Full story: Congress acts to extend hate crimes to cover gays
10.08.2009 4:53pm EDT
(Washington) The House voted Thursday to make it a federal crime to assault people because of their sexual orientation, significantly expanding the hate crimes law enacted in the days after Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination in 1968.
With expected passage by the Senate, federal prosecutors will for the first time be able to intervene in cases of violence perpetrated against gays.Civil rights groups and their Democratic allies have been trying for more than a decade to broaden the reach of hate crimes law. This time it appears they will succeed. The measure is attached to a must-pass $680 billion defense policy bill and President Barack Obama – unlike President George W. Bush – is a strong supporter. The House passed the defense bill 281-146, with 15 Democrats and 131 Republicans in opposition.
“It’s a very exciting day for us here in the Capitol,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., saying hate crimes legislation was on her agenda when she first entered Congress 22 years ago.
She said it’s been 11 years since the gay Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard, whose name was attached to the legislation, was murdered.
The late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was a longtime advocate of the legislation.
Many Republicans, normally stalwart supporters of defense bills, voted against it because of the addition of what they referred to as “thought crimes” legislation.
“This is radical social policy that is being put on the defense authorization bill, on the backs of our soldiers, because they probably can’t pass it on its own,” House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said.
GOP opponents were not assuaged by late changes in the bill to strengthen protections for religious speech and association – critics argued that pastors expressing beliefs about homosexuality could be prosecuted if their sermons were connected to later acts of violence against gays.
Supporters countered that prosecutions could occur only when bodily injury is involved, and no minister or protester could be targeted for expressing opposition to homosexuality.
The bill also creates a new federal crime to penalize attacks against U.S. service members on account of their service.
Hate crimes legislation enacted after King’s assassination defined hate crimes as those carried out on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. It also limits the scope of activities that would trigger federal involvement.
The proposed expansion would include crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It eases restrictions on federally protected activities.
Some 45 states have hate crimes statutes, and the bill would not change the current situation where investigations and prosecutions are carried out by state and local officials.
But it would provide federal grants to help with the prosecuting of hate crimes and funds programs to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.
The federal government can step in after the Justice Department certifies that a state is unwilling or unable to follow through on a purported hate crime.
While Republicans voted against the defense bill because of the hate crimes addition, openly gay Democrat Jared Polis of Colorado said he would vote for it despite his opposition to U.S. military presence in Iraq. The reason hate crimes are so odious, he said, “is that they are not just crimes against individuals, they are crimes against entire communities and create environments of fear in entire communities.”
Tom McClusky, vice president of the conservative Family Research Council’s legislative arm said the next step likely would be contesting the legislation in court. “The religious protections are pretty flimsy,” he said. He contended that Democrats were trying to move their “homosexual agenda” this year because it would prove unpopular with voters next year.
The FBI says there are some 8,000 hate crimes reported around the country in a year. More than half of those are motivated by racial bias. Next most frequent are crimes based on religious bias at around 18 percent and sexual orientation at 16 percent.





U.S. Republicans and Canadian Conservatives both need to learn that hate speech or speech designed to encourage discrimination leads to acts of hate and violence against minorities and people who cannot defend themselves. Such speech has never been covered as free speech in a democracy. Free speech brings certain responsibility to be truthful and not cause harm.
The fight against hate speech will be an ongoing struggle. Here in Canada, for example, our Conservative Party and several provincial right wing parties as well as a few religious groups want to remove sections from human rights laws that place restrictions on hate speech. Clearly we do not learn from history. Hitler also defended hate speech as free speech. Then he took power. True free speech was banned, but the hate speech continued and was blessed by his government.
Lazy, inaccurate journalism is worse than no news at all.
Until the US Senate also passes the legislation, Congress hasn’t passed a damn thing. But kudos to the US House, which did pass it.
Although I lean far left, I disagree with Wayne M. Hate speech is free speech. It should never be possible for the government to muzzle someone for speaking their mind. The response to hate speech is more speech, preferably the truth.
Hate crimes (involving something other than just speech) are another matter. The intent to intimidate, harrass, or exterminate a group should be considered an aggravating factor in any crime, reflected in stonger sentencing.
I am with Wayne on this one Randy. There is a constitutional test though that determines whether or not hate speech is protected or not.. It is the Unlawful Incitement Test; made in Brandenburg v. Ohio 1967. It says that if the speech will lead to direct violence or unlawful acts then it is not protected under the first amendment. More recently though in Rice v. Paladin 1997 the 4th circuit court ruled that you don’t need incitement in certain cases. Paladin’s book, Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors, was used as the basis for 3 murders court ruled that he could be tried for aiding and abating murder.
I would think that if a pastor said “Kill a queer for Jesus and you will be rewarded in heaven” that is would fail the incitement test and most definitely fail this newer version
Like DUH Alexa. I believe your point was covered in elementary school.