GLBTQ: Decades-Long Gay Hate Crime Battle Ends in Legislative Victory, Faces Presidential Veto

On Thursday, the Senate passed the first expansion of hate crime legislation since the 1960s including acts of violence based on a victim’s sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity; currently, hate crimes law only covers religion, race, national origin and color. Since the House passed the bill earlier this year, hate crime legislation that includes GLBTQ violence will, for the first time, head to the President’s desk for approval. President Bush has said he intends to veto the legislation.

Senate Democrats, however, have employed a cunning strategy in an attempt to force the President to sign the bill. They attached the hate crimes expansion to a defense authorization bill, which, according to Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., no president has ever vetoed. If the President does, however, veto the bill, neither chamber has enough votes to override the veto.

Critics on the right argue social legislation has no role in a defense spending bill; but, it very much has a role. According to a LA Times article that recapped the debate of the bill, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., as he spoke in favor of the legislation, displayed a photo of a gay sailor who was killed in 1992 because he was gay. In fact, he was so badly beaten that his own mother could only identify him because of the tattoo on his arm.

The bill is nicknamed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill after the Wyoming college student who was brutally beaten and murdered in 1998 because he was gay. The incident received international attention and brought to light the need for inclusion of sexual orientation in hate crime legislation. For those unfamiliar to the story, Wikipedia has very good summary of the attack.

The Human Rights Campaign reports that according to the FBI, 25 Americans each day are victims of hate crimes; that’s one hate crime ever hour. In fact, one in six of those crimes are motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation. So, surprisingly, the President’s veto threat is based on his feeling that the bill is “unnecessary.”

This is the President’s chance to really focus on his legacy – to leave a positive, lasting impact on our society and to stand up to injustice and bigotry. With approval ratings at Nixonian levels, can he really afford not to sign this bill?