From: | Ruthe |
Sent on: | Thursday, February 4, 2010, 3:11 PM |
Michigan
Pastors File Lawsuit to Challenge Hate Crimes Law
ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a
national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor Michigan, filed a federal
lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., challenging the
constitutionality of the recently-enacted federal Hate Crimes Act. The
Act criminalizes so-called “bias” crimes motivated by a
person’s “actual or perceived” “sexual
orientation” or “gender identity” and thus elevates those
engaged in certain deviant sexual behaviors to a special, protected class of
persons under federal law.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, on behalf of Pastor Levon Yuille, Pastor Rene Ouellette, Pastor James Combs, and Gary
Glenn, the president of the American Family Association of Michigan
(AFA-Michigan).
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, and a former
county prosecutor, commented, “There is no legitimate law enforcement
need for this federal law. Of the 1.38 million violent crimes reported in
the U.S. by the FBI in 2008, only 243 were considered as motivated by the
victim’s sexual orientation. Moreover, Eric Holder himself
testified at a Senate hearing that the states are doing a fine job in this
area.”
Thompson continued, “This is part of the list of political payoffs to
homosexual advocacy groups for support of Barack Obama in the last presidential
election. The sole purpose of this law is to criminalize the Bible and
use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence
Christians from expressing their Biblically-based religious belief that
homosexual conduct is a sin. It elevates those persons who engage in
deviant sexual behaviors, including pedophiles, to a special protected class of
persons as a matter of federal law and policy.”
“Christians are taught to love the sinner, but hate the sin. In fact, the
greatest threat of violence to ‘homosexuals’ comes not from
Christians but from other ‘homosexuals,’ according to statistics
compiled by their own advocacy groups,” said Thompson.
The Hate Crimes Act, cited as the “Matthew Shepard
and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act,” was dubbed by its
critics as the “Pedophile Protection Act,” after an amendment to
explicitly prohibit pedophilia from protection under the act was defeated by a
majority of Democrats. The Act itself is poorly written, based on
erroneous facts and internally incoherent principles.
The lawsuit alleges that this new provision of the federal hate crimes law
violates the plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech, expressive
association, and free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment,
and it violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.
The lawsuit also alleges that Congress lacked authority to enact the
legislation under the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the United
States Constitution.
Consequently, the new hate crimes law “subjects Plaintiffs to increased
government scrutiny, questioning, investigation, surveillance, and intimidation
on account of their strong, public opposition to homosexual activism, the homosexual
lifestyle, and the homosexual agenda, thereby causing a tangible and concrete
deterrent, inhibitory, and chilling effect on Plaintiffs’ activities and
their rights to freedom of speech, expressive association, and the free
exercise of religion” in violation of the United States Constitution.
In 2007, when Congress was considering similar hate crimes legislation, a
motion was made before the Committee on Rules in the House of Representatives
to clarify that the printing, distribution, or public reading of the Bible was
not prohibited by any provision of the proposed bill. The motion was
defeated.
In addition to the First and Fifth Amendment claims, the lawsuit also claims
that Congress lacked the authority under the Constitution to enact the hate
crimes law because it is “legislation that purports to suppress violent
crime and vindicate its victims,” and “[t]here is no better example
of the police power, which the Founders denied Congress and reposed in the
States, than the suppression of violent crime and the vindication of its
victims.”
The lawsuit notes that the link between the activity punished by this new law
and interstate commerce “is so attenuated that it places no real limit on
Congress’ power to regulate.” Moreover, as the lawsuit points
out, reports by the FBI in 2007 and 2008 indicate that only a fraction of 1% of
all violent crimes committed in the United States each year are
“bias” motivated on account of the victim’s sexual
orientation.
Through this lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek judicial reassurance by way of
declaratory and injunctive relief that they can freely participate in their
speech and related religious activities without being investigated or
prosecuted by the government or becoming part of official records because of their
Christian beliefs.