Court strikes down state's 'hate crimes'

Court strikes down state's 'hate crimes'
'No matter how salutary a bill, it still must be constitutional'

A court has struck down Pennsylvania's version of a "hate crimes" law, ruling that what officials there call an "Ethnic Intimidation Law" restriction was "unconstitutional and therefore null and void."

"Praise the Lord," said Michael Marcavage, chief of Repent America, a Christian organization. He was one of nearly a dozen people, who became known as the Philadelphia 11, arrested under the law and charged while ministering in 2004 at a publicly funded homosexual event called "OutFest."

Although the Christians who had been giving their testimony on public property later had their charges dismissed, they had been threatened with up to five decades in jail.

They then challenged the law itself, suing over its adoption, and the 4-1 decision in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court said the amendments enacted in 2002 were unconstitutional.

"This is a victory for constitutional government, so let us be thankful," Marcavage said.

The petitioners said the passage of the bill, which originally criminalized agricultural crop destruction but was altered to become the first proposal in Pennsylvania to recognize "sexual orientation" as a protected class, failed to follow Article III of the state constitution. That provision prohibits the complete overhaul of a bill in the course of its passage.

The provisions adopted under the failed procedure increased penalties for crimes based on what the criminal was thinking, specifying the additional penalties for "actual or perceived … ancestry, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity."

"The legislative process that led to the enactment of these amendments clearly violated Article III of the Pennsylvania Constitution," said Aaron Martin, attorney for Repent America. "The court rightly found that there was no logical or legal connection between trampling down a hay field and assaulting someone on the basis of sexual orientation."

The opinion was written by Judge James Gardner Collins, who was joined by Judges Doris Smith-Ribner, Dan Pellegrini and Robert Simpson. Judge Bonnie Ledbetter dissented.

The bill had been signed into law by ex-Gov. Mark Schweiker.

Repent America said the case was pursued because members plan to share their testimonies at future public events, and they were concerned charges would be brought – again.

A spokeswoman for a homosexual advocacy group, Stacey Sobel of Equality Advocates Pennsylvania, said the plan was "needed."

There was no immediate announcement from Gov. Ed Rendell whether the decision would be appealed.

"It's … important to note that this legal challenge [to protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity] was mounted by individuals who themselves may benefit from the law's protections for religious minorities," Rendell told the Associated Press.

"It is well established that a legislative enactment enjoys a strong presumption of constitutionality and it will not be declared invalid unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the constitution," the court said.

In this case, "We agree with petitioners that [the law] did not retain its original purpose as it moved through the enactment process. … The original version and final version of HB 1493 regulate vastly different activities."

"We cannot conclude that the amendments retained the original purpose of HB 1493," the ruling said.