I don't tend to ride the fence on many issues, but I've never really decided how I feel about hate crime legislation. On one hand, I definitely understand the argument of groups like the Human Rights Campaign, which states:

Bias-motivated violent crime affects an entire community. A hate crime occurs when the perpetrator of the crime intentionally selects the victim because of who the victim is. While violent hate crimes are a widespread and serious problem in our nation, it is not the frequency or number of violent hate crimes alone that distinguishes these acts of violence from other types of crime. A random act of violence resulting in injury or even death is a tragic event that devastates the lives of the victim and their family, but the intentional selection and beating or murder of an individual because of who they are terrorizes an entire community and sometimes the nation.

I find that statement perfectly reasonable and fairly compelling. However, I can also see the other side of the issue. From an article on The Lufkin Daily News site:

"Justice should be blind to the personal traits of victims," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee.

Under this bill, he noted, criminals who kill a transvestite would be punished more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer.

"This bill allows different penalties to be imposed for the same crime," said Smith. "We cannot legislate the hatred that some feel in their hearts. We need fewer labels and more unity in this country."

Good point. Isn't a murder always a murder? Is a criminal who shoots someone for his iPod worthy of a lesser punishment that one who shoots someone because he's gay? It's not like the guy who kills a gay person is not going to be punished at all - he'll still be tried and hopefully convicted of murder.

So I'm torn. And honestly, I think I'm OK riding the fence on this one. I'll leave it to people smarter than me to decide.

That being said, one aspect of this I've never considered is that this legislation is somehow a punishment against Christians, but that's what some people are saying. From the Lufkin article above:

The legislation is also opposed by some black ministers, who said it could be used to punish them for preaching against the so-called sinfulness of homosexuality, lest their words lead to a member of their congregation committing a violent act against a gay person even though they did not advocate such an act.

"As an African American, I have long questioned the attempts of the homosexual community to piggyback on the legislative breakthroughs blacks have achieved in civil rights," said Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Washington, D.C. The legislation "will bring the threat of invasive, governmental interference with the doctrines and practice of the church."

"As some homosexual activists chant, 'Stay out of our bedrooms,' we are here to say 'Stay out of our pulpits,'" said Jackson, standing outside the Capitol with a half dozen other African American ministers.

Ok then. You may be wondering how this legislation will affect his ministry, and I don't have any answers for you. Aside from pointing out the fact that the man is a blantant partisan, as you can see from looking at articles he has written like Blacks should vote for George W. Bush, in which he expresses his desire for "the development of a 'kingdom agenda' instead of a limited 'conservative' versus 'liberal' approach to the woes of our society." So he's not concerned about being punished so much as he just wants what he believes to be the law.

I think the most bizarrely worded objection came from Texas Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas (again from the Lufkin article):

Opponents said the bill will have the effect of stifling sermons against homosexual practices.

The bill is "an effort to silence people who have religious beliefs to step forward and say something is wrong," said Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas.

Gohmert said the legislation is being advanced "by people who don't understand the Christian heart."

Christians believe you can love the sinner while hating the sin, he said. So ministers can preach against homosexuality while loving — not hating — gay people, he said.

Do I even need to bother to shoot this one down? This legislation says nothing about preaching against homosexuality (or anything else on the list they object to), and in fact it specifically mentions that it is not going 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." Read the bill itself here.

As I said, this is a complex issue, and I don't know that there will be a clear answer anytime soon. What I do know is that the notion that Christians are somehow victimized by this legislation is ludicrous.