Organizations that want federal law to cover hate crimes inspired by sexual orientation are mad and disappointed by a decision in Congress. Although majorities in both the House and Senate favor the idea, it was dropped from the 2008 defense authorization bill Thursday.

The same thing happened in 2000 and 2004, but backers of this year’s version thought their chances were better. Their frustration aside, advocates of federal protection for gays, lesbians and transgendered people need to focus their efforts on a straightforward approach, daunting or not.

Last May, the House passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act, a stand-alone measure meant to achieve the purpose reflected in its title. In September, conscious of a presidential veto threat, the Senate decided to add the provisions of the House bill to a funding bill that provides $150 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If they thought that would veto-proof their proposal, the White House disabused them of the notion, threatening to kill the measure no matter what vehicle it was riding.

Between House members opposed to the hate-crimes proposal and those opposed to the war, the strategy was an estimated 40 votes shy of passage, so congressional leaders abandoned the strategy rather than lose the authorization bill.

In time, that may prove to be not such a bad thing.

It’s probably cavalier to apply the term “impatient” to people who, according to FBI statistics, are targeted by hate crimes more than any other class of citizens on the receiving end of bigotry. If you have to worry about assaults and murders, the wait for a remedy is not like standing in line at the bank.

Nevertheless, when that protection finally does attain the force of law, it will be all the more comforting if it’s a law that’s backed with clear conviction by the people and their political structure. That can’t be said to be the case if enactment of the measure depends on procedural manipulation.

Interestingly, the Anti-Defamation League, one of the disappointed organizations, issued a statement lamenting that the hate crimes measure lost because of “political maneuvering related to other issues.”

Maddening as more waiting must be to those whose lives and well-being are wrapped up in this issue, American attitudes about sexual discrimination continue to mature. The separate House and Senate votes this year are evidence of that. President Bush’s intransigence on the matter was the roadblock.

In a little more than a year, a different president will occupy the White House and he or she may be more forward-looking.

If federal law-enforcement agencies can’t get the authority to help states respond to hate crimes except by legislative gamesmanship, it will be unclear that such a law reflects American will. But when Congress and the White House demonstrate their common commitment to justice, there will be no doubt.