Gays Excluded from 14th Amendment Protections, Argue Chicago Lawyers

That doesn't even make any sense. Below is the text of the 14th Amendment. I've taken it from the web page of the Cornell University Law School. Section One seems to make the whole thing pretty straightforward.

Would any of our lawyerly Chewers care to comment?

"Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. "

I'm all for this decision. Since I can't enter into private contracts with my partner, join the military or be entitled to the protections of the Constitution anymore I assume I don't have to pay taxes either. Fuck You USA!!!

Yeah, I have to say I don't see a lot of wriggle room there.

Maybe Chicago should consider showing a bit of humanity.

Chicago is a very gay friendly place, though it would appear the city is trying to change that.

This is absolutely, unforgivably despicable.

True dat. This is a backfiring of progressive ideas to advance group identity over individualism. The guy was a human being that got beat up by cops. Who gives a flying fuck what he does in his bedroom? It should have no bearing. Were the cops homophobic assholes? Perhaps, but thoughts aren't illegal. Yet.

If they filed the suit from the "gay victim" angle then the city just pulled a major league technicality out of its ass and is correct.

It's wrong for cops to pull over and beat the shit out of you. There's your lawsuit. Just because you happen to be queer you shouldn't lean on that as an excuse.

Is it shitty for the city to do this? Sure, but it is Chicago! What the fuck would you expect?

*EDIT* After seeing Ripoll's post let me clarify the above, Chicago is a corrupt city, not perhaps unfriendly to gays.

They don't describe the suit he's bringing against the city. If it involves the city violating the rights of homosexuals as a group, their lawyers could play that game.

If it's violating that guy's rights individually though...They are completely (and deservedly) fucked.

I'm not sure I see the technicality. He was arrested by the cops then taken out of the car, beaten and subject to slurs. Not only is it un-constitutional, it might also be listed as a hate crime.

Again, he's not using it as an excuse, he's saying he was beaten by cops who were yelling slurs while they were doing it.

Unless they plan to argue that being gay is a rebellious insurrection against the United States and therefor subject to section 4.

That's a good point, Death Surge. They don't point out the specifics of the lawsuit.

The article says that the cop was using homophobic slurs while beating the man. Those aren't thoughts. His use of slurs was part of the assault.

But do you think the city's lawyers want to play that game? I hate to argue slippery slope but I kind of have to in this case. If GLBTs are not protected because they are a group then the police can then claim the same for any demographic that may be lumped together as a group including blacks, Asians, hispanics, or even teens.

The technicality lies in the language of the 14th. It applies to individuals. No getting around that. I wouldn't have labeled what the city has done as interesting so much as creative or brilliant. Fucked up, but brilliant.

Hate crime? If I punch you in the mouth does it really matter what I am thinking when I do it? Should I really get more fines and jail time because of whats in my head? The concept of hate crimes is asinine. If I kill someone I should get an extra 20 years because I didn't like the way he sashayed?


Shouldn't matter. Cops beating people not forcibly resisting arrest should be a simple enough lawsuit.

Don't file the lawsuit on the grounds of being beaten up because you are queer. The attorney pretty much says we filed one portion of the suit based on my clients sexual orientation.

I think that is where we are saying the city has a leg up.

Again, not in his head. The officer physically assaulted the man and verbally assaulted him by use of homophobic slurs. Doing this could imply that the officer was beating the man because he had a problem with his assumed sexual orientation.

Yeah, so says the white, straight guy.

If I see a known homosexual walking down the street and scream "faggot" at him and do nothing else, can I be charged with a crime?

I think, legally, you'd be a dick.

To think I was just at my college's Queer meet-n-greet, and they were extolling the virtues of how gay-friendly Chicago is.

Again, I'm stating we don't know what their suit is based on and A city's lawyers will do everything within their power to win a suit. "Teens", "Asians", and "Hispanics" as a group aren't protected by the constitution either, but individuals who are American citizens are, so it hardly makes a case for wide scale discrimination against them were this to win.

OK, you may have a point. Is it the angry white male who decries hate crime legislation the most. Quite possibly. But if I am killed by a NOI member what are the odds that a hate crime will be filed?

There's a big difference between being punched by some random drunk and someone deliberately targetting you because of your sexual orientation/skin colour/religion.

There's no way this will ever stand up to any review by a higher-level court. It really just makes no sense.

The Constitution says: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." So any person born or naturalized in the United States, regardless any group affiliation, is protected. I really don't understand the city's argument, unless, as horrid pointed out, they're going to try and classify homosexuals as as a rebellious group. Again, good luck trying to get that one past a higher court.

Thinking doesn't enter into this one because the cops were saying homophobic things while beating the man.

I sort of agree with you that it shouldn't matter but it does. State of mind of the murderer always enter into a murder trial, why should assault be any different? Would the cops have beaten this guy as badly or at all if he was straight or if they hadn't known about his sexuality? That's a very important question. And, I think, a very valid one to ask.

I'm fairly certain that you can't, though I don't know what laws are on the books in your state. But, yeah, you'd be a dick.

But we're not talking about someone yelling slurs at another person. We're talking about a cop beating a citizen and, through his words, making it clear that the assault was, at least in part, driven by the cop's feelings about gay men. There is a big, big difference, a difference that I think is important to note in a legal context.

Hate to break that to you but the federal government and 45 states all have "Hate Crimes" on the books already. So yes, your reasoning for assaulting someone results in an additional charge which gets weighed against you in sentencing.

And you would be right. I wouldn't engage in such behavior but as a thought exercise here in the thread I brought it up.

I am sure the people of Chicago are fine with queers. I don't think the government is trying to create some sort of precedent here by enacting laws making every homosexual stitch a rainbow triangle to their clothing as identification. They just saw a perfect legality to exploit.

I know that, but that does that make the laws constitutional?

Well, it really all depends on whether or not the individual's feelings about white men were related to your murder. Oh, and if your family hires a good lawyer.

So, it may be a case of a prosecuting attorney making the wrong decision on which crime to prosecute for? That would be kind of shitty.

No one has escalated it to the supreme court, so there's no decision on it yet. There's a case for unconstitutionality with regards to the 1st amendment, and personally, I see it as nothing more than pile on legislation akin to just about all drunk driving laws.

However, I don't lose any sleep that people are convicted of them in addition to murder/assault charges. I just can't get worried about narrow minded assholes spending extra time in prison, no matter how hard I try.

As Miss Zooey says, if the member of the NOI was calling you honky or white trash while beating you then a case is there to be made. You would just have to find a lawyer willing to follow your case all the way up to SCOTUS.

Ryan and Zooey,

I am with you guys. Truly I am. What I am about to say next is not going to come out the way I want it to because it has been over ten years since I read the article that detailed the information I am trying to recall. Please try to get my general gist. In GA I know that when juries are tasked with deciding the outcome of a trial they are also instructed to look at the laws in question themselves and have some say in the, for lack of proper recall, constitutionality of the law. Is it a good law or something to that effect.

This is where I am coming from. I personally do not feel hate crimes should be on the books. Do we have them? Sure, but that doesn't make thought criminalization any worse for our Republic. Beating the crap out of someone is crime enough.

Intent is key in determining whether something is voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, murder, etc. It's not like the component of intent was unheard of in terms of figuring out different levels of culpability prior to the idea of "hate crimes." It's somewhat different, but it doesn't necessarily seem unconstitutional to me.

They better.

Seriously though, when was the last hate crime you heard about filed against a minority?

*braces for the google onslaught*

I believe this is a civil suit, so it might be a lawyer trying to up the ante enough that the city is using every conceivable angle to lower a settlement.

One of the most surprising things you learn your first semester of Constitutional Law is how little of the Constitution is actually read literally.

For example, the 14th amendment's equal protection clause is generally interpreted to apply to groups, not individuals. I.e., laws that target those of African descent would be subject to "strict scrutiny", meaning that the law must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest.

If it's a law targeting a person under 18, on the other hand, it need only pass a "rational basis" test, meaning that the law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. There is even intermediate scrutiny (which has several prongs of it's own).

The upshot: laws that affect groups may fall afoul of the equal protection clause, but only certain groups receive "extra protection", and how an individual is treated is generally irrelevant unless it is representative of an official or unofficial governmental policy/conduct.

And for the record there's no malice toward you in my posts, just discussion.

I see where you are coming from in terms of the hate crime legislation but I think it's safe to say that I don't agree. If juries are asked to decide on a regular basis the difference between 1st Degree and 2nd Degree Murder then ascertaining the difference between a crime between two people of different races and a hate crime should be allowed.

My Monday evening class this semester is "Constitutional Law," so I look forward to lots of headaches.

Why would you hear about it, though? I would suspect that most black or Hispanic on white crime, even if it contains racial slurs, probably has a lot more to do with economics. In other words, the intent probably had more to do with robbery than simply beating someone up for racism's sake. It's not like well-to-do blacks and Hispanics start shit with white people on the basis of race. If you look at the situation in reverse, though, I'd guess most white-on-minority crime has a lot less to do with economics and more to do with race. I guess the way to determine this would be to see how many white-on-minority crimes result in robbery, etc.

Also, the courts are presumably not flooded with cases of gay-on-straight attacks.

Actually, I've been using Goodsearch lately.

Here is a summary of hate crime stats from 2004, attributed to the FBI. If you'll note, the first category is "anti-white."

Ah...

As I understand it, the burden of proof is much lighter in a civil case, correct? So, this guy's lawyer may simply be after the easy way to get money for his client, and he may have just screwed that up.

For the record, I am so glad I never applied for Law School despite having written my LSAT. It makes my head hurt.

Interesting. "Anti-white" crimes are up there past "anti-male homosexual" crimes. I wonder why the "anti-homosexual" crimes don't amount to the same amount as the combined "anti-male homosexual" and "anti-female homosexual" crimes.

That's a fascinating list. I can only assume a lot of the anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant attacks are in areas heavily populated by the (old school) Irish. I just can't imagine someone in South Dakota beating up some "papist worshippin' bastard"

Also, the fact that anti-white crimes are second on the race list is interesting. I would have guessed that hispanics get more abuse.

Yeah, I threw around some of my meager rep points already to get that point across myself.

Perhaps the "anti-homosexual" crimes were directed against a mixed-gender group of homosexuals, whereas the others were directed at specific genders. I don't think the "anti-homosexual" is meant to be interpreted as a total of the others.

Is killing me because I have more money than you somehow less despicable than killing me for the color of my skin? The idea that we would criminalize things like this where I stumble. Crimes is crimes.

Since I am fairly new to the boards and jumped into the Wii Friend Code thread instead of the New Chewer thread I guess a little background about my political affiliations may be in order. I am both a big "L" and a small "l" libertarian who supports the Iraq war on the basis of upholding UN resolutions.

I spent most of my college years partying in straight and gay clubs and my feelings on sexual orientation are best summed up by a Dennis Miller rant:

People who get off tend not to be nuts who get off offing people. The only real problem I have is with bisexuals. I think we can all agree these people are incredibly greedy motherfuckers. I don't care what you fuck but fuck it regularly. Show me a little tubal integrity will you?

I don't know the answer to that, honestly. They're both pretty despicable, but they seem like different enough crimes to me that I can see handling them differently, legally speaking. I'm not necessarily arguing for tacking on bonus punishment for "hate crimes" as the tendency seems to be, mind you, but just for different considerations.

The thing is that any violent crime perpetrated in the interest of procuring goods or money is a side-effect. A violent crime perpetrated simply to do harm because of race suggests something additional about the nature of the perpetrator.

Also, if there's an identifiable racist/homophobic/anti-religious component to any sort of police brutality, I think it makes sense that it should be differently than an instance in which, say, a scared cop overcompensated against a suspect he incorrectly deemed dangerous or something. I'm not sure if that's a court issue as much as something the department would want to internally evaluate, but it seems the intent would be pretty important there.

You may have a hard road ahead of you.

Sometimes, it's amazing to me that Dennis Miller used to be funny on SNL.

No offense scsotdc, but the thing you don't seem to get is that society crafts the potency of their criminal laws on the basis of the specific harm to society of that particular crime. That's why someone convicted of tax evasion is not going to get as much jail time as someone committing a serious felony like bank robbery or murder (and if they commit both at around the same time, they can qualify for the death penalty in most states). People attacking minorities in an effort to "put them in their place" or some other stupid racist reason has been recognized as something that needs harsher methods to dissuade people from committing those types of crimes. I don't see a problem with it.

And as for those government lawyers, gays might not be a special protected class on the level of minorites like blacks, or women, but they are still somewhat protected from government intimidation. Look at Lawrence v. Texas, etc.

Of course the black guy doesn't see anything wrong with it. What about all of us white guys getting bullshit prison terms just for torturing someone based on their race? Why don't you feel bad about that? Racist.

Scsotdc, I believe you are thinking of jury nullification

I hope that link works the way it's supposed to. Anyway, I find Chicago's defense laughable.