The Senate passed groundbreaking legislation Thursday that would make it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.
And Obama has Pledged to sign the measure into law. Huzzah!
This month, Obama told the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest gay rights group, that the nation still needs to make significant changes to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians.
“Despite the progress we’ve made, there are still laws to change and hearts to open,” he said during his address at the dinner for the Human Rights Campaign. “This fight continues now, and I’m here with the simple message: I’m here with you in that fight.”
Among other things, Obama has called for the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. He also has urged Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act.
(N.B. It’s possible this is all just a beautiful dream we’re having.)
I’m confused–what does this have to do with Byrd & Shepard?
I mean, the post is great and all. Just wondering about the title :)
they were both beaten to death because they were gay, and neither crime counted as a hate crime under law at the time.
The law is named after them. I had a moment of confusion, too, largely because when I read ‘RIP Byrd’ I thought of the very elderly Democratic senator.
All the reports claim that Byrd was dragged to death behind a truck because he was black – not because he was gay?
I mean….isn’t it already a crime to beat the shit out of someone? This is why hate crime laws confuse me. Who cares what the reason is? People just shouldn’t beat/torture each other.
I sympathise with your viewpoint, wolfshowl. I think people think hate crime is more serious than just (!) beating someone because it is directed not just at that person, but the group that they represent (gays, blacks, or whatever). Some people argue, therefore, that they are a sort of terrorism act. They are designed not just to kill one person, but to intimidate the community to which that person belonged. As such they deserve more severe penalties.
Yes – some earlier hate crime legislation has already been named after James Byrd who was killed because of his race. That could be why the amendment is named after him also.
Good explanation, Monkey, thanks. I’d add that hate crime legislation also serves as a way for a society to express its revulsion for the prejudices on which hate crimes are based, which is a worthwhile thing. (But I do always think the term ‘hate crime’ is unfortunate– many, many crimes of violence are literally hate crimes in the ordinary sense of ‘hate’.)
oh right, sorry for misspeaking re byrd. monkey, i agree, good explanation! another thing to note is that, in the american case, hate crimes are federal crimes, whereas ‘regular’ assaults, etc, are not. so, states have leeway in how they deal with a ‘regular’ assault, but if it’s a hate crime, federal government says what happens. seems to me that this could be a way to keep individual states from turning a blind eye to crimes perpetrated against minorities. (this is just a guess, tho. i don’t really know a lot about this stuff.)
Jender and Elp – what you say seems right, and also really important.
Monkey–That is the best explanation I’ve ever heard for differentiating hate crimes. So thanks for that.
I did read somewhere once that someone was puzzled that there’s no misogyny hate crime laws. I thought it was a good point.
“Obama has called for the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.” – I thought that at least on that front, it looked Obama wasn’t going to stand up to his promise. Any new developments there?
I think that hate laws are stupid. If someone kills a man he should go to jail because he killed a man, not because of that man’s sexual orientation. Is killing a homosexual person worse than killing a heterosexual person? No. Yet this law seems to think so.
The law is concerned with a difference in motives. Two such acts may be equal in some situations and not equal in others.
There are many cases where motives makes a big difference to the nature of the crime.
I can see what you mean. If someone unintentionally shoots someone, he should be liable, but the fact that it was accidental would certainly lessen the punishment and for good reason.
Yet I do not think that sexual orientation or skin color should be included. If someone beats another (obviously they mean to do it, you can’t accidentally beat someone) they should go to jail for beating someone. How can one legitimately tell if the motive was racism or homophobia?
John, there are lots of ways to discern someone’s motives much of the time, if not always. Further, for lots of racist and sexist violence, the perpertrators are completely open about it.
Yet my argument still stands. Why do we insist on portraying violence against women or homosexuals as more offensive and worthy of more punishment? Shouldn’t all people be treated equally in punishment? If I, as a white, heterosexual male, were mugged, shouldn’t the mugger get the same sentence as if he mugged a black, homosexual woman?
John, your argument does not still stand. You maintain the actions are morally the same. The response to that is that intention makes a big difference to the moral quality of the action. Hate crime legislation is about the motive of harming someone because that person is a member of a particular group. You have not addressed the fact that motive makes a difference other than to wrongly say we cannot tell what motive a person has.
This really is not the blog for you. Here we do really insist that we do not simply repeat a position.