On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act—which extends federal hate crime protections to gays and lesbians—by a vote of 249-175. The Congressional Black Caucus overwhelmingly supported the legislation. There are 42 members of the CBC. Illinois Sen. Roland Burris, of course, did not vote on the House bill. Eleanor Holmes Norton and Donna Christian-Christensen are non-voting delegates. G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina and Al Green of Texas missed the roll call but previously voted for Hate Crimes and ENDA and have solid pro-gay records (PDF). Of the 37 members who could vote on the bill, 36 supported it.
The only "no" vote came from the predictably anti-gay Artur Davis, the conservative Democrat from Birmingham who boasts an abysmal 45 percent score (PDF) by the Human Rights Campaign. Davis joined the entire Alabama congressional delegation—"including two other purported 'Democrats'" reports Birmingham Blues—to oppose the gay-inclusive legislation.
Two years ago, I voted for federal hate crimes legislation. Since casting that vote, a number of my constituents have made it very clear to me that they disagreed with this vote, and I have tried to weigh their arguments carefully. Some of the objections have been based on distortions of what this bill actually does. Other objections have reflected nothing more than animosity toward some of the groups who would be covered.
Some of my constituents ask why our federal laws should pick out some Americans for more protections than others. Some wonder why, in a culture that rejects violence against any human being, we should say that an attack on a black, or a woman, or a gay individual should be punished more severely than an attack on someone who happens to be a senior citizen, or a soldier, or a teacher. Others ask why some motives based on certain ideas should be punished by our criminal laws more aggressively than others.
The biggest difference between 2007 and now: Davis is running for governor. If elected the state's first black chief executive, Time magazine writes in a glowing profile this week, his "election would deliver another blow to what remains of the G.O.P.'s racially divisive Southern Strategy." Oh and refusing to acknowledge anti-gay violence and harassment is a quick and cheap way to beef up his conservative credentials in the overwhelmingly red state.
Davis was also the only black congressman to oppose the historic ENDA vote in 2007. (Clarke and Towns voted "no" because it did not include transgender protections.) At the time, Davis employed similarly fuzzy logic and Keith Boykin noted the irony: "White racists in Alabama opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 using almost the same identical argument he uses to justify his opposition to this legislation. In 1964, they said the civil rights law would unfairly impede on the rights of individual employers to make their own decisions."
It's great that we have a congressman who has a shot at being Alabama's first black governor. But there is absolutely nothing progressive about him, or his candidacy, if Davis refuses to recognize discrimination and bias attacks against another minority. It's a shame and a disgrace that Davis parrots the exact same bigoted and myopic arguments once used by racist Alabamans such as Gov. George Wallace. Davis, of all people, should know better. Shame on you, congressman.
Davis is a joke down here, he tries to out-conservative the conserrvatives. Whatever, man. Good luck in your primary and your election, you don't have my vote.
Posted by: TJ | 01 May 2009 at 11:28
"Good luck in your primary and your election, you don't have my vote."
Really interesting, TJ. If I lived in Alabama I'd be tempted to boycott voting in local/statewide elections, I suppose. But it would bother me considering all the black folks in that state went through to get the vote. It would be painful to vote in Alabama for Alabama election races.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | 01 May 2009 at 11:39
correct me if i'm wrong but there are no hate crimes protections for gays in alabama right? so davis doesn't think any of us deserve any proection from hate attacks?
there are many black gays and lesbians in alabama especially in birmingham and huntsville. i would not be surprised if many don't know davis's record pr care, we tend to keep supporting the same ole faces, no matter what they say or do to us. marion barry is biggest example
smh
Posted by: Faison | 01 May 2009 at 11:45
John Lewis was nearly beaten to death in Montgomery and in Selma so that one day, this man could say to the world, "Beating gay folks is A-OK."
Right?
There is a special place in hell—I call it the "Clarence Thomas Memorial Dungeon"—reserved for men like this one.
Posted by: Jim | 01 May 2009 at 12:15
@ Derrick:
I didn't say that I wouldn't vote period. Davis will have a primary challenger. It seems like the candidates so far are Lt Gov. Jim Folsom Jr and possibly Ron Sparks, Alabama's agriculture commissioner. Both of these men are white. And not much better on gay rights. If there is a better candidate, they may get my primary vote.
Who knows. Maybe I'll just vote downticket and vote in local and state races. i don't feel obligated to cast a vote for every race. But you are right, sometimes the choices are not very good here.
Posted by: TJ | 01 May 2009 at 12:32
He should vote his conscience and his constiuents, even if it is narrow minded and hateful, however, if he thinks he is going to be elected governor of Alabama, I have some oceanfront property in Kansas I will sell him for a dollar!
And, it will be a hot to see him squirm when the GOP uses some good old fashioned racially based hate against him, see if he will be a 'special' American who needs 'special' rights.
Posted by: Luther | 01 May 2009 at 12:41
amen rod!
you made this flip so plain!
a bama bro + a bama fool = one bigoted gov
shame!
and politicos actually equate these weak blithering blurbs with valid explanations!....why???
peace
ab
Posted by: alicia banks | 01 May 2009 at 12:45
The good news is that the CBC overwhelmingly supported the bill. Ten years ago, I don't know if that would have been the case. PROGRESS!! That's as good as it gets in most situations folks. There will always be a few chuckleheads in the group. Pay attention and vote them out asap.
Posted by: FREELEO | 01 May 2009 at 12:58
Artur Davis will get his "just desserts" in the end. Whenever Black folks try to out-White White people, they always get screwed in more ways than one. Let's see: President Obama had to get 43% of the White electorate in order to win the presidency. I doubt if Davis will be able to pull a significant portion of the White vote in Alabama in order to win. I hope he falls flat on his face, because I will not hold back from laughing when he does.
Posted by: Ravenback | 01 May 2009 at 13:05
Always vote! You are right Derrick, even when it's difficult and you are choosing between the lesser of two evils, we should always vote. I never feel more connected to my ancestors and the civil rights movement then when I'm voting.
Posted by: FREELEO | 01 May 2009 at 13:07
I can not believe his response. Is he serious?
Posted by: wondermann | 01 May 2009 at 13:18
I'm sorry, TJ, you and FREELEO are right. You don't have to stop voting because there are knuckle-heads running for local/statewide races. There are other people on the ballot. It's just that Down South both Republicans and Democrats seem to run Conservative Christian Kooks for office.
I couldn't live Down South anymore...chile, they'd either lynch me or gang rape me....or both.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | 01 May 2009 at 13:45
@ Freeleo:
I disagree.
You should always vote, but you don't have to vote for every contest...does everyone here votes for every land commissioner, bond proposal, judge and zoning commissioner? No, I don't think so. Actually I know so because voters stats always demonstrate that most people do not vote down ticket.
I feel obligated to vote in every election, but I don't feel obligated to vote in every contest.
My vote is precious! It has to be earned! No one is entitled to it. Our grandparents fought for the RIGHT to vote. That does not mean we HAVE to vote for EVERY random person running for dog catcher.
If i were in Alabama, and Davis were the Democratic nominee (which I doubt because the voters are 75%+ white, it's extremely tough for a Democrat to win statewide there), yeah I would have no problem skipping the governor's race and checking boxes for lieutenant governor, attorney general, congress, state represntatives, etc. Hold these mofos ACCOUNTABLE. No one is ENTITLED to my vote.
Posted by: Talarico | 01 May 2009 at 13:48
lol @ derrick
Man, we could not work together, I bet you have your coworkers rofl all day
I love the south but it has its drawbacks. you have to take the good with the bad. The state doesn't have hate crime protections but the house just voted for them. I am sure gov Riley will veto though.
Let me not even get started on our crazy black 'christian' homo hating mayor.
Posted by: TJ | 01 May 2009 at 13:54
He can contort and cavort and propose to be as articulate as he might, but his name is still spelled COON!
Why, in a country that is against violence against every human being, should the crimes against Blacks or Gays be punished more severely? BECAUSE THE ACTS AGAINST PEOPLE FROM THOSE COMMUNITIES ARE EGREGIOUS AND VILE AND BEYOND COMPREHENSION!
The dragging of James Byrd?!
The hanging and leaving to rot of Mathew Shephard?
The lynching of Emmett Till?
What is wrong with this idiot?! God Bless the people who have this buffoon of a conformist as a voice. He is ridiculously inept!
Posted by: TheRevKev | 01 May 2009 at 14:14
i don't think i said you have to vote in every contest, although it is wise to pay attention to as many races as possible because today's park's commissioner could be tomorrow's city councilman or mayor. i did say we should never stop or boycott voting. if more latinos and blacks had voted in the 1st bush/gore election, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today. my remarks had more to do with voter apathy. if you find all candidate repugnant and none of them have any redeeming qualities, go to the polls any way and write in the name of the person you think would do a better job.
Posted by: FREELEO | 01 May 2009 at 15:02
There are always independent candidates who only get a small percentage of the vote.
If I were in Alabama I would vote for one of them instead of the homophobic Artur Davis, even if he has a "D" after his name.
In California if Senator Dianne Feinstein gets in the race and wins the nomination (not assured) for governor I will not be voting for the Democratic candidate for Governor for the first time ever.
It's simply unacceptable to vote for people who do not support my full equality.
Posted by: Mad Professah | 01 May 2009 at 16:33
This opportunist is not fooling me. The first sentence of the last paragraph tells his strategy.
He knows he is not going to be elected governor but what this means is he can keep all the contributions after expenses are paid.
Imagine how much he is going to rake in even though he knows he is going to lose. Black folks down there are going to see him as their Obama.
Rest assured those white folks are getting junior and lula-belle registered at this very minute for that election. If he had an ounce of sense he should tell his black bible thumping support ministers to follow bubba's lead and get the show on the road and stop these foolish b/s rants.
Posted by: gurlene | 01 May 2009 at 19:07
@RevKev
lol
OH, between this fool here and that crackhead Marion Barry you just know I want to go there and even stronger than you just did but this is the only place where I could even consider doing that.
@gurlene
you know that's what I find so completely DISGUSTING about all of this is that these black preachers and these politicians spout this anti-gay nonsense to these black congregations and they rake in the dough for it.
God don't like ugly (at least that's what I was always told) and this mess is fugly.
Posted by: Chitown Kev | 01 May 2009 at 20:23
Are you intentionally running an add from the "National Organization for Marriage" or is it just from some generalized ad service that includes anyone who will pony up.
Posted by: libhomo | 03 May 2009 at 17:38