In a historic vote today the Senate passed the The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act by an easy margin 68-29, and joins the House of Representatives in sending the historic legislation to President Obama’s desk.

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:

This could hardly be a better time for this to be making the rounds again on the eve of the marriage equality vote in Maine. During hearings on gay marriage last April, Philip Spooner, an 86-year-old D-Day veteran gave the following testimony:

“The woman at my polling place asked me do I believe in equality for gay and lesbian people. I was pretty surprised to be asked a question like that. It made no sense to me. Finally I asked her: what do you think I fought for in Omaha Beach?”

Watch the entire clip below…

Narrated by Dustin Lance Black, 8: The Mormon Proposition is a new documentary by Reed Cowen which takes an in-depth look at the involvement of the Mormon church in the passage of California’s Proposition 8. Trailer below:

Find out more at MormonProposition.com.

H/T to Pam’s House Blend.

With November 4 rapidly approaching and a narrow lead in the polls, the Bangor Daily News and the Portland Press Herald have come out against Question 1 by supporting marriage equality in Maine.

From the Bangor Daily News…

Everyone must be treated equally under the state and U.S. Constitution. Denying civil marriage rights to same-sex couples violates that tenet.

Further, extending the right of marriage to a small segment of the population that has been excluded furthers the state’s interest in promoting stable families and communities. The Maine legislation also took important steps, mirroring the state’s Human Rights Law, to respect religious freedom and traditions. No church will be compelled to perform or recognize marriages that run counter to its faith. This strikes the difficult balance of respecting religious freedom while ensuring equality.

From the Portland Press Herald…

While this change in the law could seem abrupt to some Maine voters, it reflects the way people are really living now in cities and towns all over our state. That’s why we urge people to vote “no,” to allow this reasonable law to go into effect.

Leaders of the people’s veto campaign argue that extending the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage to families headed by same-sex couples would have broad effects throughout society. We have listened to their arguments, but we just don’t buy them.

While it’s technically true that the law would change the wording of the definition of marriage in state statute, it would not change the institution as it exists in Maine for thousands of traditional couples. Those vows would not be any weaker if same-sex couples were allowed to take them. Marriage would remain the key foundation for creating families, with the rights and responsibilities that come with it spelled out in the law, whether those families are headed by same- or opposite-sex couples.

Limiting marriage to a man and a woman would not make families led by same-sex couples go away. It would just keep them in a legally inferior position that is inconsistent with Maine’s tradition of equal protection under the law.

Gay men and women already live together, own property and have children, both biological and adopted. They hold responsible jobs, they volunteer in churches and schools – they are full members of our communities. The only thing they cannot do is form the legal partnership that gives them the advantages and duties that other couples have when they start families. The same-sex couples are not the only losers. This also puts their children at a disadvantage.

Sound, sensible arguments to be sure, but since when has logic gotten in the way of those who use their faith as a means to justify their hate?