October 28, 2009; the Act subtitled The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act was signed into law by President Obama. It is listed as Title 18, U.S.C., Section 249, and makes it a federal crime, expressly a hate crime, when a ‘crime is committed because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identify, or disability of any person…’.
This act basically morally equated a homosexual to be of the same righteousness and deserving the same judgment as Blacks, Hispanics, etc. or women.
(excerpts from The Last Trial)
Asst. Atty. Gen. U. N. Lover: Prof. Paidoff, could you tell the Court some background on Hate Crimes legislation; particularly in the area of sexual orientation?
Prof. Paidoff: The year 1290 was the first mentioned in English common law for the punishment of homosexuality. In 1533, King Henry VIII of England enacted the Buggery Act stating ‘buggery is an unnatural sexual act against the will of God and man.’ From about 1300 to 1861, the death penalty could be imposed for buggery. Buggery or sodomy laws were not totally repealed in the UK until 1967.
In 1869, a human rights campaigner named Karl Maria Kertbeny of Prussia coined the words heterosexual and homosexual as terms for sexual types. He proposed that homosexuality was inborn and not by choice. In 1895, the trials and imprisonment of poet Oscar Wilde in England brought much publicity to the subject of homosexuality. Wilde was arrested for ‘gross indecency’ with another man, under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885. That section was the first specifically anti-homosexual act (since the Bible or Koran).
After World War II, the subject of sexual orientation began to be addressed. In 1947, Alfred Kinsey, an atheist scientist and bisexual, founded the Institute for Sex Research. His 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was at the top of the best-sellers list. In 1953, he released Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. By 1955, the American Law Institute published a new edition of their Model Penal Code. Several pages of the Code cited Kinsey’s research; and the new code drafted by the notable organization of lawyers and judges was a significant move for sexual orientation laws.
The 1955 Model Penal Code moved for states to repeal their sodomy laws and ‘criminal penalties for consensual sexual relations conducted in private.’ At that time homosexual conduct was a felony in all 50 states. In 1957, the ACLU stood with homosexuals pleading for due process. That year the Wolfenden Report came out in England; influenced by Kinsey, it recommended eliminating criminal penalties for private consensual acts. Also, in September, Eisenhower signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The Act established a Commission on Civil Rights, criminal punishments, and issued ‘equal protection’ especially for African American rights to vote.
In 1961, Illinois adopted the Model Penal Code; then other States followed. In 1963, Medgar Evers, field secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), was assassinated in June. Before President Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was proposed in Congress. The Act made racial discrimination in public illegal. Then on April 4th 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated; a week later on April 11th 1968, Congress passed U.S.C. ‘Section 245’ of Title 18, Chapter 13 – ‘Civil Rights.’ In essence, Section 245 was the first piece of federal hate crime legislation; or as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 states: “Section 245… has been the principal Federal hate crimes statute since its enactment. This section prohibits the use of force or threat… or to interfere with ‘any person because of his race, color, religion, or national origin…’.”
In 1965, came the first major pro-homosexual victory, when the Court of Appeals overturned the District Court’s previous decision in Scott v. Macy. Scott, backed by the ACLU and the Mattachine Society appealed and the Court agreed that the government could not disqualify someone based on their sexual orientation. In 1973, the Ninth Circuit Court found in favor of a San Francisco gay organization, the Society for Individual Rights vs. Hampton. The Court overturned the Civil Service Commission’s anti-gay policy. That same year, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force was founded to combat antigay discrimination.
In 1986, in Bowers v. Hardwick, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Georgia sodomy law which even criminalized homosexual acts between consenting adults in private. In 1990, the Senate passed the Hate Crimes Statistics Act requiring the Department of Justice to collect and publish data on crimes against race, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation; two months later President Bush signed the bill into law. In May of 1998, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13087, protecting homosexual Federal civilian employees.
In October of 1998, Matthew Shepard died after being beating by two men and left to die. The Human Rights Campaign, along with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and other such groups, organized a vigil on the steps of the Capitol. The next January, President Clinton, in his State of the Union address, spoke about the passage of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The next month, Gallop Polls showed the great majority of Americans believed that homosexual should be covered by hate crime laws. By 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court overruled Bowers, saying, ‘Bowers was not correct…’ and stated ‘Texas’ state sodomy law was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause… protecting privacy.’ At that time 13 states had laws prohibiting private consensual homosexual activity. The high Court’s decision made them all unconstitutional.
In 2007, Gallup polls showed 70% of Americans favored adding sexual orientation to federal hate crimes law. That year, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 was introduced to Congress. ACLU appeared before a Congressional Subcommittee and urged the passage of the bill. In 2009, the Act subtitled The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act was signed into law by President Obama. It is listed as Title 18, U.S.C., Section 249, and makes it a federal crime, expressly a hate crime, when a ‘crime is committed because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identify, or disability of any person…’.
In 2011, the Arkansas Supreme Court and a Florida Court of Appeals overturned their state’s ban on adoption by gays and lesbian; stating the ban was unconstitutional. About that time, Congress introduced the Every Child Deserves a Parent Act that banned discrimination in adoption or foster care placement based on sexual orientation or married status. By the end of Obama’s first term in 2012, about 20 states recognized either same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, or provided spousal rights to unmarried homosexual couples.
Likewise, in 2012, British Prime Minister David Cameron and Scottish Deputy Minister Sturgeon pledged to support same-sex unions. At that time in 2012, homosexuality was still a criminal offence in about 70 countries. Nevertheless, in 2010, the Council of Europe passed Amendment 69, against ‘discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity,’ which was recognized by the European Court of Human Rights.
The United Nations passed similar codes. Also, in 2009, the UN compromised with Islam nations, calling for the criminalization of criticism of Islam and in return asking them to support rights for all persons regardless of sexual orientation. In 2010, Argentina made homosexual marriage legal. In 2011, even Brazil, who has the world’s largest Catholic population, saw their High Court rule that homosexual partnerships were a matter of privacy and was due equal rights.
Census 2000 counted 601,200 same-sex unmarried partner households in the U.S., which was over a 300 percent (%) increase from the 1990 Census’ 145,100 households. According to the American Community Survey, from 2000 to 2006, same-sex couples increased 30% to 776,000 couples. The National increase from 1990 to 2006 was 437%. Also, the 2010 US Census showed a growth in same-sex couples. Data showed, in Hawaii, they increased by 78% from 2000, in Colorado 60%, Minnesota 50%, California and New York both increased another 30%. The Census revealed that about one-quarter of all same-sex households in the U.S. were raising children. About that time, many Hollywood celebrities, college students and young adults began calling themselves ‘flexi-sexual,’ as opposed to ‘bisexual.’
At that time in 2012, 11 states and about 40 nations recognized homosexual marriage or civil unions. And just as the non-religious population of America increased from about 8% in 1990 to about 21% by 2013; America’s support from Same-Sex Marriage increased from about 14 % in 1990 to about 50% by 2013. Now, as you know, by 2026, nearly all nations agreed to the UN Models of acceptance of Civil Unions and Hate Crime laws protecting homosexuals. Moreover, by 2026, America followed the stricter Hate Speech laws of Brazil, Canada, England, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, South Africa, Sweden and the Netherlands.
Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that ‘Everyone has the …freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including… communication.’ The Charter specifies the freedoms are ‘subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.’ Thus, the Canadian Supreme Court has found in certain cases that ‘hate speech’ was not acceptable. Canada passed the Canadian Human Rights Act of 1999, which also made hate speech on the Internet a crime. And Section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code states, ‘everyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty… 2 years…’
Sweden’s 2003 Penal Code, chapter 29, sec. 2, states, it is a crime if the ‘motive of the offense was to insult a person, an ethnic group or another such group of people by reason of their race, color, origin, creed, or sexual orientation…’. The Criminal Code of the Kingdom of Netherlands, Article 137, states, ‘Anyone who publicly, orally or in writing or image, incites hatred or discrimination… or violence against person or property on the grounds of their race, religion or beliefs, their gender, their sexual orientation …shall be punished with imprisonment not more than 1 year… If it is committed by a person who makes a profession or habit or by two or more persons shall be imprisonment not exceeding two years…’.
The German hate speech laws ‘protect against insult, defamation and other forms of verbal assault.’ The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, states… ‘Anyone who publicly stirs up or incites hatred against an identifiable group based on color, race, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation…’ shall be guilty. Russia’s statute is called the ‘Federal Law on Countering Extremist Activity.’ Brazil’s hate speech prohibits, ‘acts of discrimination and prejudice carried out by means of communication or publication of any nature…’.
Therefore, just as the spirit of other nations embraced the need to protect homosexuals with equal rights, so did the United States. At first, corporations such as Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Starbucks, Amazon, CBS, Twitter, and Nike quickly and without question, accepted same-sex unions for all benefits. States enacted laws such as the ‘Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act of 2011.’ So nearly every single other corporation accepted civil unions for all benefits.
Cases across the country challenge the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Likewise, President Clinton who signed DOMA publicly announced it should be overturned. The Supreme Court of the United States heard one of these cases Windsor v. United States – on March 27, 2013. The case involved a same-sex couple that were married in Toronto, Canada and moved to New York, where one of them died. The Court ruled, Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional ‘as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment.’ That same June day the Court issued another decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, agreeing to a lower court’s decision that California’s Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriages was unconstitutional.
Moreover, in April 2015 the Supreme Court heard arguments and soon afterwards legalized same-sex marriage for the entire United States.
Asst. Att. Gen. U. N. Lover: Thank you. Now, professor, has speech alone been found in itself criminal?
Prof. Paidoff: Yes. In the State of Wisconsin vs. Welda, in 2009, where the Anti-Defamation League was listed with the State as a plaintiff, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin found that the ‘hate-crime penalty enhancer’ could move a misdemeanor to that of a felony. Also, it found that ‘speech only’ disorderly conduct was sufficient for a crime.
Asst. Att. Gen. U. N. Lover: Could quoting anti-homosexual bible verses over a public media, along with other factures such as either providing a person hateful literature or a shocking fact be enough to meet the hate crime statute?
Prof. Paidoff: If…
Jus Leges: Objection Judge, the question leads the witness to instruct the jury with his subjective opinion.
Judge Inquisitio: Overruled, the witness as an expert may answer.
Prof. Paidoff: The intent of the law and the courts have found that if a reasonable person in the place of the victim would have felt provoked, incited, or insulted beyond a state of peace, then an offense did occur; even if it was publicly reading from a book.
Asst. Att. Gen. U. N. Lover: And if it was a misdemeanor, could the hate-crime penalty enhancer increase the penalty?
Prof. Paidoff: Yes.
Asst. Att. Gen. U. N. Lover: Thank you, professor. I have no further questions Your Honor.
Judge Inquisitio: Mr. Leges, would you like to cross-examine?
Jus Leges: Yes, thank you.
Jus Leges (standing): Professor Paidoff, let’s see where to start. Okay, concerning Alfred Kinsey’s published research, which as you stated greatly influenced our Courts as well as England’s though the Wolfenden Report, did the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned sodomy laws, rely on Kinsey Reports?
Prof. Paidoff: Yes.
Jus Leges: Didn’t Dr. Judith Reisman, author of Kinsey: Crime and Consequences; and others in that field of science, show that Kinsey used fraudulent data, even inflicted sexual torture on hundreds of children in his studies?
Prof. Paidoff: That has not been sufficiently proven.
Jus Leges: Well is it true that Kinsey stated that ’40 – 50 % of farm boys have sex with animals,’ and that ‘2 in 5’ adult males have had an ‘overt homosexual experience?’
Prof. Paidoff: Yes, but…
Jus Leges: Just answer please. Is it also true that Dr. Reisman revealed that 86% of Kinsey’s male subjects were sexually, criminally or mentally abnormal?
Prof. Paidoff: I do not know the percentage.
Jus Leges: You know accurate percentages of increases in state and national same-sex couples; you know detail facts of numerous cases in many nations, but you don’t know the research subjects of a study so important that it changed the very laws of nations?
Prof. Paidoff: Not exactly.
Jus Leges: Well, can you tell us if it is true that Kinsey used criminals and sexually and mentally abnormal people as subjects in his study?
Prof. Paidoff: Yes, but the research is…
Jus Leges: (Interrupting) The research is such, that didn’t Supreme Court Justice Scalia say (reading), “‘the law-profession culture’ is on record as subscribing to Kinsey’s sexual ideology. Consider that over a 16 year period, from 1982 to 1998, at least 1,000 major law school journal articles quoted Kinsey as their sex science authority. And the critically important American Association of Law Schools commands total submission to its homosexual ‘equity’ ethic?”
Prof. Paidoff: Something to that nature.
Jus Leges: And did not Justice Scalia also say, ‘not just the law schools… but our major universities are self-identified as leftists?’ And Scalia said, ‘bad science, as seen in Lawrence, produces bad law.’
D.A. Luke Warm: Objection! Is the defense going to make its closing argument early Your Honor?
Judge Inquisitio: Questions of the cross-examination nature, Mr. Leges.
Jus Leges: Professor, is it true that The Science Citation & Social Science Citation Indices from 1948 to 1997 noted that about 5,800 articles or publications quoted Kinsey, and the next closest citation relating to ‘sexuality’ was Masters & Johnson, at 3,700?
Prof. Paidoff: I know that Kinsey and Masters & Johnson are the most quoted, I did not know how often.
Jus Leges: Was Kinsey’s research the key to making certain changes in the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code?
Prof. Paidoff: It was seen as helpful, but to say key…
Jus Leges: (Interrupting) Well, did Jonathan Hardy, author of Alfred C. Kinsey, Sex the Measure of All Things. A Biography (1998), write that ‘The American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code of 1955 is virtually a Kinsey document?’
Prof. Paidoff: I am not sure of the exact quote.
Jus Leges: I have the book here to summit as evidence, would you like to refresh your mind to the statement?
Prof. Paidoff: No, I believe that Gathorne-Hardy did write that.
Jus Leges: Mr. Paidoff, you mentioned Canada’s sec. 319; isn’t it true that subsection 3, of Section 319, states that ‘No person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection 2 if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text?’
Prof. Paidoff: It does, but that relates to…
Jus Leges: (interrupting) Professor, I am sure, Mr. Luke Warm or U.N. Lover will re-direct; I just have a couple more simple questions. Now, isn’t it true that Justice Scalia, with two other Justices agreeing, stated that ‘The Court needs to revisit this decision in the light of new facts… the knowledge that a duplicitous (deceitful) sexual deviant was the primary source used by the U.S. Supreme Court as their ‘sex science’ authority in Lawrence v. Texas?’
Prof. Paidoff: The majority of the Court did not say the information was deceitful.
Jus Leges: Professor, in the case of State of Louisiana vs. Felton Dorsey, where the ACLU, the Southern Center for Human Rights, and the NAACP stood ‘in support of defendant,’ a ‘poor black man accused of killing a white firefighter,’ because he was convicted in the Caddo Parish Courthouse where a confederate flag donated by the Daughters of the Confederacy was flying, what was the argument of the defense?
Prof. Paidoff: If I recall, about 2010, a black juror refused to serve on a jury to convict a black man under the shadow of the confederate flag; and the defense stated, “Courts across the country have recognized that, for many people and particularly for African-Americans, the Confederate flag is a provocative and ‘controversial racial and political symbol.’ A Louisiana federal district court recognized years ago that the display of the Confederate flag… at …High School represented ‘an affront to every Negro student in the school.’ …In 2001, the Fourth Circuit acknowledged… the confederate flag is a symbol of racial separation and oppression…”.
Jus Leges: Didn’t the defense seek to overturn the murder conviction and death sentence on grounds that flying the flag outside the courthouse was prejudicial to the defendant’s case?
Prof. Paidoff: Yes.
Jus Leges: Professor, one last question: As the Confederate flag is for many, especially many African-Americans, in fact a symbol of oppression and a great offensive; if following that same logic, then would not the Bible, which is for many, especially most homosexuals and atheist, in fact a symbol of oppression and a great offensive, also be seen by the courts as so provocative and controversial and such a symbol of separation among religions, that they would find it also should not be displayed in public?
Prof. Paidoff: Not only is the argument the same and true, but because of their offensives, neither the Confederate Flag nor the Bible should be allowed in public.
James: Mr. Leges and Judge Inquisitio, if I may, I have two questions.
Judge Inquisitio: Mr. Leges, shall Mr. James… complete your cross-examination of this witness?
Jus Leges: Yes, Judge, if you will.
Judge Inquisitio: You have two questions, Mr. James…
James: Professor, it is true we should not cause offensive to others, but I ask you, even if that flag was offensive to all the thousands of murders, rapist and thieves found guilty in that courthouse, is that sound reasoning to appeal their guilt and set them free?
Professor Paidoff: If the flag was so offensive that it was prejudicial to their cases, then yes.
James: Professor, though offensive, the Bible finds murders, rapist, thieves and homosexuals so guilty that they are in danger of eternal torment, and if that is true, then no matter how offensive, should not it not only be brought out in public, but also broadcasted from every available source of media?
D.A. Luke Warm: Objection, not relevant to the case.
James: If you were not lukewarm, you would see it is absolutely the heart of the case!
Judge Inquisitio: You are in contempt Mr. James… that’s another 30 days; and you are excused Professor Paidoff. Okay, we are going to take a short recess. I’ll see counsel in my chambers now. We will reconvene at…
However, I will stick to the case, and the case itself has opened the doors to the definitions of the laws in which we call ‘civil rights’ which are the rights of civilians under the protection and laws of our great nation. Yet, understand, the definitions of these rights are not so easy to understand, for they change as society changes.
For example, two hundred years ago, even the government itself discriminated against ‘Negros’ or blacks. Nevertheless, just rights were restored to black citizens of America, because they were in fact ‘created equal by our Creator,’ and when they and their ‘posterity’ or any other member of our society, regardless of race, or religion, do not trespass against society, then they have and deserve ‘the blessings of liberty’ that God and the nation offers.
Yet, understand the government and society still discriminates. They in fact discriminate against certain classes of citizens, regardless of their race or religion or nationality, not for the sake of those facts, but for the sake of one fact, that they are trespassers. These classes include murders, rapist, and thieves; and rightly so society tells them and their posterity, if you rise up and act in such evil ways, we will separate you; we will imprison you; and in certain states and certain cases, we will in fact kill you!
So understand, when society tells a Christian, you can no longer call a homosexual a sodomite, even if he admits he is, and you can no longer quote scriptures from the Book which at one time was sacred to most of that society’s ancestors and proven beyond any doubt to have been once freely spoken from for centuries over our entire nation and in so many of its courthouses, then we have elevated a whole class of sinners and trespassers of ancient and holy laws to the same status as God-fearing blacks and God-fearing women. We have insulted all the races, women, and legal immigrants, by placing sinners as their equals. Moreover, because of the abominations created by our legislatures, and protected by our courts, the true Christian is threaten with being placed not among the righteous, as the prophets and apostles who spoke true warnings with love, but among the classes of murders and thieves.