Last week the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed out of the Judiciary Committee. The legislation now makes its way to the floor of the United States House of Representatives for consideration by the full chamber.

[...]

Under the current US federal law, enacted nearly 40 years ago, the government has the authority to help investigate and prosecute bias-motivated attacks based on race, colour, national origin and religion. However, under current law, the federal government is not able to help in cases where women, gay, transgender or disabled Americans are victims of bias-motivated crimes for who they are.

For example, in Texas, in July 2005, four men brutally assaulted a gay man. While punching and kicking him, whipping him with a vacuum cord and assaulting him with daggers, the offenders told the victim that they attacked him because he was gay. Two of the men were sentenced to six years in prison under a plea bargain that dropped the charges that could have sent them to prison for life.

Under this bill, federal authorities would have had the jurisdiction to prosecute the crime or could have provided local authorities resources that might have assisted them in pursuing a longer sentence. The act would provide crucial federal resources to state and local agencies and equip local law enforcement officers with the tools they need to investigate and prosecute crimes.

[...]

In the hate crime on which the film Boys Don't Cry was based, 21-year-old Brandon Teena was raped and later killed by two friends after they discovered he was biologically female. After the rape and assault, Teena reported the crime to the police, but Richardson County Sheriff Richard Laux, who referred to Teena as "it," did not allow his deputies to arrest the two men responsible. Five days later, those two men shot and stabbed Teena to death in front of two witnesses, Lisa Lambert and Philip DeVine, who were then also murdered. JoAnn Brandon, Teena's mother, filed a civil suit against Laux, claiming that he was negligent in failing to arrest the men immediately after the rape.

The court found that the county was at least partially responsible for Teena's death and characterised Laux's behaviour as "extreme and outrageous." Had this federal hate crime law been in effect, federal authorities could have investigated and prosecuted the offenders when the local authorities refused to do so.

Just when it was thought that the hate crimes debate had hit rock bottom, some pro-family organizations opted to capitalize on tragedy and politicize the deadly shootings at Virginia Tech to score political points.

"Under this legislation, the crimes at Virginia Tech, which some are calling one of the deadliest rampages in U.S. history, would not be punishable to the level of these so-called 'hate-crimes'," wrote Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council (FRC), in an email alert sent out to FRC supporters. Perkins' analysis, however, was far from over.

Explaining why the hate crimes bill is not good for America, Perkins wrote, "If the House approves H.R. 1592 and the Senate follows, a homosexual would have more federal protection under the law than the 32 victims of last week's massacre."

Words cannot describe how disheartening such a comment, from a man who champions the values of Christianity, is. While parents, siblings, students and staff mourned the senseless killings of 32 members of the Virginia Tech community, Perkins thought it was an opportune time, and perhaps even an exercise of his Christian duty, to exploit the tragic situation to aid in the manufacturing of a "homosexual agenda." This is not only degrading to Virginia Tech and to the gay community, it clearly prostitutes any notion of family values.

And while many would hope that Perkins' actions are isolated instances of political prostitution, one would be wrong as the folks at TVC found it prudent to debase the image of Christ to make a political point.

TVC has produced a "wanted poster" in which Jesus Christ, wearing a crown of thorns, is wanted for violating the proposed hate crimes bill. Under "identifying remarks," the poster reads, "scars along forehead, in the hands and feet, & scar on side." The poster states that Christ is "wanted for revealing the truth about homosexuality in 'The Bible' and encouraging his followers not to offend God by committing such behavior."

Herbert wrote, " . . . a close look at the patterns of murderous violence in the U.S. reveals some remarkable consistencies, wherever the individual atrocities may have occurred. In case after case, decade after decade, the killers have been shown to be young men riddled with shame and humiliation, often bitterly misogynistic and homophobic, who have decided that the way to assert their faltering sense of manhood and get the respect they have been denied is to go out and shoot somebody."

He turned to New York University professor Dr. James Gilligan who has spent years as a prison psychiatrist studying violence. Combining misogyny and homophobia is lethal, according to Gilligan, who terms the coupling a "central component" in most of our nation's most violent crimes.

After decades of working with murderers, rapists and every kind of violent criminal Gilligan concludes "that an underlying factor that is virtually always present to one degree or another is a feeling that one has to prove one's manhood, and that the way to do that, to gain the respect that has been lost, is to commit a violent act."

Herbert then wrote "Violence is commonly resorted to as the antidote to the disturbing emotions raised by the widespread hostility toward women in our society and the pathological fear of so many men that they aren't quite tough enough, masculine enough -- in short, that they might have homosexual tendencies."

Under the current US federal law, enacted nearly 40 years ago, the government has the authority to help investigate and prosecute bias-motivated attacks based on race, colour, national origin and religion.

All this still begs the question of why in the first place HRC and its Democratic allies in the Senate chose to burden the hate crimes bill by linking it to easily the most controversial piece of legislation in Congress. The hate crimes measure has bipartisan majority support in the Senate and so would pass if voted on as a free-standing measure (or attached to something germane and not so controversial).

There is the potential for filibuster, of course, which would raise the bar to 60 votes for Senate passage, but there's no guarantee (or even a specific threat) that the Republicans would target such a popular measure or that there'd be too few votes to overcome a filibuster if attempted. In fact, the last time the gay-inclusive hate crimes bill passed the Senate, in June 2004, the vote was 65 to 33, with 18 Republicans voting in favor. That's not only enough to overcome a filibuster, it's just shy of enough to override a veto.

And yet once again, like so many times before, through years when Democrats controlled one or both houses of Congress and even the White House, gay rights bills wallow as low priority items. There's no talk of votes in the House and Senate for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act either, even though it has majority support in both chambers. We shouldn't be surprised. Democrats and their lackies at HRC have been hinting privately since January that "the deal" with the party's leadership is that only hate crimes would get a vote this year, so this "frustrating delay" fits the pattern.

What further evidence do we need that gay rights are little more than a political football to Howard Dean, Harry Reid and other Democratic leaders? They called for votes on gay rights measures when the GOP controlled Congress and they knew Republicans would kill them, but they sit on their hands when they're in control.

They sit on their hands not because they oppose our civil rights. Their support is real, if mostly rhetorical. But they know that if a hate crimes bill passes, or even if it's vetoed, the gays will start clamoring for a vote on ENDA. If ENDA passes or is vetoed, then "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is next on the list. And as we travel down that list, the political risk to Democrats grows. Or worse yet, a lame duck Republican president might sign hate crimes or ENDA, and the Democrats' lock on being the party of equality would be challenged.

It all boils down to this: Democrats have controlled Congress for six months now, and no gay rights bill has made it to their priority list for passage. Now, according to HRC, all we've got is a "commitment" for a vote on hate crimes "this year." Even if that happens, that still leaves ENDA, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and a half-dozen other gay rights bills languishing in Congress.

And when "this year" is over, and maybe hate crimes at best will have gotten a vote, we already know what we'll be told because we've heard it so many times before: 2008 is an election year, and gay rights is too hot a potato to touch right now. Now more than ever is the time for action from our "courageous" Senate allies Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. They've all promised "leadership" on gay rights if elected president, so let's see some "leadership" now and demand a vote in the Senate on the gay rights bills that are pending.

And just to get this out of the way (for the 100th time): By criticizing these Democrats, I am not saying Republicans are better. Of course they're not. And anyone who suggests differently should have their head examined. But the question is whether our energy is better spent complaining about conservative Republicans we’ll never change or pressing "friendly" Democrats who actually control the fate of gay rights legislation. Even our friends in Congress are politicians first and will take the path of least resistance. We need to make action more attractive than inaction for them. Look no further than the anti-war movement’s unrelenting pressure and the way Democrats have responded. Only we have the votes on our bills that they do not.

All this still begs the question of why in the first place HRC and its Democratic allies in the Senate chose to burden the hate crimes bill by linking it to easily the most controversial piece of legislation in Congress.

SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.
...
(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person–

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–

`(I) death results from the offense; or

`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that–

`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim–

`(I) across a State line or national border; or

`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)–

`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

Suppose, all thise nonsence is due to the competition between the state vs the federal legislation? I fear the worst for the coming EU laws, if they will be forced to take notice of the rights of member states...

A gay- and transgender-inclusive hate crimes bill will remain stalled in the Senate until at least September and could remain in limbo until October or later, Capitol Hill sources familiar with the legislation said.

In a related development, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated this week she expects to bring another key gay rights bill, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, to the House floor for a vote in September.

“We expect ENDA on the floor in September,” said Sydney Jones, a Pelosi spokesperson. ENDA would ban employment discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity.

I've seen crowds stand and cheer when pastors trot out the tired old rhyme about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The room would get quiet, though, if their message about homosexuality was rooted in love and infused with the humbling reality that all have sinned and come short of God's glory.

"It's really kind of disappointing to see church leaders want to protect hate speech in the pulpit," said Jonathan Cole, co-coordinator of the Shelby County Committee of the Tennessee Equality Project.

"This isn't something that the monolithic church has decided on," he added. "There's a very diverse number of opinions on the issue."

In fact, the African American Ministers in Action, African-American Women's Clergy Association, Church Women United, the Episcopal Church and Congress of National Black Churches all support the federal hate crimes legislation.

Still, on the Memphis City Churches' Web site (mphscc.org), the hysteria is evident in the urgency of all capital letters.

"ANY SERMONS AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY WILL BE A CRIME. TELLING A PERSON THAT HE OR SHE CAN COME OUT OF GAY LIFE WILL BE A CRIME."

So much for the commandment prohibiting lying, since none of this is true. U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, who voted for the bill that will now go to the Senate, has tried to assure local ministers as much.

"ANY SERMONS AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY WILL BE A CRIME. TELLING A PERSON THAT HE OR SHE CAN COME OUT OF GAY LIFE WILL BE A CRIME."

Unfortunately, the legislation in question does not include provisions nearly similar to the quoted ones. Be them assured, however, that if I were the legislator, the quoted passage would be accepted without a question. I shiver in respect when I imagine what kind of sentences the tresspassers would face if Feral would be the judge!