An odd show down is is being orchestrated in Washington over H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, which was approved by the House of Representatives yesterday. The vote was 237-180. (New York Times.) The bill expands the definition of hate crimes to include crimes of violence connected in some way to interstate commerce that are committed because of the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It also provides funds and other assistance to promote local hate crimes prosecutions. The bill now moves to the Senate which has not yet voted on its parallel bill, S.1105.
Conservative Christian groups have opposed the bill, claiming that it would infringe their right to religious expression. Presumably they are concerned that preaching about the sinfulness of homosexuality could lead to prosecution, particularly if someone is inspired to commit violence by a denouncement of gays and lesbians. The bill's proponents argue that it contains extensive provisions assuring that prosecutions will target criminal acts, not expressions of belief. (See prior postings 1, 2, 3.)
Following the House vote, the White House issued a statement (full text) saying that if the bill ultimately passes the Senate, the President's "senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill." Interestingly, however, the statement makes no mention of claimed interference with the expression of religious beliefs as a ground for veto. Instead it makes three very different arguments.
First it objects to federalizing as many violent crimes as the bill does. Second, it complains that the bill does not cover crimes against the elderly, members of the military, police officers, and victims of prior crimes. Interestingly, the statement makes no mention of another class that Christian conservatives wanted included in the bill-- unborn babies. Finally, the White House statement objects to a provision in the bill that does not apply to crimes motivated by sexual orientation of the victim, but only to crimes motivated by a victim's race, color, religion or national origin. 18 USC Sec. 249(a)(1), the White House says, raises constitutional concerns because it is not limited to activities which Congress could criminalize under its powers to regulate interstate commerce, enforce equal protection or protect federal personnel.
The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement praising the House action, criticizing the President's threatened veto, and saying that the law would withstand constitutional attack.
