We call hate crimes unnecessary, but the term “hate crime” may not be necessary, either.On Oct. 28, President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard Act, extending federal hate crime laws to protect a wider range of sexual orientations and genders.The bill appears to bend toward justice and come down harder on malevolence. What could possibly be wrong with this? Nothing – if you’re comfortable cherry-picking your definition of “hate.” People who impulsively applaud this noble umbrella term are ignoring the semantic thicket into which it thrusts us. Even more appalling is how it was passed – attached to a pricey Department of Defense bill. Pairing hate crime legislature with military expenditures is not only an irrelevant undertaking, it’s unthinkably tactless. And this comes from someone wholly opposed to the military-industrial complex. It begs the question, “What is a hate crime?” Our government surely doesn’t know. On one side of the Atlantic, this bill sponsors Joe Soldier’s 105 mm armor-piercing round as it bores through the skull of the enemy he has been trained to engage – conditioned to, dare I say – hate now, and ask questions later.Stateside, the same funds may sponsor a trial prosecuting the offender of our new and improved “hate crime” laws. The slope is getting slippery.And what about Joe Soldier, anyway? No matter which tango he downs, armed or unarmed (they all dress the same, right Joe?) it’s all for love of his country – an intense, unbridled, shell-shocked love. Need we venture further into the shroud?What about when a husband kills his wife in the heat of passion upon catching her in bed with another man? Because when O.J. pretty much admitted to murder, he said, “Assume that I killed her. It was only because I loved her so much.” Matthew Shepard was tragically tortured to a slow, painful death because he was gay — the details of which are well documented. Calling it a hate crime is redundant. The conditions surrounding his death speak for themselves. His killers too will end their lives slowly, in the confines of a prison cell.But for all his martyrdom toward gay rights, Shepard is no deader than another victim of premeditated murder who died peacefully in his sleep, single gunshot wound to the head.And so, calling one act a “hate crime” does not make it unequivocally more evil than the other. Similarly, since hate crimes have nothing protecting the genetically-predisposed morbidly obese, am I somehow “less hateful” for running over the next Walmart shopper who needs the motorized cart just to get around? Because I’ve heard plenty of people express their “hate for fat people.”Having specific “hate crimes” only does two things at present: First, it patronizes families into thinking their son or daughter is more special than just the “regular” murder victim. Shepard was plenty special, but his sexual preferences don’t make torturing “more wrong” than it already is.Second, it further compartmentalizes a judicial system already mired in bureaucracy, wasting precious dollars trying to make a black and white picture from gray paint. It is good that the government honors people like Shepard – he did not die in vain. But the government should also check its fog lights every so often, even if it hates to.Jack Johnson is a 23-year-old mass communication junior from Fort Worth, Texas. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_jjohnson.– – – – Contact Jack Johnson at [email protected]