Matthew Shepard (December 1, 1976 – October 12, 1998)

[AdmiraalW238]

October 12th marks the 9th anniversary of the brutal slaying of Matthew Shepard in Laramie Wyoming.

His brutal slaying because of his sexuality will never be forgotten and with luck President Bush will sign the Matthew Shephard Act which is designed to provide additional funding for local law enforcement agencies to combat hate crimes. Unfortunately, President Bush has signaled he might veto the bill when it reaches his desk. Hopefully he wont and the Matthew Shephard Act will become law in the US.

My thoughts and prayers go to Matthew's family and friends at this time.

Eternal Rest Grant Unto Him, Oh Lord. May Perpetual Light Shine Upon Him. May He Rest In Peace.

Matthew Shepard Foundation
Matthew's Place

A YouTube Tribute to Matthew Shepard

 

[Centexfarmer]

I don't see what "logical" reason that Bush would have to VETO the Mathew Shephard act.

The argument that the "Christian Right" (which is neither btw) used against the act was removed:

James Dobson, founder of socially conservative lobbying group Focus on the Family, opposed the Act, arguing that it would effectively "muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality."

However, HR 1592 contains a "Rule of Construction" which specifically provides that "Nothing in this Act... shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

Source: Matthew Shephard Act

 

[hitboyqt]

poor guy.

 

[White Eagle]

Amen, rest in peace, Matthew.

 

[AdmiraalW238]

I don't see what "logical" reason that Bush would have to VETO the Mathew Shephard act.

The argument that the "Christian Right" (which is neither btw) used against the act was removed:



Source: Matthew Shephard Act

This is assuming that Bush thinks logically...I pray that Bush will not bow down to the Christian Right and sign the bill in to law...Yes, it is right that the CR concerns have been addressed in the bill so Bush cannot logically veto the bill...the one saving grace is that during his two terms Bush has only vetoed four bills (from my undertstanding) but even if he does veto the bill the Congress certainly has the numbers (based on the previous House and Senate votes) to override the veto and make the Matthew Shepard Act law.

Lets hope that it does not come to that.

 

[blondsurfer]

Hey question, what sentences did Mathew's murders get, I thought one guy actually got the death penalty didn't he?

 

[Homoaffectional]

but even if he does veto the bill the Congress certainly has the numbers (based on the previous House and Senate votes) to override the veto and make the Matthew Shepard Act law.

Um, no it does not. How many votes and what percent of the Congress do you think it takes to override a bill after it's been vetoed?

Hey question, what sentences did Mathew's murders get, I thought one guy actually got the death penalty didn't he?

They (Shepard's mother and father) were offered the death penalty, but they spared the killers' lives in exchange for a deal that they would not talk to the media ever. They violated the deal in 2004 in an attempt to get their sentence reduced, when the Christian right thought it was all-powerful a few weeks after the stupid amendment shit was happening. But the judge and prosecutors were not swayed and they are still in prison, and Aaron McKinney will most likely die in prison.

 

[AdmiraalW238]

Um, no it does not. How many votes and what percent of the Congress do you think it takes to override a bill after it's been vetoed?


They (Shepard's mother and father) were offered the death penalty, but they spared the killers' lives in exchange for a deal that they would not talk to the media ever. They violated the deal in 2004 in an attempt to get their sentence reduced, when the Christian right thought it was all-powerful a few weeks after the stupid amendment shit was happening. But the judge and prosecutors were not swayed and they are still in prison, and Aaron McKinney will most likely die in prison.

Henderson pleaded guilty on April 5, 1999, and agreed to testify against McKinney to avoid the death penalty; he received two consecutive life sentences. The jury in McKinney's trial found him guilty of two counts of felony murder. As it began to deliberate on the death penalty, Shepard's parents brokered a deal, resulting in McKinney receiving two consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole. SOURCE

In the United States, Congress can override a presidential veto by having a 2/3 majority vote in both the House of Representatives and Senate, thus signing the bill into law despite the president's veto. SOURCE

The House voted 237 (Yea) 180 (Nay) 16 (Not voted) SOURCE
The Senate voted 60 (Yea) 39 (Nay) 1 (Not voted) SOURCE

What this means is that currently the vote would be 297 (Yea) 219 (Nay) 17 (Not Voted) which equates to 55.5% or 4.5% short of the 2/3 majority. However, a joint session votes anew so there is still a chance that the 2/3 majority will be reached. So there is still one last hurdle and that is to hope that President Bush does not veto the Matthew Shepard Act.

For those JUB members from the US I would suggest that you check how your Congressman or Senator voted and then contact them to change their votes if the President vetoes the Matthew Shepard Act. If he does veto and it goes to a joint vote to override then we would be 24 votes shy of the 2/3 majority.

 

[PER4MER]

This is assuming that Bush thinks logically...

I think this thread can stop right here.

 

[hitboyqt]

I think this thread can stop right here.

lol.

 

[JackFTwist]

They (Shepard's mother and father) were offered the death penalty, but they spared the killers' lives in exchange for a deal that they would not talk to the media ever. They violated the deal in 2004 in an attempt to get their sentence reduced, when the Christian right thought it was all-powerful a few weeks after the stupid amendment shit was happening. But the judge and prosecutors were not swayed and they are still in prison, and Aaron McKinney will most likely die in prison.

I am not sure that I believe wikipedia on everything and not so much on some of this. Mr. Shepard made a passionate and beautiful speech at the Mckinney trial. IIRC Henderson had already been sentenced.

It makes no sense to claim that the Shepards ever agreed to silence, not even the wikipedia article claims that. They were never silent - nor should they ever have been. Regardless, it mattered not to the sentencing what the Shepards did because once sentenced, the sentence can only be reduced but never raised. So this "prosecutor and judge not swayed" makes no sense in relation to sentencing. I don't have the time line all in front of me, there may well have been some hearings in 2004 or 2005 but that is typical in all criminal cases where defendants try to get the charges reduced.

by the way: that the Shepards agreed to the life sentence for McKinney after he was convicted, there was never an agreement for their silence:

LARAMIE, Wyo. (Court TV) — With the consent of the parents of slain gay student Matthew Shepard, Wyoming prosecutors agreed to let Aaron McKinney serve two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole — and thereby avoid the death penalty.

On Wednesday, McKinney was convicted of first-degree felony murder and second-degree murder in the 1998 beating death of Shepard. The jury acquitted McKinney of first-degree premeditated murder, but convicted him of aggravated robbery and kidnapping.

McKinney's two life sentences apply to the combined first-degree felony and second-degree murder and the kidnapping charge. By reaching a plea agreement, McKinney gave up his right to appeal his sentence.

McKinney's death penalty hearing was scheduled to begin Thursday. But, both sides reached a plea agreement that spared McKinney's life and gave him the same sentence his one-time co-defendant Russell Henderson is serving for his role in Shepard's beating death. Henderson pleaded guilty to felony murder in April.

Prosecutor Cal Rerucha said the defense had approached him with the plea offer after McKinney's conviction Wednesday. Rerucha admitted he did not even seriosly consider agreement. However, McKinney's attorneys then approached Shepard's parents, and they consented to the plea agreement. Rerucha said the plea would not have happened without the Shepards' support.

http://www.courttv.com/archive/trials/mckinney/110499_sentence_ctv.html

 

[JackFTwist]

They (Shepard's mother and father) were offered the death penalty, but they spared the killers' lives in exchange for a deal that they would not talk to the media ever.

a good friend PMed me to say that I misread the sentence - that it means that McKinney was to never speak to the media. (It could not apply to Henderson, he had already been sentenced.) True enough - I did not read that sentence that way, and I see where it could have meant that way; if I misread, I do apologize.

But I would still suggest that a silence agreement with Mckinney would be unenforceable. Once sentenced, the sentence could never be upped. There is no way to enforce a silence agreement. I believe the Shepards' consented to a life sentence was for the reason that Mr. Shepard stated at the sentencing. And as well, giving up the right to appeal would mean that this Shepard murder would not be replayed over and over and over again in the courts and thus the media.

 

[Homoaffectional]

For those JUB members from the US I would suggest that you check how your Congressman or Senator voted and then contact them to change their votes if the President vetoes the Matthew Shepard Act.

Why would JUB members from the US do that? They oppose any gay rights legislation being given even the slightest mention in Congress until 2009 at the earliest, or haven't you been paying attention to my thread about the vote counts, and the nasty, hateful response it received from many JUBbers? Another symptom of the disease I found is when you mention "gay rights", people assume you are referring to gay marriage, and when you try to set them "straight" (which some probably prefer to gay, it seems), they keep on attacking you and trying to assert that you said something that you didn't.

The House voted 237 (Yea) 180 (Nay) 16 (Not voted)

Yeah, I'm aware of that, thanks.

The Senate voted 60 (Yea) 39 (Nay) 1 (Not voted) SOURCE

That also. Thanks much.

What this means is that currently the vote would be 297 (Yea) 219 (Nay) 17 (Not Voted) which equates to 55.5% or 4.5% short of the 2/3 majority. However, a joint session votes anew so there is still a chance that the 2/3 majority will be reached.

It doesn't work that way. Joint sessions of Congress are extremely rare. Congress holds one joint session of Congress for special events, like the State of the Union, and obviously they don't hold votes during the SotU. Other functions of joint sessions for Congress are to hold joint hearings.

As for floor votes, whether on passage or for override of vetoed legislation are held separately in each body, and has never been voted on jointly in Congress, to my knowledge, although Lance probably knows more about this topic and can correct me if I'm wrong. It has happened in some state legislatures, but never in the US Congress. In any case, there is absolutely no chance for a joint session to be held simply to override Bush's veto of the hate crimes bill alone. That, I know for a fact. And the hate crimes bill got just about as many votes from Republicans and extremely conservative Dems as it's going to get.

 

[pinest]

He will never be forgotten.

 

[Homoaffectional]

I am not sure that I believe wikipedia on everything and not so much on some of this.

It makes no sense to claim that the Shepards ever agreed to silence, not even the wikipedia article claims that.

Um, excuse me. You assume a bit too much. I have never read a wikipedia article on Matthew Shepard... I did not get any of my information from Wikipedia. And as for the "silence", I meant the silence of the KILLERS , not the Shepards, Ms. Twist. Judy Shepard herself has gone on the record stating that she spared McKinney's life in exchange for him not talking to the media, something he violated in 2004. But this is why I don't stray from my normal areas of expertise on some of these boards. It brings the ass-u-me-rs out of the woodwork.

a good friend PMed me to say that I misread the sentence - that it means that McKinney was to never speak to the media. (It could not apply to Henderson, he had already been sentenced.) True enough - I did not read that sentence that way, and I see where it could have meant that way; if I misread, I do apologize.

Hmm... if you agree to apologize for assuming that I got my information from Wikipedia as well, I will consider accepting your apology, and let bygones be bygones.

 

[Glafna]

RIP Matthew Shepard.

 

[JackFTwist]

Um, excuse me. You assume a bit too much. I have never read a wikipedia article on Matthew Shepard... I did not get any of my information from Wikipedia. And as for the "silence", I meant the silence of the KILLERS , not the Shepards, Ms. Twist. Judy Shepard herself has gone on the record stating that she spared McKinney's life in exchange for him not talking to the media, something he violated in 2004. But this is why I don't stray from my normal areas of expertise on some of these boards. It brings the ass-u-me-rs out of the woodwork.




Hmm... if you agree to apologize for assuming that I got my information from Wikipedia as well, I will consider accepting your apology, and let bygones be bygones.

well, don't hold your breath.

I have no recollection of Mrs Shepard speaking to an unenforceable agreement and I gave my reasons for why I think the family consented to the life sentence, which are the reasons they gave as well as the one logical thing following because the agreement waived the right to appeal - to keep this from going through the courts on appeal repeatedly. A "never talk about" agreement is so totally unenforceable, no one would ever enter that agreement. I see no links you give to support your claim that she did so. I think you may have picked up a conflated 'waive appeals' from someone who didn't understand the law on this point as not being about not talking. Of course I read the Shepard family site regularly so what do I know. If you have a trustworthy link that says Mrs Shepard said other, I'd be interested in seeing it. But that would fly in the face of what Mr Shepard said at the sentencing. And as one was sentenced already, to speak of anything regarding the "killers" no matter what font is used is just a legal impossibility; only McKinney was involved at this point.

I have no argument with you and fail to understand your hostility. Peace out, man. The point is we honor Matthew.

 

[Homoaffectional]

I have no argument with you and fail to understand your hostility.

Not "hostility", just making sure that you don't try to misrepresent me. I didn't much expect an apology, but hopefully you will be more careful before you put information sources in my mouth, so to speak, and I'll be watching out in case you try something like that again.

Since you seem to cite wikipedia in a lot of things, perhaps it's you who have problems finding enough sources to get this information. Keep looking, and you'll find it. It's not my responsibility to make sure you know what's going on, nor is it my responsibility to "convince" you of anything, especially since you have such a high burden of proof. As I said, keep looking.

And for the record, I never said anything about the "enforceability" of anything. They made a deal and it should be honored, not because it can necessarily be made legally binding, but because it's the least they can do under the circumstances. But then, since you brought up holding breath, I don't exactly hold my breath for someone who murders someone to respect an agreement they made, either. Clearly they have little respect for honoring the sanctity of life, so I doubt they're going to honor their word.

Peace out, man. The point is we honor Matthew.

Well, mostly the point is we allow Matthew's story to be told in order to help prevent hate crimes against the GLBT community in the future, and make sure those who continue to commit them are prosecuted, and a strong message is sent that there is no longer the loophole that allows people who get attacked because of race, ethnic background, or religion to have those crimes on their person recognized by federal and just about every state's law, but affectional orientation-based bias crimes are not only not recognized by federal statute, but not even by statewide law in about 15 states. Matthew has been honored much more than other GLBT hate crime victims, who didn't get the media attention he did. Now is the time that his namesake be remembered so that future generations won't have to go through what he did before America finally says "Enough is enough".

 

[JackFTwist]

Well, mostly the point is we allow Matthew's story to be told in order to help prevent hate crimes against the GLBT community in the future, and make sure those who continue to commit them are prosecuted, and a strong message is sent that there is no longer the loophole that allows people who get attacked because of race, ethnic background, or religion to have those crimes on their person recognized by federal and just about every state's law, but affectional orientation-based bias crimes are not only not recognized by federal statute, but not even by statewide law in about 15 states. Matthew has been honored much more than other GLBT hate crime victims, who didn't get the media attention he did. Now is the time that his namesake be remembered so that future generations won't have to go through what he did before America finally says "Enough is enough".

I agree with you on that.

It does not help that a lot of gays and lesbians (examples: posters here) reject hate crime legislation. It would help if we could agree on something.

And d watch Bill Maher - he had some real negative things to say about hate crime legislation recently. Rahm Emmanuel was on the show and stated eloquently why it is needed.

 

[lancelva]

In the United States, Congress can override a presidential veto by having a 2/3 majority vote in both the House of Representatives and Senate, thus signing the bill into law despite the president's veto. SOURCE

The House voted 237 (Yea) 180 (Nay) 16 (Not voted) SOURCE
The Senate voted 60 (Yea) 39 (Nay) 1 (Not voted) SOURCE

What this means is that currently the vote would be 297 (Yea) 219 (Nay) 17 (Not Voted) which equates to 55.5% or 4.5% short of the 2/3 majority. However, a joint session votes anew so there is still a chance that the 2/3 majority will be reached. So there is still one last hurdle and that is to hope that President Bush does not veto the Matthew Shepard Act.

The U.S. Congress meets in a Joint Session for only three occassions: dignatary addresses (this includes the President's State of the Union, foreign diplomats, and military leaders), memorial services, and certification of the electoral votes in early January of the year following a Presidential Election. A Joint Session must be authorized by a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses of Congress. Joint Sessions are not held for legislative purposes and the 2/3 majority requirement is set for both Houses individually. That is, 2/3 of the House must vote to override a veto AND 2/3 of the Senate must vote to override the veto. There isn't even a legislative loophole to allow for a Joint Session vote, because the Constitution is pretty clear on this. Article I, Secton 7:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

So the Constitution outlines the steps: if the Presidento objects to a bill, he sends it back to the House in which the bill originated. If two thirds of that House votes to pass the bill, it goes to "the other House." If two thirds of the other House votes to pass it, it then becomes law.

So not only would it be unprecedented to hold a veto override vote in a Joint Session, it would be unconstitutional.