Joe Solomnese of HRC and Judy Shepard respond to the signing…

“This law honors our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender brothers and sisters whose lives were cut short because of hate,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.  “Today’s signing of the first major piece of civil rights legislation to protect LGBT Americans represents a historic milestone in the inevitable march towards equality.  Although this is a major step in fighting the scourge of hate violence, it is not the end of the road.  As a community, we will continue to dedicate ourselves to changing not only laws but also hearts and minds.  We know that hate crimes not only harm individuals, but they terrorize entire communities.  After more than a decade of advocacy, local police and sheriffs’ departments now have the full resources of the Justice Department available to them.”

“We applaud President Obama for signing this bill into law and thank the leadership and our allies in the House and Senate.   We also will always remember the tireless efforts of Senator Edward Kennedy on this issue.  Senator Kennedy once said that this legislation sends ‘a message about freedom and equality that will resonate around the world.’   This marks the first time that we as a nation have explicitly protected the LGBT community in the law.  And this law sends a loud message that perpetrators of hate violence against anyone will be brought to justice,” said Solmonese.

“We are incredibly grateful to Congress and the president for taking this step forward on behalf of hate crime victims and their families, especially given the continuing attacks on people simply for living their lives openly and honestly,” said Judy Shepard, executive director of the Matthew Shepard Foundation.  “But each of us can and must do much more to ensure true equality for all Americans.”

A more formal ceremony is planned for later today.

The measure, attached to an essential military-spending bill, broadens the definition of federal hate crimes to include those committed because of a victim’s gender or gender identity, sexual orientation or disability. It gives them the same federal safeguards already afforded to people who are victims of violent crimes because of their race, color, religion or national origin.

Supporters of the legislation argued that it would deter those tempted to attack people out of bigotry, and that extra protections for those victimized because of their sexuality were needed because such crimes have been on the rise.

Opponents argued to no avail that the new measure was unnecessary in view of existing laws and might interfere with local law enforcement agencies. Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, said he agreed that hate crimes were terrible. “That’s why they are already illegal,” he said, asserting that the new law was a dangerous, even “Orwellian” step toward “thought crime.”

Judy Shepard, mother of Matthew Shepard for whom the bill is named responded to the news…

“Dennis and I are extremely proud of the Senate for once again passing this historic measure of protection for victims of these brutal crimes,” said Judy Shepard, president of the Matthew Shepard Foundation Board. “Knowing that the president will sign it, unlike his predecessor, has made all the hard work this year to pass it worthwhile. Hate crimes continue to affect far too many Americans who are simply trying to live their lives honestly, and they need to know that their government will protect them from violence, and provide appropriate justice for victims and their families.”

Senator Fiengold was the only Democrat who voted against the bill, most likely because he disagreed with some aspect of the military spending and not because of hate crimes. The Nays in the roll call are the usual suspects and appear below:

Reps. Frank, Baldwin and Nadler defending the hate crimes act below.

Sen. McCaskill says she was not against letting people carry concealed weapons. But she is against requiring one state to accept another state’s laws that might differ from its own. She says it would be a foot in the door that could allow Vermont’s laws on gay marriage to be enforced in Missouri, which has a constitutional provision against gay marriage.

McCaskill says many of the supporters of the proposal are advocates for states’ rights, but they want to override states’ rights on carrying concealed weapons.

McCaskill audio available here:

Senator McCaskill has since attempted to clarify her position via email.
(via Pam’s House Blend)

“In talking about my recent vote against the gun provision offered in the Senate, I wasn’t clear when I stated that my vote against that provision was because it came down to a states’ rights. I was expressing my frustration in that some who argue that states shouldn’t respect the laws, certificates, or permits from other states when it’s convenient, like with gay marriage, but then argue that they should when it’s convenient on another issue, like gun rights. They can’t have it both ways,” McCaskill said.

While it is true that Republicans are demonstrating hypocrisy with regards to state’s rights on this issue, based on McCaskill’s original statement, it really sounds like she thinks DOMA is a “good” idea.

PROMO, The Missouri LGBT advocacy group has responded to McCaskill’s comments today:

In a statement defending her opposition to this bill, she [McCaskill] stated: “This is a foot in the door that would require, for example, the laws in Vermont on gay marriage to be enforced in Missouri.”

This is a problem. A state’s rights argument is valid in this situation, however it is inconceivable that an ally can support Hate Crimes legislation- which recognizes the LGBT community is a target of increased abuse, intolerance and aggressive force- but uses a touchstone issue for the community as a shield rather than stand alone on an anti-gun sentiment.

In a time when we have seen incredible strides on a state by state basis, we have turned a corner and will not tolerate being used as a shield. Please reach out to Sen. McCaskill’s office and let her know while she is an ally, you won’t tolerate being used as a shield. The numbers listed are below for local and DC offices.

Gay Republicans have also expressed particular outrage over McCaskill’s comments, an outrage likely fueled more by the fact that McCaskill is a Democrat and their strong support of the concealed weapons law, than anything about gay marriage.

The 58-40 vote reflected an all-out lobbying campaign by the administration, which had to overcome resistance from lawmakers confronted with the potential losses of defense-related jobs if the F-22 program was terminated.

“The president really needed to win this vote,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said. Levin said it was important not only on the merits of the planes but “in terms of changing the way we do business in Washington.”

While the termination of the F-22 program increases the likelihood Obama will sign the hate crimes bill when it reaches his desk, it is unclear if the “unwelcome” amendments added just yesterday, including a provision for the death penalty, will pose further problems.

The ACLU also has issues with the Senate version of the bill, preferring the House version.

Rose Roy, of Beaumont, the sister of Provost’s father, said in a phone interview Tuesday, July 14 that she’s “not at liberty” to identify the source who provided the information to the family. But Roy said the source told the family Provost had a heated argument with the suspect a week before his murder, and that the sailor now being held as a person of interest by the Navy has a history of mental illness.

“This guy went the extra mile to make sure that my nephew would never be able to speak about his [the killer’s] sexuality,” Roy said. “My nephew died for reasons other than what the military is saying.”

This new wrinkle in the story marks a departure from allegations that Provost was the victim of a hate crime because he was gay.

I have been reluctant to cover this story (except when it first happened) because I didn’t want to jump on the bandwagon with everyone else and label Provost’s murder a hate crime until all the facts were known. I think there is tendency, albeit an understandable one, that the first thought we have any time an LGBT person is murdered, or dies under mysterious circumstances, is that it must be a hate crime. I think most of us are hardwired to think that way considering the hate and violence our community has and continues to endure. I think we are even more predisposed to think so in this case, because the military is involved. A military that practices open discrimination against the LGBT community in the form of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

In this case the allegations made by the LGBT community and family of August Provost are at odds with statements made by the military in an investigation that is still ongoing, with a person of interest in custody. The military’s refusal to be more open about the incident during an internal investigation has fueled the fires of a coverup. And as details continue to trickle out about the case, from other sailors and Provost’s family members, it becomes less and less clear what the truth really is. Is it a military trying to cover its ass? Or is it a family and community so wracked with grief that the only way to assuage it is to lash out a known enemy?

I think it would be wise to exercise caution, particularly in cases where not all the facts are known, before assuming any crime is a hate crime.  Sometimes it is blatantly obvious. Sometimes it is not. In those cases we need to be more careful. I would rather not arm our detractors with the ammunition they need to repeal (the hopefully soon to be passed) hate crimes laws because many of the cases were ultimately deemed frivolous or unfounded.

For the record, the bill does not curb free speech; it only applies to people who commit physical acts of violence against other people. This is just more fear-mongering.

It appears the hate crimes bill will be voted on in the Senate later today, but is encountering resistance from the usual suspects, the measure being called “highly explosive!”

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has released the following statement:

“Our thoughts are with the Provost family at this time as authorities work to learn what happened in the early morning hours this past Tuesday,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.  “The Human Rights Campaign has confirmed Congresswoman Susan Davis has been in touch with officials at the base and is tracking the investigation.  We know that every day members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community are targeted for simply being who they are.  Furthermore, our gay or lesbian soldiers struggle with the extra burden of not serving openly and honestly based on the discriminatory policy of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ As we monitor the investigation, our community must continue to raise awareness on a law that we know hurts military readiness and national security while putting American soldiers at risk.”

Provost’s partner, Kaether Cordero of Houston, learned of the news of his partner’s death from a newspaper reporter. He said that while Provost was openly gay, he kept his life quiet for the most part. “People who he was friends with, I knew that they knew… He didn’t care that they knew. He trusted them.”

Seaman August Provost was only 29.