Taken from Wikipedia:

On February 2, 2006, 18 year-old Jacob D. Robida allegedly entered a bar in New Bedford, Massachusetts, confirmed that it was a gay bar, and then attacked patrons with a gun and a hatchet, wounding at least three. On April 6, 2006, two American television producers, CBS Evening News senior producer Richard Jefferson and 48 Hours producer-researcher Ryan Smith, were beaten with a tire iron outside the Sunset Beach Bar on the Caribbean island of St. Maarten by a group of four men and two women. The attack left Smith unable to speak properly, having suffered a skull fracture and brain damage. On July 30, 2006, six men were brutally beaten after leaving the San Diego, California Gay Pride festival. One of the gay men was beaten so badly that he had to undergo extensive facial reconstructive surgery.  The attackers were all adults, except for a 15-year-old and were charged with hate crimes.

There's a bill trying to be passed right now called H.R. 254: David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007... basically, this bill is designed to extend federal hate-crime protection to gays and increase penalties against their attackers. It would provide $10 million in funding for 2008 and 2009 to help state and local agencies pay for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes and it would require the FBI to track statistics on hate crimes against transgender people. On May 3 this bill passed the House of Representatives - 237 to 180, but President Bush has indicated he may veto legislation if it reaches his desk.

Why would the President be against a bill designed to protect the rights and freedoms of a minorty group like the GLBT community? I did a search on google for "homosexual hate crimes bill," hoping to find some reasoning behind such a decision. What I found instead was the overwhelming response (40 of the 50 search results) of the Christian Right claiming such a bill had to be stopped and citing religious freedom as their cause. I guess that explains Bush's hesitancy as The Right comprises most of his remaining support, but why are they against it?

The Religious Right feel that such a bill would limit their freedom of speech and actually hold them accountable for the hatred that is sometimes spewed from the pulpit and on the streets. They argue that if this bill were passed, they could get fined or imprisoned for speaking out against homosexuality in the name of Christianity.  The fact is, this bill only covers physical acts of violence and in no way prevents them from speaking. Add to that the fact that religious groups are protected under current hate crime legislation and ask how they would feel if they lost such a priviledge.

Somehow, I'm still amazed that a group claiming to be Christians would find pushing their limited perspective of right and wrong to be more important than trying to protect the lives and rights of a group of people - any group of people! Again, they would rather take the name of Jesus Christ and drag it through the mud as they try to force Him to fit their agenda rather than following the most basic tenent of his ministry: "Love Your Neighbor."

Maybe such a bill would cause preachers to rethink what they're about to tell a congregation if they think there's someone present who might act out in violence against another as a result. Perhaps it will limit the amount of anti-gay rhetoric present in churches and create an environment that's even mildly encouraging to the gay population. I'm sure we're still a long way from affirmation and inclusiveness across the board, but this would be a move in the right direction. It's because of staunch opponents to this bill that we realize that homosexual hate really is a problem and this is a necessary step in equal rights for all.

After doing some research online I can't see where this Bill has made any move one way or the other, though there are still countless watchdogs trying to make sure people see this as a threat to religious freedom.  If only we weren't so afraid of being held accountable.

*As as side note, it occurred to me as I re-read this article that I often referred to Christians as "them" and "they" - I still consider myself a Christian despite the bad taste it gives me sometimes and it's as a Christian that I'm so frustrated with those who are more interested in protecting their own hateful propaganda than trying to find a way to love the "unlovable" and bridge the divide that forces people like me to choose sides.