An Argument Against Hate Crime Legislation

This is interesting.

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — In their first public interview since attacking gay college student Matthew Shepard, his killers said they were motivated not by homophobia, but the prospect of robbery to fuel a methamphetamine binge.
“He was pretty well-dressed, had a wallet full of money,” Aaron McKinney said of meeting Shepard at a Laramie bar in October 1998. “All I wanted to do was beat him up and rob him. … Seemed like a good idea at the time.”

Most people point to the Matthew Shepard case as a prime example of what our societ is calling a “hate crime.” Now lets ponder for a moment the motivations for Mr. Shepard’s murder. Most believe that he was killed because his murderers were homophobic, but what if they really did murder him because they wanted money for a drug binge? Does that make the crime itself better, or worse?

Under hate crime legislation current in effect in this country killing Shepard because he was gay would be worse in terms of punishment than if he were killed for money. That just doesn’t make sense to me. A murder is a murder, right? Regardless of your motivations the end is the same and the punishment should reflect that.
I can see variances in murder charges for something like negligent homicide (if a drunk driver were to run somebody over) and pre-meditated murder (serial killers, etc.), but not in cases like this.
If a man were to get beaten up at a Red Sox game for wearing a Yankees hat his assailants would likely be charged with assault, but if the victim were gay or a minority his assailants might be charged with a much more serious “hate crime” simply because of who the victim is.
It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Update:
Michelle Malkin points out some reporting which indiactes that one of Shepard’s killers may have been a bisexual.
Kind of throws a monkey wrench into that whole “bigoted against gays” thing.