Matthew Shepherd Hate Crime Bill passed the senate

[Zerbie]

The hate crimes bill passed the senate today.

No comments yet?

[mjules]

What?? My news alerts haven't sent me anything! Do you have any links?

[u-dog]

The hate crimes bill passed the senate today.

No comments yet?


woohoo!! what was the margin? any surprise votes?

[tdogg]

Yes, I read the alert this morning!!! It's great news! And it passed by a fairly good margin (39 to 60 I think).

So, now that Bush has vowed to veto it, are there any ideas on what we might do to TRY and change that? Is it a lost cause or should we proceed to do SOMETHING?

Luckily I live in a state that has reasonable US Reps and Senators. :D:love:

[scrupulous_stoic]

I am writing a letter to Rod Parsley, who apparently is adament about how this bill will "cause the creation of a thought police."

Odd, I know.


I am glad, though, the bill passed.

[Zerbie]

RE: the President, I think that it is likely a lost cause but that it would be good to "do something" anyway. Old-fashioned blast of phone calls to the White House, maybe? Petitions?

The cries of 'thought police' about this legislation really irk me. The people doing that complaining really need to read the legislation. This is a GOOD bill. I've never supported a hate crimes bill before because I was concerned about spill-over into "hate speech" territory, but this bill specifically protects freedom of speech and association - which is why I personally got on board with the citizen lobbying and the phone calls. It protects our freedoms while also protecting the LGBT and other communities from hate violence by expanding the possibilities for investigation and prosecution. At the same time, it sends the crucial message that hate violence against such communities will no longer be tolerated - a message that needs to be sent.

[antonyh]

What a great day...we're so close to victory. I'm still plugging away at http://www.hatecrimesbill.org when I'm not slaving away at work.

[andrewlittle]

I am writing a letter to Rod Parsley, who apparently is adament about how this bill will "cause the creation of a thought police."

Odd, I know.


I am glad, though, the bill passed.

Normally I wouldn't discourage anyone, but contacting Rod Parsley is not really a good idea. I know him from my years in Columbus - his World Harvest Church is in a suburb - and he is only about preaching a prosperity gospel. His message requires any number of less-than-human groups by which to spread his message of exclusivism and hate - and GLBT are at the top of the list. Women are also right up there, but that wouldn't be your concern.

If you show up on his radar screen, you run the risk of personally coming under attack - and I mean that to be sound as threatening as it seems. His reputation is one of being a pitbull when anyone crosses or disagrees with him or his "ministry" - all the while smiling that sickeningly sweet, used-car-salesman grin.

Rod Parsley is an advocate of thought police, actually - but those who would outlaw anything except thought that agrees with him. He actually "labored for two straight years" to "translate" scripture into the Breakthrough Reformation Bible - correcting the mistakes made by translators throughout the ages. He is his own idol, and does not tolerate interference from anyone.

[Emproph]

woohoo!! what was the margin? any surprise votes?

Apparently Larry Craig voted against it (or maybe that's NOT surprising).

From Good As You (http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/09/breaking-right-.html), this guy's a frikkin riot. Every day, every post.

Well, we'll all have to stay tuned to see if the president wants to be remembered as someone who forfeited his opportunity to be a civil rights proponent, or if he wants to be remembered as someone who REALLY, REALLY forfeited his opportunity to be a civil rights proponent.

[efs5r]

From Schmitz Blitz (schmitzblitz.wordpress.com)

Senator Craig has apparently voted against (http://schmitzblitz.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/sen-craig-votes-against-hate-crime-amendment/) the Kennedy hate crimes amendment, which would add gays to the federal hate crime statute.

If he voted against gays, he can’t possibly be gay, right?

Let’s see if the court (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092601566.html?hpid=moreheadlines) reviewing his bathroom sex sting case buys it.

UPDATE: the hate crimes measure passed the Senate this morning by a vote of 60-39.

[Progo35]

Whew!!!! Hate crimes bill passed!!!!

[SomervilleGuy]

That darn Senator Craig is really the poster child for Denial, with a capital D - right up there with Ted Haggerty. I feel bad for them in a way, because they have a lot to lose by coming out. But yet, really, they have a lmore to gain too, most notably their own self respect, the respect of some of their constituency, and a clean conscience for once! But coming out when you are married and have a family is tough. So we should pray that they encounter good therapists that would help them come out.

But that Rod Parsley: "all the while smiling that sickeningly sweet, used-car-salesman grin." That was really priceless!! And he does it, all while he stabs the GLBT community in the back. When I saw his emails coming to my inbox, courtesy of my mom (thanks a lot, Mom!) I promptly flagged it as Junk Mail and checked "Block Sender". ANd that was that....

[Daniel]

So, now that Bush has vowed to veto it, are there any ideas on what we might do to TRY and change that? Is it a lost cause or should we proceed to do SOMETHING?
:

From what I read, the Democrats are using a bit of strategy by tucking this legislation in with a huge war spending bill. If the president veto's one, he veto's the other too. ;)

Sounds like a game of chicken.

I expect he will shoot himself in the foot on principle.

[antonyh]

Yes, I read the alert this morning!!! It's great news! And it passed by a fairly good margin (39 to 60 I think).

So, now that Bush has vowed to veto it, are there any ideas on what we might do to TRY and change that? Is it a lost cause or should we proceed to do SOMETHING?

Luckily I live in a state that has reasonable US Reps and Senators. :D:love:

What is curious about the veto threat is that it is worded in a way that gives President Bush an out:

"If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend he veto the bill."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr1592sap-h.pdf

As Daniel mentioned above, the Bill is attached to the defense bill so it will be hard for him to really veto it.

I remain optimistic (or naive) (or in intentional denial)

p.s. An team of legal scholars wrote a rebuttal to the White House's SAP above which claims that hate crime legislation is unconstitutional. If you're having trouble sleeping, here is the rebuttal:
http://www.acsblog.org/criminal-law-legal-scholars-contradict-white-house-on-hate-crimes-bill.html

[Daniel]

Came home after work to catch Real Time With Bill Maher (HBO). The program....

9/28/07

Tonight on Real Time with Bill Maher, Bill will be interviewing award-winning filmmaker Ken Burns about his new PBS documentary The War and CNBC news Anchor Maria Bartiromo will discuss the economy. On the panel will be Georgetown professor and author Michael Eric Dyson, former editor of the New York Post and New York Daily News Pete Hamill, and Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL).

What was interesting (I tuned in late) was that Bill didn't quite get why we need Hate Crimes legistlation (!?!?!?!?). However, Micheal Eric Dyson and Rahm Emanuel hammered the idea home- repeatedly. Dyson made the point (his is black) that Hate Crimes legsislation is needed as was Civil Rights legislation; the Consitution in both cases not adequately protecting minorities. Emanuel reiterated that people still think it's ok to commit a crime against a gay person, and do so with impunity.

Then they went on the other things.

Kinda burned me up. Here is Maher, who has made a point of -seemingly- being for gay rights. He's always making jokes about how Republicans are hypocrites etc. Why doesn't he get it?

He thinks that the 'law' as it exists should apply to everyone. That would be fine in a perfect world. But it doesn't.

Fear and Hate exists. You'd think he would know this after being thrown off the air after 9/11.

[antonyh]

Came home after work to catch Real Time With Bill Maher (HBO). The program....



What was interesting (I tuned in late) was that Bill didn't quite get why we need Hate Crimes legistlation (!?!?!?!?). However, Micheal Eric Dyson and Rahm Emanuel hammered the idea home- repeatedly. Dyson made the point (his is black) that Hate Crimes legsislation is needed as was Civil Rights legislation; the Consitution in both cases not adequately protecting minorities. Emanuel reiterated that people still think it's ok to commit a crime against a gay person, and do so with impunity.

Then they went on the other things.

Kinda burned me up. Here is Maher, who has made a point of -seemingly- being for gay rights. He's always making jokes about how Republicans are hypocrites etc. Why doesn't he get it?

He thinks that the 'law' as it exists should apply to everyone. That would be fine in a perfect world. But it doesn't.

Fear and Hate exists. You'd think he would know this after being thrown off the air after 9/11.

A lot of people don't understand why we need additional penalties for crime motivated by bias. I think a lot of that stems from the fact that they don't understand the special impact on the victims of bias crime and the community with the same quality of being. I think that is why Fredrick M. Lawrence's testimony before the House is so critical. He deals with this and provides the rationale for these additional penalties.

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Lawrence070417.pdf

I just wonder if Bill, et. al. have actually taken the time to read this kind of document and to think about it.

[antiochian]

Perhaps some of us need to start writing letters to Mr. Bush. I know the addy is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., D.C., not sure what the rest is. Of course, I doubt that the president really takes the time or has the time to read all of his mail, but writing is better than doing nothing.

Thank goodness for the M.S.A. passing!! What a comfort to Matt's poor parents, and an encouragement to GLBTQ Americans.

[Dumbledore]

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=15272

[tdogg]

I was wondering if combining it with DOD would backfire. Seems either way, it's destined to lose this time. It really needs to be a stand alone issue. I have to admire those who are standing on their principals regarding the war even if it means the hate crimes bill doesn't pass this time.

Does anyone know if this gets vetoed, how soon this could get pushed again? As the house and senate both approved, perhaps this is something we definitely want to get through for the new administration.

[Dumbledore]

I was wondering if combining it with DOD would backfire. Seems either way, it's destined to lose this time. It really needs to be a stand alone issue. I have to admire those who are standing on their principals regarding the war even if it means the hate crimes bill doesn't pass this time.

Does anyone know if this gets vetoed, how soon this could get pushed again? As the house and senate both approved, perhaps this is something we definitely want to get through for the new administration.

Yeah it may backfire in a big way. There is a related story. The radical right group Repent America just got a higher court in PA to repeal the expansion of their hate crimes bill that included sexual orientation and gender identity.


Commonwealth Court’s 5-1 ruling handed a victory to a conservative Christian group called Repent America who filed a lawsuit in 2005 challenging the amendment of the state hate-crimes law in 2002.

Repent America founder and leader Michael Marcavage and others affiliated with the group argued that the amendment was passed unconstitutionally because it was inserted into legislation that was originally a bill concerning agricultural vandalism and crop destruction.

Judge James Gardner Colins wrote in the majority opinion that the final legislation bore no resemblance to the original bill by the time it was passed and signed into law by then-Gov. Mark Schweiker.

“We emphasize that no matter how salutary the purpose of a bill may be, it still must comport with constitutionally mandated requirements for passage,” Colins wrote.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3665


This maneuver with the federal hate crimes bill may be bad long term strategy.

[u-dog]

I was wondering if combining it with DOD would backfire. Seems either way, it's destined to lose this time. It really needs to be a stand alone issue. I have to admire those who are standing on their principals regarding the war even if it means the hate crimes bill doesn't pass this time.

Does anyone know if this gets vetoed, how soon this could get pushed again? As the house and senate both approved, perhaps this is something we definitely want to get through for the new administration.


If the next adminstration is Democrat this legislation will DEFINATELY be put forward again and this time it wouldn't be vetoed. If the democrats increase the size of their majority in Congress... then the Transgender provisions will probably be put back into the bill. It could be better all around to wait until 2009.

[Dumbledore]

If the next adminstration is Democrat this legislation will DEFINATELY be put forward again and this time it wouldn't be vetoed. If the democrats increase the size of their majority in Congress... then the Transgender provisions will probably be put back into the bill. It could be better all around to wait until 2009.

The transgender part IS included in the Hate Crimes Bill. It is not included in ENDA. I definitely don't want to wait on the Hate Crimes Bill, but ENDA...yeah...let's wait until we can add the T.

[antonyh]

How very disappointing. With Election year in '08, I doubt that it will be revived.


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) and Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.)Thursday morning acquiesced to demands by House Democratic leaders to drop a gay and transgender inclusive hate crimes bill from the National Defense Authorization Act, a knowledgeable Capitol Hill source said.

The decision kills the hate crimes bill for this year, but House Democrats, led by gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), are calling on the Senate to pass a freestanding hate crimes bill as early as February.

Senate Democrats had hoped to pass the DOD authorization bill with the hate crimes measure in tact, saying it was the best strategy for discouraging President Bush from vetoing the hate crimes measure, which Bush opposes.

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=15561


Gay365 (http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/12/120607hate.htm)
Guardian Unlimited UK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7132325,00.html)

[antonyh]

Here is what the HRC has to say about the loss of the Hate Crimes Bill. I wonder if it will be possible to reintroduce this into the Senate given two facts:

1) It is an election year
2) The President waiving his veto pen


Today, House-Senate conferees confirmed that the Matthew Shepard Act, which had passed the Senate as an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill, would be removed from the final version of the bill. This announcement was made after House Leadership’s whipping the vote count on the conference report concluded there were not enough votes for passage of the bill if it included the hate crimes provision.

"Today’s decision is deeply disappointing, especially given the historic passage of hate crimes legislation through both Houses of Congress this year. After more than ten years and several successful bipartisan votes, it is heartbreaking to fall short this close to the finish line," said Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign. "However, we are not giving up on efforts to find another legislative vehicle, in the second half of this Congress, to move the Matthew Shepard Act."...

Inclusion of the hate crimes provision in the final version of the bill fell victim in the House to challenges from opponents of hate crimes as well as unrelated concerns regarding Iraq-related provisions of the bill. The hate crimes veto threat issued by the White House and organized opposition by House Republican Leadership cost significant numbers of votes on the right. Iraq-related provisions that many progressive Democrats opposed cost votes on the left. Moderate Democrats, many of whom voted for the hate crimes bill in May, did not want to test the President’s veto threat and risk a delay in increased pay for military personnel. All of these factors resulted in insufficient votes to secure passage of the bill with the hate crimes provision.

"The exhaustive efforts of Majority Leader Reid, Senator Kennedy, Senator Smith, Senator Levin, Representative Conyers, Representative Kirk and other allies of equality on Capitol Hill, to keep the Matthew Shepard Act as part of this bill should not go unnoticed. We thank them for their efforts and know that they will continue to work with us to find a way to get this legislation to the President’s desk," continued Solmonese.

http://www.hrc.org/8435.htm

[Progo35]

I agree with U Dog about combing this bill with the DOD bill. It gives the impression that Congressional representatives might try to "sneak" other, bad things by opponents by attaching it to another bill that is favored by the opponents.

[ladyinred]

Why was it thrown in with the hate crimes bill, this seems suspicious as if it were some subversive attempt to keep the hate crimes bill from being passed.It apparently didn't work to combine the two to keep it from being vetoed.