Senate Democrats Attach Hate Crimes Law to Defense Bill

[SpartanDem]

Senate Democrats said on Monday that they would seek to broaden the federal hate crimes law to protect victims of attacks based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disabilities.

To lift the chances of passage, Democrats said the legislation, known as the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, would be attached as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill – a must-pass measure.

The proposal is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay University of Wyoming student who was tied to a fence, beaten and left to die in 1998.

The Senate approved the legislation last year, also as part of the military authorization bill, but it was never reconciled with a similar House-passed bill.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/senate-democrats-attach-hate-crimes-law-to-defense-bill/

[Faux pas]

1. kicking for visibility.

[usregimechange]

2. It needs to pass by itself, I don't think it is ethical to do that

[Arkana]

3. Republicans attached all kinds of bullshit riders to bills when they were

in the majority.

If this is what it takes to get much needed legislation passed I really don't give two shits. Yeah, it's a bit hypocritical, but I'd like to see the Dems throw their weight around a bit.

[SpartanDem]

6. It's done all the time

Remember national parks gun law that came with the credit card bill? Well now it's our turn

[Rob H.]

4. Caught a snippet of Focus on the Family's morning show

this morning (keeping up with what the enemy is up to, so to speak). The right-wing fundagelicals are absolutely freaking out that it might get passed. They're perfectly content to support hate crimes legislation as long as it includes protections based on race or religion but not if it also includes protections for sexual orientation.

[readmoreoften]

5. Good: By Any Means Necessary.

Nice to see some D's growing a little spine in those jelly backs.

[cslinger59]

7. I don't have a problem with going after folks who commit "hate crimes"

I just have a problem with making said crime worse because it is a "hate crime". I would be all for making the punishment worse for all assaults for instance but I have a hard time with making it worse for beating up a homosexual or a minority vs. somebody deemed a majority.

In my mind beating up said homosexual above should be treated just as seriously as beating up anybody.

Now I can see adding other charges such as premeditation if it was shown that the assailant planned to go after all(insert group here) etc.

I think at its core it bugs me that we need to have "hate crimes" when all crimes no matter who they are perpetrated against should be taken seriously.

Don't really have a problem with the bill just the need for it so to speak.