An Historic and Emotional Moment

One of the joys of serving in Congress is to experience moments when your hard work is actually enacted into law. You celebrate each little step along the way - a hearing, an amendment, positive floor action, the other chamber moving on your legislation, the conference committee coming to an agreement. Sometimes the dance of legislation can be long and frustrating. As a result, there's nothing like that feeling of finally passing a bill and having it signed by the president. No better feeling, perhaps, than being there to witness it.

Today, after too many years of delay, President Obama signed into law a bill that makes it a federal hate crime to assault people based on sexual orientation.

A little while ago I hopped on my bike and made the ride up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House to celebrate the signing into law of the Hate Crimes legislation. I noticed on this ride that one of my colleagues, Congressman Mike Quigley (IL-5), also made the trek to executive mansion via bicycle.

While I've experienced the thrill of being onstage next to the president when he signed my legislation, this is one of those rare occasions when I was happier to step back and watch President Obama put pen to paper surrounded by allies and people who have sacrificed so much to pass this vital bill.

Seeing my good friend, great Oregonian, and co-founder of the Human Rights Campaign Terry Bean front and center gave me such satisfaction. He represents so many friends and allies who sacrificed so much, worked so hard, and who represented the people who had suffered so surrounding the President.

Although Hate Crimes legislation is something I believe in and have worked strongly for, it seemed wrong to be sitting in the White House watching this historic and emotional moment without those at home who have worked so hard for this important measure. I wished they could have been there in my stead, but sitting back, taking this in, watching the spotlight shine where it belonged - on the people from the trenches of the GLBT community - was a profound reminder that in the dance of legislation, sometimes the harder, more controversial measures have as their champions not members of the House or Senate, but eloquent, determined, focused and ultimately victorious people from the community who refuse to give up.

Comments

[Maxiesid]

I see the right wing have all memorized their talking points given to them by their masters.
Since it is so hard for you to understand what is happening here.... lets take it in baby steps.
If there were no reason for a hate crimes bill, there would not be one. Yes, it is illegal to kill someone, whether you like them or not. What this does is make it so that when one of you good ole boys and your buddies think it would be funny of a Saturday night to get all juiced up and go out looking for some gay or black (or whatever group makes you feel all funny inside) that you can harrass, then you end up lassoing them and dragging them to their death behind your pickup truck, then Sheriff Gus can't come out and say, "well, those old boys didn't mean no harm, they was just having a little fun and it got out of hand. Just a misdemeanor.. you know accidental death" It takes it out of Sheriff Gus's hands and makes it so that it is taken as a serious crime. I know that sounds pretty threatening to you guys, but too bad.

[gutenmorgen]

Representative Dennis Kucinich voted against this bill because the Obama administration had attached it to the fun ding of DOD, including funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanista­n/Pakistan­. I hope that Dennis will runs in the 2012 primaries and use the mantra: "Character one can beliueve in".

[alex61]

Mixed emotions. I'm not against "hate crime" laws, but I do not understand why we have to have a list of "protected groups" that leave other groups out. What about equal protection? Since any person can be a victim of a hate crime, what not just have a law that reads, "Any person who has been attacked at least in part because of his or her perceived membership in a group is a victim of a hate crime. The perpetrator shall be liable of apprpriate penalties." That way we're all covered.

[KevinVT]

We ARE all covered: it protects "race" -- not just black, not just white, but any race.
"gender" -- not just women, not just men, anyone attacked because of their gender
"sexual orientation" -- not just gay, but straight too

get the idea??

It's just that in the real world hate crimes usually target certain minorities. They're terrorist acts meant to instill fear in communities. They're not crimes that usually happen to just anybody on the street, and they don't look like them. How many people after a robbery get tied to a fence and left to die? How many people after an argument or whatever are tied to a truck and dragged until dead?

[valkyrie607]

People who oppose such legislation based on the idea that hate crimes laws "criminalize thought" are mistaken. Hate crimes laws provide extra penalties for crimes already committed, based on motivation. This principle is already a part of our criminal justice system, otherwise there would be no legal distinction between first or second degree murder, negligent homicide, and manslaughter.

[Notrepublicrat]

Laws will save us all from hate.

The laws will not be abused by prosecutors, nor will they be be politicized.

Hating and killing is so much worse than just killing, right?

[Deninor]

Motre nonsense from Congress. What a waste of taxpayer dollars to have these morons sit and ponticate in Washington. Their average I.Q. is about the same as their poplarity and efficiency ratings: 20% Deninor.

[profproof]

It was already against the law to assault anybody so this is just more stupidity under the banner of "we're doing something".

[NWBrunette]

If all its doing is holding a banner saying "we're doing something" than it surely can't amount to anything for you or anyone else to be concerned about.

[NWBrunette]

Thanks Earl, for your support, your work, and caring. A lot of work for a long time by a lot of people has made a real difference. Hooray!

[JayEsbe]

Is it a "love crime" to assault someone straight? I consider myself very liberal, but legislation which seeks additional punitive measures for "feelings" rather than simply acts, is a very bad idea. If you want a civil society, increase the penalties for ALL assaults.

[NWBrunette]

Read the legislation. Its not about feelings. Its not even about "feelings". Its about behaviors and their clear motivations and intents. And yes, "straights" are included as well.

[JayEsbe]

"Intent" is a feeling or thought. If you disagree with my view, I don't believe you've thought it through. Legislation like this destroys human equality: It creates a special class of persons with more implied value to society than others. It's no different than laws which proscribe harsher penalties for killing a police officer than a civilian (which I also disagrere with). So let's see if you're consistant: Do you agree with laws which proscribe harsher penalties for killing a police officer, than a citizen? If not, you lack a consistent principle.

"All men are created equal". If so, then the reason someone kills another person in violation of the law, is rather irrelevant. Should a person who kills someone because they're poorly dressed, receive a harsher penalty than a person who kills someone well dressed? The crime itself is the same if all men are equal; an innocent person is dead. Who are you to judge one to be of more implied value than another on account of external appearance?

[valboski]

My eyes hurt from crying....crime is crime but that will never be enough for government. Can't wait to see what is the new crime, could it be thinking?

[alex61]

Remember the Tom Cruise movie, "Minority Report?"

[spottery2k]

Exactly why is assaulting a person based on sexual orientation more special than say assaulting them because you don't like the way they wear their hair, or their shoes? It is ridiculous to categorize crimes as particularly heinous based on the motive. A man beats his wife. Maybe he hates her, or maybe he's jealous and obsessive. Whatever the motive, it is a waste of legislative action to decide which circumstance is worse. That's for the courts to decide at sentencing.

[daffey]

I agree with your points. I'm afraid, though, that it's more than a waste of time.

[NWBrunette]

Talk with an FBI agent sometime about the efficacy of the hate crimes law and how beneficial it is. It amazes me that the law and order contingent can't get past their homophobia to see the benefits of this law. But instead of whining about what you think it says and means, go talk with someone in law enforcement who actually has experience with it. It'll be an eye opener for you.

[Dastius-Krazitauc]

"Exactly why is assaulting a person based on sexual orientation more special than say assaulting them because you don't like the way they wear their hair, or their shoes?"

All of those people who are getting beaten and killed because of their hairstyles or shoe choices should make their case. You know, those people who come out of hair salons, and are beaten up while "bad hair wearer!" is screamed at them and carved into their skin? They should make their case that the assailants aren't just beating up one bad hair wearer, but terrorizing the whole group. They should find legislators to fight for their cause. Why don't you lead the way, since this is clearly a concern of yours.

I can't believe how people trivialize this issue.

[alex61]

Since anyone of any gender, race or orientation can be a victimof a hate crime, there should be no list of protected groups. Everyone should be protected by a simple hate crime law.

[KevinVT]

Once again, Hate Crimes Protections are NOT NEW!!!

The 1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin"

The only new thing here is the extension of the protections to cover other motivations: sexual orientation, gender identity, disability.

[daffey]

And there are those who haven't liked them since 1969.

[RightWingMarine]

the new law also covers gender. If a person commits a crime based on a persons gender that is a hate crime. Something another poster pointed out is that a broad interpretation of this would mean that prostitutes that only service members of the opposite sex are commiting a crime based on that persons gender and thus have committed a hate crime.

[Libertyman13]

Oh come on. You have to commit the requisite act, with the requisite intent, against the person first, and failing to have sex with someone for money is actually failing to commit a crime. While I don't support the enhancement of criminal penalties based upon motive, your example is ridiculous.

It's not criminalizing discrimination. It's creating an ENHANCEMENT for a crime already committed. Big, big difference.

[alex61]

Have we covered everyone now? Can anyone think of any other group we've left out? How about protecting members of political movements, like liberals or conservatives?

[daffey]

Sorry, still see hate crimes as a baby step toward thought crimes, a mere leap to thought control. I know folks disagree, but I see it. It’s too subjective. It’s too based on the latest emphasis of who is and isn’t someone we are supposed to care about. Example. There is a shooting at a synagogue today. Sadly, two were shot. It’s already being called a hate crime. There have been a half dozen well known church shootings in the last couple years. In at least two of them, the shooters had a plethora of anti-Christian writings and postings in their homes and on their computers. Verdict? Last I heard, not one has yet been called a hate crime (though I did hear they were, after months of investigation, considering calling one of them a hate crime). Why? Dunno. Apparently, even though religion falls under the protection of hate crimes, it takes more than saying you hate Christians and are going to kill them because they are Christians to qualify. Hence, the problem. It’s all, at the end of the day, a subjectively interpreted application of a government appraisal of our thoughts and beliefs. And that can’t ever be a good precedent to establish, be it for gender, sexual identity, race, or religion. I’ll have to see more consistency in the future to think anything else.

[cuthbertallgood]

Oregon thanks you Earl, for your hard work on the behalf of this important legislation.

[RightWingMarine]

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say a person decides to rob and kill a person they know personally and commit this crime soley because of that persons' sexual orientation. During the commission of this robbery/murder the killer sees there is a witness that the killer also knows personally and knows that this person is of a sexual orientation that the killer finds acceptable. Not wanting to leave witnesses the killer kills the witness too.
My understanding, under this law is the murder of the target vicitm is now a federal matter and subhject to penalty enhancement because that crime was commited because of the victims protected status. But the witness's murder is simply a state matter with no penalty enhancement because the witness does not enjoy a protected status.

Why are some Americans worthy of more justice than others?

[alex61]

Semper Fi, Marine.