It will be interesting to see what happens as Sen. Larry Craig fights to withdraw his guilty plea in the now notorious airport sex sting. Will it (a) shed light on the ongoing petty harassment practiced by local police anxious to make their arrest quotas by targeting gays, (b) further convince an ignorant public that being gay means hooking up in men's rooms, (c) drive fellow conservative Republicans to distraction by continuing to make the party look like a bunch of sleazes? Maybe a bit of all three.
Ok, enough of Craig. Let's turn to something a bit more serious, the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) snaking its way through congressional subcommittees. If passed by Congress, which seems probable if it reaches the floor of both House and Senate, it's still likely Bush would veto it-Republicans can't afford to further displease their social conservative base, which is already livid over the Mark Foley and Larry Craig shenanigans, and threatening to sit out the next election altogether given the prospect of a presidential nominee, Rudy Giuliani, guilty of tolerating gays.
Given that the next president, whether Hillary or Rudy (the two front-runners) would likely sign the thing, would it be prudent to wait? Maybe, but the Democrats want to get the GOP on record as still being the anti-gay party, in order to shore up their own liberal base. That's politics, and along with lust (for power, but sometimes for sex), it's what drives this town.
25 Comments for “Ah, Washington”
posted by Xeno on
He’s wasting time and resources. Does he actually think that reversing the guilty plea (which is a long shot) will restore his credibility and his nice Republican “friends” back?
ND30 must agree with me on this one, no?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yes, I agree; he’s wasting time and resources.
posted by Brian on
Martin Luther King, Jr once remarked that action had never been “‘well timed’ in the view of those who have not suffered.” Will President Bush veto the ENDA? Maybe. Probably? But now is a good of time as ever to ask him to sign it and to ask all members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat to support the measure. I applaud all lawmakers–both Republican and Democratic–who are standing up for what is right right now.
posted by Brian Miller on
I don’t see how voting against a special-rights bill makes a person “anti-gay.” If Bush vetoes ENDA, it will be the right policy decision (even if it’s done for the wrong reasons).
I’d like to challenge the Democrats, Republicans and their gay boosters to get their parties to support EQUAL treatment under the law for LGBTQ people before pushing a special-rights bill like ENDA.
posted by Bobby on
Brian, I want to agree with you. But what about affirmative action? Isn’t that a special right? Are blacks superior to gays? Either we can discriminate against all or get ready to pass laws to protect smokers, people of size (fat or very skinny, tall or very short) and anyone else who could be discriminated.
I think ENDA is a waste of time, most states are “at-will,” so you can get fired for any reason, at any time. This law is strictly symbolic, like the president declaring June as gay pride month.
posted by ETJB on
Brain, we all know how the Libertarian Party believes that an employer has the right to hire/fire anyone for whatever reason, but please do not pretend that supporting equal opportunity is a ‘special right.’
posted by ETJB on
Bobby;
At-will employment means any reason, unless it is an illegal one. The ENDA is not a waste of time to Americans who believe in equal opportunity or had actually had to deal with discrimination.
posted by ETJB on
Getting back to the thread at hand (har har), the Seantor is fighting for his job and his career. The Senate will probably try and kick him out, and then are any future prosepcts of being an elected candidate.
posted by Brian Miller on
But what about affirmative action? Isn’t that a special right?
Of course!
please do not pretend that supporting equal opportunity is a ‘special right.’
How does this law create “equal opportunity?”
It doesn’t. It creates quotas, special rights, and violates the rights of employees and employers to free association.
And even if you’re going to make the argument that such special rights legislation is needed, I’d much prefer — along with most gay people — that your party spend more political capital on equal treatment (marriage, military, taxation) before it makes this largely meaningless special rights law happen.
Enough excuses.
The ENDA is not a waste of time to Americans who believe in equal opportunity
I believe in equal opportunity — that’s why I despise laws like ENDA that create special rights and privileges for a segment of the population while running roughshod over their constitutional right to freedom of association.
There’s no benefit to such a law for anyone other than a few well-connected trial lawyers.
posted by Xeno on
I thought ENDA was only for federal employees since anti discrimination laws are at the state level no? Are you against that for federal employees Brian?
To be honest, the Democrats are wasting their time with ENDA and Hate Crimes stuff. It’s the repeal of DADT, DOMA, DC adoption ban, and the legal recognition of same-sex couples at the federal level (needed for bi-national couples). Why are the Democrats giving us scraps? I think now is a good time to ditch the electoral college system, and have a Euro style representational system so we can see some greens, reform and libertarians taking seats. The two party system is stale.
posted by Xeno on
I thought ENDA was only for federal employees since anti discrimination laws are at the state level no? Are you against that for federal employees Brian?
To be honest, the Democrats are wasting their time with ENDA and Hate Crimes stuff. It’s the repeal of DADT, DOMA, DC adoption ban, and the legal recognition of same-sex couples at the federal level (needed for bi-national couples) that really counts. Why are the Democrats giving us scraps? I think now is a good time to ditch the electoral college system, and have a Euro style representational system so we can see some greens, reform and libertarians taking seats. The two party system is stale.
(sorry, delete previous comment)
posted by Brian Miller on
I thought ENDA was only for federal employees
Nope, it applies to all private sector employees (excepting churches) nationwide. The feds already have a nondiscrimination policy (outside the military, of course) created through an executive order.
I support a federal policy banning discrimination in sexual orientation and gender identity in federal employment. I support similar policies in state and local government, and encourage private sector employers to voluntarily adopt nondiscrimination HR policies.
What I oppose is the government forcing such policies on them — for two reasons. . .
1) Violation of the right of freedom of association;
2) Federal policies tend to be inferior to more adaptable private sector HR policies that embrace realities unique to companies and industries.
the Democrats are wasting their time with ENDA and Hate Crimes stuff. It’s the repeal of DADT, DOMA, DC adoption ban, and the legal recognition of same-sex couples at the federal level (needed for bi-national couples) that really counts.
I completely agree with you.
Why are the Democrats giving us scraps?
Because they can. They know that most “gay” political organizations will back them no matter what. HRC is a faithful Clinton acolyte despite the DOMA and DADT, for instance, and even “skeptical critical” Democrats rush in to defend their sacred politicians when they say or do something homophobic.
Since there are no consequences to homophobia with gay Democrats, and perceived benefits, politicians do what they do best — target gay people to appeal to bigots.
posted by ETJB on
Brain;
No, no, no. You seem to be some one who lacks a basic understanding of the law. The arguments you put forth are simply not true.
You asked: How does this law create “equal opportunity?”
By amending ‘at-will’ employment to assert that their are certain reasons your employer can not fire you for (if employment law).
“It creates quotas”
No. In fact quotas are almost always illegal.
“Special rights”
No. It would apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Federal Equal Opportunity Employment legislation has been around since the 1960s. Their is hardly anything special about it.
“Violates the rights of employees and employers to free association.”
Only if you believe that all Civil rights legislation does, and call for a return to the pre-1960’s days where racial, religious, ethnic and gender discrimination was openly practiced. So how about it, do Libertarians want to run the nation like Archie Bunker or the KKK?
“I’d much prefer — along with most gay people — that your party spend more political capital on equal treatment (marriage, military, taxation) before it makes this largely meaningless special rights law happen.”
Really? You spoken with most LGBT Americans and they told you that they oppose the ENDA and the HCPA and want to return America to the hands of the Klan? BTW, I do not ‘own’ any political party and have little say in what political capital is or is not used.
“I believe in equal opportunity”
No, you oppose every single civil right law, as does the Libertarian Party, and wish to return to some pre-1960s Southern “paradise”.
“I despise laws like ENDA”
So you supported equal opportunity and then you opposed it? Sounds like a flip-flopper to me. You despise the ENDA for the same reason that all LP despise civil rights legislation.
“that create special rights and privileges for a segment of the population”
Well, the entire segment of the population has a sexual orientation.
“While running roughshod over their constitutional right to freedom of association.”
First off all, Federal Civil Rights laws are constitutional. Second off all, “freedom of association” is not found within the constitution.
posted by Bobby on
“At-will employment means any reason, unless it is an illegal one”
—Let me explain, in at-will states they don’t even have to explain why they’re firing you. They can just say “it’s not working out.” So ENDA doesn’t protect you. All ENDA does is send a message that firing gay people for being gay is a bad idea. Let me put it this way, if an employee is talented but is on probation because he makes spelling mistakes, and then comes out and his boss doesn’t like gays, so he fires him. The boss can always say “well, his spelling was horrible, I didn’t fire him for being gay.”
People, discrimination is what this country is all about. There are advertising agencies that won’t hire a copywriter if he’s not a native English speaker. That means it doesn’t matter how well your portfolio looks, how creative your English headlines are, if you’re not a native speaker, if you have an accent, you’ll end up working in Hispanic Advertising or doing something else.
That’s why ENDA is a waste of time. It’s nothing more than a symbolic law that will rarely be applied. Now, overtuning the ban of gays in the military would be more meaningful, it would open the posibility of a military career to thousands of gays.
posted by John on
Ummm, how exactly are police ‘targeting gay men’ when in all the public examples we have of the men arrested they claim not to be gay?
posted by Brian Miller on
No. It would apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Federal Equal Opportunity Employment legislation has been around since the 1960s. Their is hardly anything special about it.
I love it when supporters of special rights legislation drag out this old “it applies to everyone” chestnut.
The Supreme Court has already ruled on this question. Legislation that “protects” from “discrimination” is, according to the SCOTUS, directed only at permanent minorities.
White people cannot sue under racial discrimination laws based on that case law. And straight people won’t be able to sue under ENDA either.
The fact that ENDA’s proponents have to lie about the law (as well as attempt to bully its opponents) underscores the lack of integrity that this effort represents.
And, of course, placing special rights before equal rights is not an agenda that the broader community supports — only elements of the Democratic and Republican parties.
posted by Brian Miller on
Federal Civil Rights laws are constitutional.
No they aren’t — they just haven’t been declared unconstitutional. Yet.
In fact, the entire basis for so-called “civil rights” laws has been “interstate commerce regulation” powers that Congress is granted in the Constitution. However, the SCOTUS has affirmed that the rights of individuals, as underscored by the Bill of Rights, trump the “rights” of the federal government.
Federal laws like ENDA and other (Orwellian-named) “civil rights” law that undermine freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of expression are not only unconstitutional — but likely to be found as such by a SCOTUS ruling sometime in our lifetimes.
posted by ETJB on
You said: Let me explain, in at-will states they don’t even have to explain why they’re firing you.
No. Federal Civil Rights legislation applies to every single state and supercedes state law. Their are already established principles to determine when/if illegal discrimination has occured in employment should a former employee decide to go to court.
Does these laws magically make employment discrimination vanish? No, but they do provide a legal recourse for certain types of discrimination (race, color, etc.) and address the more overt types.
“People, discrimination is what this country is all about.”
Well, some one is certainly hoping that the ‘South will rise again.’ I am not. ENDA is not a waste of time. Civil rights legislation is not a waste of time. Most working class and middle class gays know this.
“The Supreme Court has already ruled on this question.”
Yeah, and it has said that anti-discrimination laws apply to both the majority and the minority. Black or white, man or woman, Christian or Jewish, gay or straight.
If a employment anti-discrimination law only applied to gays and not straights when it said, ‘sexual orientation’ that would be a equal protection challenge.
A white man that is fired from a job because they are white, can sue for a Federal (or state) Civil Rights violation. It may be harder to prove in court, it does apply and is illegal (except in narrow cases of AA).
I do not “bully” people who disagree with me. It is a well known fact that the Libertarian Party opposes civil rights laws. They feel that an employer (for example) has every right to discrimination — as they once did — on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin or sex. Thus they oppose and wish to repeal major parts of the post-war era Civil Rights movement.
Civil rights legislation is not ‘special rights’. Most gay Americans do not want to be fired from their job for being gay. Most women and people of color do not want to be fired because of their sex or race.
posted by ETJB on
Federal Civil Rights laws are constitutional. The Libertarian Party seems determined to overturn them, a major part of the civil rights movement, and then seems determined to pretend that it cares about discrimination.
Federal Civil Rights laws are consistantly upheld, except for AA laws which are increasingly being struck down or given a narrower application.
“Freedom of association” is not found anywhere within the Federal Constituion, and I doubt that it is in many state constitutions.
If the Libertarian Party wants such a right, then they should seek to amend the federal (even state) constitution. They are ceratinly free to persaude women, gays, the disabled, racial and ethnic minorites, that things would be better of if we want back the pre-civil rights era.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, does not undermine Freedom of Speech (a constitutional right). You have every right to advocate that the law be changed and that we should all go back to pre-1964.
Again, ‘Freedom of Association’ is not something you will find in the Bill of Rights. Expecting the court to defend a right that it NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION is rather silly.
posted by Bobby on
I thought “freedom of association” was in the First Ammendment.
“Most working class and middle class gays know this.”
—This has nothing to do with class, there are liberal rich gays who support all kinds of liberal causes.
ENDA is a waste of time because there are ways around it. Imagine if a community passes a law that says “you can’t hire a hooker unless you pay them in burgers.” That makes the law useless.
Frankly, I don’t get this country. People don’t get upset when employees are fired for not quitting smoking, or not hired because of their weight/looks, or demanded to work long hours with no extra-pay, but if a company doesn’t want to hire gays, that’s the end of the world.
If a company doesn’t like gays, I don’t want to work for that company. End of story.
posted by ETJB on
Bobby;
With all due respect, you do not seem to know what life it like for most, average gay Americans. Who are part of the working or lower middle class and suffer because ENDA is not the law of the land.
“Freedom of association” is not found within the First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The fact that you have the luxory not to worry about economic class, illustrates how out of touch you are with average gay Americans. ENDA will benfit wokring and lower middle class gays who can not just magically become rich and live in high end of SF or NY city.
“ENDA is a waste of time because there are ways around it.”
Well, their are certainly ‘ways’ around murder, but I do not feel that making murder illegal is a waste of time. Justice is never a waste of time. Perhaps some day you will know it.
“People don’t get upset when employees are fired for not quitting smoking, or not hired because of their weight/looks, or demanded to work long hours with no extra-pay, but if a company doesn’t want to hire gays, that’s the end of the world.”
Well, some people do get upset. Maybe you should bother to look at state/civil rights laws.
posted by dalea on
The Colorado law is one I have always liked. It states that no one can be fired or discriminated against for engaging in any legal activity. Like sky diving, ice climbing or smoking. Or being gay, which is totally legal. On Milton Friedman’s criteria, the number of choices available to people is increased. Therefore, Liberty is expanded. With none of this ‘freedom of association’ phantasmogoria.
One group very much discriminated against are extreme sports enthusiasts. These sports are dangerous; they frequently result in death or severe injury. With a ‘legal activity law’ and universal single payer insurance, these people have their freedom expanded enormously.
Libertarians here want to repeat the language of segregation and call it ‘freedom’.
posted by Craig2 on
“Republicans can’t afford to alienate their social conservative base.”
“Excuse me, is that a monkey I see on your back? Oh, sorry,
Reverend Sheldon/ Robertson/
Representative Musgrave, honest
mistake…”
“Wahhhh!!! That conservative Christian has robbed me of my paternity!”
“Now see where ‘intelligent design’ arguments have got us…”
posted by Craig2 on
Ah, so Focus on the Family and their fellow pond scum were right to try to gut Colorado’s antidiscrimination laws, and the US Supreme Court was wrong to invalidate in Romer v Evans, yes?
I’m sorry, but I have major difficulties with purist libertarians over their argument that merit should not be the chief criteria in employment eligibility here…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by ETJB on
When ‘Amendment 2’ (Romer v. Evans) was on the ballot in Colorado, the CO Libertarian Party refused to take a position against it.
Yes, the amendment dealt with both public and private sector discrimination, but the fact that the fact that it did the former, did not seem to be too important.