An odd vote on expanding the federal hate-crime law

It hasn’t been a good week for the anti-gay crowd. First, the Massachusetts legislature easily rejected a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and establish civil unions. The vote made plenty of sense — the state has had gay marriage for a year, it’s been relatively conflict-free, and the whole “controversy” has become more politically acceptable.

Someone, however, is going to have to explain this week’s House vote on the hate-crime law to me.

Sex offenders who prey on children would be subject to stringent monitoring requirements and face new mandatory penalties under a bill, passed by the House, that was expanded to include protections for gay men and lesbians under federal hate crime law.

The House voted 371 to 52 yesterday in favor of the Children’s Safety Act, which, among its many provisions, creates a national Web site for child sex offenders and stipulates that sex felons face up to 20 years in prison for failing to comply with registration requirements.

Unexpectedly, the House voted 223 to 199 in favor of an amendment by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) that expands current hate crime law to include some crimes involving sexual orientation, gender and disability. Under current law, the federal government assists local and state authorities prosecuting limited types of crimes based on the victim’s race, religion or ethnic background.

The House has been the chief obstacle in numerous previous attempts to expand hate crimes law, and Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights group, said it was an “incredibly historic vote” that could give momentum to similar action in the Senate.

Keep in mind, the vote wasn’t particularly close. Most Republicans voted against it, but 30 joined Dems in supporting the amendment.

Is the entire anti-gay crusade falling apart?

James Dobson’s Focus on the Family issued an alert to its membership yesterday about the hate-crimes measure — which they labeled “pro-gay.” Not surprisingly, the group isn’t happy about it passing so easily.

Pro-family organizations are crying fowl over the House passing language that would — in an attempt to codify specify rights for homosexuals — punish a criminal for perceived motivation. […]

Bob Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, said gay activists and their supporters in Congress took advantage of the national distraction of Hurricane Katrina and the Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

“This was a total surprise — a sneak attack,” he said. “We got 40 minutes notice that the vote was going to take place, which is hardly time to do anything that matters. And minutes after they passed that amendment, they passed the whole Children’s Safety Act.

“The overall bill, tightens the law against sexual offenders. It’s geared to protect kids. It’s ironic that a bill that would promote the homosexual agenda is tucked into such a bill.”

Obviously, for Knight, it’s “ironic” because, in his twisted world, gays are necessarily sexual offenders.

But the right’s bigotry notwithstanding, how, exactly, did Conyers’ amendment pass? Focus’ alert said the nation was “distracted” and this was some kind of “sneak attack,” but lawmakers still had the measure in front of them and they still passed it easily.

How’d this happen? Are there really 30 Republicans who are this progressive on gay rights? Has the right failed in its anti-gay crusade this badly?

“You give ’em what’s dey wants…”

Plenty of districts are not entirely captive to the mentally ill and the president is about as popular right now as a French Kiss at a Family Reunion.

I’d say 30 are trying to distance themselves for re-election. Besides, the bill protects againt ‘hate crimes’. Sure, you’ll never reason with a mental midget about it, but any remotely sane conservative (if any still exist) would probably accept the explanation that the vote was not pro-gay, but anti-unChristian violence against innocent people.

-jjf

  • Could it be that the machine is falling apart? Could “everyday” Republicans be going into self-preservation mode? Who wants to go back to their district and explain they voted against protecting children because the bill also protected gay rights?

    If we had a parlamentary system in this country either the far-right Dobson faction or the center-right economic Republicans (who don’t necessarily think equal rights is a bad idea) would be pulling out and Prime MInister Bush would be calling early elections.

    At teh risk of sounding optimistic I think (hope) the wheels are falling off the wagon. Too bad nobody told Gov. Ahnold he nolonger had to toe the Dobson line before he drove his approval ratings deeper into the abyss.

  • Because if they didn’t, they would be accused by their next election opponents as not supporting legislation against hate crimes.

  • Because if they didn’t, they would be accused by their next election opponents as not supporting legislation against hate crimes.

    Maybe. The thing is, Conyers’ measure was an amendment. They could have voted against the amendment and still voted for the hate-crimes bill. In fact, they do that all the time, whenever a Dem tries to advance a progressive idea on a piece of Republican legislation.

    If they voted against this, Dems could accuse them in their next election of anti-gay animus, but in too many Republican circles, that wouldn’t be considered a controversial charge.

  • Fowl? Seriously? What kind? Turkey? Chickenhawk? Lame Duck?

    By the way, that was Dobson’s typo, not mine.

  • Actually, crying fowl might be appropriate, as in “THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!”

    Nonetheless, this is a surprising development. Voting for the overall bill is easy to defend, but they had to approve the amendment first.

  • Is the entire anti-gay crusade falling apart?

    Sure looks like it. The prohibition against gays is as old as civilized society, some 5000 years or so. Historically, while condemning homosexuality, “enlightened” societies have tended to gender & racial equality, so they made distinctions that we find no longer necessary. So we may say that we are embarked on a new experiment with the expectation of a happy outcome for all.

    The Church is the last remaining holdout. I happen to know why they’re holding out, but I’m too “new agey” for them, so will omit the argument. The Church is on life-support, they’re at death’s door anyway. In theory, an openly gay clergy will finish them off (the African opinion), but, hey, who needs the Church anyway? I for one am eager to see the outcome of the match.

  • If the war on gays is over, someone gotta tell the Christian Civic League of Maine. We’re having another ‘People’s Veto’ referendum of another anti-discrimination bill that passed both Houses and was signed by Gov. Baldacci.

    We’re always a bit behind here, having had the 60’s during the 70’s and the 70’s during the 80’s.

    mainewont discriminate.org.

  • and the president is about as popular right now as a French Kiss at a Family Reunion.

    Daaaang, that is one funny analogy. The vision is sick, but the analogy is still funny!

  • I think that Carpetbagger is right about the bill, but wrong about the objective in the comment above. Yes bill, no amendment was possible, but yes amendment is a move to the center – under the cover of a hate crime bill.

    There is a big difference defending gays from a crime and voting for, say, civil unions. I think 20 or more saw this as about as safe an outreach as they could find, and a few decided to vote the concience since toeing the party line pretty much has them looking like Satan’s minions as it is.

    -jjf

  • Are there really 30 Republicans who are this progressive on gay rights?

    Hell, yes. There are certainly at least 30 Republicans in the House who have gay family members or friends. 25 years ago, maybe even 10, they wouldn’t have been aware of that. Now, they are. Perspectives are changing, even in Republican circles. They may not have the guts quite yet to stand up on a gay-friendly issue when the spotlight is on, but a vote which hasn’t been targeted for a homophobic campaign is a good place to start voting what they really believe.

  • Comments are closed.