Judges rule against state hate-crimes law
By Timothy Cwiek
PGN Writer-at-Large
© 2007 Philadelphia Gay News

A state court has nullified Pennsylvania’s hate-crimes law as it applies to the GLBT community and other minorities, citing procedural problems when the law was enacted in 2002.

In a 4-1 ruling, the Commonwealth Court ruled that state officials enacted the measure improperly in December 2002 because it replaced language in a bill originally intended to address agricultural vandalism and crop destruction.

During oral arguments earlier this year, commonwealth attorneys tried to connect hate crimes with crop destruction and agricultural vandalism, noting that those crimes could be motivated by animus for a particular group.

The judges evidently didn’t accept that argument, with the exception of President Judge Bonnie Leadbetter, who dissented from the Nov. 15 ruling without issuing an alternate opinion.

Other categories of protection nullified by the judges include ancestry, mental or physical disability and gender.

The categories of race, color, religion and national original will remain protected because they were covered in separate legislation in 1987, the judges said.

Commonwealth attorneys have 30 days to file an appeal to the state Supreme Court. Alternatively, advocates could draft and introduce new legislation.

Michael A. Marcavage, lead plaintiff in the lawsuit and head of the anti-gay group Repent America, praised the ruling.

“All of us should care about this,” he said. “There is an agenda behind these hate-crimes laws — to criminalize Christians for simply speaking the truth of God’s word.”

Marcavage and 10 others were arrested in October 2004 while protesting at OutFest, a Center City GLBT festival, and charged with hate crimes and other offenses.

Although acquitted of all the charges, the plaintiffs felt a need to nullify the hate-crimes law to prevent future arrests and court proceedings.”

“It was important for us to use every means possible to ensure that our liberties are protected,” Marcavage said.

Steve Glassman, chair of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, expressed frustration with the ruling. He said there was no attempt to hide the intent of the legislation during the six years it was under consideration.

“We had tremendous public discussion about this bill,” he said. “We held town meetings across the commonwealth. There were op-ed pieces, letters to the editor and interviews. There was tremendous public conversation about this legislation, not only among legislators, but in the public forum. To claim this was done in secrecy is to misrepresent the entire process.”

Aaron D. Martin, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said if suspects continue to be charged with hate crimes against the GLBT community in Pennsylvania, at least a defense attorney will be able to cite the ruling when trying to get a client acquitted.

“I would not be doing my job as a lawyer if I didn’t try to get this law struck down for my clients,” Martin said. “They were in danger of being thrown into prison again because of their street ministry. Now, they have greater protection, for sure.”

Chuck Ardo, a spokesperson for Gov. Rendell, said commonwealth attorneys were studying the opinion before deciding on their next move.

“The governor remains committed to the goal of the legislation and he’s disappointed with the ruling, because he thinks the legislation is very important,” Ardo said.

Stacey Sobel, executive director of Equality Advocates Pennsylvania, also expressed disappointment.

“It’s unfortunate that this one person [Marcavage], who has been engaged in numerous anti-LGBT activities, is trying to throw out a law that’s helpful to crime victims,” Sobel said. “Hate-crimes legislation helps law-enforcement officials and prosecutors do their job so that people who are victims of hate crimes can have their day in court.”

Sgt. Ray Evers, a police spokesperson, said local police will continue to make arrests and recommend charges against suspected perpetrators of hate crimes against GLBT people, regardless of last week’s court ruling.

“Everything is going to be the same until the Pennsylvania Supreme Court tells us otherwise,” Evers said. “But the DA’s Office may do something different. That’s up to them; I can’t speak for them. But we’ll do our part.”

Cathie Abookire, a spokesperson for the District Attorney’s Office, said attorneys were still studying the ruling at press time.

Timothy Cwiek can be reached at (215) 625-850l ext. 208.