Hate crime law passes House

Ten years after Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered in Wyoming because he was gay, the House today finally extended the extra protection of hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation and gender identity. It now goes to the Senate.

This action is long overdue, and even now the ignorant and bigoted are spreading lies to try to prevent it. During the House floor debate, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) repeated the false claim made by right-wing blogs that Matthew Shepard, for whom the bill was named, was murdered in a robbery and not because he was gay. She says those who say he was murdered because he was gay are "perpetrating a hoax on the American people" that "continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills."

My question to her is: Why? Why would people make up something like that? The purpose is simply to place extra penalties on crimes based on who somebody is -- because such crimes are meant to intimidate and demean a whole group of people, in addition to whatever the individual crime is.

What advantage would it possibly be for anyone to invent such a thing?

And why would anyone oppose such measures, except as bigotry and animus toward queer people? I suppose they see it as part of "the homosexual agenda" that scares them so.

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) was outraged: "That is unreal, unbelievable. The law enforcement people and almost every reasonable person I know believes he was murdered because he was gay."

Foxx's grossness was made even worse by the fact that Matthew's mother, who has become a leading national spokeswoman against homophobia and anti-gay violence, was probably in the audience. Judy Shepard is a mature, balanced woman. I've heard her speak, and she is very impressive and highly effective in moving people. I'm sure she's heard and endured worse.

So put the narrow-minded Foxx-lady in the pathetic category. The bill passed, and that's what counts.

It helps a bit, too, that on the same day, the New Hampshire Senate voted to legalize same-sex marriage. The House had already passed it. The governor had previously stated his opposition to gay marriage, but he has also said he has an open mind about the legislation.

A friend suggested that we may be seeing a domino effect: Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire all within a month. In addition, the D.C. council voted to recognize marriages performed in other states, and Gov. Paterson introduced a bill in NY. I'm guessing this momentum might even sway the NH guv a bit toward signing the bill.

Ralph