
Why is the Matthew Shepard Act a hard sell? You'd think a bill designed to protect minorities from violence would sail through Congress. Well, last week we discovered that's not the case, as House leaders dropped the legislation from a defense bill, saying it didn't have the votes to pass.
A little background: Our president has long vowed to veto the Matthew Shepard Act, legislation that would have protected LGBT people as well as disabled people from hate crimes. So to get around Bush, the Senate attached the bill to a military spending measure the president would have had difficulty saying no to. It passed the Senate, but when it got to the House -- which had previously passed a similar, stand-alone hate-crimes bill that is now in limbo -- it became clear that the newer bill didn't have the support it needed. Many liberal Democrats would have voted against the bill since it authorized war spending, and many conservative Republicans would have voted no because they don't want the current hate-crimes law changed (appeasing their constituencies, they claim). So the hate-crimes provision was stripped from the defense bill.
If it ever passes, the Matthew Shepard Act would give federal authorities greater leeway to participate in hate-crime investigations and step in if local authorities are unwilling or unable to act. The bill's death was a blow to Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who sponsored the act, and Judy Shepard, mother of the slain gay man for whom the bill is named. Contacting The Advocate from outside the country, Judy expressed both sadness and optimism.
Of course you’re disappointed. Are you surprised
about what happened with the bill?
You know, I am. I thought that once it went
through the Senate, once it was attached to the
defense bill, that it would not come out. In
conference we knew [its removal] was a possibility
because of the division in the House over the defense
bill at large -- certain people, and other people not
wanting the hate-crime bill no matter where it
appears. So we knew there would be a discussion, but it
never crossed my mind once that it would be yanked.
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.