Updating hate crime

WE SAY Sexual orientation should be a part of the new definition but needs better deliberation.

Sometimes good ol’ Indiana is a little slow catchin’ up with the times and could use a federal push, not just a wake-up call, to get moving. On June 16, the Senate “agreed to expand the definition of hate crimes to those committed because of a victim’s sexual orientation and gender identity,” according to The New York Times.

This is particularly important for those states that lack adequate hate crime laws, including Indiana. It wouldn’t matter what the law in Indiana is; sexual orientation would be incorporated within federal hate crime laws.

In the past, people have been harmed because of their sexual orientation. And so, like race, color, religion or national origin, it should also be incorporated within the definition of a hate crime. This is completely reasonable, and it’s overdue.

But there are problems with the provision; namely, this social issue is attached to a Pentagon bill. Oddly enough, this isn’t the first time. In 2007, the Senate attached similar legislation to a Pentagon spending bill. Republican senators did well pointing out, again, how absurd this is.

However, these weasely tactics aren’t just limited to social issues or the Democrats. Hypocritically, earlier this summer within credit card legislation, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., included a provision that permits carrying guns in national parks and wildlife refuges. Regardless of how you feel about guns, we all should be able to agree they have nothing to do with credit card regulation and therefore should not be included there.

Likewise, these sexual anti-bias provisions have no place in a Pentagon bill. By placing it there, we scrutinize it less and give it less public discussion. And believe it or not, as common sense as it is to incorporate sexual preference within the definition of hate crimes, these anti-bias provisions do warrant more debate.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., raised a reasonable concern that if this is implemented federally, then the states that currently have their own laws for including anti-gay hate crimes will have their state laws overridden. Although we disagree with which level of government should ultimately be in charge of adjudicating hate crimes, it’s a concern that still warrants discussion.

The anti-bias provisions are an improvement to the hate crimes definition. However, even if we agree with those provisions, we don’t want to get in the habit of overlooking instances of the way irrelevant provisions are inserted within legislation. Principally, these anti-bias provisions should have been struck down when voting to add them to a Pentagon bill.