E-mail
Print
RSS
G-bookmarks
Live
Technorati
Mr. Louis Gohmert (R-TX): Even with your amendment, you still have to go back to the “rule of evidence” at page 15 of the underlying bill. And it says that these things may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial unless the evidence specifically relates to the offense. And if I understood the gentleman’s amendment—and I will put the question back to you—if a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister?
Mr. Artur Davis (D-AL): No.
Chairman John Conyers (D-MI): The gentleman’s time has again expired.
Mr. Louis Gohmert (R-TX): And he answered no before the time ran out.
[Emphasis supplied.] [Source, .PDF.]
In addition to being a speech issue, it is also a federalism issue, in that H.R. 1592 would constitute a giant leap in the federalization of criminal law in the United States, which prior to this time has been left as much as possible to each respective state to administer, prosecute and adjudicate.
In United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court held that “the Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local.”
Looking to the Fourteenth Amendment, the ruling went on to say: “Congress therefore may not regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on the conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce.”
The court continued, there are “limitations on the manner in which Congress may attack discriminatory conduct;” further, “gender-motivated crimes of violence are not, in any sense, economic activity.”
There is no question that all violent crimes should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, regardless of the motivation—real or imagined—of the perpetrators that commit the crimes and regardless of the identity of the victims.
Yet a law won’t purge hate from the national conscience; only Christ can do that.
The greatest commandment, Jesus said, was that we should, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-40).
It is worth noting Jesus doesn’t describe our neighbor. He didn’t say he or she had to meet certain behavioral or moral guidelines, only that all our neighbors need to know God’s love as much as we do.
We should all strive for a just society that treats all victims as equally valuable and innocent in the law and perpetrators as equally culpable.
In the meantime, I’m grateful the President has indicated he will veto this Orwellian bill if it reaches his desk.
____________________________________________________________
Dr. Richard Land is president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention's official entity assigned to address social, moral, and ethical concerns, with particular attention to their impact on American families and their faith.
