Openly gay Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) hopes to get half the members of the House to sign a discharge petition that would force a vote on a revised Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The reformulated ENDA would limit the current bill’s exemption for religious organizations, including religiously affiliated private schools and charities. The narrowed exemption might apply only to ministerial positions, which would be a deal-killer for many/most of ENDA’s current House GOP co-sponsors, and I suspect also some Democrats. And although ENDA already was passed in the Senate, with revised language it would stall there as well during reconciliation.
The dilemma: Without a sharply curtailed exemption, many LGBT activists have announced they will no longer support ENDA.
In short, ENDA still is likely to be on a road going nowhere, although the discharge petition endeavor will try to mobilize LGBT voters in the midterms (it’s also supported by openly gay GOP congressional candidates Carl DeMaio and Richard Tisei).
Despite these efforts, ENDA increasingly seems like inside beltway baseball for politicos and activists; it’s no longer generating any real interest among gay voters, whose passion is directed toward marriage equality.
7 Comments for “ENDA Is Passé”
posted by Houndentenor on
1) This isn’t going to pass a Republican controlled House so why are we wasting time on it.
2) This is a watered-down bill that will roll back protections in the states that already have laws covering this and do little for gay people in the rest of the country.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
I think that their is precedent for religious exemptions, but I am thus far skeptical of all the proposals that I have read.
Details and how a law is written may not be glamorous, but it’s quite important.
posted by Jorge on
Details and how a law is written may not be glamorous, but it’s quite important.
Like this gem from the Wisconsin decision:
“Language is read where possible to give reasonable effect to every word, in order to avoid surplusage. We take it that the use of ‘substantially similar’ means that a status that is not merely similar is not meant to be prohibited.”
posted by Jorge on
The religious exemption standoff is a deal-breaker. This is Federal Marriage Amendment Lite.
Take the sacrifice here, then marshall the energy toward other targets, like… the states?
posted by Mike in Houston on
“Despite these efforts, ENDA increasingly seems like inside beltway baseball for politicos and activists; it’s no longer generating any real interest among gay voters, whose passion is directed toward marriage equality.”
Despite what certain activist organizations (NGLTF, NCLR, etc.) from the coastal gay enclaves (and safely ensconced pundits like Stephen) seem to believe, ENDA is both practically and conceptually still VERY important.
Just because there is a bandwagon effect on marriage equality because of their successes, we should discount the passion and toil that many people outside the “safe zones” are putting in to get non-discrimination protections in employment and public accommodations passed at the local, state and, yes, national level.
posted by Wilberforce on
I was never for putting marriage before enda, although I see now that it was a good pr move. It equates the straight appreciation of marriage with gay people, which makes us look more normal.
On the other hand, enda should have been our top priority from day one. But it’s hard to discuss in the community, given all the mistakes that have been made, like destroying it over T bathroom rights, and the people who want to cover up those mistakes.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
If you live in a State where the chances of an state ENDA bill — which only deals with employment — has zero — in practical terms — of actually getting passed, ENDA probably seems like a basic meat and potatoes issue for you. Especially, if you also work in an industry that tends to be very difficult to succeed or hold onto a job, if you are gay.
Service industry type labor is often — for better or for the worse — treated as expendable/easy to replace . If you work in a factory or doing retail. So I certainly know plenty working class and lower middle class gays who would appreciate such federal workplace protections.
Heck, I know people who work with public colleges and universities who do not feel comfortable being openly gay, because their aren’t any state protections (even through the college or university probably would deny that it would ever tolerate such discrimination).
I suspect that because the legislative judicial success has been with marriage, that is where some of the focus is going — especially for folks that already have state civil rights protections.
Part of what needs to happen is that more gay people need to come out within the heartland and within more blue collar/lower middle class jobs.
It is nice that you can have an openly gay CEO or be openly gay and work in the big city, but that is not everyone’s reality.
If you go into more rural communities — especially in the ‘red’ political areas and people really do believe that most gay people are wealthy and or live in the cities. Much of this is because lots of gay people in rural communities and more blue collar neighborhood do not feel safe being out.