[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20460-20461]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              HATE CRIMES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, this body passed the gentleman 
from Michigan's (Mr. Conyers) hate crime bill with very little notice. 
Some here were heard to say, oh, well, they will just take it out in 
conference. However, there is a decent chance that will not happen.
  It is true that people who act out of hate can and do cause 
devastation and severe hurt. There is no question about that. Those who 
cause such harm deserve and should be punished severely. As a former 
judge, I have sentenced and severely punished people acting out of 
hate, including signing legal orders that the perpetrators should be 
put to death.
  Ironically, the cases often cited as a basis for creating hate crime 
laws usually include the horrible dragging death of the African 
American in Texas or the poor young man in Texas who was killed for 
being a homosexual. The main perpetrators in those cases got the death 
penalty that I believe they deserved. Those were cases in which no hate 
crime law would have made any difference whatsoever; yet they are 
constantly cited as a reason for it.
  In the dragging death case, I personally might support punishment by 
allowing the victim's despondent family to choose the rope or chain and 
the terrain over which to drag the heartless defendant to inflict the 
death penalty. But the hate crime laws do not offer a more painful form 
of capital punishment. The one yesterday certainly does not, so it 
would have had absolutely no effect on the very cases its proponents 
often herald as poster examples.
  What was done yesterday created a vague, ambiguous Federal offense 
which sends a message that random, senseless acts of violence are far 
more preferable in our society than such acts with a motive. Never mind 
that sociopaths or antisocial personalities who commit random, 
senseless acts of violence are unlikely to be rehabilitated. They will 
not get punished under this new law passed out of this House yesterday.
  This new hate crimes bill that passed yesterday, this body said to 
the world that ``sexual orientation'' and not just ``gender,'' which 
should be respected, but ``gender identity,'' whatever that is, are in 
the same category as those unfortunate individuals who have suffered 
because of the color of their skin or their religious preference.
  Have the Members ever stopped to think about the words ``sexual 
orientation''? Regardless of what definition they may give those words, 
when we pass laws, the words used create an exceptional chance that at 
some point down the road someone is going to say the words mean exactly 
what they say. In the case of ``sexual orientation,'' someday someone 
can look at those words and say they have the very meaning they state: 
That includes those who are sexually oriented towards animals, those 
who are sexually oriented towards corpses, those who are sexually 
oriented towards children. That is abominable. But someday those words 
could be cited by some appellate court as having their very plain 
meaning, not just the meaning that is socially or culturally accepted 
at the time they were passed.
  There is another aspect that is not discussed or debated but is 
coming some day through this new law. It is true that the law addresses 
crimes of violence or attempted crimes of violence. However, under 
Article 18 U.S. Code 2(a) of the Federal Criminal Code, ``whoever aids, 
abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures'' a crime's commission 
is punishable just as if he is the principal.
  Do the Members understand what that means? Let me ask my colleagues 
if a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim religious leader teaches and preaches 
that homosexuality is wrong or is a sin and someone in the leader's 
flock commits a crime against a person who chooses to practice such 
acts, has the religious leader counseled or induced such an act through 
his or her teaching? Someday someone will say so, and ministers will be 
arrested for their preaching. They will be said to have incited such 
conduct through hateful teaching. As a matter of fact, some people 
already blame religious leaders for acts of violence in such cases, and 
I do not defend any minister who encourages such conduct. That should 
be punished.

                              {time}  1845

  They are wrong. But having harshly sentenced people who have 
committed crimes of hate, and also those who have committed crimes at 
random, cold-blooded, heartless thugs, I can tell my colleagues that 
the victims and their loved ones in all of these cases are all 
traumatized and distraught and deserving of sympathy and compassion.
  So what is the message our great hate crime legislation sends? 
Apparently, through hate crime legislation, we are simply saying to the 
world, if you are really going to hurt me, please, please do not hate 
me. Instead, make it a random, cold-blooded, senseless act of violence. 
That is what we prefer in this country, according to this bill.

[[Page 20461]]



                          ____________________