Here you are again taking great liberties with your definition of Hate Crime. I hope you realize that by painting with such a broad brush, you end up giving credence to opponents of hate crime legislation.

It appears to me that because the victims in this crime just happened to be gay, that you automatically label it a Hate Crime. Do you honestly think that the outcome would have been different if the victims were a heterosexual couple?

My understanding of the definiton of a Hate Crime is one that is motivated because the perpetraitor hates the race/religion/sexual orientation/etc. of the victim. This is clearly the case in the Matthew Shepherd case.

In the above case, the suspect is the father of the child of one of the victims. This implies that somewhere along the line they were sexually involved.

This suggests to me a distint possibility that jealousy could have been the motivating factor in the crime committed.

I believe that by labeling any crime that homosexuals are the victims of as hate crimes is counter productive as it gives credence to the assertions of those that oppose Hate Crime Laws, that these laws give special protection to Hate Crime victims.

This is logic is similar to the situation George Orwell described in “Animal Farm” that “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

If you are interested in learning more about hate crimes, I suggest the Southern Poverty Law website.
I notice that you are an activist for the gay community, but sometimes it appears to me that you are doing more harm than good. I may be entirely wrong, this is just my opinion for what it is worth.

Zak

If you, like me, have been too busy to follow in detail the tale of the LIFEbeat AIDS benefit concert featuring homophobic acts (they’ve cancelled and apologized), here’s a handy timeline synopsis. Kudos to the bloggers who helped make it…