Hate Crimes Bill, and the Broad Definition of the Word "Representative"

First thing I did when I woke up today was turn on C-SPAN to watch the vote on the hate crimes bill. The Bill passed, but its been a nail-biter.

Lobbyists from both sides have been gearing up for a showdown on this one, deluging congresspersons with phone calls. Anti-gay groups, like the increasingly hilariously misnamed Focus on the Family, claim that the law makes it a "thought crime" to "read the Bible" and speak out against homosexuality... in spite of language in the bill expressly affirming First Amendment Rights and making it clear that it refers only to violent crimes.

The actual showdown on the floor was fronted by the Republican congressman from Texas' 21st district, Lamar Smith. "Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice for all,"he said. "Under this bill justice will no longer be equal, but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim." Smith then followed up his decrying of categorization of victims by requesting the bill go back to committee to add more categories.

Texas 21st district... why does that sound familiar?

Oh, right. That's my district.

With Representative Barney Frank presiding over the House, the bill passed 237-180. That's less than the 2/3 majority needed to override a veto, which is important because a few hours before the voting started, the White House threatened a veto. From the AP:

"The White House, in a statement, said state and local criminal laws already provide penalties for the crimes defined by the bill and 'there has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement.' It also questioned the constitutionality of federalizing the acts of violence barred by the bill and said that if it reaches the president's desk 'his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.'"

Just like he did in Texas. Okay, he didn't actually veto the bill in Texas, but he refused to sign it, and just let it die.

They say a presidency is defined more by the vetoes than by the laws passed. This would be Bush's third veto, bringing his record to: standing in the way of the progress of medical science, refusing to acknowledge a failed war that's killing countless thousands, and being anti-gay-rights.

Look, I'm a realist in that I realize that hate crimes legislation has not been proven to reduce the rate of bias-motivated violent crimes. The passage of hate crimes law, however, is intended to be symbolic. It says, "we, as a society, refuse to tolerate prejudice and hatred." In a country that prides itself on being founded on tolerance and equality, those sorts of principles should be paramount. Instead, far too many of our leaders -- including and especially the representative of my own damn district -- are willing to kowtow to the homophobic interests of the extreme right.

January 2009 really can't come soon enough.