For John, BLUF: Doing right by totally misunderstanding what was going on. Nothing to see here; just move along.
I was over at the Blog Althouse, where she linked to The Advocate, which had an article, "Have We Got Matthew Shepard All Wrong?". The subtitle is "A new book argues that America’s most notorious hate crime was not a hate crime at all."
That is awkward. Writer Aaron Hicklin, writing on 13 September, examines the background of the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard. If the The Advocate article is to be believed, then the Wikipedia article has a lot of holes. Our understanding has holes. Our legislative reaction was underpinned by errors of understanding and possible important issues were smothered. From the article:
All that soul-searching may have felt necessary, especially in light of the legislation the case inspired, but was it helpful in getting at the truth? Or did our need to make a symbol of Shepard blind us to a messy, complex story that is darker and more troubling than the established narrative?The article supports the idea that the murder of Matthew Shepard was not a "hate crime", but then suggests that even so, the outcome, hate crime legislation, justifies our misunderstanding what was going on. I am not sure that makes sense.
We need to get to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all in a free, open and truthful manner. We owe it to our Founding Fathers (and Mothers). For all, regardless.
Hat tip to Ann Althouse.
Regards — Cliff
Note: Let it be noted that Law Professor Ann Althouse has a son who is, per the Professor, and her son, gay.