Political Fallout

    Following the death of Matthew Shepard there was pause amongst politicians on how to respond to the murder. Several called for further hate crimes legislation and others called for not acting without the due diligence of having the time to reflect upon the murder and analyze the actions leading to the murder. The various responses however were very much along party lines, there was a renewed push by the Clinton Administration to further extend hate crime legislation to cover crimes based on a person's sexual orientation while there were calls from Republicans not to respond with hate crime bills. Several bills that would add hate crime protections to people of different sexual orientation had been introduced in various stages from the 90's through the early 2000's, on several occasions the bill failed in committee, on another occasion it was filibustered, and on another it was dropped under a threatened veto from then-President Bush. It wasn't until the 111th Congress that a bill titled the "Matthew Shepard Act" was attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 that it was passed and signed into law by President Obama. During the Congressional hearings on the bill Attorney General Eric Holder became the first A.G. to testify in favor of the bill, stating that "more than 77,000 hate crime incidents were reported by the FBI between 1998 to 2007, or 'nearly one hate crime for every hour of every day over the span of a decade.'" The bill finally extended hate crime provisions, at the federal level, to cover crimes based on ones sexual orientation, eleven years after the murder of Matthew Shepard.
    As of 2008 there are several states who do not cover attacks based on a person's "Sexual Orientation or Gender" as a hate crime, which are; Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. In fact as of 2008, Wyoming, which is where the hate crime movement to include sexual orientation started due to the death of Matthew Shepard, has no hate crime laws at all. Wyoming does not cover hate crimes based on; Motivated Violence, Civil Action, Race, Religion, Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, Gender, Disability, and Vandalism. From 2000 to 2008 there were, on average, 1,510 hate crimes based on Sexual Orientation throughout the United States and overall there were 9,500 hate crimes committed. A simple, non in depth analysis would reveal that the states listed are, for the most part, heavily conservative in nature. However it is important to understand that it does not mean conservatives are pro-hate crime. In order to fully comprehend the position of those states it is important to know why they oppose hate crime legislation. There are two sides to the hate crime debate. Those who are not in favor of hate crime laws believe it causes an unjust bias towards those who the laws do not protect. Why should the murder of a homosexual be treated harsher than a murder due to a robbery? They believe that it is not in the best interest of a society meant to be "fair and equal" if certain groups have more protection than others. Furthermore they believe that by making a crime a "hate crime" it can pit one group of people versus another, if a white male murders a homosexual then it would ignite anger between the two groups if it was shown to be a hate crime. However those in favor argue that a crime perpetrated on someone who represents a much larger portion of the society, as in a murder due to someone's sexual orientation, hurts society as a whole and can cause backlash amongst groups. A recent example would be the murder of Matthew Shepard, his murder, which was based in part on him being a homosexual, would be viewed (by those who favor hate crime legislation) as an attack on the homosexual community as a whole. They believe that hate crimes harm society as a whole and so hate crimes legislation is meant to be used as a significant deterrent.
    It would appear that the United States of America did little in the years after his death to protect those who are subject to hate crimes. The bipartisan control of the United States government created excellent gridlock on partisan issues. Republicans were wary of passing hate crime legislation as they are opposed to it and, at the time, controlled Congress. It wasn't until 2009 that Democrats controlled two branches of government and managed to pass the bill. The larger question it brings up is how ought the United States treat hate crimes, each party has their view on the issue and will not accept the other side's viewpoints. Republicans accuse Democrats of using "normal murders" to pass "silly legislation", "The hate crimes bill that's called the Matthew Shepard bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. This -- the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills." (Rep. Foxx R-N.C.) Until Americans are willing to have an honest discussion about what place society holds for hate crime legislation and whether it would be easier to implement a nationwide standard in regard to the issue the "hate" between the two sides will not disappear and the vitriol between them will continue to get worse while ordinary citizens are subject to various nationwide standards.