Here's the limb: I don't support hate crime legislation. This position puts me at odds not only with the gay orthodoxy (something that isn't new) but also the unorthodox Log Cabin Republicans. I don't support hate crime sentence enhancement with regards to race or religion and so even if it would benefit me, it would be hypocritical, to say the least, for me to support it in regards to sexual orientation.
I am certainly in favor equal rights for sexual minorities, indeed any minorities. Do I want Marriage? Sure, If a church is willing to give it to me, but honestly I’ll settle for a civil union that would allow me the same civil benefits afforded to married straight couples. Do I want to have the option to adopt children? Without a doubt! Do I want to leave my estate to my partner intact? Of Course! Do I want to be able to help provide my partner with health care? You bet! Do I want someone to get a worse sentence for killing me because I’m gay than for killing me because I have money? NO! At the end of the day what I want is equality, not special rights. My sexual orientation definitely should not relegate me to a worse position in society, but it also shouldn’t, on the other hand, afford me any better a position.
One poster in the comment conversation made an excellent point that hate crimes are not just against the actual victim but are intended to be against a group and about sending a message. However, the reason I don't support hate crime laws is that I’m concerned a special status for gays will do more to retard acceptance than to accelerate it. I certainly want to see any any bullying punished, but making it worse to kill a straight kid than a gay one will only nurture the resentment that led to a hate crime in the first place. My point is that the danger of fostering such resentment by giving certain classes of people special protection outweighs, in my mind, any good done by the justice of compensating for the emotional injuries of those not directly involved.