Democrats may drop hate crimes from defense bill - Washington Blade: Gay and Lesbian News, Entertainment, Politics and Opinion

NOVEMBER 22, 2009


Login or create a new account ?

Matt Foreman says it might be time for the Senate to consider a stand-alone hate crimes bill.

MOST VIEWED

Democrats may drop hate crimes from defense bill
New FBI data shows increase in violence targeting gays

HOME > NEWS > NATIONAL NEWS

Nov 22, 2007 | By: LOU CHIBBARO J | COMMENTS

Leaders of gay and transgender advocacy groups pointed to a newly released report by the FBI this week showing a nationwide increase in anti-gay hate crimes as an important reason for Congress to pass the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill this year.

News surfaced last week that the hate crimes bill, which includes protections for gay and transgender persons, was in jeopardy because an undetermined number of Democrats who support it did not want to vote for a defense authorization measure to which it was attached in the Senate.

At least 20 gay-supportive Democrats were ready to vote against the National Defense Authorization Act because it includes provisions that support President Bush’s effort to continue the Iraq war, according to Capitol Hill sources.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her fellow House Democratic leaders last week postponed a decision on whether the keep the hate crimes bill in the defense authorization measure until the House returns from its Thanksgiving holiday recess on Dec. 3.

Two Capitol Hill sources familiar with plans by House Democratic leaders said Pelosi was assessing whether there would be enough votes to pass the defense authorization measure with the hate crimes bill attached.

If the votes are lacking, Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) would be inclined to drop the hate crimes bill from the defense measure, the sources said, out of concern that Democrats would be blamed for failing to pass a defense bill needed for a long overdue military pay raise and other “bread and butter” programs favored by rank and file soldiers and their families.

Dropping the hate crimes bill from the defense measure would kill it for this year, but some activists expressed hope that Congress would pass a freestanding version of the bill early next year.

The FBI report, “Hate Crimes Statistics, 2006,” shows that the number of violent hate crimes targeting gays that were documented by local law enforcement agencies increased from 1,017 in 2005 to 1,195 in 2006. The report shows that anti-gay hate crimes represented 15.5 percent of the total number of hate crimes reported in 2006 and the third most frequently reported type of hate crime.

Violent hate crimes based on the victim’s race comprised 51.8 percent of the 2006 total, and violent hate crimes based on the victim’s religion made up 18.9 percent of the total, the report shows.

“This FBI report confirms what the Human Rights Campaign has known for over a decade — that hate crimes protections for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community are long overdue,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “We urge Congress to send this legislation immediately to President Bush’s desk, and for the president to sign it into law.”

The House passed the hate crimes bill as a freestanding measure earlier this year. The Senate approved an identical version of the bill a short time later as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, at the request of Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), the bill’s two leading Senate backers.

Democratic leaders took steps to schedule several ‘pro forma’ sessions of the Senate during the Thanksgiving holiday break in an effort to prevent the president from making recess appointments, including that of surgeon general nominee Dr. James Holsinger. (Photo by Patti Longmire/AP)

The two said their aim was to make it less likely that President Bush would veto a hate crimes bill if it was part of a larger defense bill that the president supports. The White House has said Bush was leaning toward vetoing the hate crimes bill.

Since the House version of the defense measure doesn’t include the hate crimes bill, a House-Senate conference committee must now reconcile the differences between the two versions. House conferees are expected to yield to the position of House Democratic leaders. The full House and Senate must then approve whatever compromise the conferees work out.

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said if supporters of the hate crimes bill determine there aren’t enough votes to keep it attached to the defense authorization measure, Senate Democrats should schedule a vote as soon as possible on freestanding hate crimes bill. Foreman noted that the Kennedy-Smith amendment attaching the hate crimes bill to the defense measure passed with 60 votes as part of a “cloture” motion to end a filibuster.

“It might be time to pass a stand-alone hate crimes bill and force ...

COMMENTS

Please review and follow Washington Blade’s current Comment and Discussion Policy. Guidelines updated as of August 22nd, 2009. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

stephenclark
Washington, DC

0

Matt Foreman is now willing to kill the hate crimes bill in order to avoid creating a precedent demonstrating the possibility of passing a gay-rights bill by attaching it to a piece of must-sign legislation. Why? Because that precedent would interfere with his ability to continue spreading the lie that there is no way to enact the House-approved version of ENDA in this Congress. So now he is out to kill not only ENDA but the hate crimes bill as well. His shamelessness is an outrage.

Posted 11/22/07 - 10:21 AM

Beckygrrl
North Brunswick, NJ

0

No, Stephen, it is you who are outrageous. You promote the totally unsupportable fantasy that Bush will ever sign any version of ENDA. It is you, HRC, and the Democratic Party leadership who are really spreading the lies. George Bush is the kind of man who vetoes health care benefits for poor children. What on earth makes you think he's going to sign a bill authored by Democrats going into an election year that grants employment rights or any kind of benefit to any of us? Indeed, you are as willfully ignorant as you are shameless and selfish. The Dems threw transpeople over for a worthless bill that will never pass just to pander for votes. What makes you think they won't do exactly the same to all of us now that they seek to pander to an even larger and more influential group? Get a clue, dude! These people only care about your money and your vote, and once they have that, they couldn't care less if you live or die.

Posted 11/24/07 - 9:22 PM

stephenclark
Washington, DC

0

Becky, of course Bush won't sign any stand-alone hate crimes or ENDA bill, but this story and my comment were about attaching them to some of Bush's precious Iraq war bills or the like. He still might even be so antigay as to veto an Iraq bill solely because it has a hate crimes or employment rider, but that is not at all clear at this point. Few ever imagined Bush would sign a stand-alone bill, and sending him one has never been the strategy. Matt Foreman's constant, disingenuous statements that assume a stand-alone bill is the only way to enact legislation are part of his shameless "say anything" campaign to mislead rank and file gays and lesbians - just like his (and Lambda's) baseless claim that Frank's version of ENDA is toothless. These deliberate distortions suggest that Foreman does not think he can persuade people with an honest argument.

Posted 11/24/07 - 11:01 PM

jeri .

0

bush will obviously veto a stand alone enda, but to push that through is good strategy, while foreman's support of a stand alone mathew sheppard act is an outrage? matt foreman is a leader, seeking equality and justice for the GLBT community. you stephen, are only looking to secure rights for people like yourself. what is probably worse, you care more about being correct in your interpretation of the exclusive ENDA strategy than any harm or good that might result from the legislation.******** "spreading the lie"? "out to kill not only ENDA but the hate crimes bill"? "say anything campaign to mislead rank and file gays and lesbians"? stephen, how can you shamelessly defame a civil rights LEADER? how can you possibly justify these presumptions? oh, wait a minute. i forgot. matt foreman doesn't agree with your self serving strategy concerning enda.

Posted 11/25/07 - 5:29 PM

stephenclark
Washington, DC

0

jeri, both ENDA and hate crimes were passed as stand-alone bills in the House. It is in the Senate where hate crimes was attached to the Iraq bill and where perhaps the same thing can be done with ENDA. That attachment provides a possibility, however remote, for enacting ENDA under Bush. Foreman understands that. In telling you unequivocally that ENDA is dead this Congress, he has been purposely lying to you. I find that an appalling abuse of the trust laypeople place in him as the exec. dir. of an organization, and it has permanently destroyed his credibility. I used to have great respect for Foreman. But he has chosen to distort the effectiveness of Frank's bill, to mislead laypeople about past strategies at the state level, to annoint himself the movement's sole spokesman, to sabotage a bill in a tantrum-like fashion when his distortions failed to persuade others to his point of view, and sanctimoniously insinuated that anyone who disagreed with him was nothing but a common bigot. No one who has such an authoritarian personality and such contempt for the intelligence and opinions of rank and file gays and lesbians deserves any leadership position in the movement. He's become a petty demagogue, not a leader, and the Task Force should fire him if it wants to be a credible player in the future.

Posted 11/26/07 - 9:25 AM

jeri .

0

stephen, mr. foreman can emphatically state that ENDA is dead in congress without abusing the trust of laypeople. we "laypeople" are not the idiots that you might presume. the effectiveness of 3685 is questionable, especially to anyone who has ever read an argument presented by a judge to explain his ruling. 3685 is filled with little holes, and by removing gender identity,a HUGE whole was created. that is just my opinion. it appears to be the opinion of mr. foreman as well. a large portion of the GLBT community shares it. the reality is that NO ONE will actually know how well the legislation will protect the GLB until after it has become law, if it ever becomes law. even a layperson knows that. as far as being a demagogue and an authoritarian, i quote "It might be time to pass a stand-alone hate crimes bill and force the president’s hand". that doesn't come across as an all knowing never wrong kind of guy to me. it sounds more like an opinion that a leader might have. which is all i have ever taken matt foreman to be - a civil rights leader with principled opinion. as far as credible players, if any organization needs to recoup their credibility, it is HRC. joe solomnese OUTRIGHT lied concerning the support for non-inclusive legislation. and no, we aren't talking about an opinion. we are talking about willful mis-representation. i wonder why you aren't recommending his discharge?

Posted 11/26/07 - 11:20 AM

stephenclark
Washington, DC

0

I am not recommending Solmonese's discharge because he finally corrected the error in political judgment that HRC made in 2004 - under Cheryl Jacques - to oppose any version of ENDA that did not include gender identity. That was a politically unrealistic decision, and HRC eventually had to acknowledge it. In fact, I vehemently criticized HRC in 2004 for doing exactly what Foreman is doing now - deliberately distorting the efficacy of the traditional version of ENDA and purposely misleading rank and file gays and lesbians. HRC is responsible for the cruel reversal that its initial error made all but inevitable, but the mistake was not the reversal. The mistake was adopting the unrealistically purist position in 2004. HRC is a political lobby group, not a philosopher or spiritual leader. It would be wonderful if we could all just wish our ideal legislation into being, but if you want to actually enact something, rather than just bask in the purity of your ideals, you have to be hard-nosed, pragmatic, and realistic. HRC usually is, and purists hate it as a result. But religion and philosophy are the venues for idealism and purity; politics is not. Nader voters learned that lesson the hard way, helping to saddle us all with the Bush Administration because they - astoundingly - rejected Al Gore in 2000 as insufficiently pure for their uncompromising ideals. They thought they preferred to fail with their purity intact too.

Posted 11/26/07 - 1:51 PM

jeri .

0

i am sure that our founding fathers would have loved your concept about idealism. "live free or do something pragmatic to keep living." what an inspiring policy that is - no wonder so many died for it.***** stephen, you condemn dishonesty when it suits you and applaud dishonesty when it suits you. it is all about you, i guess. basking in the purity of my ideals? LOL hardly, but whatever i am doing, i am not wallowing in a self serving defeatest philosophy that would mandate betrayal of my allies. legislation is in itself not a reality. it is only a symbolic "standard". society at large is the final judge. what do you believe a society thinks of one who would betray their allies? pragmatist or coward? you know what i think. i hate to think that cowards and sissies lacking moral turpitude would be in a position to make choices for or in any way represent the GLBT community, yet you would embrace them as the "ideal" lobbyists. we will just have to agree to disagree. BTW, i am not into politics, so i don't know anything about nader or gore. i am more of a libertarian than anything else. you know, the old "live free or die" kind of a girl. and again, matt foreman isn't misleading anyone. just stating his own opinion. for misleading, see joe solomnese.

Posted 11/26/07 - 2:26 PM