How do you feel about Same-Sex Marriage?

[FreakyLocz14]

This is where I disagree with you. We have the opportunity to make history and not let our intolerances and prejudices get in the way of allowing gay couples to be seen as equal under the law to straight couples.

There is really not much of a debate to be had on the matter. People will drag out their personal laundry lists of why they don't like gay people or gay marriage and will conclude that we shouldn't have gay marriage. These prejudices cannot dictate how we treat our citizens. Otherwise, we still would not have given the rights of voting to women or African Americans. There are still a lot of misogynists and racists out there, after all.

But I can't find myself agreeing that States really have an argument here. If it were something more mundane, I could understand, but we're talking about the equality of our citizens here. We can look towards the past for how these struggles unfold, and we can use the wisdom of the results of those struggles and apply them to the present. Is the federal government truly prohibited to mandate same-sex marriage nationwide? Absolutely not. And what should stand in the way of it, but the pride of the states that wish to decide to stand in opposition of the federal government?

That sounds to me like pretty much what's taking place. I just wish to see this change enacted, and I see no reasonable objection to it. I do not hold it reasonable that the states would oppose the legalization of gay marriage.

There is a problem with that analysis is that race gets strict scrutiny analysis while sexual orientation only gets rational basis analysis. There is a reason for this distinction. The courts are concerned with not intruding on state power too much. Race gets the highest scrutiny because that group meet a three-prong test for strict scrutiny. Furthermore, in the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states, the Supreme Court chose to only incorporate those passage that are "essential to a scheme of ordered liberty and justice."

No, the Constitution said that Congress shall have the power to make any law which is necessary and properto carry out their duties, which are (along with the judiciary and executive branches) to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. So essentially, anything. The Congress has the power to do anything that is ruled by constitutional by the Supreme Court in order to more effectively run the nation

I can use bold text to back up my points too, except using actual Constitutional evidence :)

You gave a definitive list on what the powers of Congress are. Nowhere in the Constitution did it say that Congress can legislate "anything". And no one can argue that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means. At this point in time; however, the Court does concern itself with not intruding on state's rights unnecessarily. The Court has also held that is is valid to apply "contemporary community standards" when enacting legislation. Through this lens, we can realize that what is acceptable in Massachusetts may not be acceptable in Mississippi when we speak of community culture and how the laws reflect that culture.

 

[Xyrin]

Sorry for poping in this debate late. Buuut.

I think Gay marriage is wrong. But if someone want to do it, go ahead. I will not be doing it, same as divorcing someone(under most circumstances). I find marriage to be an important thing. I think you should be able to do what you want, just leave me it alone and make it legal. Do I think it's okay? No I think it's something you shouldn't do, do I think we should take away their right? No. Do what they want, if it ever becomes something where almost everyone is doing it, I won't be happy. But I won't say it shouldn't be legal.


And yes I do know someone who is gay. My cousin is gay. he is almost the complete opposite from me. He is not one of my role models. But I still love, I want to be nothing like him. But I still love him.

 

[Esper]

Why ought marriage be a right?

A fine question and one worthy of discussion.

My take: a right is something which applies to everyone (right to life) or in some cases everyone within a certain context or who fits certain criteria, e.g., being an adult (right to vote). Rights are fair and equal and to deny someone a right (such as imprisoning them) there has to be a very strong reason to do so (they could be a danger to others).

Rights are also important things, but usually important in that we aren't kept from having them because they are in some way fundamental to a safe and free society or personal well-being or something like that. Taking away, for instance, someone's right to build a road over a wetland isn't on the same scale as taking away someone's right to vote.

Lots of rights are based around personal freedoms: choosing representatives to govern you (voting), speaking your mind (freedom of speech or the press), moving freely (freedom of assembly), etc. There are certain things that we generally agree are too important to be denied. So if we see some freedom we have we might think: under what circumstances should someone be able to take this freedom away? We weigh the needs and benefits of denying that freedom (and who benefits) to the costs of loosing it (and who looses that freedom). We look at all the reasons for denying that right. So loosing freedom of speech and the right to redress your government, for another example, is a very damaging thing because it can lead to repression so we don't like to allow it except in extreme cases when there is a clear benefit to someone and we can accept the loss of freedom of someone else.

Because marriage has been something that two consenting people have typically been free to do for many generations (in the western world at least) we think of it as a person freedom like voting or wearing pants in public. When someone says: "you can only marry people who meet these criteria" they are limiting our freedom. The question are: is that limitation great or small and does it deny me any fundamental freedoms? Who benefits?

In many places marriage is a prerequisite for social acceptance, particularly for things like sexual intercourse and having children. There are also legal benefits to marriage (visitation rights) and economic benefits (filing joint taxes). Then there is the nebulous issue of love. Marriage is also seen by some as an emotional commitment to another person, a kind of "I love you and I want all the world to know" statement. These are all benefits. Limiting one's choice in who they can marry means that freedoms are being taken away. There must be some benefit to someone, somewhere, and it must be justifiable in the face of denying the above rights to people. So then the only remaining question is: what are the benefits of denying the freedom to marry and how important are they compared to the benefits of allowing people to marry?

tl;dr Everything a person does is a freedom and a right is a freedom that is too important to deny without very strong reasons. What are the benefits of marriage and how do they compare to the benefits of restricting them? Answer that and see if you think marriage is a right.

 

[Buggyo]

tl;dr Everything a person does is a freedom and a right is a freedom that is too important to deny without very strong reasons. What are the benefits of marriage and how do they compare to the benefits of restricting them? Answer that and see if you think marriage is a right.

AGREED.

Also important to note: marriage is not a "Christian" or "holy" institution like some claim. While some religions may have practices that relate to marriage, the gay marriage debate is over the legal status/rights that marriage comes with. By denying gays the right to marry, you're denying them the right to hospital visits, tax exemptions, and many other privileges that come with marriage. Simply giving "civil unions" is frivolous and discriminatory in itself, as it differentiates homosexual partnerships from heterosexual ones.

In summation:

 

[Shining Raichu]

Gay marriage should be 100% legal worldwide. In the court case against Prop 8 in California, the two arguments the proponents of Prop 8 really had were "we don't like gay people" and "God says no". The second one really annoys me. We are past the point in this world where religion and fiction should be allowed to rule over reality. I'm an active campaigner for gay rights, we shouldn't stop talking about it until there is nothing left to talk about.

Lemme stand out. I oppose it. It shouldn't be called marriage since marriage is for man and woman and as always have been. The term Civil-Partnership is fine since it's what it is. The different term is fine since people still say interracial-marriage and don't see it as just marriage.

I won't disrespect your beliefs, but I don't think you realise that there are real people involved in this. Real people who can't get medical coverage for their partners because civil unions don't afford the same rights as marriage. There are hundreds of rights that married people have that those in a civil union do not. Not to mention the message of inequality it spreads throughout the world. And even if they were given all the same rights and it were just about the word "marriage", separate is not equal, and it's not good enough anymore.

Yes, I'm Christian... in training.

It shows.

I think Gay marriage is wrong. But if someone want to do it, go ahead. I will not be doing it, same as divorcing someone(under most circumstances). I find marriage to be an important thing. I think you should be able to do what you want, just leave me it alone and make it legal. Do I think it's okay? No I think it's something you shouldn't do, do I think we should take away their right? No. Do what they want, if it ever becomes something where almost everyone is doing it, I won't be happy. But I won't say it shouldn't be legal.


And yes I do know someone who is gay. My cousin is gay. he is almost the complete opposite from me. He is not one of my role models. But I still love, I want to be nothing like him. But I still love him.

While I applaud your ability to see past your beliefs and realise that regardless, the government shouldn't have the right to take rights away from anybody, it does seem to me that you are another one in desperate need of a religion-ectomy. I actually don't believe that you love your cousin. It seems that you're spouting the Christian party line of "love someone even though you blatantly hate what makes them who they are, because that makes the bigotry OK".

 

[FreakyLocz14]

AGREED.

Also important to note: marriage is not a "Christian" or "holy" institution like some claim. While some religions may have practices that relate to marriage, the gay marriage debate is over the legal status/rights that marriage comes with. By denying gays the right to marry, you're denying them the right to hospital visits, tax exemptions, and many other privileges that come with marriage. Simply giving "civil unions" is frivolous and discriminatory in itself, as it differentiates homosexual partnerships from heterosexual ones.

In summation:

Making all marriages civil unions (regardless of the genders involved) would remedy the any social concern religious groups have with the title "marriage". A church or other religious institution can marry people according to their faith while the state registers the civil union for purely legal purposes.

Although, having civil unions for homosexual couples are not entirely unconstitutional automatically.

 

[lx_theo]

Making all marriages civil unions (regardless of the genders involved) would remedy the any social concern religious groups have with the title "marriage". A church or other religious institution can marry people according to their faith while the state registers the civil union for purely legal purposes.

Although, having civil unions for homosexual couples are not entirely unconstitutional automatically.

Neither is religious organization's complaining meaning they get their way.

Freedom of religion is the same as freedom from religion as far as I'm concern. If any given religion is given any favor beyond specifically what was established at the nation's founding (like the words and such in documents), then its like a slap in the face to the rest of America, and does not represent the nation, just the religion that feels entitled.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Neither is religious organization's complaining meaning they get their way.

Freedom of religion is the same as freedom from religion as far as I'm concern. If any given religion is given any favor beyond specifically what was established at the nation's founding (like the words and such in documents), then its like a slap in the face to the rest of America, and does not represent the nation, just the religion that feels entitled.

We aren't even discussing establishing a religious doctrine as law here.

 

[lx_theo]

We aren't even discussing establishing a religious doctrine as law here. The anti state's rights camp makes this fallacious equivocation.

Does it really seem so out there? We've seen it happen plenty in the past. Any movement for rights ends in a religion (more often than not, Christianity) having a counter-movement of some sort to try adn get their way. Can you honestly say that letting people decide what rights people they hate get won't simply segregate the country on the issue?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Does it really seem so out there? We've seen it happen plenty in the past. Any movement for rights ends in a religion (more often than not, Christianity) having a counter-movement of some sort to try adn get their way. Can you honestly say that letting people decide what rights people they hate get won't simply segregate the country on the issue?

Our Constitution prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or preferring religion(s) A over religion(s) B. It does not prohibit people from taking part in public debate with a religious message or voting on issues for religious reasons. In fact, people have the right under the 1st Amendment to do this.

It is also fallacious to assume that everybody who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage hates homosexuals.

 

[lx_theo]

Our Constitution prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or preferring religion(s) A over religion(s) B. It does not prohibit people from taking part in public debate with a religious message or voting on issues for religious reasons. In fact, people have the right under the 1st Amendment to do this.

It is also fallacious to assume that everybody who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage hates homosexuals.

No religious reasons can be the basis for government laws on individual regulation. If thats not infringing on it, then i don't know what is. People can, of course, vote for whatever reason they want, but when politicians promote the law or lack of law for those sorts of reasons and technically gets out of it by saying something different on the official stance, there's something wrong there.

And no, I'm not assuming that. The thing is that the sentiment is strong enough to rally those who are on the edge, as such sentiments have in past so many times as well. Religion is manipulative and is often essential in causing some of the greatest injustices in the America's and the world's history. This is historical fact. I can't imagine the movement against it would be anywhere near as strong without this support.

I respect your argument, admittedly, but the idea of a flexible interpretation of the Constitution has been around since our founding.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

No religious reasons can be the basis for government laws on individual regulation. If thats not infringing on it, then i don't know what is. People can, of course, vote for whatever reason they want, but when politicians promote the law or lack of law for those sorts of reasons and technically gets out of it by saying something different on the official stance, there's something wrong there.

And no, I'm not assuming that. The thing is that the sentiment is strong enough to rally those who are on the edge, as such sentiments have in past so many times as well. Religion is manipulative and is often essential in causing some of the greatest injustices in the America's and the world's history. This is historical fact. I can't imagine the movement against it would be anywhere near as strong without this support.

I respect your argument, admittedly, but the idea of a flexible interpretation of the Constitution has been around since our founding.

Actually, traditional and religious reasons are at the heart of many laws that are on the books in this country, in various states, and in common law (which our legal system is based on). The laws themselves; however, cannot have the effect of advancing or inhibiting religion.

No constitutional right or liberty is absolute. This includes the Establishment Clause. The courts use balancing tests to make their decisions on these issues.

 

[lx_theo]

Actually, traditional and religious reasons are at the heart of many laws that are on the books in this country, in various states, and in common law (which our legal system is based on). The laws themselves; however, cannot have the effect of advancing or inhibiting religion.

There's a difference between overstretching laws that exhibit a cultural morality that has been influenced by certain religions over our history and ones that regulate on an individual basis.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

There's a difference between overstretching laws that exhibit a cultural morality that has been influenced by certain religions over our history and ones that regulate on an individual basis.

Trust me, the government won't use religious doctrine when backing up these laws in court. Even the Prop 8 campaign didn't use religious arguments both during the campaign and in the following court battles. If laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples are found to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest, they pass federal scrutiny.

 

[lx_theo]

Trust me, the government won't use religious doctrine when backing up these laws in court. Even the Prop 8 campaign didn't use religious arguments both during the campaign and in the following court battles. If laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples are found to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest, they pass federal scrutiny.

Isn't that what I already said?

Much of the support against gay marriage is born from religious roots. Do you deny this? Its doesn't matter if there's a defendable side to go with it. I can't see you argument being the real reason people go with it. It acts as a fall back when they're told not to use the real reason.

I know the counter-argument to mine with state rights, and although i disagree with the philosophies behind it, I can respect it. What I can't respect is it being used as such an obvious tool of beliefs me and many others don't want imposed on us because some feel entitled to pushing their beliefs on others (Like they always have).

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Isn't that what I already said?

Much of the support against gay marriage is born from religious roots. Do you deny this? Its doesn't matter if there's a defendable side to go with it. I can't see you argument being the real reason people go with it. It acts as a fall back when they're told not to use the real reason.

I know the counter-argument to mine with state rights, and although i disagree with the philosophies behind it, I can respect it. What I can't respect is it being used as such an obvious tool of beliefs me and many others don't want imposed on us because some feel entitled to pushing their beliefs on others (Like they always have).

I can respect that concern, but that is more of a legislative issue you have than a judicial issue. You could always put a ballot initiative on the ballot (if your state allows it) or petition your state legislature to legalize same-sex marriage. If you want it legalized at the federal level, you could petition your Congressperson and Senators to move for legalization. I wasn't trying to say that same-sex marriage should not be legal, but rather that I don't believe the courts have a basis for mandating it on the nation. I don't even think Congress does, but that can be tested with litigation if they ever pass such a bill. What I would support is 3/4 of the states ratify a federal Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage in a way that includes homosexuals, or if each state legalizes it individually.

 

[lx_theo]

I can respect that concern, but that is more of a legislative issue you have than a judicial issue. You could always put a ballot initiative on the ballot (if your state allows it) or petition your state legislature to legalize same-sex marriage. If you want it legalized at the federal level, you could petition your Congressperson and Senators to move for legalization. I wasn't trying to say that same-sex marriage should not be legal, but rather that I don't believe the courts have a basis for mandating it on the nation. I don't even think Congress does, but that can be tested with litigation if they ever pass such a bill. What I would support is 3/4 of the states ratify a federal Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage in a way that includes homosexuals, or if each state legalizes it individually.

I would support that as well. I couldn't see who wouldn't, as it would eliminate the only legitimate argument there is. I can't see it happening though, with the loudest and most influential voices against gay marriage being religious influences and those who use it as one of their main political tools.

At some point, mandation will be needed to ensure such type of hate isn't entitled.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I would support that as well. I couldn't see who wouldn't, as it would eliminate the only legitimate argument there is. I can't see it happening though, with the loudest and most influential voices against gay marriage being religious influences and those who use it as one of their main political tools.

At some point, mandation will be needed to ensure such type of hate isn't entitled.

The thing is, people are entitled to hate. We have the right to hate anyone we want and to express that hate through speech.

 

[Mika]

The thing is, people are entitled to hate. We have the right to hate anyone we want and to express that hate through speech.

Yes we're all aware that the KKK and Westboro exist. Westboro even won their free speech trial in the surpreme court.

Thing is, there's a huge difference between spewing nonsense (Westboro anyone?) and doing something that directly impacts the minority group and that is what separates free speech from a hate crime. You can say anything you want on that side walk but the moment you stick your hand out and punch that guy simply because he's black or simply because he's gay, you've lost that free speech protection. The moment you prohibit his child from attending your school because he's black or because he's gay, you've lost that free speech protection.

----

Um, if we're going to state that the separation of church and state is a good thing then perhaps we should remember the details surrounding prop 8?

I'm aware I'm a bit late in posting this but it's gnawing at me.

http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/10/the-mormon-money-behind-proposition-8/209748/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html

http://www.tribtalk.com/showthread.php?t=19900 < - links to wikileaks article that I can't seem to find on the new wikileaks.

If Prop 8 was ~within the rights of the state~ why was the Mormon church allowed to fund it in the manor that it did? Iowa's Vander Plaats also received funding from out of state when he did that awful campaign to impeach the judges and when the money dried up, it became obvious how much of a sideshow he truly is.

I think that the majority Mormon funding (the actual number is higher because of the propoganda the church put out) alone should have null and voided prop 8. It was heavily swayed by a religious organization with its own agendas and a vast cash source the LGBT community and its allies could not compete with. Mormons tithe more than any other religious denomination. The money came from all over the country in addition to their normal 10% tithing amounts.

Last time I checked, I thought religious leaders weren't allowed to preach who to vote for and what to vote on what issue from the pulpit. Not that they follow this rule.

Punching someone is a crime. Prohibiting someone from attending a school is not.

Are you saying then, that the resistance to integration into public schools in the 60s by African Americans was not a crime? They were not denied entrance because of a lack of intelligence, they were denied because of the color of their skin. I know a couple in my relative area who's child was declined entry into a non religious private school because his parents were two women and it might make parents ~uncomfortable~. The same arguement was used in the 60s when Little Rock integrated.

Do we need the National Guard involved again? I mean I got some friends that would much rather do that guard duty than be overseas but come on, haven't we learned anything from our grandparents?

I don't agree with hate crime laws because they punish people for their beliefs. We already have laws that criminalize punching someone.

So... if someone beats the crap out of an Arab student for being Arab he should only face assault charges?

The university I attended before I got sick had seven hate crime incidents in two months. They were anything from messages written on cars (Go home Terrorist etc) to outright physical assaults. On the anniversary of Kristallnacht, someone threw a rock through the window of the devout Orthodox Jewish RLC. Two weeks later, a Nigeria exchange student was clubbed over the head and told he wasn't welcome in America.

Mexican students were asked for proof of Visa/Citzenship by civilians and when they refused to share such private information they were beaten.

A gay student was targeted for being gay. He was also severely assaulted and had two ribs badly bruised.

The university binded together to support these people. They were not targeted at random, they were hand selected because of their varying religious beliefs and cultural backgrounds. Everyone, even the conservative staff, was outraged at these heinous acts taking place on campus.

These are not just normal assault cases. There are varying ranges of assault but I for one believe that if you assault someone simply because of their sexual orientation, their racial skin tone or their religious beliefs that the charges placed upon you should be separate from the base assault charges.

You have Assault and Domestic Assault. Hate-Crime Assault is no different.

Have you ever read 1984? This is ThinkCrime in action.

Yes I've also read other books like that as well as seen the Matrix serious, Equilibrium and other topics that explore that sort of behavior.

Fiction is fiction is fiction is mostly definitely positively absolutely always fiction.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Yes we're all aware that the KKK and Westboro exist. Westboro even won their free speech trial in the surpreme court.

Thing is, there's a huge difference between spewing nonsense (Westboro anyone?) and doing something that directly impacts the minority group and that is what separates free speech from a hate crime. You can say anything you want on that side walk but the moment you stick your hand out and punch that guy simply because he's black or simply because he's gay, you've lost that free speech protection. The moment you prohibit his child from attending your school because he's black or because he's gay, you've lost that free speech protection.

----

Um, if we're going to state that the separation of church and state is a good thing then perhaps we should remember the details surrounding prop 8?

I'm aware I'm a bit late in posting this but it's gnawing at me.

http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/10/the-mormon-money-behind-proposition-8/209748/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html

http://www.tribtalk.com/showthread.php?t=19900 < - links to wikileaks article that I can't seem to find on the new wikileaks.

If Prop 8 was ~within the rights of the state~ why was the Mormon church allowed to fund it in the manor that it did? Iowa's Vander Plaats also received funding from out of state when he did that awful campaign to impeach the judges and when the money dried up, it became obvious how much of a sideshow he truly is.

I think that the majority Mormon funding (the actual number is higher because of the propoganda the church put out) alone should have null and voided prop 8. It was heavily swayed by a religious organization with its own agendas and a vast cash source the LGBT community and its allies could not compete with. Mormons tithe more than any other religious denomination. The money came from all over the country in addition to their normal 10% tithing amounts.

Last time I checked, I thought religious leaders weren't allowed to preach who to vote for and what to vote on what issue from the pulpit. Not that they follow this rule.



Are you saying then, that the resistance to integration into public schools in the 60s by African Americans was not a crime? They were not denied entrance because of a lack of intelligence, they were denied because of the color of their skin. I know a couple in my relative area who's child was declined entry into a non religious private school because his parents were two women and it might make parents ~uncomfortable~. The same arguement was used in the 60s when Little Rock integrated.

Do we need the National Guard involved again? I mean I got some friends that would much rather do that guard duty than be overseas but come on, haven't we learned anything from our grandparents?



So... if someone beats the crap out of an Arab student for being Arab he should only face assault charges?

The university I attended before I got sick had seven hate crime incidents in two months. They were anything from messages written on cars (Go home Terrorist etc) to outright physical assaults. On the anniversary of Kristallnacht, someone threw a rock through the window of the devout Orthodox Jewish RLC. Two weeks later, a Nigeria exchange student was clubbed over the head and told he wasn't welcome in America.

Mexican students were asked for proof of Visa/Citzenship by civilians and when they refused to share such private information they were beaten.

A gay student was targeted for being gay. He was also severely assaulted and had two ribs badly bruised.

The university binded together to support these people. They were not targeted at random, they were hand selected because of their varying religious beliefs and cultural backgrounds. Everyone, even the conservative staff, was outraged at these heinous acts taking place on campus.

These are not just normal assault cases. There are varying ranges of assault but I for one believe that if you assault someone simply because of their sexual orientation, their racial skin tone or their religious beliefs that the charges placed upon you should be separate from the base assault charges.

You have Assault and Domestic Assault. Hate-Crime Assault is no different.



Yes I've also read other books like that as well as seen the Matrix serious, Equilibrium and other topics that explore that sort of behavior.

Fiction is fiction is fiction is mostly definitely positively absolutely always fiction.

1) Churches are nonprofits. Nonprofits donate to political campaigns all the time. The Mormon church's campaign donations to the Yes on 8 campaign does not nullify the Proposition.

2) No, denying someone access to a school based on race or sexual orientation is not a crime. That is called a constitutional tort.

3) I stand by my beliefs on hate crimes. Allow me to explain why I feel this way. With hate crime legislation, we punish people for two things: a) the crime committed, and b) their beliefs (i.e. they don't like homosexuals, people of a certain race, etc.). People have every right to not like someone due to their characteristics. Hate crime laws are by no means restricted to violent assaults. There was a Supreme Court cases (I don't remember the name by hear, but I'll look it up if you want.) where a man was charged with a hate crime for simply yelling in a Pizza Hut that he didn't want an employee that he believed a homosexual touching his food. He was convicted of disorderly conduct (a minor misdemeanor), but he suffered a rather harsh sentence for it due to the hate crime charge attached to it.

People try and make it seems like we can't punish people without hate crime laws. We have laws on the books that punish people who commit assault and other violent crimes. California, at least, already has some of the most Draconian penalties for these crimes without the added hate crime charge. If you can be charged with a hate crime just for being too loud in public for the wrong reason, I'd say that creates a chilling effect that will discourage people for expressing controversial opinions in the public discourse of debate.

Also, the distinction between simple assault and domestic assault does not bolster your argument because domestic assault has nothing to do with someone's beliefs. What their personal prejudices are do not factor into the enhanced penalty.

What more important? Adding a few more years to a person's sentence who will most likely already be doing 10+ years in prison, or not intimidating people from expressing themselves for fear of being charged with a hate crime? I say, the latter.