Posted on 02/24/2007 11:03:48 AM PST by NormsRevenge
NEW YORK - Anti-gay bias has flared up in Hollywood and pro basketball recently, and soon the topic will be thrust dramatically into a new forum — a reshaped Congress likely to pass the first major federal gay-rights bills.
Wary conservative leaders, as well as gay-rights advocates, share a belief that at least two measures will win approval this year: a hate-crimes bill that would cover offenses motivated by anti-gay bias, and a measure that would outlaw workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Also on the table — although with more doubtful prospects — will be a measure to be introduced Wednesday seeking repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bans openly gay and lesbian Americans from serving in the military.
All three measures surfaced in previous sessions of Congress, at times winning significant bipartisan backing but always falling short of final passage. This year, with Democrats now in control and many Republicans likely to join in support, the hate-crimes and workplace bills are widely expected to prevail.
"With liberals in control, there's a good possibility they'll both pass," said Matt Barber, a policy director with the conservative group Concerned Women for America. "They're both dangerous to freedom of conscience, to religious liberties, to free speech."
If approved by Congress, the bills would head to the White House. Activists on both the left and right are unsure whether President Bush would sign or veto them.
For gay-rights leaders — whose efforts to legalize same-sex marriage have been rebuffed by many states — the congressional votes are keenly anticipated after years of lobbying.
"This is a major step in our struggle," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "I know there's a lot of despair on the other side."
The workplace bill — titled the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA — is the subject of behind-the-scenes negotiations. The bill that emerges is expected to expand on earlier versions to cover not only sexual orientation but also gender identity, thus extending protections to transgender employees. Churches and small businesses would be exempt.
For many Americans, ENDA's provisions would be familiar. More than 85 percent of the Fortune 500 companies include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies, as do 17 states and many local governments.
And publicly, there is increasingly little tolerance for overt anti-gay bias. The National Basketball Association swiftly repudiated retired all-star Tim Hardaway after he spoke this month of hating gays, while TV actor Isaiah Washington apologized and sought counseling after using a gay slur in reference to a fellow actor on "Grey's Anatomy."
Advocacy groups also say there have been huge strides in regard to protections for transgender people — with nine states, scores of major corporations and more than 70 colleges and universities now banning discrimination based on gender identity.
California's ban, in effect since 2003, has not triggered a flood of litigation, but it has prompted employers to proactively improve their policies for dealing with transgender employees, said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
In past years, some congressional supporters of gay rights warned that ENDA's prospects would be crippled by including protections for gender identity. This year may be different.
Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., said the version he is helping draft will indeed cover transgender employees, while offering some allowances to employers so they can enforce dress codes and minimize controversies over bathroom use.
"With the proper amendments, I think we can get it," said Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress.
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, contended that gay-rights groups exaggerated the extent of anti-gay bias as part of a broader push to achieve their political goals.
"I'm sure there's probably a case here and there," Perkins said. "But I've seen more discrimination of people of religious faith than I've seen of gay people in the work force."
ENDA was first introduced in the 1994, and came within one vote of Senate passage in 1996, while the hate-crimes bill has passed in the House and Senate in separate years only to falter before final passage at the behest of GOP conservatives.
The hate-crimes measure would expand existing federal provisions to include acts of violence against gays and lesbians. Opponents contend it would be an ominous first step toward criminalizing criticism of homosexuality.
"It's taking us to the point where anyone who opposes the sexual behavior of homosexuals will be silenced," Perkins said.
According to the FBI, about 14 percent of the 7,163 hate crimes reported in 2005 targeted gays or lesbians — a slightly lower percentage than the two prior years. Some activists, such as Riki Wilchins of the Gender Public Advocacy Coalition, say there has been an increase of workplace complaints filed by male employees, gay and straight, contending they were harassed by fellow male workers who perceived them as effeminate.
Assuming ENDA and the hate-crimes bill win approval, but not by veto-proof margins, Bush would face a politically sensitive decision of how to respond.
"Does he want to use one of his first vetoes to deny basic job protection to people?" asked Dave Noble, public policy director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Mat Staver of the conservative legal group Liberty Counsel worried that Bush would not veto the bills, perhaps as a gesture of respect for Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Cheney.
However, Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America held out hope that Bush would block the measures. "Hopefully," Barber said, "the president will show that the veto pen is mightier than the politically correct sword."
If he does sign these bills, at least it will get the issues out of the way for the next GOP presidential nominee.
---
That's kind of a hollow argument, jmo, and at a cost that may not be worth in it in the long run anway. It does nothing more than bring this nation a day closer to its judgment ,imo,... and folks wonder why the Muslamics 'love' us so.. ;-)
Sigh...
ping
I'd be very surprised if GWB vetoes either ENDA or hate crime legislation.
Oh this is great. Christians and crosses out of the country. But gay rights to the front of the board. I am so happy about this I could throw up .
This is clearly a liberal written piece.
""This is a major step in our struggle," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "I know there's a lot of despair on the other side.""
Queer-brained Solmonese, as usual, is telling only part of the story. Naturally, conservatives aren't happy with the Democratic takeover of Congress, but despair is too extreme of a word to define how we feel about it. The truth is there's a lot of 'despair' on the side of the fruitcakes. Gay marriage is all but a lost cause for the foreseeable future, thanks to strong voter endorsement of anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments.
""Does he want to use one of his first vetoes to deny basic job protection to people?" asked Dave Noble, public policy director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force."
That argument in itself is a good reason to veto the legislation. Don't be surprised if the President does veto this trash. The backlash from conservatives, who still by and large support him, would be very strong if he doesn't. And who cares about Dick Cheney's perverted daughter.
And then the homosexual lobby wonders why regular people fights their agenda/lifestyle.
Reframe the debate from denial of rights to advocacy of special interests.
The states say no and so the activists will take the decisions away from the state just like they did abortion.
Unfortunately I think you assessement is correct. Outside of stem cell research and the WOT, Bush has been more than willing to cave.
"Unfortunately I think you assessement is correct. Outside of stem cell research and the WOT, Bush has been more than willing to cave."
It would seem that way, but when he was Governor of Texas, he opposed hate crimes legislation. Historically, he's been against this kind of stuff and numerous GOP governors have vetoed state-level equivalents to the ENDA. He may not give a strong reason for his veto, but I would predict he'll veto at least one of them.
is national security even on the table?
Is there any reason why?
Is it raining fire and brimstone yet? Better get your fireproof umbrellas out because a storm is rising.
Billy Jack
billyjacksblog.com
shameless self-promotion is so unattractive
Just what American business needs to better compete in the world economy, a new class of iundisciplinable employee.
^^ That should read "indisciplinable".
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.