JDH Speech to AFAA, Charleston Marriott, September 18, 2013

I want to thank you for inviting me to speak to the Alliance for Full Acceptance this evening.  I am very honored to be here.  I'd like to recognize the presence of my very beautiful and formidable wife, Ms. Tammie Hoy Hawkins.  Some of you may know Tammie, as an active member of the League of Women Voters.  She also founded and led the Low Country Housing Trust for several years and in that capacity, she helped many citizens find affordable housing.  She is a passionate voice for equality, and has been a very positive influence on my life and mind.

As many of you know, I served as a Republican Member of the South Carolina General Assembly for 12 years, from 1996 to 2008.  The last 8 years of that time I spent in the Senate.  As a Senator representing one of the most conservative parts of the state, I led the battle to pass the so-called South Carolina Marriage Amendment.  This legislation would amend the constitution to specifically state that marriage would be defined as a union between one man, and one woman.  All other unions, especially those between persons of the same sex, would be illegal and unconstitutional.  

Several hearings were held in the Senate Judiciary committee and subcommittee on which I sat as a member.  Opposition to the bill was led by Senator Robert Ford, who courageously fought against overwhelming odds to defeat, or at least to ameliorate, the bill.  Then President Pro Tem, and Senate Judiciary Chairman Glenn McConnell, argued strenuously against ramming the bill through the Senate.  To his credit, Senator McConnell, wanted to give opponents of the bill their chance to be heard and for the bill to be fully debated.  Both Senators McConnell and Ford fought valiantly for due process and equality.

To my regret, I was on the other side of that fight.  With the zeal and aggressiveness of someone convinced of the rightness of his position, I worked hard to get the Marriage Amendment passed.  In reality, the outcome was never much in doubt.  But I certainly became the public face of the push for the Marriage Amendment.  In meetings and on the floor of the Senate, I was very vocal and outspoken in support of the measure.  Being an attorney, I used legal arguments -- never religious ones -- in support of my position.

Why did I take such a leading role in pushing the amendment?  I felt that from a legal and constitutional standpoint, making a change in public policy so fundamental and so important to many citizens should be done by the democratic process.  At the time, several courts in other states had issued legal opinions, which invalidated or brought into question the idea that a state could ban same sex marriage.  These initial legal skirmishes set the stage for larger cases of more impact that would come later on.  Many of my constituents worried that South Carolina could be next.  My position was that if South Carolina was going to allow same sex marriage, it should be done through the Constitution, and the ballot box, but not through unelected Judges making policy by judicial decision.

This narrow view of the question was just that -- narrow.  It was also erroneous and shortsighted.  But at the time, I genuinely believed that the appropriate way to change the law regarding marriage was to put the question to the public by way of Constitutional Amendment.   We now know the result.  The Marriage Amendment passed both houses by an overwhelming majority.  When the Amendment was voted on in November of 2006, it received a whopping 78% approval.  And then it became the law of the land, and has been ever since.

In preparing my remarks for today, I have reflected on my state of mind and what drove me to be so active on this issue at the time.  That's somewhat difficult to do 8 years later.  And like all people, my motives were not single-faceted but nuanced and complex.  I truly felt, as I stated before, that this was a question of constitutional democracy.  This was a popular issue with the republican electorate, and it remains so today, for reasons which I will explain in more detail later on.  Obviously, doing the will of my constituents, as best as I could identify the meaning of that will, was my job as an elected representative.  But I know now that on that occasion, I did my job a little too well.

So now we come to the present time.  As best I can tell, the reason I was asked to come here is because of a Facebook Post I wrote on June 26th of this year.   I was commenting on the Supreme Court decision in the case of United States vs. Windsor, which held that the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of federal benefits, is unconstitutional.

A good friend told me a long time ago that there's nothing deader than an ex-politician, so at the time I wrote the post, I really didn't think anybody would care.  I wrote it because I was sorry I had fought against marriage equality.  I wrote it because I wanted my two girls to have something in writing from their dad on the public domain that I was wrong on the issue and was stating so publicly.  I wanted them to see, and anyone else who cared, that I was repudiating my earlier stand and openly "coming out" -- as it were -- for marriage equality.

Here's what I wrote at the time:

In my past days as a State Senator, I was active in working for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. With time and much consideration, not to mention a dose of enlightenment and empathy, I realize my past positions in this regard were wrong, and I honestly wish I hadn't been so strident against gay marriage. I have come to see discrimination against gay people as a great wrong, akin to discrimination against blacks, women and other minorities. I believe that if a gay couple desires to get married, they should have the same rights as me. One cannot undo the past, but there is time left in life to change one's mind and reject discrimination of any kind, in any form, and against anyone.

That's what I wrote in June, and from my conservative Facebook friends, I received some interesting comments, but mostly outright silence. 

Right now, in Russia, gays are persecuted and treated like criminals.  Some are even jailed.  We know that Adolph Hitler thought of gays as “subhuman” and murdered thousands of them in concentration camps.  Even in America, hate crimes against gays are perpetrated weekly, if not daily.  I would say to you that America should be better than that.  And America should not have laws on its books that give aid and comfort to those who have prejudice in their heart against gay citizens. 

The problem with prejudice, is that to discriminate against one minority group is to give cover to those who would discriminate against other groups as well.  Hatred, negativity, and blind discrimination are vicious vectors for violence and cruelty. 

The Marriage Amendment, and laws like it, give discrimination against gays the shroud and veil of legal authority.  It says that gays are not as deserving as straight persons of the protections of the law.  And it deprives gay citizens of one of the most basic rights imaginable:  The right to marry.

As it was with Civil Rights in America, so it is with this.  In the south, civil rights would never have happened had it depended on a vote of the people.  The popular will was against equal rights for blacks.  It took the Supreme Court of the United States to summon the courage to end legal discrimination against them.

Likewise today, the Court is there to protect the rights of the minority against the whims and power of the majority.  If a true constitutional right is implicated, as it is here, the Court should step in and do the right thing.  That’s what happened in the recent DOMA decision, which is limited in its impact but will lay the foundation for other court decisions which will start to chip away at the discriminatory laws against gays in this nation.

I believe that during our lifetime, probably sooner than any of us can think, we will reach a point where we look back on the days of legally sanctioned discrimination against gays with wonder and astonishment; where people will say “you know, what the hell was the big deal anyway?” 

I just want to say to those of you who have fought, and continue to fight, for equal rights, that people can change their points of view.   I am by nature a very passionate and relentless fighter for what I believe in.  When it came to the Marriage Amendment, that fighting spirit was misdirected because it sprang from beliefs which, though honest and well-intentioned, were simply off the mark.

I look forward to the day when, throughout this great land of equality and liberty, our gay brothers and sisters are accorded the same rights as everyone else, and discrimination against them in any form will have passed into the distant and unpleasant memory.

Thank you.

"Hunting Eichmann" and the Holocaust of Animals in America

I just read "Hunting Eichmann" by Neil Bascomb for the third time.  The book is about the search for and capture of Adolph Eichmann in Argentina, South America, in 1960.  Everyone should know who Eichmann is, but for those who don't, he is one of the worst war criminals in the history of the world, if not the worst.  He was the Nazi head of the agency within the Third Reich charged with implementation of the "Final Solution", the euphemism for the extermination of the Jews in Europe. Eichmann did his job very, very well.  Because of his tireless efforts, approximately 6 million jews in Europe were forced from their homes, relocated to Ghettos, and ultimately transported by train under horrific conditions to Extermination Camps like Auschwitz.

Eichmann managed to escape Germany after the war and relocated with his family to a suburb outside of Buenos Aires, Argentina.  There he lived under the name Ricardo Clement for nearly 15 years, until discovered almost by accident.  Then, the Mossad, the Israeli Security Service, undertook a bold and risky covert mission to capture him and bring him back to Israel for trial.  The book is non-fiction, every word of it is true.  But it reads better than any fictional book about spy operations I have ever read.

Reading once again about the Jewish Holocaust got me to thinking about a modern day holocaust that we, as the human race, are responsible for perpetrating on a daily basis.

Each year, the Human Population, especially in America, senselessly kills, tortures, and mutilates millions of animals.   In a chilling reminder of the gas chambers, humans force innocent puppies, kittens, dogs and cats into kill chambers.  This happens hundreds of thousands of times every day in America.  And these kills are increasing, not decreasing.

People are torturing animals every day.  The so-called "exotic pet" industry breeds snakes and lizards, and a multitude of other animals that have absolutely no business living anywhere other than the wild. Although many people treat their exotic pets humanely, many more don't, because they don't know how to care for them.  Other people get many more pets, exotic or otherwise, than they can afford to care for or feed.  The result becomes pet hoarding, over-concentration, lack of feeding and watering, crammed spaces, and the spread of pet waste and disease.

If you doubt this, just look at the articles that appear in newspapers once a week about people arrested for hoarding animals in horrific, cramped conditions, without food or water.  And those are just the ones who get caught.  Right now, across America, probably in a home not too far from you, there are animals suffering unimaginable tortures because we simply refuse to protect them.

It sickens to me think that in the year 2013, with people feeling they are so very advanced, modern, and compassionate, there are kill shelters in almost every county in America.  Even more disturbing is that these shelters for the most part often have no choice but to euthanize due to lack of funding, personnel, and an ignorance on the part of the populace that overbreeds and refuses to care for the animals they have.

I want to be clear that I am not comparing those who work in animal shelters, exotic pet shops or owners, or the food industry as war criminals.  No, I am damning the system itself, the part of our culture and religion that treats animals as lower beings somehow not as deserving of basic protections as humans.  We need laws that protect animals from unnecessary death and torture.  We need to enact laws, as soon as possible, that place reasonable restrictions on the breeding and sale of animals.  We need to abolish "puppy farms".

The mark of a truly advanced and civilized society is how it treats its children, elderly, and animals. America is a free nation, but until America learns how to protect innocent animals from the cruelty that we are currently inflicting on them, we will continue to shut our eyes to the holocaust of innocent animals that is going on right around us.

My thoughts on Mr. Chris Morrow's Response to my letter to the Editor

Here's Mr. Morrow's letter:

Sunday's letters: Limits on liability

Apr 26, 2013

The recent letter by John Hawkins attacking tort reform contained some accurate statements about those suffering from the negligence of others.

Never should a law have been put in place that limits liability to a total of $600,000 for the victims of the Cleveland Park train accident. It is also true that the state-required minimum for liability auto insurance is ridiculous. In today’s world of high health care costs and expensive automobile repairs, $25,000 is a slap in the face to those not at fault.

Mr. Hawkins describes tort reform as the government picking winners and losers. A more accurate description may be that the government is trying to prevent trial lawyers from bringing governments and businesses to the brink of financial ruin.

Limits will not always be fair to all parties involved. Without controls, lawyers like Mr. Hawkins will declare open season on taxpayer-funded governments. Businesses already struggling in a litigious environment will pass along their increased legal expenses to consumers.

Of course, there are legitimate losses as the result of negligence, but frivolous lawsuits can’t be ignored. My wife and I were sued for a car accident where $600 of property damage turned into a $25,000 lawsuit for pain and suffering. Not surprisingly, the case was settled for $7,000. If there was so much loss, would the client’s attorney have settled for such an insignificant sum?

I’m sure Mr. Hawkins has never represented such a case. He is, however, handling a lawsuit against the state for the security breach of taxpayers’ records last year. It is not surprising that Mr. Hawkins is not in favor of limits.

The system that is allowing the victims of true negligence with real loss not to be properly compensated is broken. Attorneys are part of the cause.

Chris Morrow

Moore

Here's my thoughts on this gentleman's letter:

It's easy to blame lawyers for society's ills.  The scapegoating of attorneys has been taking place for a long time.  But the truth is, society would be a pretty bad place without lawyers.  Criminal Defense attorneys make sure that law enforcement doesn't get out of control by enforcing the Constitution.  Workers' Compensation attorneys make sure that the worker, injured on the job, gets a fair playing field when he goes against a rich and powerful insurance company with an army of lawyers.  The Personal Injury attorney helps an innocent victim of a car wreck to recoup their damages, pay their medical bills, and get something (yes, something) for pain and suffering and the downright inconvenience of having to deal with a wreck that is not the person's fault.

Mr. Morrow has perhaps forgotten that there is already a system in place to limit out of control damages against Defendants like businesses and governments.  It's called a JURY.  The right to trial by jury is granted by the same Constitution that guarantees the right to bear arms, freedom of religion, and other freedoms I'm sure Mr. Morrow and the rest of us hold dear.  Why then, has the right to trial by jury been eroded over the years by "tort reform"?  The answer is easy, it's been eroded by propaganda and lies.  People who do bad things, people who are negligent, insurance companies that deny legitimate claims:   All want to shift responsibility for their actions away from themselves and instead whine about lawyers.

These people ridicule "pain and suffering" as if it's some kind of line from a fairy tale.  But pain and suffering is a real thing.  It's a tangible, factual condition that is proven beyond any doubt to affect human beings, dogs, mice, and any other being with a central nervous system.  If a driver isn't paying attention and rams their car into another, and injures that person and causes them pain and suffering, why on earth shouldn't the driver be responsible for that?  And if the parties can't resolve their case through settlement, the case will be heard by a Jury of twelve human beings, all with the capacity to feel pain and suffering and, using their intelligence, put a value on that.

I don't know all the facts about Mr. Morrow's car accident, but we can surmise that Mr. Morrow or his wife was at fault for the accident.  $600.00 is not a huge amount of property damage to a car, but neither is it insignificant.  Interestingly, nowhere in Mr. Morrow's letter does he ever accept responsibility for causing the accident.  Instead, he blames greedy trial lawyers for daring to seek compensation for something so fake and silly as "pain and suffering."  In my experience, everybody I have ever had to sue on behalf of a client probably considered the lawsuit "frivolous".   That's just human nature.

I thank Mr. Morrow for his letter, and I appreciate the chance to engage in spirited debate on this issue. Lawyers, and indeed anyone who holds the Constitution near and dear, need to stand up against the assault on the American system of justice and the right to trial by jury.  Nobody likes to get sued, but the slow abolishment of the jury system in America will surely lead to tyranny of the rich and powerful over the individual.  And there's nothing "frivolous" about that.

John Hawkins

Cleveland Park Train Wreck case shows injustices of "tort reform"

The Cleveland Park Train Wreck case is a painful reminder of why so-called "tort reform" doesn't work.  Current law limits the government's liability "per occurrence" to $600,000.  This means that no matter how many people get killed or injured in a single catastrophic incident (like the train wreck) due to the government's negligence, the most that can be collected for all victims total is $600,000.  These kinds of laws are an example of tort reform.  This newspaper, which has advocated tort reform on occasion, is now correct in arguing the limit needs to be raised to help the victims of the train wreck.

But it cannot stop there.  We cannot raise the limit for just one group of victims while ignoring other horrible cases which have not received the same degree of publicity.  As an attorney representing injured people in the Upstate for almost 20 years, I have seen too many other cases in which limits on liability have resulted in the grossest of injustices.  I represented a man who lost his beloved wife to a drunk driver, losing his helpmate of many years, only to have his damages limited by the state's ridiculously low requirements for how much liability insurance people are required to carry.  I've had other cases involving catastrophic injuries and disfigurement, where the insurance limits of the at-fault party were not anywhere near enough to pay for the damages and medical bills.  I could cite many more examples.

The point is, setting arbitrary limits on liability will always result in certain terrible injustices.  The Cleveland Park Train Wreck, horrific as it is, is just one of many situations where wrongdoers are allowed to escape responsibility for their actions due to the government granting them immunity of some kind.  At its essence, "tort reform" is merely the government picking winners and losers in the American Justice System.  The winners are those whose negligence kills, injures, maims and devastates.   The losers are the many families who find themselves unlucky enough to have been injured by a specially-protected class of wrongdoers.

Here's the original Spartanburg Herald Journal Editorial . . .  http://www.goupstate.com/article/20130414/OPINION/304141017/1128?Title=Reimburse-train-victims