The Human Rights Campaign can now confirm the House Education and Labor Committee will vote on Wednesday, November 18, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. on legislation to end the widespread practice of employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The vote was noticed moments ago.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 3017), introduced by Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), would prohibit employment discrimination, preferential treatment, and retaliation on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by employers with 15 or more employees.

Currently, it is legal to discriminate in the workplace based on sexual orientation in 29 states and to discriminate based on gender identity in 38 states. You can view a map of the states online: http://www.hrc.org/documents/Employment_Laws_and_Policies.pdf

Earlier today the Human Rights Campaign announced that as Congressional action looms on the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), it is extending the grassroots “No Excuses” campaign to increase constituent contact with Congress and awareness of the comprehensive website: www.PassENDANow.org.

We launched a national action alert this week to grassroots members and supporters urging them to contact Congress and express their support for a fully-inclusive ENDA. HRC also plans to release details next week on its participation of a national call-in day organized by a coalition of groups urging members and supporters to call the Congressional switchboard in support of ENDA.

Meanwhile, HRC members and supporters have been overwhelmingly responsive this week to the organization’s national call to action on ENDA by sending off more than 62,000 emails or letters to members of Congress and newspapers urging for swift passage.

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/11/breaking-committee-to-hold-vote-on-enda/

There are very few Americans who have never heard of Roe v. Wade: the landmark decision that legalized abortion for women in the United States. Since that moment in history, abortion has become a tenuous privilege, restricted greatly (in part by the various prohibitions against so-called “partial birth abortions”), but not impossible.

But, as many know, accessing health care is as much about dollars in the bank as it is about legalized health care services. It doesn’t matter so much if it’s legal if no one can afford to use the service.

Well, abortions are particularly difficult since they affect young, poor women in disproportionate numbers. For abortion, in particular, lack of insured access will effectively kill the flow of this medical service to the bulk of people who need it most.

All of this is common sense.

Yet 64 Democrats voted to include an effective ban on insured abortions in the health care bill passed through the House. They did this knowing that their amendment would end abortion access for many vulnerable women.

There is nothing to say about this except that it is yet another example of the Democrats erasing campaign promises – this time to protect a woman’s right to choose. As LGBT people we know how this feels. As members of a free society we should be outraged.

He said, “The Administration strongly supports fully-inclusive legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Perez thanked Congress for passing the Matthew Shepard hate crimes legislation and said that ENDA was just as crucial for law enforcement.

He said, “On an issue of basic equality and fundamental fairness for all Americans, we cannot in  good conscience stand by and watch unjustifiable discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals occur in the workplace without redress.”

Perez noted that the same objections brought against ENDA had been previously brought against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and were found to be baseless.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act also prohibited discrimination in housing, public spaces, schools and government. ENDA is a much narrower bill and includes only employment.

Twenty-nine states currently provide no emoloyment protections for gays, lesbians and bisexuals; 38 states provide no protections for transgender workers.

It’s been a tough few years for the GOP. The party lost control of Congress in 2006 and then lost the White House in 2008 with three traditional Republican states – Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia – abandoning the party.

So even if political winds start blowing harder behind them and even if they can capitalize on Democratic missteps, Republicans still will have a long way to go over the next year because of their party’s own fundamental problems – divisions over the path forward, the lack of a national leader and a shrinking base in a changing nation.

The GOP would overcome none of those hurdles should Republican Bob McDonnell win the Virginia governor’s race, Chris Christie emerge victorious in the New Jersey governor’s contest, or conservative Doug Hoffman triumph in a hotly contested special congressional election in upstate New York.

In fact, 2009 seems to have underscored what may be the biggest impediment for Republicans – the war within their base.

Not that the GOP would casually brush off even a small stack of victories on Tuesday.

One or more wins would give the Republicans a jolt, and a reason to rally in the coming months. Victories certainly would help with grass-roots fundraising and candidate recruiting. And they might just be enough to reinvigorate a party that controlled the White House and Congress through much of this decade, only to lose power in back-to-back national elections.

Viewed from the other side, a GOP sweep would be a setback for Democrats. It could be seen as a negative measure of President Barack Obama’s standing and could signal trouble ahead as he seeks to get moderate Democratic lawmakers behind his legislative agenda and protect Democratic majorities in Congress next fall.

Still, with Democrats in control, the onus is on the GOP to get its act together. George W. Bush, the president many Republicans came to see as an election-day albatross, is gone, but the party troubles born under him linger.

Republican leaders in Washington certainly are mindful of the challenges.

“It’s going to be a difficult road to walk, to work with relatively new entrants into the political system and to work with them to show them that, by and large, we are the party who represents their interests,” House Republican leader John Boehner told CNN on Sunday, arguing that there’s “a political rebellion” taking place in the country.

Others are more blunt.

“Right now there’s no central Republican leader to turn to, and there’s no central Republican message,” conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh told Fox News on Sunday. “The Republican message is sort of muddied. What do they stand for? Right now it’s opposition to Obama.”

A debate is waging over whether that’s enough – or whether the party has to be for something, anything really, to be able to claw its way back to the top. Similar hand-wringing happened in the GOP ahead of the 1994 midterms. Just weeks before those elections, Republicans came up with the Contract with America – and ended up taking control of Congress.

Heading into the 2010 elections, the GOP also faces a very real split between conservatives who want to focus on social issues – which tend to work best during peaceful, prosperous times – and the rest of the party, which generally wants a broader vision, particularly given recession.

Proof of a divide is in the special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District. Potential 2012 presidential hopefuls trying to solidify their conservative credentials, Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty, endorsed Hoffman, a conservative third-party upstart, over the GOP-chosen candidate, moderate Dierdre Scozzafava. Badly trailing in polls, she ended up dropping out and – in a slap at the GOP – endorsing Democrat Bill Owens.

The White House is suggesting that those developments show that hard-liners are taking over the GOP and the trend will affect the 2010 elections. Predicted presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs on Monday: “This is a model for what you’ll see throughout the country.”

Indeed, there are similar tensions in Senate primaries in Florida, California and elsewhere, where conservatives are challenging establishment-backed candidates.

Adding to the party’s woes: No one – or rather everyone – is speaking for the GOP.

Fiery talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have become the angry white face of the party, filling a vacuum created by Bush’s departure as the its standard-bearer and the lack of one single person to emerge as its next generation leader.

The 2008 presidential nominee, John McCain, has all but disappeared from the Republican power structure. His running mate, Palin, refuses to disappear – much to the delight of tabloids and to the chagrin of elder party statesmen. And one of the most unpopular politicians in recent times, former Vice President Dick Cheney, keeps popping up to attack Obama – a reminder of the country’s and the party’s problems under Bush.

What’s more, the GOP’s ranks are thinning: Only 32 percent of respondents called themselves Republicans in a recent AP-GfK survey compared with 43 percent who called themselves Democrats.

Also, the party’s power center is mostly limited to the South, the one region McCain dominated last fall; Obama won almost everywhere else – including making inroads in emerging powerhouse regions like the West, although Republicans still solidly control several lightly populated states in the area.

And demographic, cultural and, perhaps, economic changes in America tilt in the Democrats’ favor. Consider that Hispanics, a part of the Democratic base, are the nation’s fastest growing minority group. Consider that more states than ever are permitting same-sex unions; Maine will vote Tuesday on whether to allow gay marriage. Consider that the emerging new industry – so-called “green jobs” – is focused on the environment, a core Democratic issue.

Still, Republicans sense opportunity – at least in the short term.

The bloom is off the Obama rose, and the public is giving the Democratic-controlled Congress low ratings.

Economists say the recession is over but jobs aren’t reappearing and unemployment is still expected to hit 10 percent. The war in Afghanistan continues, and the public is deeply divided over it. Obama’s expansion of government and budget-busting spending isn’t sitting well with most Americans. And independents are tilting away from Democrats.

All that raises this question: Can the GOP take advantage of such conditions – or are the problems the party faces too great? Stay tuned to 2010 for the answer.

Obama will give remarks on the new law at 6 p.m. EST.

 The new law gives the Justice Department the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated violence where the perpetrator has selected the victim because of the person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. 

The legislation was added as a provision to the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act earlier this Summer.  For a comprehensive retrospective and historical overview of hate crimes advocacy visit: www.LoveConquersHate.org.

“When Dennis and I started calling 10 years ago for federal action to prevent and properly prosecute hate crimes against gay, lesbian and transgendered Americans, we never imagined it would take this long,” said Judy Shepard, Matthew’s mother and the president of the Matthew Shepard Foundation Board of Directors.

 “The legislation went through so many versions and so many votes that we had to constantly keep our hopes in check to keep from getting discouraged,” she said. “We are incredibly grateful to Congress and the president for taking this step forward on behalf of hate crime victims and their families, especially given the continuing attacks on people simply for living their lives openly and honestly.” 

The bill was introduced in the Senate on April 28, 2009 by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), among others. On Oct. 8,  the United States House of Representatives voted 281-146 in favor of a joint House-Senate “conference report” on a defense authorization measure that also included provisions that would expand the definition of federal hate crimes to cover attacks based on gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and military service. The Senate then passed the bill late last week with a decisive 68-29 vote.

“This law honors our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender brothers and sisters whose lives were cut short because of hate,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.  “Today’s signing of the first major piece of civil rights legislation to protect LGBT Americans represents a historic milestone in the inevitable march towards equality. ”

 ”This law sends a loud message that perpetrators of hate violence against anyone will be brought to justice,” said Solmonese.
 
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act honors the memory of Matthew Shepard, a Wyoming college student brutally murdered in an act of hate violence in 1998, and James Byrd, an African-American man who was dragged to death in Jasper, Texas, in 1998.  
 
 “We appreciate everyone who worked so hard on this bill.  My son was taken at such an early age and we hope this law will help prevent other families from going through what we experienced,” said Stella Byrd, mother of James Byrd.  “Even though we’re different colors and different sexual orientations or gender identities, God made us all and he loves us all.”
 
The new law also provides the Justice Department with the ability to aid state and local jurisdictions either by lending assistance or, where local authorities are unwilling or unable, by taking the lead in investigations and prosecutions of violent crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury that were motivated by bias. It also makes grants available to state and local communities to combat violent crimes committed by juveniles, train law enforcement officers, or to assist in state and local investigations and prosecutions of bias motivated crimes.

President Obama to Sign FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act into Law; Will Host Reception to Commemorate the Enactment of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act

Washington, D.C. – On Wednesday, October 28th at 2:30 PM President Obama will sign into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. He will deliver brief remarks and will be joined by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Members of Congress, and others.

Later that day, the President will host a reception to commemorate the enactment of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. He will deliver brief remarks at 6:05 PM, and will be joined by Attorney General Eric Holder, civil rights community leaders and others.

She is an avid supporter of civil rights, energy independence and renewable fuels, stem cell research and the woman’s right to choose.

Baldwin has been working vigorously in the fight for health care reform. She has voiced her opinion on how much the legislation affects the LGBT community, and advises everyone to pay much more attention to the universal health care debate.

Tammy Baldwin earned her law degree in 1989 from the University of Wisconsin Law School, but was first elected to political office in 1986.

She was one of 133 members of the House to vote against the invasion of Iraq and in 2008 she was a superdelegate to Hillary Clinton.

Today, Baldwin lives in Madison, Wisc., with her partner Lauren Azar. She is one of three openly gay members of Congress.

A priority of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., that had been on the congressional agenda for a decade, the measure expands current law to include crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. The measure is named for Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student murdered 11 years ago.

To assure its passage after years of frustrated efforts, Democratic supporters attached the measure to a must-pass $680 billion defense policy bill the Senate approved 68-29. The House passed the defense bill earlier this month.

Many Republicans, normally staunch supporters of defense bills, voted against the bill because of the hate crimes provision. All the no votes were Republicans except for Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who supported the hate crimes provision but opposes what he says is the open-ended military commitment in Afghanistan.

“The inclusion of the controversial language of the hate crimes legislation, which is unrelated to our national defense, is deeply troubling,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

Hate crimes law enacted after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1968 centered on crimes based on race, color, religion or national origin.

The expansion has long been sought by civil rights and gay rights groups. Conservatives have opposed it, arguing that it creates a special class of victims. They also have been concerned that it could silence clergymen or others opposed to homosexuality on religious or philosophical grounds.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights group, hailed the bill as “our nation’s first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Too many in our community have been devastated by hate violence.”

Some 45 states have hate crimes statutes, and the bill would not change current practices where hate crimes are generally investigated and prosecuted by state and local officials.

But it does broaden the narrow range of actions – such as attending school or voting – that can trigger federal involvement and allows the federal government to step in if the Justice Department certifies that a state is unwilling or unable to follow through on an alleged hate crime.

The measure also provides federal grants to help state and local governments prosecute hate crimes and funds programs to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.

“As we learned in the civil rights era, sometimes communities need assistance and resources from the federal government when they have to confront the most emotional and dangerous kinds of crimes,” said Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo.

The bill also creates a federal crime to penalize attacks against U.S. service members on account of their service.

Attorney General Eric Holder said nearly 80,000 hate crime incidents have been reported to the FBI since he first testified before Congress in support of a hate crimes bill 11 years ago. “It has been one of my highest personal priorities to ensure that this legislation finally becomes law,” he said.

The FBI says more than half of reported hate crimes are motivated by racial bias. Next most frequent are crimes based on religious bias, at around 18 percent, and sexual orientation, at 16 percent.

At the urging of Republicans the bill was changed to strengthen free speech protections to assure that a religious leader or any other person cannot be prosecuted on the basis of his or her speech, beliefs or association.

“Nothing in this legislation diminishes an American’s freedom of religion, freedom of speech or press or the freedom to assemble,” said Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md. “Let me be clear. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act targets acts, not speech.”

That didn’t convince Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who said the bill was a “dangerous step” toward thought crimes. He asked whether the bill would “serve as a warning to people not to speak out too loudly about their religious views.”

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the measure was “part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality.”

With expected passage by the Senate, federal prosecutors will for the first time be able to intervene in cases of violence perpetrated against gays.

Civil rights groups and their Democratic allies have been trying for more than a decade to broaden the reach of hate crimes law. This time it appears they will succeed. The measure is attached to a must-pass $680 billion defense policy bill and President Barack Obama – unlike President George W. Bush – is a strong supporter. The House passed the defense bill 281-146, with 15 Democrats and 131 Republicans in opposition.

“It’s a very exciting day for us here in the Capitol,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., saying hate crimes legislation was on her agenda when she first entered Congress 22 years ago.

She said it’s been 11 years since the gay Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard, whose name was attached to the legislation, was murdered.

The late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was a longtime advocate of the legislation.

Many Republicans, normally stalwart supporters of defense bills, voted against it because of the addition of what they referred to as “thought crimes” legislation.

“This is radical social policy that is being put on the defense authorization bill, on the backs of our soldiers, because they probably can’t pass it on its own,” House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said.

GOP opponents were not assuaged by late changes in the bill to strengthen protections for religious speech and association – critics argued that pastors expressing beliefs about homosexuality could be prosecuted if their sermons were connected to later acts of violence against gays.

Supporters countered that prosecutions could occur only when bodily injury is involved, and no minister or protester could be targeted for expressing opposition to homosexuality.

The bill also creates a new federal crime to penalize attacks against U.S. service members on account of their service.

Hate crimes legislation enacted after King’s assassination defined hate crimes as those carried out on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. It also limits the scope of activities that would trigger federal involvement.

The proposed expansion would include crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It eases restrictions on federally protected activities.

Some 45 states have hate crimes statutes, and the bill would not change the current situation where investigations and prosecutions are carried out by state and local officials.

But it would provide federal grants to help with the prosecuting of hate crimes and funds programs to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.

The federal government can step in after the Justice Department certifies that a state is unwilling or unable to follow through on a purported hate crime.

While Republicans voted against the defense bill because of the hate crimes addition, openly gay Democrat Jared Polis of Colorado said he would vote for it despite his opposition to U.S. military presence in Iraq. The reason hate crimes are so odious, he said, “is that they are not just crimes against individuals, they are crimes against entire communities and create environments of fear in entire communities.”

Tom McClusky, vice president of the conservative Family Research Council’s legislative arm said the next step likely would be contesting the legislation in court. “The religious protections are pretty flimsy,” he said. He contended that Democrats were trying to move their “homosexual agenda” this year because it would prove unpopular with voters next year.

The FBI says there are some 8,000 hate crimes reported around the country in a year. More than half of those are motivated by racial bias. Next most frequent are crimes based on religious bias at around 18 percent and sexual orientation at 16 percent.

The bill was almost certain to pass and had been expected for some time. But whether it becomes law is more complicated because Congress gets to review D.C. legislation before it takes effect.

At least one Republican congressman has said he will work to have the bill defeated if it passes the D.C. council.

“Some fights are worth fighting for,” said U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, who thinks Democrats in Congress would likely block any vote on D.C.’s measure. “This is one of them.”

The city began in July recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Congress had a chance to act on that legislation, but it quietly passed earlier this year.

D.C. Councilman David Catania introduced the new bill at a standing-room only council meeting. The independent and one of two openly gay council members said he hopes for a vote in December.

“There is no question that we are about to embark on an exciting journey here in the district,” he said.

His bill specifically said religious leaders and institutions are not required to perform the marriages or rent their space for same-sex ceremonies.

If the bill becomes law, the city will follow Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, which issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. New Hampshire will begin issuing them in January.

The legislature in Maine has also passed a same-sex marriage bill, but voters will decide in November whether to reverse it. California briefly issued licenses before voters passed a law stopping the practice.

In the District of Columbia, the bill was co-introduced by 10 of the city council’s 13 members and has the support of the mayor.

If Congress blocked the bill, it would be rare. In the past 25 years, Congress has only rejected three pieces of legislation. According to Brian Flowers, the city’s general counsel, the last time was in 1991, when Congress rejected a law that would have permitted taller buildings in the city.

In 1999, Congress amended a bill so that city medical marijuana would not be legalized. Congress also repealed a law that would have required D.C. government employees to be city residents.

Same-sex marriage supporters cheered the bill’s introduction. D.C. residents Juan Rondon and Edward Grandis came to the meeting wearing T-shirts that displayed copies of their California marriage license.

“I feel a sensation of relief,” Grandis said.

According the U.S. Census Bureau, there were about 3,500 same-sex couples living together in the city in 2008, though the number has a wide margin of error. D.C. has 600,000 residents.

Rick Rosendall, vice president for political affairs for the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, said he was proud of the city but acknowledged: “We have a long way to go, of course.”

The Catholic Church and Washington’s archbishop, Donald Wuerl, have been vocal in opposing the legislation. And a group led by Bishop Harry Jackson, the pastor of a Maryland church, had previously asked D.C.’s board of elections to authorize a ballot initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The board will consider the request later this month.

“We are prepared to go to court,” Jackson said.