One of the stock arguments against hate crimes legislation has been that an enhanced penalty for someone convicted of a bias crime might somehow open the door to special rights or protections in law for homosexuals. Some have gone so far as to tell the bill's sponsor, Rep. David Litvak, D-Salt Lake, if the words "sexual orientation" were struck from the bill, it would pass easily. Litvak has held his ground, however.

This year, the parameters have changed. In the 2004 election, Utah voters overwhelmingly supported a prohibition on same-sex marriage in the 2004 election. In effect, the vote on Amendment 3 should silence the "slippery slope" arguments that have been leveled against Litvak's bill since its inception. Amendment 3, which amends Utah's constitution to define marriage, effectively outlaws gay marriage.

Given that, will this be the year that Litvak's bill finally passes? We certainly hope so.

Litvak's bill would enhance by one step the sentence of those convicted of a bias crime. The legislation is endorsed by the state Sentencing Commission because people who perpetrate bias crimes are generally more violent than offenders who commit crimes for other reasons. Bias crimes may be committed against individuals, but, by their nature, they cut a wider swath in society. Litvak has said crimes of bias perpetrated against an individual have a "ripple effect" among people of the group.

Utah needs a defensible hate-crimes sentencing enhancement because Utah's existing hate crimes law is rarely if ever used by prosecutors across the state. It requires proof that a victim's civil rights were violated. That's a steep legal burden for the state.

Litvak's bill is legally sound and should hold up to constitutional scrutiny. The classifications listed in it are based on law that has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Those classifications include race, color, disability, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age or gender.

The essence of this issue is that Utah needs to take a strong stand against hate crimes, which some advocates say have been on the upswing in recent months. Lawmakers need to give judges the option to level harsher punishments against people who not only harm individuals in the name of hate but who do so to intimidate people of like characteristics.