I've read on a number of conservative sites about how liberals, liberalism, liberal America, and Hollywood have been pusing a homosexual agenda onto the rest of the country with a push for gay marriage rights, a belief that homosexuality is not a choice but instead in instilled from birth, blah, blah, blah.
So here's an article I'm reading that states prosecutors are trying to limit the excuse of "gay panic" in crimes and violent attacks.
Prosecutors said Thursday they want to limit the use of "gay panic" defenses -- where defendants claim their crimes were justified because of fear or anger over their victims' sexual orientation.
"The suggestion that criminal conduct is mitigated by bias or prejudice is inappropriate," said San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who organized a two-day national conference on the issue. "We can't outlaw it, but we can combat it."
Lawmakers in California and New York are considering bills to deter the common courtroom strategy of making a victim's sexual orientation central to a criminal defense.
...
It was prompted by the murder of 17-year-old Gwen Araujo, a transgender teenager who was beaten and strangled in 2002 after two men with whom she'd had anal sex learned she was biologically male.
...
And the defense speaks:
"However, I would not further ignore the reality that Gwen made some decisions in her relation with these defendants that were impossible to defend," he added. "I don't think most jurors are going to think it's OK to engage someone in sexual activity knowing they assume you have one sexual anatomy when you don't."
Two defense lawyers who used their clients' rage at discovering the truth about Araujo as part of their defense agreed that the issue is too complicated to be legislated.
Other conference participants suggested different strategies for defusing defense arguments that play on negative public attitudes toward homosexuality.
On the one hand, yes, I agree that you shouldn't be messing around with people under false pretenses, whether it's having sex, or selling a car. Omitting some key information that might change a person's mind or opinion isn't fair.
On the other hand, if they found out after they had anal sex and if they enjoyed it up until they learned the truth, well...in that case, no. Using your embarrasement as a defense for killing someone that you otherwise had fully enjoyed is unacceptable.
But it'll be interesting to see how those on the Religious Right (those who read No-Moo-Lies...don't ask me...) take this turn of events regarding homosexuals and crimes committed against them.
Will they feel it's justifiable?