35 GOP Senators Vote Against Defense Bill With Hate-Crimes Amendment

It's not easy to get 35 Republican senators to vote against defense spending -- unless hate crimes legislation is involved.

The Senate narrowly invoked cloture on Thursday, 64 to 35, on the defense authorization package with the bill named for Matthew Shepard attached. The bill, named for a gay Wyoming teenager who was kidnapped and beaten to death in 1998, makes it a federal crime to assault someone on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Senate Republicans conceded that the Shepard bill swung their votes against the defense package. "The bill includes hate crimes legislation, which I firmly believe is unnecessary, irresponsible, and certainly not germane to this bill," Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said. "There is little evidence that indicates that violent crimes motivated by hate go unpunished in the United States. Every single state has criminal laws that prohibit the antisocial behavior addressed by hate crimes legislation, including laws against rape, assault and battery."

Those are states' rights issues, said Chambliss. "I do not believe the federal government should interfere with the criminal laws already on the books in our states," he said.

John McCain decried the inclusion of the hate crimes provision as an "abuse of the Senate process," arguing that it was not germane to the broader defense authorization bill. But Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) noted that this was nothing new -- the Senate has included hate crimes provisions in previous defense bills.

Only Sens. Dick Lugar of Indiana, George Voinovich of Ohio and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine voted with Democrats to move the legislation to a final vote, which is expected Thursday night or Friday.

"I'm disappointed that Senate Republicans have decided that defeating hate crimes legislation takes precedent over supporting our troops," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a statement. "It is outrageous and unacceptable that Senate Republicans would vote against pay raises for our troops, battlefield equipment upgrades and increased funding for veterans' health care as we continue to fight two wars. And they decided to do this all for the sake of stopping passage of landmark legislation that will bring justice to those who commit violent crimes based on bigotry and prejudice. What message does that send to our country and, more importantly, to our troops?"

Thirty Republicans also touched a nerve in a separate defense bill recently, when they voted against an amendment that would deny defense contracts to companies that ask employees, including rape victims, to sign away the right to sue. That time, they were actually joined in some of their concerns by the Department of Defense.

A final Senate vote on the defense bill is slated for Thursday night or Friday morning. It passed the House two weeks ago, 281 to 146, so it would proceed from there to the White House. President Obama has promised to sign the Shepard bill, a reversal from the policy of the Bush administration.

Comments

[coreypaul]

04:32 AM on 10/27/2009

I wonder why Christians think they should be allowed "special" rights, and protections, but don't want gays too...oh wait thats right.....35 Republicans Would Rather See Soldiers Die Than Support Equal Rights For Gays.

[Foreground]

01:05 PM on 10/27/2009

You know, after a couple of days, it suddenly dawned on me that the whole argument about how some citizens were more important than others and thus people who hurt them deserved to be punished worse than if they'd hurt anyone else is complete bullcrap.

Hate Crime Laws grant their protection to EVERYONE, equally. It punishes people on the grounds of their motive, which can be directed at any single person.

You get beaten up because you're GLBT? That's a Hate Crime. You get beaten up because you're straight or non-sexual? That's ALSO a Hate Crime. Get beaten up for being a woman or hermaphrodite? Hate Crime. Get beaten up for being a man or a eunuch? Boom, Hate Crime.

Hate Crime legislation is about generalities: If you get assaulted for your perceived race, religion, gender or your sexual orientation, then you're the victim of a Hate Crime, regardless of whether or not you're a minority or a member of a more traditionally victimized area of society.

[anastasialyrae]

05:57 PM on 10/23/2009

Hate crimes laws are necessary for us victims of these acts of terrorism. If you oppose this bill, you utterly fail to understand, you refuse to think with your brain, feel with your heart. These laws do not address murder, rape and assault. They address acts of terrorism, plain and simple.

I was gang raped by five boys while I was in the 11th grade. They were the most popular athletes in our school. They didn't rape me because they wanted sex. They raped me because I'm a lesbian. They were terrorizing me and the dozen or so other out lesbians in my high school.

I called the cops. All they did was allow the school to wash away the evidence. A rape kit was done on me at the hospital but was never processed. The detective interviewing me told me "hating men does not justify falsely accusing these fine christian boys of rape," and that if I persisted with my false allegations, I was the one going to jail. I backed down under that threat even though I had been raped.

This happened in San Diego, CA in 1993. The authorities condoned what happened to me. They should not have gotten away with their crimes, but they did.

This was an act of terrorism aimed at the lesbians in my school. Mathew Shepard's murder was an act of terrorism aimed at the gay men in that town. When you oppose hate crimes laws, you are supporting terrorism.

[BringmeReason]

07:05 PM on 10/23/2009

A perfect example of why specific hate crimes are essential. A crime just isn't the same if a law official can reject it based on religious views, which the very often do; since according to them, it would make more sense to accuse the rapee of lying rather than the so-call good Christians.

[cuomofied]

08:56 PM on 10/23/2009

I'm sorry to hear about what happened to you and it is atrocious.

But what you fail to comprehend is that hate crime legislation wouldn't have done a thing for you.

The police failed to prosecute on solid evidence of rape, at which point you had a legal right and a moral obligation to prosecute the police department and the individuals involved.

[Foreground]

11:46 PM on 10/23/2009

Actually, as I understand the Shepard Bill, it would have very much done something to help her, as one of the provisions is that, if the state seems to be unwilling to properly investigate/prosecute a hate crime, the federal government would step in and take over.

[anastasialyrae]

12:34 AM on 10/24/2009

I was barely 17, homeless and living with my girlfriend's parents. I wouldn't have gone to jail if I pressed it, but I believed what the detective said. Even if I wasn't estranged from my family then, it takes substantial resources for a legal challenge. Tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. What kinda of 17 year old has access to those kind of resources? Rich kids? Anyone else? Didn't think so.

If this bill was law then, the feds could have stepped in and forced action. They can't now when a terrorist's target is gay. They can very easily if it's about race, or any other protected category. I was denied justice because I was the target of a terrorist attack based on my sexual orientation. If this was law when I was attacked, the federal legal system would have been available to me to seek justice when the state and local legal systems failed me.

Moral obligation? The police had a moral obligation to give me justice for the terrorist attack I suffered. They failed. I have no obligation to do their job if they refuse. I barely survived. My only moral obligation is to continue to survive, and possibly help another girl survive if I can. I am the VICTIM! This bill will allow the feds to force them to do their jobs, or do it for them. To expect me to do that when it took all my effort to not kill myself is absolutely absurd.

[keepitreal50]

05:52 PM on 10/23/2009

RACIST HATE GAYS TOO

[keepitreal50]

05:51 PM on 10/23/2009

THAT'S WHAT RACIST DO

[BringmeReason]

04:00 PM on 10/23/2009

Honestly I thought the GOP were going to make arguments against this bill such as, this is just another way government is over reaching and abusing its power i.e Big Government, or this bill adds onto the deficit by using more government money to battle minute non-existence matters (Both terrible points but are possible from republicans). Instead, a lot of their main concerns were directed to a possibility in lack of free speech and or limitations exercising their religion. It's almost as if they are saying the inclusion of this bill will limit their rights to publicly hate and have that hate radiate throughout their viewers who will take it unto their own to cause physical harm to those they hate.

[cuomofied]

10:17 PM on 10/23/2009

Well, in a statutory law system, precedent is key. And if you can begin to erode the protections on say, religious views, you could eventually use it to punish people for mere opinions. It's already happening in Europe.

Now, I am an atheist. I don't agree with homophobic sentiment, but in a truly free society, I will disagree with what you think, but I will fight for the death to defend it. If religion carries an idea that homosexuality is wrong, they are entitled, regardless of how off base I personally feel in regards to that opinion they are, to think that way as long as they are not endangering or physically harassing homosexuals.

The underlying problem with hate crimes legislation, regardless of how well intended it may be, is that ultimately it does put an additional penalty on thought, when that is traditionally reserved for the severity of the sentencing.

[Foreground]

11:50 PM on 10/23/2009

It's not an added penalty on thought, its merely acknowledging that the thought behind the action (ie: motive) is different than another version of the same act, which is already the foundation of prosecution.

Vehicular homicide and vehicular manslaughter are both crimes that can involve killing someone with your car, but the motive behind them is different, so they get tried differently. A regular crime is against an individual, while the hate version of it is against the community that the individual belongs to.

[cuomofied]

10:18 PM on 10/23/2009

Damn run on sentence. Fight to the death to defend it. Sorry - too much effing coffee.

[bluefire66]

01:53 PM on 10/23/2009

As a gay guy I welcome this. But it's just another example of how the RepubliCANT party is more concerned over wedge issues than the security of our military forces and the country. It's about time this legislation has passed and it is now a Federal issue and not a state issue. Each state has different laws. This makes it across the board. The right wing are probably crying in their beers right now.

[Okieborn]

12:23 PM on 10/23/2009

The Republicans absolutely see NO GOOD in What is Good for the American citizenry !!
Shameless !!!

[cuomofied]

10:21 PM on 10/23/2009

And the left sees nothing wrong with valuing one life over another. Shameful!

[S E Martin]

08:30 PM on 10/24/2009

Care to explain what you mean by that?

How does the left do this? What are you really trying to say?

[Foreground]

01:07 PM on 10/27/2009

Because they don't. Killing someone for being gay is a terrorist act against the gay community, and should be treated as such. The same holds true for killing someone for being straight, and this Bill's wording would ensure that THAT is also treated as a Hate Crime.

[2centsplain]

12:20 PM on 10/23/2009

Time to spend your time and money putting these people out of the Senate.

[Cookie100]

11:47 AM on 10/23/2009

What'd you expect! Last week they voted saying it's OK for women to be gang raped.

The week before Kyl said he didn't need maternity care in his insurance, why does anyone!

This is exactly who they are. If you're not old, southern, ignorant, uneducated and miserable, you're not a tr0//, cause that's who they are. Women and minorities not wanted

[Ricardo01]

01:06 PM on 10/23/2009

Time to put it in their platform. "We are the party of pro-rape and pro-hate crimes."

[cuomofied]

08:57 PM on 10/23/2009

Yup, and a top Dem is stripping Franken's bill as we speak. Time to put your money where your mouth is and say democrats support rape too.

[Schalaine]

09:45 PM on 10/28/2009

Don't worry. Any DINO will be challenged. We need real Progressive Democrats in the House and /senate. The next two elections will be very important.

[MikeDu]

11:44 AM on 10/23/2009

They're *pro-hate crimes*. Its as simple as that. This is the political wing with a legacy of public lynchings. This is the party that feels the need to stockpile firearms. this is a very dangerous group of people.

[mervr1]

11:19 AM on 10/23/2009

The problem that the GOP has with this bill is that many of their constituents would be locked away and their party would dwindle to about 2% especially in the South and Texas.

[1differentdrummer]

10:59 AM on 10/23/2009

But they have magnet "Support the Troops" signs on their limos.

[Dante in Madison]

10:58 AM on 10/23/2009

You know, I can see at least part of their argument: a crime is a crime and should be punished accordingly.

HOWEVER, even that argument is diminished by the fact that we already have different laws and punishment for murder (think murder in the 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc. etc. etc.).

Enacting a hate crimes law would be no different than what we're already doing (or should be doing) other than it would more clearly define current laws and/or have an impact on punishment for such crimes.

We should have a clearly defined hate crimes bill and law.

[Grunty1]

11:09 AM on 10/23/2009

I'm in total support of hate crime measures simply because the crime isn't personal. It has nothing to do with the person being assaulted or murdered at all, just their race, coloring or some other feature. And there are always more people similar enough to trigger that crime again.

[loria]

11:23 AM on 10/23/2009

Hate crimes are essentially an enhancement. They exist all over the country in different forms (use a gun during a felony in some statesand you fall into a different catagoy, etc). What this legislation does is add an enhancement, and additional consequences when a crime is committed because of race, gender, reliogion, ethnicity, etc. It makes the terrorization of certain people (groups consistently targeted just because of who they are) illegal. Expanding hate crimes legislation was necessary to protect a group that is often victimized just because they are gay.

SC has NO hate crimes legislation. Here is an example of how someon motivated by hate can kill someone who is gay and get no significant consequence as a result (I guess if you think 199 days in jail is adequate for killing someone, you might disagree). Sean Kennedy fell through the cracks. Had these laws been expanded years ago his killer wouldn't be walking around today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_W._Kennedy

[stuporman]

10:57 AM on 10/23/2009

the party that thrives on hate is against making hate a crime. who could have seen that one coming?

[justoverit333]

10:54 AM on 10/23/2009

A bunch of closet homosexuals

[puffthedragon]

11:13 AM on 10/23/2009

truckstop bathroom booties