Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Matthew Shepard Act an empty gesture?

Andrew Sullivan and Steve Chapman's recent comments on the Matthew Shepard Act got me thinking....are they correct? Is the HRC making a bigger deal of this than it really is?

Read their comments before you decide:


A constitutional federal hate crimes bill can only target a minuscule number of "hate crimes" that are related to interstate commerce:

For all its grand intentions, the bill doesn't really do much at all. Supporters would like to make every hate crime a federal offense. But they can't. And the ones they can outlaw are so few and far between that it's hard to see why they bother...

The provision in question snares only those crimes in which someone crosses state lines (as with most federal laws), uses "a channel, facility or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce," or uses a weapon that has traveled across state or international boundaries.

What's the relevance to the murder of Matthew Shepard, or to most of the other attacks on gays? None whatsoever. You might think it's better to do nothing than to do something irrelevant. But for a lot of U.S. Senators, there's no gesture like an empty gesture.

And when you realize that the Shepard case was nothing like the incident the interest groups made it out to be, the pointlessness of this exercise is overwhelming. Except it isn't, of course. The primary point of such a federal bill is to raise funds for a federal interest group like the Human Rights Campaign. It's a perfect fundraising vehicle because it is emotionally visceral, can be framed as a simple case of "are you for beating gay people to death or not?", and gives HRC a slim reed of legislative achievement to sell to its members and donors by direct mail. It's about the money. Period.


Anyone notice a little dislike for a certain national organization? Andrew Sullivan has been critical of the HRC calling them "a patronage wing of the Democratic party, designed primarily to get its members jobs in future Democratic administrations or with Democrats on the Hill (even while Howard Dean treats them like the help)." Sullivan is a gay political commentator and the author of four books, distinguished by his often personal style of political analysis. His political blogs are among the most widely read on the Web.

Regardless if you agree with him or not, U.S. President Bush has promised to veto the legislation saying it is a matter for the states.


5 comments:

ryan s. said...

I love Andrew and I love this blog. I did not know what this possible new law was all about but now that I do I can see their point. What is the point of passing a law like this? As for the HRC I hate them also.

Anonymous said...

The discriminatory ENDA is exactly a poor attempt to gain a civil right at the cost of keeping that right from someone else. No thanks.

melody said...

There are other organizations out there which better represent the broad intrests of the whole LGBT community. HRC represents straight acting conservative white men.

I met this guy who was a member of HRC. He left for many reasons. But one thing he did not like was that it was primarily white gay men like him. He wanted diversity but it did not seem like an open/inclusive organization.

Anonymous said...

HRC says: "HRC generated more than 80,000 e-mails, calls, letters and visits to members of Congress in support of the inclusive bill—more than any other GLBT organization."

That is a total lie!

Statewide equality groups and the Equality Federation also played a major role. Most state organizations asked their members to visit the HRC site to sign the petition. I'm starting to think everything Andrew Sullivan says about HRC is TRUE!

Andrew Sullivan has been critical of the HRC calling them "a patronage wing of the Democratic party, designed primarily to get its members jobs in future Democratic administrations or with Democrats on the Hill (even while Howard Dean treats them like the help)." Sullivan is a gay political commentator and the author of four books, distinguished by his often personal style of political analysis. His political blogs are among the most widely read on the Web.

Anonymous said...

Although this ENDA bill doesn't include the transgender members of our community at least it is one step in the right direction!!! Hopefully, if we can get a Democrat in the White House we can include transgenders in 2009. This will finally give gay and lesbian workers who don't have union protection the desperate protection they need from employment discrimnation. Today, you can be fired in Louisiana for being gay. This bill would protect gays throughout the South and Midwest.

Post a Comment

We value your feedback, ideas, and comments!

If possible, please leave a link to your website (Facebook, MySpace, or other) by selecting "Other" when leaving your comment.