The article “America…You Kill Me” is a speech that addresses an on going action preformed by many citizens of the United States: “Gay Panic”. The Author of the speech, Jeffrey Montgomery, has formalized the plea of all gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people to have the rites of their citizenship respected. Montgomery uses many real examples of the bias attitude toward GLBT people to enunciate the problem at hand.
Through out his speech Montgomery conveys his argument, clearly stating that this “last socially acceptable form of bigotry” is not acceptable. Montgomery proclaims, “'Gay panic' is insidious. The "Gay Panic" Defense is arguing that a gay advance by the victim is so revolting that the killer has no choice but to act out violently, often actually killing the victim.” Revisiting the stories of victims of gay panic is a way to vividly educate rest of the world about this crisis. In between these testaments, Montgomery argues his beliefs: the gay panic defense bestows the public “a license to kill”, authorities are not concerned with the homicides with the label of gay, GLBT people want equality and to be free of bigotry, and as citizens GLBT people want their rites accounted for.
The reasons for Montgomery's beliefs lie in his sexual preference, in religious beliefs, and in a past experience that changed his life. Jeffrey Montgomery is a member of the gay community. He first handedly has witnessed the bigotry toward homosexuals which instills a desire for change and reform of American acceptance. Religious figure heads and politicians hide behind the bible and the constitution and use these documents as “permission to demonize and denigrate” GLBT people. Montgomery finds this enraging because the texts give no actual indication that homosexuality is wrong. The decipherers are “turning the constitution [and bible] on its head” so small references made support the anit-glbt belief. Religion and state have also influenced Montgomery's argument with the ban of homosexual marriage. This disintegrates GLBT people's rites to “live with the person [they] choose and build a family with the benefits that attain to those relationships”. The event that started his involvement in gay activism was the murder of his boyfriend Michael in 1985. “Michael's murder, along with a dozen other gay killings in Detroit in the mid-to-late 80s, remains unsolved.” This very personal connection to a “Gay Panic” defense drives Montgomery to investigate and illustrate gay killing for the public. Montgomery may have a different background of influence but his beliefs are on common ground with me.
I believe “Gay Panic” is an escape-goat and it is pathetic that the prosecuted pleading so in a gay killing receives a lesser punishment of manslaughter. I know that everyone encounters a person in their life that causes them to feel insecure but I find this insecurity to not be a motive for any degree of murder. I agree with Montgomery that “gay panic” is disturbing. To me, the term manslaughter means that someone involuntarily caused the death of another and is left with deep remorse for the victim. The probable scenarios for manslaughter are car crashes and other accidents; taking another's life because a gay advance was made just doesn't fit my description of the term. In agreement with Montgomery, the usage of the bible and constitution as the bases for anit-glbt is wrong; it manipulates and reverses the meaning of the texts.
My reaction on bigotry towards GLBT people originates from my family and religious experience. When growing up my parents did not impose any prejudice on me except maybe toward Bridgewater Township committee members. My family combined with my studies in the Judaic religion crafted my belief of acceptance. I am fine with who someone is until my life is threatened or that someone avidity tries to sell me into their beliefs. GLBT people do not threaten my life or force me to change my sexual preference. In “Hebrew High” my class had a discussion on homosexuality.
We learned why the Bible and constitution are often hid behind when discussing the subject of homosexuality. Neither the bible nor the constitution has a whole section devoted to that subject and to gain any answers decipherers either read between the lines or consider the topic a taboo. In this class we were explained that there are not many specific points of the subject because it was not a concern when the texts were written. Thus, we can conclude that GBLT people should apply to same amendments and commandments that govern all heterosexual people. With out the constitution or bible used as support, the bigotry toward homosexuals is no different than any other form of discrimination.
