Last Sunday, thousands of gay activists exercised their right to free speech during a march from the White House to the Capitol, demanding that President Obama keep his word. Obama has promised to “end discrimination” against gays and allow them to serve openly in the military.
At the National Equality March last weekend, activists claimed, “If somebody doesn’t have equal rights, then none of us are free.” In a certain sense, these activists are right. Although it is impossible to create equality in every level of society, we as a nation must work to ensure the equality of opportunity guaranteed by our democratic principles. Take for example Bill Gates and my friend Mike. They were both born here in America into upper-middle class families.
At birth, both had an equal opportunity for success. Mr. Gates’ decisions (or luck) may have granted him an empire, but even considering their age difference, neither Mike nor Bill would be treated differently under the law. Both still enjoy the same fundamental rights to things such as a fair trial. While there are still discrepancies, understandable given the imperfect human condition, current government policy in America is blind when it comes to administering the law.
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, passed in the House 281-146 along with a military spending bill, grants individuals special rights based on their sexual behavior. Individuals with any of the 547 forms of sexual deviancy or “paraphilias” listed by the American Psychiatric Association would be specially protected under federal law. For example, if an exhibitionist exposed himself to a woman and she responded by slapping him, as many would, he would have committed a misdemeanor and she a felony. This hate crimes legislation is awaiting vote in the Senate.
The bill, H.R. 1913, has the right intention but is critically misguided. It brings up the case of Matthew Shepard, a gay college student murdered at the University of Wyoming. Although direct correlation between the murder and Shepard’s homosexuality is under debate, the murder did spark legislative initiatives against hate crimes throughout the country. This legislation is intended to protect gay individuals from crimes against them. But in actuality, it creates a special class of citizens specially protected under the law. Furthermore, these protections come at a cost to individuals who are not protected.
Consider this clarification given by Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert: “It could include urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them — they’ve committed a misdemeanor; you’ve committed a federal felony under this bill.” That sounds extreme, but even the amendment offered by Rep. Steve King, D-Iowa, to exclude pedophilia was rejected.
Moreover, simply speaking out against any one of these protected categories could make you a felon. If your words influence someone who acts against a protected group, you could be tried in federal court. In short, these protected groups would receive elevated protection under the law, before children, seniors, veterans and churches. If the hate crimes bill passes in the Senate, it will certainly mean the subversion of equality.
Mr, Tsoi:
Are you high when you write your column? While I jest, I only pose such a question because you’re argumentation lacks a consistent train of thought. After 3 readings of this story I’m only barely able to understand the point you’re trying to make. Please take yourself and this column seriously.
You represent the conservative voice at Cal Poly, act accordingly; conservatives are not this unintelligible. A conservative reader can find more in common with the libertarian column than they could with yours. This is not because you’re arguments aren’t valid; it is because they’re not supported or understandable.
Being a conservative writer is not easy; you will always be criticized, even if you say the sky is blue. Please improve you’re columns quickly, or stand aside for another conservative voice to take you’re place. Alumni, such as myself, like to know their values are still represented on campus. Please keep this in mind as you write you’re future columns.
Ian Nachreiner
Former MD Conservative Columnist
2007-2009
It’s like watching a traffic accident. I can’t stop reading these columns. Encore, Mr. Tsoi.
I understand that you are trying to say everyone should be equal under the law, but you fail to understand the idea of “minorities.” There’s no doubt that the homosexual community is a minority group, which is often targeted as a ‘blasphemous group of gay people that are plaguing our society’, or somewhere along those lines. Even if the gay community is receiving special protection, why is this a bad thing? Does it anger you? Make you feel inferior? When was the last time you heard of a gay man attacking a straight man for his sexuality?
My point is simply that this is a benefit, and doesn’t put anyone else at some sort of disadvantage, which you seem to be hinting at…but then again, like Ian says, it’s hard to understand what exactly your intentions were with this article…
The idea that “If somebody doesn’t have equal rights, then none of us are free.” is a clear slippery slope logical fallacy. While it is true that discrimination against one minority, could lead to discrimination against another minority, it certainly will not lead none of us being free.
I agree with the title of your article and not much else. You seem to say one thing and then contradict yourself immediately after. Yes, everyone should be equal under the law…this means that if a group of people face extra discrimination, they need extra protection just to gain the same respect as the status quo. Even someone like you should be able to understand this. It comes down to this: if people were just respectful and open-minded, legislation aimed at protecting certain groups of people would not even be necessary. Yes, this protection comes at a cost to people who aren’t protected because they don’t need protection. These people are lucky enough to not be faced with the hardships that discriminated individuals face every day. How cold hearted does one have to be to be privileged and unwilling to help those in need when it is completely within your power to do so?
I agree with Ian. Your columns need a lot of work. The ideas you are presenting are not only offensive to liberals, but they are offense to the conservative voice that you are representing. It is completely possible to be conservative and now sound like a closed-minded bigot in the process. It will save you a lot of grief not only in the context of this paper but also in life.
The sad thing is, you probably don’t even care what anybody writes in these comments because you think you are right and we are all wrong.
Correction: It is completely possible to be conservative and not*** sound like a closed-minded bigot in the process