The Employee Non-Discrimination Act passes the House, and that's historic. I contend that the bill is mostly symbolic (with or without transgender inclusion), as I explained here, and respect gay libertarians who opposed all measures that further empower government to limit the hiring decisions of employers, even bigots (Dan Blatt makes that case over at Gay Patriot). Still, symbolism can be important in changing attitudes and helping to otherwise ensure equality under the law, and a good deal of inequality in the legal treatment of gay people in America is, unfortunately (and wrongly) justified on the basis that we are not covered by federal anti-discrimination law.
And so I take heart that 35 Republicans voted for the bill, including two of the lead co-sponsors, Chris Shays (R-CT) and Deborah Pryce (R-OH). And that four Republicans voted for it in committee, providing the margin for passage when four liberal Democrats voted "no" over the trans issue. So much for those who endless repeat the mantra that we need solely to ensure that all gay support goes to the Democratic Party.
Still, I have a hard time believing that Bush will not veto the bill should it pass the Senate, meaning all Repbulicans will look like bigots, and the entire game gets replayed again in two years.
In other news, Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani, which seems unlikely to convince many religious rightists to support the thrice-married former NYC mayor. Robertson is now something of a joke even among evangelicals, who are far more likely to look to James Dobson (of Focus on the Family) for their political guidance. And it will certainly hurt Rudy among tolerant-minded independents.
On a more positive note, the Advocate actually has a not-terrible piece on Giuliani and the Republican field, correctly noting that even with some backsliding Giuliani remains the most gay friendly candidate ever to be within reach of the GOP nomination. And that's not a bad thing.
19 Comments for “ENDA Lesson: One Party Is Not Enough”
posted by Brian Miller on
The key question, in my mind, is whether the LGBT partisan lobbies will lobby for real equality if ENDA is signed, or whether they’ll agree to sit down and shut up — jumping up only to scratch out the eyes of independent gay activists who want real equality.
After all, all indications are that ENDA is mostly being pushed by heterosexual Democrats to bolster the Democrats’ faltering credibility on gay rights issues (given all the pro-marriage-segregation positions and especially Obama’s embarrassing ex-gay preacher episode).
posted by amicus on
Define “historic”. I mean, it’s a fact, a date in history this bill, that’s all.
It wasn’t four “liberal Democrats” voting “no”, it was a bunch of people Democrats in name only who didn’t join them.
To be “ENDA neutral” is a waste. I’m “against murder”, but we still have laws when someone transgresses the boundaries.
It’s nice that there are some Republicans who vote opportunistically on *some* gay issues. It’s a cruel juxtaposition with the fact that, as I recall, the GOP kicked out the only openly gay delegate to the 2004 National Convention, saying he didn’t measure up to the Party’s platform/values.
All it all, it would be even better if there were a disciplined Democratic party on gay issues, and we got away from public officials who have “personal views” on this or that, rather than well-formed public policy statements.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Amicus wrongly writes: “the fact that, as I recall, the GOP kicked out the only openly gay delegate to the 2004 National Convention, saying he didn’t measure up to the Party’s platform/values.”
Wrong #1: it was the local DC GOP chair that refused to certify the delegate after the delegate announced he wouldn’t support the GOP’s nominee, Geo W Bush, for re-election. The delegate’s primary (no pun) job was to endorse the DC GOP voters? choice of W as the nominee. It?s like an elector deciding not to follow the General Election results and just vote however they want when they are convened at the Electoral College.
Wrong #2: the reason had nothing to do with “values” –the DC GOP delegation was pledged, by his office, to support Bush’s nomination. All DC delegates HAD to vote that way… they are pledged to represent the DC GOP voters who cast their primary caucus vote for Bush. Later, the delegate said he would vote for Bush at the Convention but work against him in the General Election ?which, if he had said that first, would have allowed the DC Chair to certify his status to the Convention.
Frankly, he should NOT have been certified irrespective of his later spin of his facts.
Wrong #3: “only open gay delegate”… there were at least 37 openly gay delegates at the 2004 Convention… I was one of them. Additionally, there were dozens of gay delegates there who have chosen not to make PRIDE their central, life-motivating force and are not out.
Wrong #4: “the GOP kicked out”… it was a state’s (DC) GOP chair that chose not to certify Catania’s delegate status. Mr. Catania never made it to the Convention. Guess what, Amicus? The chair replaced him with an openly gay delegate who would honor the office and vote correctly. Hmmmm, now FANCY that?
Recall as you wish… but I prefer to get the facts right. Your sentiment about the GOP tossing the only gay delegate from the 2004 Convention is either asinine or just GayLeftDem talking points retold.
Or it could be both.
posted by ETJB on
I have to wonder; why is two parties enough?
posted by Another Steve on
amicus sez: “Define “historic”. I mean, it’s a fact, a date in history this bill, that’s all.
The House action marked the first time that anti-discrimination legislation covering sexual orientation has gained approval by either house of Congress. How is that not historic, amicus?
posted by Brian Miller on
I have to wonder; why is two parties enough?
Sort of like why George Bush had to wonder, “is our children learning?”
posted by Amicus on
Well, Matt, “kicked-out” seems to cover “not certify” and I the voted-for before I voted-against bit is … insupportable.
I was clearly wrong that there we not other gay delegates, however; but I’d bet dollars that few knew they existed, openly. It must have been fun to be a delegate to nominate the most homophobic President in recent memory. Lower taxes are clearly more important than “Pride”.
How is that not historic
So you are saying that something is “historic” just because it is “a first”?
That might work for “my first time”, but I don’t think that’s how legislative history probably stacks up, for the most part.
btw, can we all start asking, “What does that have to do with me?”, now that we have an historic precedent to do so?
What does ‘immigration rights’ have to do with me?
What does right to work openly in the military have to do with me?
What does ‘freedom to marry’ have to do with …
These “groups” should do their own work, right? That’s our historic lesson?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Amicus, ummm… sorry but you are still wrong. This time, you’ve at least narrowed it down to 2 wrongly held opinions… that’s a little better.
Yes, these were delegates who were open, out, rainbow flag label pin wearing gay GOPers, Amicus. In the DC delegation alone there were at least 11 openly gay delegates… in our Michigan delegation there were 7. But they weren’t like the VictimhoodAnonymous gay delegates usually found at Democrat Party conventions that you might be familar with… these gay GOP delegates were successful people -in their family life, in their careers, in their communities. They were also unabashedly patriotic and supportive of the military –something the GayLeft has yet to master.
You were wrong about being “kicked out” because he was replaced with a GAY delegate who WOULD honor his office as a delegate. “Kicked out”?? My ass.
And you’re still wrong on the other 4-5 items.
But don’t let the truth get in the way of you spinning the GayLeft talking points.
posted by Brian Miller on
these gay GOP delegates were successful people -in their family life, in their careers, in their communities.
And here’s what their party’s platform has to say about them:
homosexuality is incompatible with military service
…
redefining the institution of marriage
…
judges are abusing their power [through] … potential actions invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
…
We strongly support President Bush?s call for a Constitutional amendment… [and don’t] recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage.
…
legal recognition and the
accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman
…
local authorities are presuming to change the most
fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage.
Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country
…
President Bush will also vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act
Yeah. . . the GOP loves gays, as long as you don’t want your 14th Amendment rights recognized, and don’t raise kids or live in any sort of relationship. Those successful, gay GOP delegates didn’t manage to get their party to recognize them as anything other than “bureaucrats” who want to “destroy the basic building blocks of society.”
Contrast that to the Libertarian Platform on gay issues:
Repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state laws and amendments defining marriage. Oppose any new laws or Constitutional amendments defining terms for personal, private relationships. Repeal any state or federal law assigning special benefits to people based on marital status, family structure, sexual orientation or gender identification. Repeal any state or federal laws denying same-sex partners rights enjoyed by others, such as adoption of children and spousal immigration. End the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for sexual orientation. Upgrade all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned solely for such reasons to honorable status, and delete related information from military personnel files.
Even if the Libertarian candidate doesn’t win the presidency in the next couple of elections, gay people would do better advancing Libertarian candidates than wasting their time with Republicans who hold them in profound contempt.
posted by Randy on
Where’s North Dallas 40? He has consistently said that the Republican party is far more favorable to gay rights than the Democrats. But this ENDA vote proves him wrong.
No wonder he’s in hiding….
posted by Randy on
So Guiliani is gay friendly? Perhaps he is compared with other Republicans. But he recently stated that is would only be in favor of a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage if more states allow gay marriage.
So, in other words, he’s happy that no state other than Mass. allows gay marriage. But if they get outta line and start offering that, then he’s going to have to put his foot down and put a stop to all those shenanagans.
Yup — really gay friendly. Or is he just lying to lock in the nominiation? Either way, the guy’s a real winner, eh?
posted by ETJB on
I said: I have to wonder; why is two parties enough?
Your reply: Sort of like why George Bush had to wonder, “is our children learning?”
Yeah, that was sort of the intended joke by using ‘is’ instead of ‘are’. Even a person who is mentally disabled, should be asking such a question; be it ‘is’ or ‘are’
posted by Craig2 on
So what do you propose, Brian? Do you think the United States would be better off with proportional representation, so that the Libertarian Party (and
who else…?) could gain representation in their own right?
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by ETJB on
Craig2
Part of the problem is that starting in the 1920s/1930s, States began to make it absurdly difficult for a non-major party candidate to get on the ballot.
American ballot access law is often very harsh, to a degree that other two party nations would not even tolerate.
posted by Amicus on
Yes, these were delegates who were open, out, rainbow flag label pin wearing gay GOPers, Amicus.
Is there a name list or group photo op somewhere that I missed? A proud declaration of “We’re here, We’re GOP, and We Love Bush?”
..Victimhood/Anonymous gay delegates…
oh, my. GOP delegates who participate openly in their own oppression are so much better?
Here’s the face of “victimhood”.
he was replaced with a GAY delegate …
Well, that’s a point worth mulling. Apparently, Carl Schimd was the man.
Let me guess. College Republican. Grew up being told that GOP was synonymous with “Patriot” and “Freedom”. Went to sleep at night during the 80s with a Ronald Reagan portrait over the headboard.
Exhibits extreme forms of cognative dissonance to the point of mental schism over the fact that the dear GOP really isn’t all that and, often, doesn’t even try to be, especially on homosexuals.
Just guessing.
posted by Amicus on
Background, from WaBla:
“For delegates to the [Democratic, 2008] convention, the threshold they need to cross will be getting elected as delegate in the first place. Fortunately, the Democratic Party has made it easier for LGBT Americans to be a part of this important process.
Last year the Democratic National Committee changed its rules to require state parties to adopt enhanced outreach and inclusion programs for LGBT Americans, youth and people with disabilities. Building on progressive requirements that were already in place, the party decided to do even more to encourage participation by these groups in the delegate selection process. For 2008, our party?s rules now require state parties and our presidential campaigns to conduct outreach designed to ensure that LGBT Americans of all ages, shapes, sizes and colors are included as part of each state?s delegation to the national convention ? and at all levels in the party. With this new rule, the DNC has actively encouraged state parties to set numeric goals for how many LGBT Americans are to be included in their delegation to Denver.
At least 46 states have already set goals for LGBT delegates, an astonishing increase from the 16 states that set goals for the 2004 convention.
posted by Craig2 on
As a matter of interest, what *do* US gay conservatives and libertarians think about the prospect of proportional representation in your context?
It might mean that the Libertarians (and Greens? And…
the Taxpayers Party? The Constitution Party?) gain representation in whatever federal, state or municipal elections that it’s used in.
Over here, thank goodness, it means that our much weaker fundamentalist right has gone down the road of separatist Christian Right political parties, diluting their influence
on the mainstream centre-right.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by ETJB on
Congress banned states from using PR in 1967 (Prior to that period it was on and off again legal/illegal). Their have been bills to change that, but they rarely go anyhwere.
Conservatives or liberals who are very biased against alternative patives, are likely to oppose PR. The LP has (least time I heard) said it was open to talking about such voting methods.
I think that pushing for fair ballot access laws and IRV is more plauisble now, then proportional presentation because such reforms do not really move the nation away from being a two-party system.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
He has consistently said that the Republican party is far more favorable to gay rights than the Democrats. But this ENDA vote proves him wrong.
Of course they are.
That’s because I support the right of gay employers to hire and fire whomever they wish, which this law abrogates.
(That is, unless, Randy, you’re going to admit that it is OK to fire or not hire straight employees based on their sexual orientation if it’s a gay person doing it. Are you going to support the first wave of lawsuits filed against gay community centers and gay-owned organizations for not hiring enough straight people?)
Furthermore, I don’t believe it’s a good thing for gay people when a law requires that an incompetent or criminal manager who demands sex from coworkers and retaliate against those who don’t give it be protected from firing and to be promoted in the name of diversity because she herself happens to be gay.