On June 7, 1998, James Byrd Jr. was beaten, chained to a truck and dragged three miles to his death in rural Jasper County, Texas. Mr. Byrd was black, his murderers were white.
According to the autopsy, Byrd was probably alive when his right arm and head were severed from his body. Following the sub-human murder, the men disposed of Mr. Byrd’s partially dismembered body in the town’s black cemetery, then went to a barbeque.
Later that year, the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act was introduced in the Texas legislature. No one doubted – from local law enforcement to the FBI – that the brutal murder had been motivated by racism. Two of the murderers, in fact, were self-avowed white supremacists.
Regardless of the horrific nature of the crime and the apparent racist motives of the murderers, the bill died in a Senate subcommittee. The suspicion at the time was that the bill had been allowed to die in committee because sexual orientation had been added to the bill’s list of prosecutable offenses. The belief was that Senate Republicans had killed the bill to spare Governor (and presidential candidate) George W. Bush the inevitable political fallout he would face if he vetoed the bill. Conventional wisdom at the time was that Governor Bush would have been willing to sign the bill had sexual orientation not been included. Alas, candidate Bush could not sign a bill granting special status to gays and lesbians without alienating his evangelical base.
When forced to explain his position on the bill, candidate Bush argued that an existing law (enacted by Governor Ann Richards) made additional legislation unnecessary.
To justify further his out-of-the-mainstream position, Bush smugly – and speciously – argued “[it would] be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death,” referring to the death sentences that two of the murderers had received.
Needless to say, Bush, who holds the singular distinction of executing more people than any other governor in modern history, sees everything through a very narrow lens. Laws, to Bush, exist to punish rather than deter.
Supporters of the bill, however, countered that the existing law made prosecution difficult, adding, correctly, that not all hate crimes were punishable by the death penalty, as Bush’s tortuous argument seemed to imply.
On May 11, 2001, Bush’s successor, Governor Rick Perry, faced with overwhelming public support, signed into law the bill that candidate Bush timorously and self-servingly avoided.
Texans today – no thanks to George Bush or to the Young Conservatives of Texas – are protected by one of the strongest hate-crime laws in the country. While Bush may have withheld his support for the bill as a matter of political expediency, members of YCT lobbied against the bill, even during Senate hearings, as a matter of, well, honestly, I’m not really sure what the YCT stands for or against.
I’m sure someone will write to explain by what line of (un)reasoning anyone could reasonably oppose deterring crime against persons because of “race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry.”
Arguing against the bill, Marc Levin, the group’s state vice-chairman at the time, parroted the official Bush talking point, saying, “We believe that we have a very strong criminal justice system in Texas,” adding, “We execute more people than anyone.”
My question, to President Bush, Mr. Levin or any surrogate who would like to argue affirmatively, is how executing more people than any other state in the country has anything to do with opposing additional penalties for someone who commits a crime motivated by hate for, or bigotry toward, another person.
And, on a purely personal note, explain to me why writing FAGGOT on my office door is no worse – no more egregious, no more repugnant – than simply writing IDIOT. And should the person who wrote FAGGOT on my office door, if caught, be treated identically to a person who simply vandalized property?
Are my peace-of-mind and human dignity worth roughly – or exactly – the equivalent of the door that was vandalized? If so, please explain.
And to whomever accepts my invitation to public debate, please explain how the person who sent an anonymous e-mail attacking me (as happened on Sept. 16), not just for my political views, but also because of my sexuality, not because I attacked George Bush, but because I dared elegize a former governor who had just died, should be dealt with when he is caught.
And, while you’re at it, explain to me why being called a faggot – not once, but twice – is no more grievous than being called a four-eyed leftist. Not to mention being directed to engage in an activity so obscene that standards of decency prevent me from elaborating.
Honestly, I don’t know if the culprits – or culprit, assuming it’s the same invertebrate individual who wrote FAGGOT on my door – resent me because I challenge his belief system or naively believe that the harassment will intimidate me into shutting up.
Maybe the person doesn’t believe in free speech. Maybe he’s frustrated because he can’t articulate his views well enough to participate in public debate. Maybe he feels threatened by a world that is evolving faster than his own Neanderthal political and religious views. Or maybe he just hates me because I’m gay.
For good or for bad, we live in a country in which hate is still legal — until the hate turns into a hate crime.
George Henson is a Spanish professor at SMU. He can be reached at [email protected].
