External Articles | Posted: September 5, 2010
Family group wonders where is federal hate-crimes law?
Worried attacks based on sexual orientation falling under state statutes
By Bob Unruh
(Source: WND) Family advocates are raising questions about the apparent absence of the nation's new federal "hate crimes" law in a series of cases that have involved attacks based on sexual orientation and have left several people dead, including two young children.
"Quite obviously the major threat to a homosexual comes from their own same-sex partner ... will these incidents of same-sex domestic abuse be considered hate crimes?" asked Diane Gramley, chief of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania.
"These individuals were targeted because of their 'sexual orientation' so why wouldn't these incidents qualify as a hate crime?" she asked.Citing a series of recent cases of lesbians attacking lesbians, Gramley noted that, "Consistently, FBI statistics have shown that it is more dangerous in this country to be African-American or Jewish than to identify as homosexual and be the victim of a hate crime."
She said her organization opposed the federal law as it was developed and adopted last year, and "actually opposes all hate crimes laws. But recent incidents of same-sex domestic violence show just how misguided the law is."
The cases have included Nicole Chuminski, convicted earlier this year on two counts of second-degree murder for the deaths of the two daughters of her "lover," Anna Reisopoulos. Reports say the two argued and Chuminski was enraged, leaving the home but returning a short time later to throw a firebomb into the home. Sophia, 2, and Acia, 14, were burned so badly their dental records were needed to identify them.
A few weeks later, Annamarie Rintala of Granby, Mass., was found strangled in a home she shared with "Cara." Then also there was Eunice Field of Brockton, Mass., who marched into the apartment of Lorraine Wachsman this month, allegedly grabbed a knife and stabbed Wachsman in the back and neck.
Gramley also cited a Pennsylvania case, "where a lesbian sexually assaulted her girlfriend." Another case resulted in the death of Elaine Pierson in 2007 and two other lesbians "assaulted each other with a rope and knife."
Dr. Judith Reisman, author of "Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America," told WND her studies of sexual deviancy over the decades has confirmed that "gay-on-gay" battery actually is common.
"Indeed, it is statistically more significant than is heterosexual battery - that is often triggered by repressed memories of pederastic sex abuse," she said.
"My interviews with recovering homosexuals and those still in the 'life' confirm early sexual abuse as a motivating factor in their resulting homosexuality. This bitter background of betrayal supports a higher rate of same sex battery than is found in marital violence.
"This is especially true in lesbian relations. My in-depth interviews with lesbians confirm the data on their high incest rate - much more so than among male homosexuals," she continued. "The claims of low reporting due to police hostility means the high level of same sex violence is drastically underreported by male and female homosexuals."
She explained, "In their frank but empathetic book, 'Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them,' David Island and Patrick Letellier, a [battered] homosexual psychologist and his counselor colleague, wrote of the commonality of homosexual and lesbian battery as reflecting a generally violent lifestyle. While Island and Letellier address mainly male conduct, they report lesbian-on-lesbian battery as similarly usual and as the third most significant health problem among lesbians."
At Renewing America, Carey Roberts wrote in a commentary that, "experts on lesbian domestic violence were shocked, but honestly not surprised by these [reported] incidents.
"Last November a report by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs reported a 125 percent increase in domestic violence fatalities in lesbian and gay couples around the country during the prior year. According to Beth Leventhal of The Network/La Red of Boston, 'partner abuse in LGBT communities can be just as lethal as that in heterosexual communities,'" Roberts wrote.
The commentary noted a survey this year of more than 51,000 California adults found 28 percent of persons in lesbian/gay relationships had experienced intimate partner violence, compared to 17 percent of persons in heterosexual relationships.
"It's also believed that lesbians are more likely to engage in partner violence than gay men. According to the Boston Gay Men's Domestic Violence Project, one in three homosexual women experience partner aggression, compared to only one in four homosexual men," the commentary explained.
But, noted Gramley, since President Obama signed into law last year an expansion of the nation's hate crimes laws to include "sexual orientation and gender identity," the obvious question rises about why is it not being applied in such cases.
Reisman says a large part of the problem can be attributed to the work of Alfred Kinsey, the subject of her "Sexual Sabotage" book. It documents how Kinsey surrounded himself with "homosexual lovers and pornography stars, sex procurers, panderers and predators, each with his own deviance," and he "required (them) to look like sober, sensible professionals in suits and ties, with short hair."
The illusion of buttoned-down normalcy allowed Kinsey's seminal work to present clearly criminal findings with nominal outrage, said Reisman.
As "Sexual Sabotage" reports: "'Sexual Behavior in the Human Male' reports data 'on 214 male children' ... Kinsey asserted, 'Of the 214 cases ... all but 14 were subsequently observed in orgasm.' Observed?! Who 'subsequently observed' (defined as 'occurring or coming later or after') these infants and boys being - yes - sexually tortured, timed and recorded? Who, of Kinsey's team, did this under his direction? The youngest boy tested to 'climax' is '2 mon.' old."
The Hate Crimes Act, signed into law in 2009 by Obama, was dubbed by its critics as the "Pedophile Protection Act" after an amendment to explicitly prohibit pedophiles from being protected by the act was defeated by majority Democrats. During congressional debate, supporters argued that all "philias," or alternative sexual lifestyles, should be protected.
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.
The law was promoted by its advocates as cracking down on "bias" crimes motivated by a person's "actual or perceived" "sexual orientation" or "gender identity".
Obama signed the "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act" in October 2009 after Democrats strategically attached it to a "must-pass" $680 billion defense-appropriations bill.
The law cracks down on any acts that could be linked to criticism of homosexuality or even the "perception" of homosexuality. As Congress debated it, there were verbal assurances it would not be used to crack down on speech.
Obama boasted of the "hate crimes" bill when he signed it into law.
"After more than a decade, we've passed inclusive hate-crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are," he said.
But in the U.K., where such regulations have been around longer, a senior citizen was accused of "hate crimes" for writing a letter objecting to a pro-homosexual festival:
"This is the way it gets implemented in all the other countries," Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Coalition said. "Christians are singled out for prosecution, with threats, imprisonment and fines simply for refusing to stop doing what Christ commands: proclaiming the truth."
"[These cases] are a good precursor of where this goes," he warned.
The bill signed by Obama was opposed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which called it a "menace" to civil liberties. The commission argued the law allows federal authorities to bring charges against individuals even if they've already been cleared in a state court.