Barney Frank will put the Employment Non Discrimination Act at the top of his congressional agenda for the gay and lesbian community. This is a piece of substantive legislation that has the potential to help lesbians and gay men in many places. It will test the bona fides of the leadership in Congress, who have been reluctant to do anything with the hot potato the President keeps throwing them (whenever we mention it), except to throw it back. And if/when the President signs ENDA into law, it will be the kind of achievement he has often promised but not yet delivered.
Nondiscrimination laws, particularly in the employment area, are useful tools, not because they change anyone's mind (no law can ever do that), but because they put the government's interest in equality front and center. In any functional economy, the ability to earn a living is essential, and while it is undeniably true that, for the most part lesbians and gay men who get fired from their jobs for no reason other than their homosexuality can and do usually have other options, there are states in this nation where the web of homophobia can be relied on to drive lesbians and gay men to stay in the closet. That is what feeds the still-breathing dinosaur of the closet - it can only exist as long as we agree to abide by its dictates, but if the bargain is to remain closeted in order to earn a living, a lot of people will accept the devil's deal.
So I must be clear that I support this legislation.
Still, I'd much rather have Congress spend its precious hours and resources repealing DADT and DOMA.
ENDA will aid people in states that don't have such protections, and help to force many people living in those states to face up to what they fear or dislike so much about lesbians and gay men they actually work beside. In my view, that is a good thing.
But it also forces the future on states that prefer the past
when it comes to homosexuality, and that is the way cultural
acrimony gradually builds into conflagration. The federal
government will have enforcement authority, but that may only
magnify existing resentments. Perhaps it's good to embarrass those
who cannot see lesbians and gay men for who they are. It's
certainly good to protect the jobs of innocent workers.
But the federal government doesn't come to this moral task with
clean hands. I think it is better to eliminate the active
discrimination that still resides in federal law before we extend
the federal government's positive power to the states.
DADT is active discrimination. The federal government requires the military to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It's the law.
The military, though, is a unique environment (as we are so often told). It involves situations and absolute discipline that simply don't exist in civilian life. That's distinctly not true of marriage, though. DOMA does not demean a discrete segment of the population, like DADT -- it pollutes and profanes every committed same-sex couple in the United States. But like DADT, DOMA doesn't just put the federal government's stamp of approval on discrimination, it demands it.
Eliminating DADT is a matter of pure Congressional prerogative, and does not intrude into any state's existing law. The same is true of Section 3 of DOMA, which we hear cited again and again and again by the President as tying his hands. Section 2 could remain in place, insulating more conservative states from their neighbors -- the only possible, decent compromise. But Section 3 has no federalist rationale; it merely sets a national standard of discrimination against same-sex couples, and imposes that sordid standard as the national norm, even when states and common sense have long since left this form of discrimination, too, in the history books.
If ENDA is passed first, it will highlight the federal government's Do As I Say, Not As I Do hypocrisy. At its best, it can mitigate the damage to lesbians and gay men that DOMA and DADT perpetrate every day by their mere existence. The mitigation of that damage is no small thing. And, as I said, I will support it. But I won't be as enthusiastic as I would be if Congress could undo its own discriminatory laws before going into every state in the nation and throwing its compromised weight around.
11 Comments for “Do As I Say. . .”
posted by BobN on
ENDA is probably a lot easier to pass than a repeal of DADT or DOMA. Most Americans already think work-place discrimination against gay people is illegal. There’ll be some opposition, but almost all of it will be demonstrably hypocritical as virtually all politicians, even GOP politicians, already have similar rules for their own offices. I’m sure there are still exceptions, of course, but those, along with the usual suspects — FRC, FOF, etc. — are now the rare exception among influential organizations.
Then the hypocrisy of DADT will become even more apparent.
posted by jpeckjr on
I think the politics of putting ENDA first is good. As BobN noted, it will be easier to pass. Those who vote for it will be on record as opposing discrimination, a point that can be raised when someone who voted yes on ENDA balks at DADT repeal. Less useful, I think, with DOMA repeal.
I hate to say this but I think ENDA won’t pass if transgender / gender identity is included. I think that’s the political reality.
posted by Scott on
David, I really enjoy your posts!
While you may be correct in your assessment, let offer an alternative explanation. Rather than cultural acrimony leading to conflagration, how about greater understanding from those who “don’t know any LGBT people”. Studies suggest that those who have a friend or familymember or coworker who identifies as lesbian or gay is more likely to sympathetic. Passage of ENDA may lead to more people coming out of the closet in places where it is not safe to do so. Certainly there will be those that will be more upset by the passage of ENDA; but, we are never going to win these people over anyway. I think the vast majority are more malleable in their opinions about LGBT people but need to have an open acquaintance to become more accepting.
In this alterantive (or additional) scenario the passage of ENDA (which is generally supported by polls) makes the passage of more substantive legislation (DADT & DOMA) more politically feasible.
posted by avee on
Oh, come on. Outside of discrimination by the govenment in the military, gay activists have not been able to quantify ANY substantial discrimination in the private sector based on sexual orientation. They can’t do it. ENDA may pass, but it won’t be anything but a symbolic victory. Symbols can be important, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking this would be a great step forward.
I concur that with transgendered protections, it WON’T pass. And I predict that the LGBT lobbies will insist on transgendered inclusion. So there you go…
posted by Throbert McGee on
That is what feeds the still-breathing dinosaur of the closet ? it can only exist as long as we agree to abide by its dictates, but if the bargain is to remain closeted in order to earn a living, a lot of people will accept the devil?s deal.
Hmmm. My hunch is that fear of rejection by one’s family plays a vastly more significant role in “feeding the dinosaur of the closet” than fear of being fired.
posted by dalea on
The quantifiable data on discrimination is that Gay men earn more than straight men until you enter education into the data. Then it is clear that two men with comparable education will show that the straight guy earns more than the gay guy. Gay men have a much higher average education than straight men, but earn less based on education.
posted by avee on
dalea, the fact that straight men earn more does not prove discrimination. A large number of gay men, and for that matter many women, do not pursue the 12-hour-day jobs that many straight men take on. Work-life balance is a choice, not a sign of discrimination.
posted by jpeckjr on
Fear of rejection by one’s family may play a bigger role in keeping the closet door closed than fear of losing one’s job. But the government can’t really do much about the way your family treats you. It can pass laws that make discrimination illegal.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
I disagree totally with the author. The mistake that has been made from the get-go is not taking “baby steps,” like starting with ENDA. In poll after poll, ENDA is far more popular among the general populace than either DADT or DOMA repeals.
As Scott so eloquently points out, once a person gets to know a gay person — and one of the best places to do this is in the workplace — then their views tend to moderate. At that point is when you bring up DADT and DOMA; NOT before.
“Oh, come on. Outside of discrimination by the govenment in the military, gay activists have not been able to quantify ANY substantial discrimination in the private sector based on sexual orientation. They can’t do it.”
Well, avee, I’ll be happy to send them the names of several people I know who have been fired solely because they were gay. I work in the automotive industry, and if you think that with all of the conservative fundies on our Board of Directors, they wouldn’t can me in a second (despite my glowing performance reviews) if they found out I was gay, then I have some fabulous beachfront property in Kansas I’d like to interest you in.
If ENDA helps even one gay person, then as far as I’m concerned, it’s well worth it.
I don’t NEED to get married, and I’m too old to serve in the military, but I NEED a job. As far as I’m concerned, we’re finally getting our priorities in order. I am very well aware that ENDA is not a panacea, but it’s certainly a step in the right direction.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I work in the automotive industry, and if you think that with all of the conservative fundies on our Board of Directors, they wouldn’t can me in a second (despite my glowing performance reviews) if they found out I was gay, then I have some fabulous beachfront property in Kansas I’d like to interest you in.
You go on the assumption that they don’t already know.
posted by Last Of The Moderat Gays on
“You go on the assumption that they don’t already know.”
It’s not an assumption.