Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Complaint Hate Crimes 2010

Complaint Hate Crimes 2010

Ratings: (0)|Views: 8 |Likes:
Published by Robert B. Singleton

More info:

Published by: Robert B. Singleton on May 19, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/24/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 1IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGANGARY GLENN; PASTOR LEVON YUILLE;PASTOR RENÉ B. OUELLETTE; PASTORJAMES COMBS,Plaintiffs,v.ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official capacityas Attorney General of the United States,Defendant.Case No.
COMPLAINT
THOMAS MORE LAW CENTERRobert J. Muise, Esq. (P62849)Richard Thompson, Esq. (P21410)Keith Corbett, Esq. (P24602)24 Frank Lloyd Wright DriveP.O. Box 393Ann Arbor, MI 48106rmuise@thomasmore.org (734) 827-2001
Counsel for Plaintiffs
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs Gary Glenn, Pastor Levon Yuille, Pastor René B. Ouellette, and Pastor JamesCombs (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel, bringthis Complaint against the above-named Defendant, his employees, agents, and successors inoffice, and in support thereof allege the following upon information and belief:
INTRODUCTION
1.
 
This case seeks to protect and vindicate fundamental constitutional rights. It is acivil rights action brought under the First, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments and the CommerceClause of the United States Constitution, challenging Defendant’s authority to enforce 18 U.S.C.
Case 2:10-cv-10429-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/02/2010 Page 1 of 27
 
 2§ 249, the so-called “Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act”(hereinafter referred to as “Hate Crimes Act” or “Act”). Specifically, Plaintiffs challenge §249(a)(2) of the Hate Crimes Act, which criminalizes so-called “bias” crimes motivated by aperson’s “actual or perceived” “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” and thus elevates thoseengaged in certain deviant sexual behaviors to a special, protected class of persons under federallaw.2.
 
Section 249(a)(2) of the Hate Crimes Act creates a special class of persons whoseprotection of the law will be, in George Orwell’s phrase, “more equal than others.” Thus, if some persons are more equal than others, then some must be less equal in violation of the equalprotection guarantee of the United States Constitution.3.
 
Special prosecutions for “hate crimes” are inherently divisive. As CongressmanTodd Akin stated in the House Congressional Record, “[The Hate Crimes Act] increases hatredin America. . . . The law violates the most basic principle of law. Lady Justice is alwayssupposed to have a blindfold across her face because, regardless of who you are when youappear before Lady Justice, . . . Lady Justice does not notice. [The Hate Crimes Act] violatesthat basic principle. It creates animosity by elevating one group over another group; thus, itcreates hatred.”4.
 
Section 249(a)(2) of the Hate Crimes Act has the purpose and effect of deterring,inhibiting, and chilling the exercise of fundamental rights by persons, including Plaintiffs, whopublicly oppose homosexual activism, the homosexual lifestyle, and the homosexual agenda,which seeks to normalize intrinsically disordered sexual behavior that is contrary to the morallaw and harmful to the common good of society. Supporters of the homosexual agenda seek to
Case 2:10-cv-10429-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/02/2010 Page 2 of 27
 
 3demonize, vilify, and criminalize deeply held religious beliefs that are in opposition to theiragenda.5.
 
Section 249(a)(2) of the Hate Crimes Act thus promotes another Orwellianconcept: thought crimes. Section § 249(a)(2) criminalizes certain ideas, beliefs, and opinions,and the involvement of such ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a crime will make the crimedeserving of federal prosecution. Consequently, government officials, including Defendant, areclaiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal under federal law and which are not.6.
 
Section 249(a)(2) of the Hate Crimes Act is intended to send a government-endorsed message to those persons who oppose the homosexual agenda on the basis of deeplyheld religious beliefs, such as Plaintiffs, that their religious beliefs are disfavored and theequivalent of racist beliefs.7.
 
Section 249(a)(2) of the Hate Crimes Act is an effort to eradicate religious beliefsopposing the homosexual agenda from the marketplace of ideas by demonizing, vilifying, andcriminalizing such beliefs as a matter of federal law and policy.8.
 
The enforcement history of similar “hate crimes” legislation, the publicstatements of homosexual activists, and the influence of homosexual activists within the federalgovernment demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ fears of adverse enforcement action under the Act onaccount of their deeply held religious beliefs are credible.9.
 
In order to secure its passage, the politically-divisive Hate Crimes Act wasincluded in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (hereinafter referred toas “Defense Authorization Act”), even though the Act is non-germane and non-related todefense. As Senator John McCain stated in the Senate Congressional Record, “It is indeed,
Case 2:10-cv-10429-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/02/2010 Page 3 of 27

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->