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/

The Utah-based church’s support ahead of Tuesday night’s vote came despite its steadfast opposition to gay marriage, reflected in the high-profile role it played last year in California’s Proposition 8 ballot measure that barred such unions.

“The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage,” Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said.

Passage made Salt Lake City the first Utah community to prohibit bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Under the two new ordinances, it is illegal to fire someone from their job or evict someone from their residence because they are lesbian, bisexual, gay or transgender.

Utah lawmakers tend to quickly fall in line when the influential church makes a rare foray into legislative politics. So Tuesday’s action could have broad reaching effects in this highly conservative state where more than 80 percent of lawmakers and the governor are church members.

“What happened here tonight I do believe is a historic event,” said Brandie Balken, director of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah. “I think it establishes that we can stand together on common ground that we don’t have to agree on everything, but there are lot of things that we can work on and be allies.”

But the church has pointed out an inherent dispute it has with the gay lifestyle. Mormonism considers traditional marriages central to God’s plan. Gays are welcome in church, but must remain celibate to retain church callings and full membership.

It’s strong support for Proposition 8 in California last year drew a sharp reaction from gay rights supporters nationwide, with many protesting outside temples that singled out Mormons as the key culprits in restricting the rights of gay couples.

Since then, however, Utah’s gay community has sought to engage church leaders in quiet conversations to help foster better understanding, said Valerie Larabee, executive director of the Utah Pride Center.

“I thought this conversation would never come to be while I was here in Salt Lake City,” said Larabee, adding that the discussions have “shifted her perspective of what’s possible” and could foreshadow a different relationship between the two sides.

But addressing the council on Tuesday, Otterson said the endorsement is not a shift in the church’s position on gay rights and stressed it “remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.”

Church support for the ordinances is due in part to the way the legislation was drafted to protect those rights. Exceptions in the legislation allow churches to maintain, without penalty, religious principles and religion-based codes of conduct or rules.

“In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations,” Otterson said Tuesday .

Previous Utah legislation that sought statewide protections for the gay community did not contain those exceptions.

And although this was the church’s first public endorsement of specific legislation, it is not the first time the church has voiced support for some gay rights. In August 2008 the church issued a statement saying it supports gay rights related to hospitalization, medical care, employment, housing or probate as long as they “do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”

Last year, church leaders were silent on a package of gay rights bills known as the Common Ground Initiative, dooming them from the start.

http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2009_11_05/2009_11_05.html

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS, UNITED STATES SENATE

“EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT: ENSURING OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL AMERICANS”

PRESENTED NOVEMBER 5, 2009

 Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Enzi and members of the HELP Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It is a privilege to represent the Obama Administration and the Department of Justice at this hearing to consider the Employment Non- Discrimination Act (ENDA), and to voice the Administration’s strong support for fully-inclusive legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Civil Rights Division, which I have the great honor to lead, serves as the conscience of the federal government. Our mission is clear: to uphold and protect the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable among us. We seek to advance this Nation’s long struggle to embrace the principle so eloquently captured by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that persons should be judged based on “content of their character,” and not on their race, color, sex, national origin, religion or any other irrelevant factors. Our civil rights laws – laws enforced by the Civil Rights Division – reflect and uphold this noble principle.

Just last month Congress passed and the President made history when he signed the first federal law that provides civil rights protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals. I applaud you for recognizing the critical need for the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and I assure you the Department of Justice is prepared to fulfill its new duties under that law. Its enactment filled a critical gap in our enforcement abilities.

Today, I come before you because passage of ENDA would provide us with the tool we need to fill another hole in our enforcement authority.

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.

We have come too far in our struggle for “equal justice under the law” to remain silent or stoic when our LGBT brothers and sisters are still being mistreated and ostracized for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with their skills or abilities and everything to do with myths, stereotypes, fear of the unknown, and prejudice.

No American should be denied a job or the opportunity to earn promotions, pay raises and other benefits of employment because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity, which have no bearing on work performance. No one should be fired because he or she is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Period. ENDA would provide much needed and long overdue federal protections for LGBT individuals, who still face widespread discrimination in workplaces across the Nation. For this reason, the passage of ENDA is a top legislative priority for the Obama Administration.

Broadly stated, ENDA would prohibit intentional employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, by employers, employment agencies, and labor organizations. Its coverage of intentional discrimination parallels that available for individuals under Title VII, and the principles that underlie this coverage have been well-established for decades. Under ENDA, we would share responsibility for its enforcement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Our role would be to challenge prohibited discrimination by state and local government employers.

The Civil Rights Division and other federal civil rights agencies regularly receive letters and inquiries from individuals all over the country complaining of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment. This ongoing discrimination and abuse takes many forms, ranging from cruel instances of harassment and exclusion to explicit denials of employment or career-enhancing assignments because of the individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
It is painfully disappointing to have to tell these working men and women that,in the United States of America in 2009, they may well be without redress because our federal employment anti-discrimination laws either exclude them or fail clearly to protect them.

Many letters sadly describe the same kind of hostility, bigotry and even hatred that other groups faced for much of our history, and which Congress responded to by passing the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. That Act prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

At the time the bill was debated, many of the same arguments that we hear today about ENDA – that it would open the floodgates to litigation, it would overburden employers and afford special rights to certain groups – were vociferously offered by the bill’s opponents.

No one would seriously contend that the parade of horribles predicted at the time ever became reality, and the 1964 Act, which, like ENDA, was introduced over multiple Congresses before it finally passed, has become a rock-solid foundation for our laws ensuring equality of opportunity in the workplace.

Throughout the decades that followed passage of the 1964 Act, we as a nation have recognized a need to attend to unfinished business in the fight for justice in the workplace.

Accordingly, Congress has expanded the scope of employment protections on several occasions, passing the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. The Obama Administration believes that ENDA must be the next step, and that this Act will be a worthy addition to its venerable predecessors.

NEXT PAGE: Eight million workers need protection

It is estimated that there are more than one million LGBT individuals working in state and local governments and just under seven million LGBT individuals employed in the private sector.

A large body of evidence demonstrates that employment discrimination against LGBT individuals remains a significant problem. The Williams Institute, a national research center on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy at the UCLA School of Law, conducted a year-long study of employment discrimination against LGBT individuals.

The study reviewed the numerous ways in which discrimination has been documented – in judicial opinions; in surveys of LGBT employees, state and local government officials; and in extensive evidence presented to Congress over the past fifteen years during which ENDA has been considered.

The study concluded that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is widespread and persistent in terms of quantity, geography and occupations. The study focused primarily on discrimination against LGBT employees of state and local governments, but also reviewed broader surveys that indicate that the problem is equally widespread in the private sector.

To combat the widespread employment discrimination against LGBT individuals, some states have passed laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

However, 29 states still provide no protections for lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals and 38 states provide no protection for transgender workers. State laws therefore leave large numbers of LGBT individuals without recourse for workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act and other bedrock civil rights laws recognize that protecting valued members of our workforce from discrimination should not be left to a patchwork of state and local laws that leaves large gaps in coverage. Discrimination in my home state of Maryland is just as wrong as discrimination in Montana.

As with those laws, federal legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity will help eradicate workplace discrimination that should be neither tolerated nor condoned.

To underscore the need for a federal statute, I would like to review the current scope of the law. 21 states – including Connecticut, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Maryland – prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Another 12 states – including Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, Washington, Rhode Island, and Vermont – as well as the District of Columbia, prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

A number of local jurisdictions contain similar protections in their local laws. For example, in my home state of Maryland, Baltimore City and Montgomery County have expanded the protections available under state law by banning employment discrimination against transgendered individuals.

In states where no remedies exist, LGBT employees have no opportunity to combat egregious workplace discrimination and harassment. The recent report of the Williams Institute documents a distressing number of such allegations. For example:

NEXT PAGE: A gay police officer is beaten by a coworker

• A police officer at the Pineville City Police Department in West Virginia reported regular harassment by his coworkers because of his sexual orientation, who deliberately sent him on calls without back-up. After learning of the officer’s sexual orientation, one coworker allegedly hit him across the face with a night stick, breaking the officer’s glasses and cutting his eye. The officer believes that his eventual discharge was based on his sexual orientation and not his job performance.
• An openly lesbian probation officer in Carroll County, Indiana, was allegedly denied promotion to chief probation officer because of her sexual orientation. A superior court judge allegedly told her that he would not promote her because she was a lesbian, that she was embarrassing the court by dating a woman, and that he had asked other court employees about her sexual orientation and personal life. A man with no prior probation experience was promoted to the position.
• An employee of the Virginia Museum of Natural History, a state agency, was allegedlyforced to resign because of his sexual orientation shortly after receiving a positive evaluation that otherwise would have resulted in a raise. The Executive Director of the Museum reportedly expressed concerns that the employee‘s sexual orientation would jeopardize donations to the museum. A Virginia appellate court dismissed his sexual orientation employment discrimination claim, holding that the governor‘s executive order prohibiting such discrimination did not create a private right of action.

These examples – which would fall within the Civil Rights Division’s enforcement authority under ENDA – are but a sampling of a disturbing number of reports of workplace discrimination against LGBT Americans in recent years. Unfortunately, the above LGBT employees have no opportunity to prove their claims, because they live in states that do not afford them redress.

The Williams Institute estimates that there are more than 200,000 LGBT employees in the federal workforce, yet, as in the case of state and local governments, we also lack strong statutory protection from sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in this arena.

The Civil Service Reform Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of conduct not affecting job performance, has been interpreted by the Office of Personnel Management to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In addition, Executive Order 13087 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in much of the Executive Branch.

But the administrative remedies available under both of these provisions are far more limited than those available to federal employees who experience other forms of discrimination, such a race, sex, or disability discrimination.

Moreover, although some courts have held that Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination can protect LGBT persons from certain types of discrimination under certain circumstances, the extent of such protection varies significantly from court to court. Enactment of legislation prohibiting discrimination against LGBT individuals in employment is needed to meaningfully and unambiguously prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and to give victims of such discrimination adequate remedies.

NEXT PAGE: Helping LGBT’s will help the economy

Preventing employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and providing the victims of such discrimination with a means to protect their rights not only is a matter of basic fairness, it is also a matter of enlightened economic self-interest.

As the global marketplace becomes increasingly competitive, and as we work to revitalize and strengthen our economy, America cannot afford to waste talent or allow workplace bias and hostility to impede productivity, especially when many businesses operate in multiple cities and states.

There is no reason why, for example, LGBT employees working for a company in Wisconsin, which was the first state to prohibit discrimination against LGBT individuals, should have their right to earn a living jeopardized or taken away if they are transferred across the lake to Michigan, which has not yet passed such a law.

Many of America’s top businesses already recognize that discrimination of any kind, anywhere, is bad for business and costs money. Indeed, hundreds of companies now bar employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

According to the Human Rights Campaign’s recently published Corporate Equality Index 2010, as of

September 2009, 434 (87%) of the Fortune 500 companies had implemented non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation, and 207 (41%) had policies that include gender identity.

This, of course, is just the tip of the iceberg. Although most of the nation’s largest businesses have started addressing workplace fairness for LGBT employees, significant numbers of individuals still face discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and desperately need the nationwide protections and remedies that ENDA would provide.

I have explained why legislation like ENDA is sorely needed in the private and public sectors and why it makes good business sense. We look forward to working with you on legislation as it advances in the Congress and are currently reviewing the proposed legislation.

We may offer some technical comments on the bill. Now let me take a few moments to briefly dispel some misconceptions about the scope and impact of the legislation.

As you know, ENDA covers cases of intentional discrimination and explicitly precludes disparate-impact claims, does not permit the use of quotas or other forms of preferential treatment. Moreover, ENDA does not apply to small businesses with fewer than 15 employees, tax-exempt private membership clubs, or religious organizations.

Indeed, ENDA contains a broad exemption for religious organizations and states that it does not apply to any corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of Title VII.

In addition, nothing in ENDA infringes on an individual’s ability to practice his or her faith, to hold and adhere to religious beliefs, or to exercise First Amendment rights of free speech on these or other issues. In addition, ENDA does not apply to the relationship between the federal government and members of the armed forces, and does not affect federal, state, or local rules providing veterans’ preferences in employment decisions.

 Lastly, there is nothing to suggest that ENDA will burden employers, unleash a flood of complaints that would threaten to overwhelm the EEOC or the Department of Justice, or clog the federal courts. On the contrary, the experience of states and local governments with sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination statutes for decades demonstrates that complaints under these statutes make up a relatively small portion of total employment discrimination complaints.

Moreover, the jurisdictions that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity have been able to implement and enforce these laws in an entirely workable manner. We fully expect that the same would hold true at the federal level.

I will conclude by noting what a great honor it is for me to testify about a legislative initiative of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who championed ENDA for more than a decade and who constantly reminded us that civil rights are the great unfinished business of our nation.

I can think of no better way to honor his life and work than to pass ENDA and provide sorely needed protections from arbitrary and unjustified discrimination to LGBT individuals in the workplace throughout our nation.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify. I welcome your questions.

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.

Caldwell, 56, married his partner of 34 years, Rev. David Farrell, 72, last year in June.

Spouses of employees fly free on SkyWest, but Caldwell claims the airline refuses to give his husband the free fares it provides to heterosexual spouses.

SkyWest, an equal opportunity employer, says Gilbert Caldwell’s husband is his “travel companion,” entitling him to fly at a discount rate but not for free.

Caldwell said, “I am asking SkyWest to give me the same benefits that they give my married heterosexual co-workers.”

State law entitles same-sex spouses and domestic partners to be treated the same as heterosexual married couples in employment, housing, insurance and commerce.

Tara Borelli, Staff Attorney of the gay rights organization Lambda Legal, has been assigned to the case.

“This is a blatant violation of California law requiring that married same-sex couples be treated with the same respect and protections as married heterosexuals,” said Borelli.

“Travel benefits are an important part of airline employees’ compensation, and denying spousal travel benefits to married lesbian and gay employees is a denial of equal pay for equal work. SkyWest is telling Mr. Caldwell that his spouse doesn’t count and that his work is not as valuable as that of other employees. This letter is our final attempt to correct SkyWest and Delta’s clearly unlawful travel benefits policy before Mr. Caldwell proceeds to court.”

Borelli said Caldwell will sue for damages unless SkyWest changes its policy.

Brent Childers used to call himself a “Jesse Helms Republican” who justified his homophobic beliefs through biblical interpretation. But last weekend, as he marched in the Equality March in Washington, D.C., he stood alongside his lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender friends in support of their full human rights.

As executive director of Faith in America, Childers works full time to incorporate an inclusive message of LGBT human equality into the Christian dialogue. His organization’s mission is to educate the public about the emotional and physical harm cased by “religion-based bigotry.”

Childers’s change of heart isn’t unique, either.

 It represents a growing shift in support of LGBT rights among evangelicals in the United States. The work of Faith in America also shows that progressive people of faith are developing LGBT supportive organizations to question and ultimately undermine the Religious Right’s ideological monopoly on biblical interpretation.

In the most recent national survey done by the Pew Research Center, more Americans than ever recorded (57 percent) support civil unions.

Thirty-nine percent of this support comes from white evangelicals, and even though that’s not a majority, it shows there are definite inroads being made into that community. Given increasingly divergent opinions in the white evangelical community, a “biblical” opposition to gay marriage is becoming less tenable among them and simply a matter of their interpretation and personal opinion.

There is additional hopeful news. Young evangelicals are measurably diverging from the condemning views of their church elders on LGBT rights.

In a recent survey during the 2008 presidential election cycle, 58 percent of young white evangelicals supported some form of legal recognition of gay partnerships, whether in the form of civil unions or marriage. Twenty-six percent supported full marriage rights.

The promise of this rising evangelical support of LGBT human rights cannot be overstated. If trends continue, evangelicals can no longer be counted on as a solid unwavering base of the Religious Right. And without the support of young evangelicals the Religious Right will become even more of a reservoir of aging bigots than a dynamic and growing grassroots movement.

But LGBT supporters should engage evangelicals and seek to expand their numbers instead of patiently waiting for the younger generation to outnumber the old. It is critical to work with young evangelicals, who can serve as effective messengers within their faith communities and age groups—and can broaden the language of LGBT advocacy to include faith messages that resonate with evangelical congregations.

Faith in America is one organization dedicated to working with faith communities, but there are others. For instance, Evangelicals Concerned and the Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals are developing in once predominately socially conservative evangelical and charismatic denominations.

Organizations like these know the spiritual motivation and language needed to mobilize younger evangelicals who may feel unsure or even guilty about their belief that all people should have the right to marry.

“Every person coming to Washington—whether they are religious or not,” Childers wrote in a Newsweek article, “does share one faith, and that is faith in America.”

With his organization and personal leadership, Childers is helping to create a public space that more and more evangelicals can inhabit in good conscience and in good faith

. And along with many others he is demonstrating to the larger LGBT movement that there is indeed a commonality among LGBT rights advocates and the large evangelical population in America—a commonality that may even form the foundation for a broad-based winning coalition.

“This is the best opportunity we will ever have as a community and shame on us if we don’t succeed,” said John Berry, director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

A House vote Thursday put Congress on the verge of significantly expanding hate crimes law to make it a federal crime to assault people because of their sexual orientation. Later this year, Congress is expected to hold hearings on a measure prohibiting workplace discrimination – including decisions about hiring, firing and wages – based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

“The clock is against us,” Berry said in a speech at the Out & Equal Workplace Advocates conference in Orlando. “If we lose this, it could be years if not a decade before this opportunity comes around.”

He said a political climate like the current one – with the president, Congress and public opinion open to passing gay rights legislation – may not come again for a long time.

Berry oversees the agency that manages the federal government’s workplace. His speech at the Orlando conference came a day before President Barack Obama was set to address the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights group.

Obama has taken a cautious approach to following through with campaign promises to end a ban on gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military and pushing tough nondiscrimination policies. But Berry said Obama was “clear in his support for our community and his commitment to full equality.”

Herbert took office in mid-August after Jon Huntsman resigned to become U.S. ambassador to China.

Within weeks of his inauguration, Herbert said he doesn’t think it should be illegal to discriminate against someone for being gay or transgender.

In Utah, it’s currently legal to fire someone or evict them from housing for being gay. Herbert contends that discriminating against gay people is wrong – but says there’s no need for a law to prevent it.

He’s also expressed concerns that including gay and transgender people in anti-discrimination laws could enable a court to overturn the state’s constitutional ban on gay marriage and lead to other groups seeking protection.

“Where do you stop? I mean that’s the problem going down that slippery road. Pretty soon we’re going to have a special law for blue-eyed blondes … or people who are losing their hair a little bit,” Herbert told reporters in August. “There’s some support for about anything we put out there. I’m just saying we end up getting bogged down sometimes with the minutiae of things that government has really no role to be involved in.”

Twenty-one states have laws prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 12 extend those laws to gender identity – California, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Several other states protect public employees who are gay or transgender.

Leaders of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah said Herbert told them he’s open to having a dialogue about stopping discrimination.

“Fundamentally, he agrees that discrimination is a problem. We’re coming at this from how to solve a problem we agree on. That’s a great place to begin,” said Will Carlson, Equality Utah’s public policy director.

Carlson said Equality Utah members provided Herbert with information regarding housing and job discrimination in the state and spelled out the need for gay couples to have hospital visitation rights and the right to make emergency medical decisions.

Later Tuesday, Herbert met with the Foundation for Reconciliation, a group organized in June by current and former Mormons frustrated by their faith’s political activism in California. In 2008, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was part of a coalition of groups that worked to pass Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that banned gay marriage in California.

Foundation director Cheryl Nunn, who lives in both Utah and Santa Cruz, Calif., said the group’s executive committee is made up entirely of heterosexuals concerned about issues affecting LGBT individuals.

The foundation requested a meeting with Herbert following his comments about anti-discrimination laws. The group has asked Herbert to form a bipartisan task force to investigate inequality in Utah’s legal code toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals.

“He described himself as a conservative who was very wary about increasing government in any way,” foundation spokesman Peter Danzig said Tuesday night. “But he agreed with us that it’s hard to make public policy without accurate information.”

Danzig said that Herbert also said he doesn’t want Utah to be perceived as state that is rejecting or unwelcoming of any of its citizens.

Herbert spokeswoman Angie Welling said the point of Tuesday’s meetings was not to make any policy decisions.

“This is really an information gathering and kind of an introduction to one another so the conversation can continue,” Welling said.