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.
House Passes Hate-Crimes Bill - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com
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.
"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?
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?
"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?
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.
It's not criminalizing discrimination. It's creating an ENHANCEMENT for a crime already committed. Big, big difference.
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?