Here are the facts which are not in dispute.
1. Robert Hannah went to a gay area in Washington DC and beat a gay man to death in front of witnesses.
2. The REASON for this beating was that his victim was gay.
3. The sentence imposed by the judge on October 15, 2009 was 180 days, and $50 in court costs for misdemeanor assault.
4. As part of the deal the Judge Rafael Diaz also threw out an unrelated conviction for shoplifting.
This IS in dispute:
1. The killer claims the gay man made a sexual advance. That was his DEFENSE against a murder charge.
2. All the eye witnesses say the gay man did NOT make a sexual advance.
After offering the plea deal to the killer, the judge was apparently going to impose much less than than the maximum sentence for misdemeanor assault but political pressure forced him to reconsider.
The key part to this story is that the killer put out the fact that the victim was gay as his sole defense to a murder charge -- and it worked, And that was not in some hick town staffed by the KKK. This was our nation's Capital.
This is the "gay panic" defense which has become so common. Murderers have learned that if they kill a gay man, all they have to do is claim the man made an advance on them, even if that claim is obviously false, and they can get off with a slap on the wrist.
I am hoping that the newly signed hate crime legislation will help put an end to this miscarriage of justice -- at least in the future. Robert Hannah made it in under the wire. Hopefully the next person who tries to beat a murder rap by claiming his victim was gay and so "deserved" it will get additional punishment for engaging in a hate crime.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 45
Somehow these people need to get the message that they are NOT heroes, but rather criminals.
This is very disturbing, There is a Racist Justice System and there is an Anti-Gay Justice System.
This Judge Rafael Diaz is a Perfect Idiot.
In July 2008 Luis Ramirez was killed by a gang of Six Thugs, Football Players, and Luis was a small man. After many Racial Slurs, and Racial Insults. In Shenandoah Pennsylvania. This murder had a lot of Sadism and Cruelty.
There were several witnesses of the Coward Action.
"While the men yelled racial epithets at Ramirez, they punched and kicked his head and body so severely that he lay foaming at the mouth with two skull fractures.
Once Ramirez was on the ground he was continually kicked until brain matter leaked from his skull."
If yelling racial slurs and getting violent to the point of beating someone to death is not a hate crime-I don’t know what is! Things
But the Racist Judge, Racist Prosecutor, Racist all White Jury, dismissed the case as an accident and the Six Coward Terrorists are now Scott Free.
If yelling racial slurs and getting violent to the point of beating someone to death is not a hate crime-I don’t know what is! .... And there were six Perfect Cowards.
More Information here :
Raciality.com
Vicente Duque
Hate crimes tend to be SIGNIFICANTLY more violent than other violent crimes. There is an excess of violence which goes way beyond whata you can find anywhere else.
If the judge dismisses the case or works out a super-generous plea bargain, there is not much anyone can do about it except try to get the judge removed from office. If it goes to a trial the hate crime legislation makes it less likely that the criminal will get away with a slap on the wrist.
Hate crime legislation makes it less likely that the criminal will bring up the sexuality of the person as a DEFENSE! If the subject of homosexuality was never brought up in this case, then the criminal would most likely have been found guilty of manslaughter, and would have receved an appropriate sentence.
Did you notice the ACTUAL penalty? 180 days plus a $50 fine to pay for court costs, with the level of the crime reduced to a misdemeanor. And in addition he got a "get out of jail free" card on an unrelated crime as a reward for taking that minimal punishment.
Hate crime legislation would make it harder for murderers to get away with a slap on the wrist.
How about enforcing the laws we have now?
How about getting back to capital punishment?
That is the issue.
http://www.connexion.org/rssitem.cfm?id=340563
"Hate" crime laws only add to the problem. These laws are based on what a judge or jury thinks the crimminal was thinking at the time of the crime. How ludicrous is that?
I know you have heard it before but I will say it again. All crimes are a form of some type of hate. Why should we give a few groups of people more "proctection" than others? Wrong is wrong. "Hate" crime law is an attempt to legislate morality based on "thought."
Our laws are not completely perfect, but they do need to be enforced. Let's go after the judges, lawyers, enforcement officers that choose to ignore existing laws. I've never heard of a judge being impeached, but I know it is possible. Judges are elected officials that we must hold accountable and if we don't it wont matter what laws are passed by the will of the people.
In addition, with hate crime laws on the books, the criminal is less likely to use the fact of a hate crime as his DEFENSE, which happens all too frequently, and all too successfully now.
There is also a SERIOUS problem with certain groups being targeted for serious, extremely violent crimes. If we do not address that problem, eventually the targeted minority will snap and start retaliating in the same way they have targeted. Eventually we get "equality". We can either have less violence against the minority, or increased violence against the majority. I prefer less violence.
>>All crimes are a form of some type of hate.<<
If you really believe that then you are a complete idiot.
That is just a bumper sticker thought with no basis in reality.
Should this not be the case in every crime? Shouldn't any case be able to be moved to a different location if any type of bigotry is evident? Why are some crimes considered hate and other not? Who gets to determine that? "Hate" crime laws make it more difficult for justice to be served. They are a tool used by select few in an effort to force others to "think" a certain way. That's called intimidation or black-mail.
">>All crimes are a form of some type of hate.<<
If you really believe that then you are a complete idiot."
Thank you. Recieving such a comment from you, I can take it as a badge of honor!
>Should this not be the case in every crime?<<br>
No, and it isn't.
>>Why are some crimes considered hate and other not? <<
Because hate crimes are domestic terrorism -- an assault on the well being of an entire class of people. It is rather easy to tell the difference.
>>"Hate" crime laws make it more difficult for justice to be served.<<
On the contrary. Without hate crime laws we continue to have a special class of "protected" violent criminals who are not punished for the crime of domestic terrorism, and usually get REDUCED punishment for the other related crimes, or get off completely, specifically because it IS a hate crime.
>>They are a tool used by select few in an effort to force others to "think" a certain way. <<
You mean as in thinking "perhaps I better not beat that gay guy to death with a baseball bat even though he is gay because that would be a crime"?
">>All crimes are a form of some type of hate.<<
If you really believe that then you are a complete idiot."
>>Thank you<<
You are welcome.
This is exactly why "hate" crime laws are so screwed up. By your own admission it is about "an entire class of people". Laws are to be written for all classes of people without respect for a particular class of people. "Hate" crimes are intended to give certain classes of people special class status. There are used to "protect" certain classes of people but never to convict them when the roles are reversed.
"You mean as in thinking "perhaps I better not beat that gay guy to death with a baseball bat even though he is gay because that would be a crime"? "
News Flash John!
It's a crime to beat anyone regardless of sexual preference to death. Hate is hate. A crime is a crime. One person's life is not more valueable than anothers.
>>This is exactly why "hate" crime laws are so screwed up. By your own admission it is about "an entire class of people". Laws are to be written for all classes of people without respect for a particular class of people.<<
I see. So your problem is that you are merely ignorant of how the law works.
Hate crimes are for ALL people. Anyone can be the object of a hate crime. If you check at how it is written, you will see that each category covers the entire populations. For example, every person is a member of some race or combination of races. Therefore hate crimes based on race protect all people. Everyone has a religion or atheism. Therefore everyone is protected by those laws. Everyone has a sexual orientation. Therefore everyone is protected by those laws.
"You mean as in thinking "perhaps I better not beat that gay guy to death with a baseball bat even though he is gay because that would be a crime"? "
>>News Flash John!
It's a crime to beat anyone regardless of sexual preference to death. <<
News flash Lee! It is ALSO illegal to use such action as a means of terrorizing a group of people based on race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation!
Now why don't you explain why you want to have a special protected class of violent criminal who is not to be punished for the crime of domestic terrorism?
Huhhh?
That makes no sense. So if a gay becomes a victim it's domesitc terroism? But if a straight is a victim it just a normal crime?
"Hate crimes are for ALL people. Anyone can be the object of a hate crime."
Can you name one case where a "hate" crime law was used to convict a gay or lesbian?
>>Huhhh?
That makes no sense. So if a gay becomes a victim it's domesitc terroism? But if a straight is a victim it just a normal crime?<<
It appears that your problem is that you are jsut ignorant of the law.
It does not matter if the target is straight or gay. What matters is if it is a hate crime. That decision is irrelevant to the sexual orientation of the victim, but rather the intent of the criminal.
We have a relatively large group of people who are encouraged to commit violent crimes against others because of their perveived race, sexual orientation, religion.
In one case the criminal saw two men walking arm in arm. One of them left to use the bathroom while the other waited outside. The criminal attacked and severely beat the man because he thought the man was gay.
The criminal was charged and convicted of a hate crime. The victim, however, was HETEROSEXUAL. He was BLIND, and was holding the other man's arm as a means of being guided around the mall. So the hate crime laws protect heterosexuals even when the criminal thinks he is assaulting a homosexual.
You are right about one thing, Gays tend to be law-abiding citizens, and for the most part do not engage in violent crimes anywhere near as often as heterosexuals. That does not mean that we should give a free pass to violent criminals who attack them just because they belong to a hated group.
Hate crimes are usually committed by the majority against the minority. That is because the person committing the hate crimes feels he can do so safely BECAUSE he feels the majority is on HIS side.
Hate crime laws help such criminals realize that the law will NOT be on his side.
A man was wandering around looking at stores and carrying a purse. He was jumped by a gang of teenagers who beat him and crushed his skull because they thought he was gay.
Actually he was just holding his wife's purse while she went to the ladies room.
Nonetheless the CRIMINALS attacked him because of his perceived sexual orientation, so this was a hate crime.
So once again we have an example of heterosexuals being protected by the hate crime laws. With the hate crime laws in place, you are less likely to be murdered if you hold your wife's purse while she uses the ladies room.
How about cases where gays sodomize hetersexuals? Can you point to a case where "hate crime" laws protected a hettersexual?
"It does not matter if the target is straight or gay. What matters is if it is a hate crime. That decision is irrelevant to the sexual orientation of the victim, but rather the intent of the criminal. "
Now your talking in circles.
"We have a relatively large group of people who are encouraged to commit violent crimes...."
Any proof to substantiate this statement. What do you mean by "relatively large group of people"? I would say it is wrong if it was just one person.
"Hate crime laws help such criminals realize that the law will NOT be on his side."
Should this not be the case for all criminals? Shouldn't all criminals come to the realization that the law will NOT be on his or her side. Or only those crimes that fall into the perceived "hate crime" template?
"Hate crimes are usually committed by the majority against the minority. That is because the person committing the hate crimes feels he can do so safely BECAUSE he feels the majority is on HIS side. "
Couldn't this be said of the "poor majority" stealing from the "minority rich"?
Wouldn't this make robbery a "hate crime"?
As far as I know there has not been a single instance of a homosexual sodomizing a heterosexual as a hate crime. The assaults appear to be all one way.
If it was just one person, then that one person could be brought to justice and that would be the end of it. The problem is that hate crimes against gays are actively encouraged. It is an unrelenting assault on their right to exist. I am sure you are not as ignorant as you pretend to be of how far-reaching this is.
You would think that it SHOULD be the case for all crimes that the criminal would realie that the law would not be on his side. However, most people committing hate crimes think they are HEROES for assaulting a member of a hated minority. They proudly proclaim it in court, and far too often doing so results in a reduced sentence or no punishment at all.
And you are wrong about theft. A thief KNOWS his crime will be prosecuted, and he will not get off because of the target of that crime.
July 29, 2001, Nashville, Tenn.
Willie Houston, 38, was fatally shot in the chest in Nashville, Tenn., after the alleged gunman, Lewis Maynard Davidson III, 25, taunted him with anti-gay epithets. Houston had just finished a midnight riverboat cruise with his fiancee, Nedra Jones, and friends. Houston escorted a blind male friend by the arm into a restroom while holding Jones’ purse. Inside the restroom, the gunman allegedly hurled anti-gay insults at the friends. He followed them out of the restroom while continuing his verbal harassment. Davidson then allegedly returned to his car where he retrieved a gun and said, “Now what you got to say?” before firing the weapon at Houston. Police are searching for Davidson and have yet to officially call it a hate crime, saying the investigation is “still very much open.” While the victim is reportedly not gay, Tennessee hate crime laws cover violence based on real or perceived sexual orientation. (The Tennessean, Aug. 1, 2001)
Man fired after saying homosexuality wrong
How hate-crime law works
News agencies gagging 'gay' factor in boy's rape
But coverage beyond bonkers for fake Duke lacrosse assault
RAPE, MUTILATION AND MURDER
Theives do get off easy sometimes because of liberal judges. In fact they have been known to win lawsuits against their victims for getting hurt during the crime.
Your first one is a man whining about why he got fired, and making up some lame excuse to justify himself. There is nothing there about the actual facts of the case. One thing we DO know is that people lie about why they got fired. :-)
Your 2nd is a rambling opinion piece by a raving homophobe who has no clue what he is talking about.
The third is a story which (if true, this is WorldNutDailyafter all) is an attempt to demonize gays for something done by heterosexuals. When a heterosexaul commits incest, no one goes on and on and on and on about how the guy is heterosexual, therefore all heterosexuals are pedophiles and rapists. They look at the individual and discuss HIS crime. Your homophobe there is insisting that the world behave differently, and more negatively, when there is a homosexual involved.
So it is true. "Hate" crime laws are designed to "protect" homosexuals and never to convict them.
"Hate" crime laws are a one way street. A street that leads to the forced acceptance, promotion and sanction of homosexuality. This is what I call forcing "morality" or should I say immorality down the throats of those who believe homosexuality is wrong and bad for society. "Hate" crime laws have nothing to do with hate. It's all about advancing an agenda.
I notice that a lot of homophobes love to use the phrase "forcing down my throat". :-) That is a Freudian slip. Did you know that scientific studies have shown that homophobes are significantly more likely to be sexually aroused by members of the same sex that non-homophobes? I am sorry that you are a closet case, but you really should not make it so obvious.
That's not what I said. (I could call you a liar, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt) What evidence do you have to support this statement? It might actually be true. However, there are still some homosexuals who do engage in violent crimes.
And yet I don't know of a single case where a gay or lesbian has been convicted of a "hate" crime.
The link didn't work on this one the first time:
RAPE, MUTILATION AND MURDER
Using "Forcing down my throat" as an inneuendo didn't even cross my mind. But leave to yourslef to bring it up.
Homophobe or homphobic labeling is a pathetic attempt at discrediting the beliefs of those who think homosexuality is wrong. Why isn't this consider hate speech? I know of no one who is scared of homosexuals.
>>That's not what I said. <<
It is, however, the gist of what you said, stripped of the emotional baggage.
>>Using "Forcing down my throat" as an inneuendo<<
You are the one who used it. You did not consciously think about what it meant. That is what makes it a Freudian slip. :-)
Assuming your link shows what you claim -- a gay man committing a hate crime against a heterosexual (BECAUSE he was heterosexual) some time before the hate crime laws went into effect -- then all that does is disprove your claim that it is all "one way". Heterosexuals would be "protected" just as much as homosexuals. Of course the hate crime laws do not really provide any benefit to the victims. They are still dead. That is because hate crime laws are about the CRIMINAL, not the victim.
Somehow I expect that if I found such a serious crime committed by a homosexual against a heterosexual, you would not see the homosexual getting a super-lenient sentence as we see when the victim is homosexual.
>>Homophobe or homphobic labeling is a pathetic attempt at discrediting the beliefs of those who think homosexuality is wrong.<<
The homophobe and homophobic bit only comes up when the homophobe goes around verbally or physically bashing others as a result of his hate. Keep your homophobic rants to yourself and no one will bother you.
But Channon’s hell was just beginning. She was beaten; gang raped repeatedly in many ways, had one of her breasts cut off and bleach poured down her throat to destroy DNA evidence—all while she was still alive.
It appears that the criminals you are discussing were HETEROSEXUAL. Yes they did rape the other guy prison style (a common action of heterosexuals in prison -- the assault is meant to humiliate the person, and has nothing to do with sexua orientation), but they dd not REPEATEDLY rape him as they repeatedly raped his girl friend. Clearly their ORIENTATION was heterosexual. Their rape of the guy in front of the girl was meant to humiliate her current boy friend, and it was the effect on the GIRL that got them so excited.
So you were wrong. Your link does not make your point. It is just one more example of heterosexuals treating people badly.
You should read your links and try to understand them before misusing them in a discussion this way.
More "hate" speech. Last I checked the first ammendment is still in the Constitution. This is a perfect example of what so-called "hate" crimes legislation is about. Homosexuals want to silence those who believe that homosexuality is wrong. Homophobic name calling reveals their desparation.
It appears that the criminals you are discussing were HETEROSEXUAL.
What do you mean it "appears"? Do you know the sex lives of the criminals?
How many times does a person have to steal to be considered a thief?
How many times does a person have to rape to be a rapist?
How many times does a person have to murder to be a murderer?
How many times does a person have to sodomize to be a homosexual?
"Their rape of the guy in front of the girl was meant to humiliate her current boy friend, and it was the effect on the GIRL that got them so excited."
Wow, you figured this our from reading an article on the crime. You are so amazing to be able know what the criminals were thinking when they were commiting rape, sodomy, torcher, and murder. I guess this is why "hate" crimes are considered laws against "thought." Isn't an attempt to humilate a guy by raping his girlfriend considered "hate"?
Are you really willing to give this guys a pass on the fact they sodomized
Newsom because you believe "it was the effect on the GIRL that got them so excited"? This is the worst twisted "logic" I think I've ever heard.
Is getting "excited" an excuse to sodomize?
If these guys had any sense of dignity, justice, compassion, or humanity they would have put a stop to the rape and torcher of the GIRL, not gotton excited about it.
And what twisted logic do you use to excuse Vanessa Coleman for raping Channon Gail Christian?
This crime does not fall into the "normal hate crimes" template that is why the media has done little coverage of it and why you are willing to discount it.
"While the violence and type of crime committed is very mush like the crimes of heterosexuals against gays, there is one major difference. All of the criminals got serious punishment for the crimes. In most similar cases where the victim is homosexual, the criminal gets a MUCH lighter sentence than those people got."
Do you have any statistics to back up your statement?
You seem to be Okay with the charges brought against the criminals in this case because you believe they got "serious punishment". I don't think these criminals nor the ones responsible for Matthew Shepards death got serious enough punishment. They deserve the death penalty.
Current laws must be enforced. "Hate" crimes depend on judges and jurists to "know" what criminals were thinking at the time of the crime. This is an impossiblity. Besides rape, murder, and torcher are all wrong no matter what a person is thinking. Instead of passing laws in attempt to legislate thought we should push for harsher sentences by judges. We need to hold them accountable. Judges are not untouchable. They can be removed from the bench.
>More "hate" speech. Last I checked the first ammendment is still in the Constitution. <<br>
I see you think the first amendment applies ONLY to homophobic rants.
I was merely offering you helpful advice. You were whining that people do not like your homophobic rants. As long as you do not engage in homophobic rants, no one will criticize you for them, using THEIR first amendment rights.
See? It is really easy. Don't verbally assault others and you will not have to whine because they verbally assaulted you BACK.
You will also also be called on your insistence that hate speech is "free speech", but speech which OPPOSES hatae speech isn't.
>What do you mean it "appears"? Do you know the sex lives of the criminals?<<br>
In the case you gave, they were clearly heterosexuals.
I am still waiting for you to provide a real instance of a gay man committing a hate crime against heterosexuals. I have provided you with a HETEROSEXUAL committing a hate crime against a heterosexual.
You are actually in a lot more danger from your fellow homophobes than from a homosexual.
>>If these guys had any sense of dignity, justice, compassion, or humanity they would have put a stop to the rape and torcher of the GIRL, not gotton excited about it.<<
But they did not. They raped the girl REPEATEDLY. They were heterosexuals.
So you have certainly shown proof that heterosexuals do truly horrible things to each other. Was that your intent?
>>This crime does not fall into the "normal hate crimes" template <<
I assume that was because it was heterosexual on heterosexual crime, just as Black on Black crime does not fit the normal template, They are not out to terrorize THEMSELVES.
>>Do you have any statistics to back up your statement?<<
Check my previous posts.
I see. So according to you there is no difference between first degree murder and justifiabls homicide.
Do you want the death penalty for justifiable homicide?
"In the case you gave, they were clearly heterosexuals."
Huh? Heterosexuals commiting homosexaul acts? They were at least bisexual. If they didn't commit homosexual acts why would you think it's okay for them to be charged with gay rape? You aren't making much sense. Apparantly homosexuals can never do wrong.
">>Do you have any statistics to back up your statement?<<
Check my previous posts."
Your previous posts give a couple of alleged cases not statistics.
And it is impossible to "know" exactly what a criminal was thinking at the time of the murder. That's why jurist are told to make their decisions beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is based on logical explanations in context of the physical evidence not on what the jurists might think the criminal was thinking.
It is, however, certainly ignorance of the "facts".
Some people prefer to ignore the facts in order to hold tight to their bigotry, no matter what.
>>"In the case you gave, they were clearly heterosexuals."
>>Huh? Heterosexuals commiting homosexaul acts?<<
No homosexual act there. There was an act of rape, prison style. One of those heteroseuxuals raped the boy friend in front of his girl friend to humiliate him before getting to their real goal -- REPEATEDLY raping the woman.
I know you don't like the facts very much here, but those guys REPEATEDLY raped the woman. That was their target.
>>They were at least bisexual.<<
Nope. Not at all. A rape is an act of violence, not of love. Note that the report said specifically that this was done PRISON style. In prison, heterosexual mean routinely rape other men as a way of establishing dominance.
Which does not in any way that the only reason the man was raped was to humiliate him in front of his girl friend before REPEATEDLY raping the girl.
So your example did not make your point, other than to show that heterosexuals are capable of doing really horrific things to other people.
>>And it is impossible to "know" exactly what a criminal was thinking at the time of the murder. That's why jurist are told to make their decisions beyond a reasonable doubt. <<
So why do you want to have a special protected class of violent criminal which is not required to meet the same requirements they have for other violent crimes?
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Ah, I see you are using the misinterpretation of Romans to try and force an anti-gay misinterpretation which is not supported ny the actual words.
When trying to respond to the actual words of Romans, which shows God changing the evil people from heterosexual (when they were sinning) to homosexuals (after the punishment), the people promoting the anti-gay message find themselves in a rather uncomfortable position. God would not force people to sin, but God forced these peolpe to engage in homosexual acts. They find themselves sitting in judgment of God, claiming that he was FORCING these people to sin, and creating what they consider evil. Rather than face up to the obvious -- that homosexuality is NOT a sin -- they start claiming that somehow the people decided on their own to have overwhelmingly powerful homosexual desires when before they had been solely heterosexual, and that God was just an innocent bystander not really doing anything at all.
The Greek word used to describe what God did is paredôken. It is written in the active tense. God was taking an ACTIVE role here, not just leaving them alone. The action being to change their sexual orientation into an overwhelming, irresistable homosexual one.
I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.
Rom 14:14
It also helps to consider WHY this was a punishment rather than a reward.
The actual word used in the text is :
paradiðdwmi
Verb 2:169,166
Definition:
to deliver up one to custody, to be judged, condemned, punished, scourged.
That is the meaning used here. An interesting point is that in the Koine Greek, this is in the ACTIVE tense, which means this is something God DID to them, not something that they did to themselves. The Bible makes this obvious as it shows them CHANGING from what they were before as the result of God's actions.
As the word shows, they were delivered into the custody of the new and overpowering sexual orientation which God created in them in order to be punished.
If you stop and think about it, there has to be a REASON that this was a punishment and not a reward. Most people do not consider it a punishment to be made to engage in sex. The only way it could be a punishment is if the people involved had a strong aversion to that particular type of sexual activity -- in other words, they were homophobes (just like those people promoting the anti-gay message). That is the reason God selected this particular punishment.
Those promoting the anti-gay message have not thought about this very much. Punishment implies force. Those people would not have been engaging in homosexual acts unless God forced them to, because they were homophobes. If they were NOT homophobes then it would NOT have been a punishment.
These people were homophobes, who would be ASHAMED of engaging in homosexual acts, and these acts were unseemly for THEM because they were HETEROSEXUALS. Therefore, when they engaged in those acts, they were NOT doing it through "their own will", but rather it was their punishment, which was FORCED on them. One thing that is ABSOLUTELY clear from these passages is that, before God's punishment, the people were HETEROSEXUALS.
The idea that an evil person would willing choose and engage in his own punishment which he abhored is ludicrous. Punishment is FORCED on someone. It is not something voluntartily chosen.
And God would not force someone to do something evil. Therefore homosexual acts are not evil, per Romans 1.
May he have mercy on yours. I think you may be more in need of that mercy.
God is NOT a nasty little sex-obsessed monster who hates people just because they love one another, and your attempts to slime God with that message reflects badly on you.
Straights do not understand. Think about how courts have treated blacks in the past. The same is happening to gays in 2009.
The Hate Crimes Act allows bringing in Federal investigators. In some areas gay crimes are given little investigation. Also, courts are packed with conservative judges.
I personally live in a VERY conservative area. I have found from personal experience that professionals from insurance salesmen to doctors in this area are willing to subvert their professional responsibilities in order to harm a homosexual.
Being able to appeal to the federal level for help may be necessary.