You could use it as a defense after the fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense

Nope and there never could be, thank God. The "gay panic defense" was just a falsehood, a way to manipulate the truth to make it seem like there was some way to justify being a hateful bigot with no morals or ability to control themselves. And it never worked, it was never a successful defense anyway - thanks to educated people with more intelligence being able to see right through it for the morally corrupt bullshit it really is. Nothing can justify murder or assault, and judges and smart people know that.

Not only a law but a defense strategy in court. Gay Panic and Trans Panic as well.

I don't think shoving someone is going to end up in court unless it's a super unfortunate situation where you shove someone and they trip and fall and hit their head and die or something.

The article doesn't go into detail what specifically defendants alleged when invoking the law, but it does say it's similar to a temporary insanity plea. So "I was so enraged by the fact that a gay came on to me that I killed them". Which is a little extreme. Imagine every woman that's ever been hit on by a man they didn't like just attacking with the intent to kill. Just unreasonable all around to allow that as a defense

Violence can't be condoned or forgiven. And no gay person is going to try and come onto you and touch you unless you were clear about giving unmistakable signals about wanting that. No gay person would waste their time with someone that they know is not interested in them. And what's so hard about just saying, "Hey I'm not into that," if someone DID do that. Why are so many men quick to act out of anger and violence, instead of reason and a little human compassion. It should not be that hard to be civilized and mature people.

The difference is degree of escalation. In your example it’s “I was being sexually assaulted” and in the gay panic defense it’s “I interpreted reasonable but unwanted flirtation as danger and responded with violence.” It’s generally used in situations where as a woman if I attacked a man I’d assume I’m getting arrested.

Now personally I have mixed feelings on banning the defense. It never works and so I think bar associations should condemn it in the same way they should condemn any defense by confessing. But I also do think it should come with additional punishment, not because “how dare you defend yourself like this” but because you’re confessing to it being motivated in bigotry. It’s “it was self defense I swear, what happened was [confession of it being a hate crime]”