

Lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) made it clear during her testimony that this legislation was only designed to add “sexual orientation,” and “gender identity” to the list of federally protected categories.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) repeatedly tried to get Baldwin to define sexual orientation, gender, and gender identity. She was visibly shaken by his questioning and refused to define these terms. Baldwin doesn’t want these terms defined clearly because this gives LGBT activists room to add whatever other sexual orientations they wish to their protected status under the law.

According to Baldwin, it wasn’t necessary to clearly define such terms as “gender identity” or “sexual orientation” because hate crime laws do not define such terms as race, religion, national origin or other terms for protected classes under civil rights laws. She ignored King’s rebuttal that these terms refer to immutable characteristics or in the case of religion are protected by the U.S. Constitution. A person’s “gender identity” can be whatever the person thinks he or she is. This kind of fuzzy, undefined wording will be used by LGBT activists to push every sort of bizarre sexual behavior as a protected class.

King offered an amendment striking “gender” and “gender identity” and substituting the term “sex,” which is accurately defined, but this amendment was voted down on day two of the hearings.

King also offered an amendment to have the name of H.R. 1913 changed to reflect what it truly was: A Thought Crimes bill. He quoted from George Orwell’s book, 1984 about a dictatorship seeking not just control over the acts of slaves, but over their thoughts. In 1984, people were convicted over incorrect thoughts.

Throughout the hearing, Democrats mocked Republican amendments as “ridiculous,” “frivolous,” and not germane to the debate. One of the most vicious attacks against Republicans came from Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) who ridiculed Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL) for offering an amendment to add the military to the protected classes in the law. During the last mark up on hate crime legislation she also came unhinged while attacking the military.

Toward the end of the first day of debates, Rep. Gohmert said it was obvious to him that the Democrats were determined to have the homosexual agenda rammed down the throats of the American people through H.R. 1913.

Donate To TVC Today To Help Us In Our Battle Against H.R. 1913

More Republican amendments were voted down on the second day of hearings. One was a Rep. King amendment that was designed to add American nationals who are victims of hate crimes perpetrated by illegals.

Rep. King once again tried to engage Rep. Baldwin in a discussion of what “sexual orientation,” “gender,” and “gender identity” mean. King noted that if this bill is passed, it must at least have specific definitions of these terms. He brought up the 30 sexual orientations issue and asked Baldwin to define gender identity. She once again refused to do so. She claimed that “gender” is a synonym for sex, but would not define gender identity. Baldwin would not agree that “sexual orientation” in the bill refers to heterosexuality or homosexuality – and she refused to permit this definition to be added to the bill. Bottom line: For two days, she refused to define the terms “gender, “gender identity,” and “sexual orientation.”

King offered another amendment designed to tighten language in the bill over “intent” in a perpetrator’s mind when he commits a crime against a protected class. Rep. Gerald Nadler (D-NY) attacked this amendment as being unnecessary and harmful to the legislation.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) offered an amendment that would have stricken special classes from the bill to provide equal protection under the law for all Americans. Rep. Baldwin said this guts the bill. His amendment was voted down.

By the end of the hearing, Democrats had defeated every sensible amendment offered by the Republican minority and voted to send H.R. 1913 to the full House immediately for a vote. It then goes to the Senate.

Kudos and Condemnation

We congratulate the following Republicans for their leadership in opposing passage of H.R. 1913:

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX); Steve King (IA); Bob Goodlatte (VA); Trent Franks (AZ); Jim Jordan (OH); Tom Rooney (FL); Randy Forbes (VA); Darrell Issa (CA); Elton Gallegly (CA); Howard Coble (NC); Jim Sensenbrenner (WI) and Ted Poe (TX), Jason Chaffetz (UT), Gregg Harper (MS).

Condemnation should go to Democrats:

Tammy Baldwin (WI), Gerald Nadler (NY), John Conyers (MI), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), Anthony Weiner (NY), Bobby Scott (VA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL) and Steve Cohen (TN), for their refusal to listen to sensible arguments against passage of this unnecessary and dangerous legislation.

Traditional Values Coalition was one of only a handful of pro-family lobbying groups present during this two-day mark up. Many of the arguments by members of the Judiciary Committee were taken from TVC talking points. We provided advisory assistance in preparing arguments against passage of H.R. 1913. Over the next few weeks, we will provide the same assistance to Senators who wish to oppose this dangerous legislation.

Please contact friends, family, church members and ask that they contact their U.S. Representatives to urge them to vote NO on the so-called hate crimes bill, H.R. 1913.

Additional Resources:
So-Called hate crime bill threatens religious freedom
Is Your Minister a ‘Hate Crime’ Peddler?
Protecting 30 Bizarre “Sexual Orientations” And “Gender Identity” -- Ever-Expanding Definitions
Misleading ‘Hate Crime’ Statistics
Anti-Christian ‘Hate Crimes’ Vote Expected Wednesday, April 22
Congress Set To Vote On ‘Hate Crimes’ Bill

Printer Friendly Page -

Email To A Friend - Support TVC - Get Our Newsletter!

More Inside TVC...