On Thursday, October 8th, Peter Roskam voted against passage of a $680 billion defense authorization bill that provides funding to our military for fiscal year 2010. In doing so, Roskam voted against, among many other provisions:
- A 3.4 percent pay raise for members of the armed services
- A $6.7 billion allocation for mine-resistant armored vehicles (MRAPs) designed to protect soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Procurement of body armor for those same soldiers
- Aid for soldiers with catastrophic combat-related conditions to obtain personal care assistance during the period before retirement or disability becomes effective
- A skill incentive bonus for members of the reserves
- Bonuses for military linguists serving long-term in Afghanistan
- Ensuring that servicemen on duty overseas have the opportunity to have their absentee votes counted
- Funding research on tissue repair and transplantation for combat injuries
Why would Peter Roskam vote to defund the military? Because the bill also helps gay people.
Specifically, the bill extends the federal hate crimes legislation, passed in 1968 in the wake of the assasination of Rev. Martin Luther King, making violent crimes committed against people on the basis of sexual orientation federal offenses.
The legislation is important because it allows the federal government to intervene and prosecute such crimes in jurisdictions where local and state authorities prove unwilling to do so. While there is much work left to do, the bill is a big step toward ensuring that LBGT people are ensured equal status under the constitution and can enjoy the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.
Roskam and other House Republicans voted against the bill because of opposition by Christian hate groups such as the Family Research Council that claim that their free speech rights will be violated by preventing them from demonizing gay people from pulpits lest one of their misguided followers commit a violent crime. The bill, however, contains no prohibitions on speech, though hopefully it will encourage more responsible speech on the part of some pastors. Their argument is a fallacy. Protection against crimes committed against persons on the basis of religion in the original 1968 legislation has in no way impaired the free speech rights of those who are critical of religion. But it has, appropriately, enabled federal involvement in investigation of crimes against Christians such as church burnings.






