Hate Crimes Rashomon. Gay politics can be like the classic Japanese film in which the same incident is seen in vastly different ways by various characters. The question is, which interpretation of events seems closer to objective reality, and which is more likely to be informed by ulterior agendas?
On June 11, the Log Cabin Republicans issues a press release titled "LCR Disappointed with Senate Democrats on Hate Crimes Maneuvers, But Optimistic That Breakthrough is Near." Meanwhile, the Human Rights Campaign, which is closely tied to the Democratic Party (despite a few token Republican endorsements), issued a release titled "Republican Senate Leadership Stalls Hate Crimes Bill." Like I said, it's Rashomon.
At issue is what happened with a federal hate crimes bill that both LCR and HRC support. According to HRC, "Senate Republican leaders strong-armed Republican supporters" to oppose a motion that would have ended debate and brought the bill up for a vote. Said HRC head Elizabeth Birch, "While the Republican leadership talks about wanting to move the business of the nation forward, when it comes to hate crimes legislation, they went out of their way to grind the nation's business to a halt."
But wait, here's LCR's interpretation of the exact same events. "Despite".a pledge on the Senate floor by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) -- the lead Republican on the Judiciary Committee -- to work with the bill's lead sponsors in order to "make the House accept it" and strengthen its chances of enactment into law with improving amendments, the Democratic leadership forced a procedural vote to cut off all debate -- a strategy which drove two original co-sponsors of the bill to vote against them." As LCR explains it, the Republican majority in the House is not going to vote for the bill as it now stands. A major issue is a provision that makes crimes based on gender the subject of federal prosecution, which conservatives fear would, in effect, federalize the prosecution of rape cases at the expense of local law enforcement.
But is the inclusion of "sexual orientation" also at issue? No, says LCR: "In his floor remarks, Sen. Hatch reviewed a series of brutal hate crimes, most of which were committed against gays and, in one case, a transgendered American, and said "no one is more committed than I am" in fighting such crimes with an enhanced federal role, including crimes against gay Americans."
Hatch wants to see the bill pass, says LCR, but wants to offer amendments to gain House support. Hatch's amendments "would leave the definition of a hate crime intact, including sexual orientation," but make modifications involving the relationship between the Justice Department and local authorities. Significantly, Hatch also wants compromise language that would both "ensure the inclusion of gender in the bill"as a protected category" but also address concerns about the federal impact on state prosecution of rape cases.
As LCR sees it, the Democrat leadership entered a motion to cut off debate "only minutes after the bill was brought up, not allowing Hatch's amendments to even be considered." Key Republican sponsors, including Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Sen John Ensign (R-NV), then voted against the motion to bring the bill to a vote sans amendments. In this version: "The Democrats used a high-risk strategy"and it not only failed but insulted supporters and prevented a breakthrough deal," said LCR head Rich Tafel.
Maybe both sides are playing politics. But, from my point of
view, the Democrats know they have more to gain going into the
November election by blaming Republicans for blocking the bill,
then by making reasonable compromises over legitimate
jurisdictional issues and letting the thing pass. As with the
proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which
the Dems may also bring up knowing it won't pass the GOP House, the
game is to mobilize gay voters by ensuring legislative defeat (or
near defeat, as long as the GOP can be made the focus of blame).
And in this game, HRC knows very well the role it's been assigned
to play.