Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...ENDA introduced into Senate
08.05.2009 2:00pm EDT
(Washington) An inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act is now on the move in the U.S. Senate. Long-time sponsor Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced the bill today along with Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).
The Human Rights Campaign launched a lobby effort today to muster support for the legislation, asking supporters to send e-mails to their senators urging their support. The e-mail notes that, in 29 states, there is no law to prevent an employer from firing someone because he or she is gay and, in 38 states, no law to prohibit an employer from firing someone for being transgender.The National Gay and Lesbian Task, the first national gay political organization to push for a federal law to prohibit job discrimination against gays, in 1974, said it hopes the stated support of President Obama will “play a role in assisting with [the bill's] swift passage in both the House and the Senate.”
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who is the lead sponsor of the ENDA bill introduced in the House in June, said he is optimistic about its chances of passing that chamber. But he expressed less optimism about reaching a new political threshold of 60 votes in the Senate. The bill needs only 51 votes to pass, but the Democratic majority has sought to ensure 60 votes before bringing legislation to the floor in order, they say, to ward off any filibuster attempts.
A form of ENDA without gender identity passed the House in the last session of Congress but engendered so much opposition for omitting gender identity that it was never brought up in the Senate.
The ENDA bills introduced in the House and Senate this year both seek to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Current federal law prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, age, and disability.
Kennedy (D-Mass.), who has being undergoing treatment for brain cancer since last year, was not in Washington for introduction of the bill but has been working on bills from his home in Massachusetts. He issued a statement saying, “The promise of America will never be fulfilled as long as justice is denied to even one among us. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act brings us closer to fulfilling that promise for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens.”
If the democratic leadership let the bill move, it would pass the House easily and might pass the Senate.
For whatever reason, they seem to make a habit of keeping it off the immediate business agenda.
So, is the military exempt from this bill or does this end DADT?
How can the federal government legally circumnavigate its own legislation?
marcus99: I have not seen the Senate version of the 2009 bill yet, but the House version has two exceptions written into its text.
Sec. 6 clarifies that religious organizations are exempt from the terms of ENDA (this is mainly to keep it compatible with the 1964 Civil Rights Act).
Sec. 7 states that the service in the military does not count as ‘employment’ and therefore is not affected by ENDA.
As for how the government can do that legally… Congress’s job is to make laws. If they encode an exception into ENDA for the military, it is legal *by definition* because Congress’s role is to define what is legal and what isn’t legal.
Thanks Kari, very informative.
I assume it will ultimately be up to the courts to decide if military service is employment or not. Congress can make a law calling a cat a duck if they want, but it is highly improbable that the cat will take flight once said legislation is enacted.
Go Democrats! Let’s get this thing done and move on to more LGBT issues. Things seem to be moving but not as quickly as we would like but it is a great sign of hope.
Marcus,
What does DADT have to do with ENDA? Surely, it’s all gay related but those are 2 entirely different and separate pieces of legislation.
Morgan.. THINK about that for a second..
is NOT the government an ‘employer’?
I’ve written to my senators, Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning. In about 3 months, I’ll receive a letter stating their strong positions on soybean price supports.
McConnell will do anything he can to stop this legislation.
Morgan;
The way I see it,the two are intricately connected.
ENDA is supposed to end discrmmination in employment based uppon sexual orientation or identity.
The military is a federal organization that employs soldiers.
Soldiers that are gay are fired on the basis of DADT (i.e because they are gay-no other reason).
ENDA (in my opinion) should therefore nullify DADT. however, as Kari has informed me, you gotta read the fine print. The military is exempt from ENDA as soldiers are apparently not considered “employed”.
Since I work in a field that has everything to do with employment and litigation, I find it laughable that the government could consider soldiers effectively “unemployed”.
As a former Sailor, it was not a job in the typical way. I choose to enlist and to serve. There is no way what I did in the service could be considered a job outside of the military. So I dont think EDNA should apply to service. I also dont agree with DADT as I was booted out before that was passed. I do think this is at the very least a step in the right direction.
just a note.. when you enlist, as I did, you give yourself to this country, therefore you are the property of the USA, you are not an employee. They do however employ civilians, when ENDA passes this should become interesting.
where’s the F in that NGLTF? =)
“A form of ENDA without gender identity passed the House in the last session of Congress but engendered so much opposition for omitting gender identity that it was never brought up in the Senate.”
On On 9/27/07 Rep. Frank split the gender inclusive bill H.R 2015 into two separate bills, H.R.3585 sexual orientation, and H.R.3586 gender identity.
This article leads one to believe that the Senate bill was never introduced becuse of the outrage of the 7 million GLBT people who signed the onto UNITED ENDA.
Without a doubt HRC was horrified with the prospect they might lose a portion of there ‘GALA’ payday, but even that was not the reason that why ENDA was not introduced into the Senate.
The Democrats in the house were simply protecting there jobs and succumbed to the Catholic Churches wishes and threw transgender people under the bus.
There was never anywhere enough votes to pass any version of ENDA in the Senate at that time.
Get your facts straight and quit trying to revise history. HRC hasn’t got away with it and neither will 365 Gay.
Excellent, now everyone needs to contact their elected officials.