Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) defended the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act in Congress today against Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and other Republicans seeking to strip it from the Defense Authorization bill by sending it back to conference. Rep. Gohmert and his eloquent “rebuttals” below:

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

Senator Claire McCaskill suggested yesterday if a concealed weapons law she had voted against had actually passed, it could have set a precedent for forcing states, like her home state of Missouri, to recognize another state’s gay marriage laws.

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:

[audio:http://www.missourinet.com/podcast/feed/a6afff9d-c09f-1e1c-6be13276f8998390/article/a39175b5-5056-b82a-37fd2022b5878c0c/audio/a451587c-5056-b82a-37678da2082718e8/macgun.mp3]

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 Senate today voted to strip funding for F-22 fighter jets from the Department of Defense Authorization bill. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act rides as an amendment to the DoD legislation, which was under the threat of a veto if funding for the controversial aircraft remained.

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.

An aunt of August Provost III, a gay sailor who was killed on guard duty at Camp Pendleton in San Diego last month, suggested that that her nephew may have been murdered by another closeted sailor for fear of being outed.

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.