Bread crumbs add binding and bulk to your average meatloaf, but as comforting as meatloaf may be, it's no Chateaubriand. And even The New York Times feels that Chateaubriand is reserved for white heterosexual males and queers should be grateful for grandma's meatloaf.
This past Sunday's New York Times calls for passage of ENDA--in theory a major gay rights moment when the nation's leading newspaper endorses major national gay rights legislation.
But the ENDA now before Congress is a shameful wreck compared to existing workplace anti-discrimination laws, and it is troubling that one of the most influential pro-gay mainstream voices, The New York Times, completely ignores this fact.
Of course they are in good queer company in doing so--including HRC, The Task Force, LAMDA and all the other gay advocacy meatloaf lovers who have assumed leadership of our community and will march to whatever tune Obama and The Democrats will play.
Existing law protects Americans from being fired from their jobs on the basis of their gender, race, ethnicity, religion, political belief, age and disability.
ENDA is supposed to extend these protections to gay Americans; and no doubt if and when it is passed, heterosexual progressives will applaud themselves and Joe Solmonese and his kind will declare victory and immediately ask us for more money.
The funny thing is that the vast majority of people, businesses, organizations and institutions that aggressively still discriminate against queers will be exempt from the new law. In fact, ENDA will be as soft and as cuddly and as effective as a declawed cat.
With an eye towards "protecting employers' from a tsunami of discrimination lawsuits, ENDA strictly limits and makes almost impossible legal action in the face of discrimination. ENDA will have as much bite as jaywalking laws in midtown Manhattan.
ENDA is also a harsh reminder--for those of us who pay attention to facts rather than rhetoric-- that the military and religion have an ever tightening stranglehold on this increasingly limited democracy. In fact, with the restrictions imposed on this nation by the Pentagon and Christian Fundamentalism do we dare even still refer to ourselves as a democracy?
I'm fascinated by Congressional, White House, gay advocacy and liberal media language that describes ENDA exemptions as "only's"--as in only religion, only small businesses and only the military are exempt.
Main Street USA which is dominated by small businesses will remain as gay-free as heterosexuals decide.
But the great big horrible fact is that the nation's two largest employers will retain the right to fire queers for no other reason than lisping, a badly timed PDA or membership in HRC.
The title of "America's largest employer" is always given to Wal-Mart with 1,8 million employees, followed by McDonald's with 447,000 employee and UPS with 407,000.
In fact, organized religion, fully exempt from ENDA, employs an estimated 12 million Americans. The nation's second largest employer, the United States Military, also exempt from ENDA, employs over 3 million Americans.
Furthermore, these 15 million or so jobs are in large part funded by tax dollars--your money--to the tune of $711 billion to the military and somewhere between $15 billion and $60 billion to organized religion. The wide range on religion is due to the fact that I don't have the time to follow every faith-based initiative funding trail originating in dozens of government and state agencies.
It's also worth noting that these taxpayer faith-based initiative dollars allow Evangelicals, the Mormons and the Roman Catholic Church to free up hundreds of millions of dollars in anti-gay right campaigns from Maine to Iowa to Washington State.
And ENDA won't touch any of that.
"It is remarkable how little progress gay people have made in securing the basic protection against discrimination on the job, " laments Sunday's New York Times.
Indeed. Remarkable, indeed.
"In 29 states, it is still legal to fire workers for being gay. But momentum is building in Congress for the first federal law banning such discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people."
"Federal law has lagged behind the reality of American life. There are now openly gay members of Congress from between-the-coasts states like Colorado and Wisconsin. And according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights advocacy group, 85 percent of Fortune 500 companies have policies protecting gay employees from discrimination. But gay rights advocates have for years faced opposition to a federal civil rights law from the religious right, and from parts of the business community, who argue that it would lead to a flood of litigation."
Not to worry, The Times tells ENDA advocates.
The new ENDA was "written to meet some of the concerns of opponents. The law would not apply to religious organizations, or to businesses with fewer than 15 employees. It would not allow for quotas or “disparate impact” lawsuits, which generally use statistical disparities to prove discrimination."
Let the declawing begin!
"People who believe in workplace fairness should lobby senators to get on board. It is unacceptable that in a nation committed to equality people can still be fired in more than half the states for being gay. Congressional leaders should make passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act a top priority."
No. No. No. Congressional leaders should have a very different priority and how sad it is that The New York Times says nothing--ever--on this tragic state of affairs.
Congressional leaders should make the precipitous erosion of the principle of separation of church and state their number one priority along with taking control of civil and human rights away from the military and returning it to the civilian government defined by the Bill of Rights.
An emasculated and ineffective ENDA will be just the latest casualty in this historic struggle. Some will say it is a step in the right direction, albeit a small step. I say it further legitimizes and institutionalizes the stranglehold of religion and the military on what was once a secular and civil democracy.
Arguments against ENDA (wikipedia.org)
ENDA has raised concerns over alleged conflicts between gay rights and religious freedoms. Judith Moldover explained that "The conflict between sexual orientation discrimination and the duty to accommodate religious bias against homosexuals typically arises in three types of situations: refusal to service homosexual clients, refusal to participate in diversity programs and training, and supervisory conduct."
Some opponents say that groups such as Christian book stores would be forced to either close or hire employees who do not share the basic teachings of their faith. Rep. George Miller (D-CA) has introduced an amendment to ENDA that expands the religious exemption to include all business claiming religious objections regardless of tax status.[citation needed]
Some opponents of the law also argue, in opposition to available scientific studies, that "sexual preference" is a choice. They say the law creates a protected class that "promotes" homosexuality and negatively affects their interpretation of family values.
Posted by: Andrew | Tuesday, 15 September 2009 at 09:24 AM
I felt readers of your blog needed to know what people who argue against ENDA are saying--it only adds to exactly what your saying. I don't quote wikipedia though.
You would need a bold journalist to write about separation of church and state and a ballsy supervising editor to run that article.
Posted by: Andrew | Tuesday, 15 September 2009 at 09:27 AM
As our ineffectual Congress is proving daily they couldn't pass gas after a jalapeno sandwich.
Posted by: Alan down in Florida | Tuesday, 15 September 2009 at 12:38 PM