Gay Congressman Barney Frank in Washington will no doubt garner some gay ire in coming weeks.
Frank, Human Rights Campaign and others have been busy hashing out the ever-contentious Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and the latest controversy has nothing to do with trans inclusion, which has derailed discussions in the past. No, this latest brouhaha revolves around another hot-button topic: marriage.
A little-discussed provision of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would allow employers to give health insurance coverage and other benefits to married opposite-sex couples and deny those same benefits to the partners of their gay and lesbian employees who are legally married in Massachusetts and California.
…
A similar provision has been in the bill since 1994, when ENDA was first introduced on Capitol Hill, but the earlier language said employers did not have to provide benefits to the domestic partners of their employees.ENDA, which bans job discrimination based on sexual orientation, now says an employer cannot be required “to treat a couple who are not married in the same manner as the covered entity treats a married couple for purposes of employee benefits.”
Before people start burning effigies, however, Frank’s quick to point out that he personally did not add the language. It is, however, necessary, he says: “It was the decision of the committee and of everybody else, myself, Tammy, was that we couldn’t pass anything without this…We had to make it clear that non-discrimination in employment had no effect on marriage one way or another.”
L
Unbelievable! That’s a real poison pill in the legislation. It stomps on the intentions of MA & CA. It takes equality and the word marriage and brings them down several notches. Personally, I have walked away from jobs/housing because of discrimination that I experienced. The ability to seek legal recourse was not that important to me. But I know it depends on the person and their situation.
mark
I am F*CKIN tired of Barney settling for less than scraps from the banquet table, and sick of Democratic “allies” not having a SPINE.
I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired
ajax
I’m flabbergasted – speechless even. Firstly, we are unfairly taxed on benefits we extend to our partners because we cannot pay our partners’ health insurance premiums with “pre-tax” dollars as we would for a heterosexual spouse. Now, instead of working to put us on equal footing in terms of access to health insurance for our partners, our elected officials are making things worse? These are our friends? Shame on you, Mr. Frank. Shame on you, Ms. Baldwin. Both of you should have the sense to know that some compromises are not good compromises. And both of you should be articulate enough to communicate that to “the committee”.
emb
If Frank and Baldwin had any principles at all, they’d withdraw their support from an ENDA that’s been flawed from the start. Either it mandates non-discrimination in employment, or it doesn’t: There’s no such thing a “just a little discriminatory”. I’ve defended Frank in the past, but his efforts to appease the right have gone too far this time.
Psychofag
Barney Frank is a hot grandpa!
CHURCHILL-Y
LAMENDA(Lame Ass Mismanaged Employment Non Discrimination Act)
Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin and some people actually want more of this and the rest of the DNC? Good thing Michelle is off on her way to pick another big fat check from the Gay elite. Because if there’s something we Gays know how to really reward is incompetence on our issues and the leftovers thrown our way every now and then.
Tara
HAHAHA. Sorry, so funny. These people are so special. Full Faith and Credit hmm? Well, at least this time it can not be blamed on trans people fighting for their inclusion. How are you going to tell me the Barney Frank = Gay Jesus now?
Becca
Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Now! with More Added Discrimination!
VegasTeaRoom
I have to start out by saying that I really like Barney. With that said he seems to be turning into Barney “2/3’s” Frank. Legislated civil rights is never 100%. We only hit 100% (good or bad) in the courts, which is why the SCOTUS is SOOOOO important.
Distingué Traces
Please be more careful about accuracy in your headlines — the language does not “now” include a DOMA clause, the clause has been in there for a long time, but only now is it being publicly discussed.
Tara
Distingué Traces – “Please be more careful about accuracy in your headlines — the language does not “now” include a DOMA clause, the clause has been in there for a long time, but only now is it being publicly discussed.”
That actually bothers me the most about it.
Vinman
I agree with Becca – and would be laughing if it wasn’t so sad!
Lena Dahlstrom
“We had to destroy the bill in order to save it…”
Hmmm… Sounds familiar.
For all you who pooh-poohed trans people who were pissed off about gender identity/express protections (which BTW protect anyone who’s not sufficiently straight-acting) being stripped from ENDA last fall, maybe now you’ll understand our anger.
Bill Perdue
The Democratic Party is a cesspool of anti-GLBT bigotry.
That includes its presidential candidate, Obama, who masks his bigoted opposition to same sex marriage in a fog of superstitious deception and who just won’t shut up about it.
It includes Kennedy, Reid and Pelosi who tossed out the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill after I’d passed both houses of Congress so they wouldn’t be seen as GLBT-friendly when they pander to bigot voters.
It includes Barney Frank, the Quisling, who gutted ENDA to please the Chamber of Commerce who oppose any measures to ease the right to sue bigots.
It includes Dianne Feinstein and a dozen or so other Democrats who voted with the Republicans to seat an antigay racist on the US court of appeals in New Orleans.
It includes the majority of Democratic (sic) House and Senate members who voted for Clintons DOMA and DADT. They refused to repeal either although they’ve controlled the Congress for the last two years.
In all of these betrayals of their pledges the Democrats and Republicans took a bipartisan approach, voting for one another’s bigoted laws. When it comes to the crime of bigotry they aren’t opponents, they’re accomplices, partners in crime.
Articles on Health
A little-discussed provision of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would allow employers to give health insurance coverage and other benefits to married opposite-sex couples and deny those same benefits to the partners of their gay and lesbian employees who are legally married in Massachusetts and California.
Chris
Folks, read this bit from the blurb CAREFULLY:
“an employer cannot be required ‘to treat a couple who are NOT MARRIED in the same manner as the covered entity treats a married couple for purposes of employee benefits.'” (Caps are mine)
It’s not talking about legally married same-sex couples in MA & CA, it’s talking about non-married partners in the other 48 states. While it’s true that ENDA has become a nothing-burger piece of legislation that allows Dems to look like they’re gay-friendly without ruffling any Repub feathers, it doesn’t take away any rights of married gay couples. Married is still married, end of story.
David Hauslaib, Queerty
@ 16 Chris: Actually, that’s not true. From GayCityNews:
So even if gays are legally married in California, they won’t be considered married under this version of ENDA.
Effectively, the bill now says this: Employers cannot discriminate against gays in hiring them — but once they DO hire ’em, discrimination is okay.
Chris
@ David: Well, then…that sucks!!!
Remember when Bill Clinton (as a way of defusing a potential election year issue) signed DOMA thinking it was just a symbolic thing and wouldn’t have any real effect? WRONG!!
FYI, I work for a company that doesn’t give DP benefits (not because they’re anti-gay, but because they’re cheap), but DOES give benefits to same-sex couples if they’re legally married.
Steve
Relax. This bill is not going anywhere this year. It’s an election year, and there are only a few more weeks before the election. Nothing substantial happens in an election year, and especially not just before the election. The only thing that can be accomplished by getting all in a twist about ENDA this year is to distract attention from something else that might actually happen.
RY
This provision may actually have no practical effect because any state that has legalized same-sex marriage also probably already prohibits the type of benefits discrimination that is exempted by this provision. So while you would not be able to sue under ENDA, you could still sue under state law.
Brian Miller
Remember when Bill Clinton (as a way of defusing a potential election year issue) signed DOMA thinking it was just a symbolic thing
No, primarily because that’s not what Bill Clinton did.
Bill Clinton called for DOMA to be passed in reaction to the Hawaii gay marriage ruling. He campaigned for it, announced he’d work with the Republicans to pass it, and after signing it, he campaigned on it in a series of campaign advertisements where he talked about “defending our values.”
mmunson
Then DOMA should die on the vine until the clause is removed. And economists should show studies that states do well when DOMA’s are implemented across the country or in their state.
mmunson
Crap I meant ENDA. So please disregard the previous comment. Sorry.
Brian Miller
Well, DOMA is going to either need a repeal or a legal challenge. Since Biden, Clinton, Obama, McCain, et al aren’t interested in such a legislative solution, we’ll have to go for the courts.
ENDA has no chance of passage anyway. Despite all the homophobia and transphobia inserted into this bill to meet the “concerns” of homophobes in the Democrat and Republican parties, it’s still not enough.
That should tell you something about our supposed “allies” in the Democrats. Everyone already knows that the GOP is bad — but the Democrats use pro-gay platitudes during campaigns and then vote like Republicans on gay issues.
DOMA, the anti-gay military ban, the transphobic amendment to DOMA, and this latest health care bullshit could not have happened without full and enthusiastic support from Democrats.
Bill Perdue
EMB says that if
ENDA wasn’t flawed until Frank, Pelosi, Kennedy and the Congressional Democrats and Republicans used a hatchet on it. They killed it because it was a huge step forward from the (deliberately) anemic antidiscrimination laws of the last century. It made the process of suing for redress much easier and opened it for everyone. That’s why NLGTF and most GLBT groups, and advocacy groups for immigrants, African Americans, women, and others supported it. (Read Lambda Legal’s analysis for more information.)
The Chamber of Commerce didn’t like ENDA. They represent owners and managers who make big money paying us lower wages and fewer benefits. Without the original ENDA people can still be fired for their skin color, gender, sexual preference or gender identity and they just have to put up with second class wages and benefits. That’s why Frank gutted it. His frequent attacks on transsexual/transgendered people during the ENDA debate were a sick attempt to divide the movement, sidetrack the debate and distract us from his real goal, which was to pander to the bigots who own and run businesses.
The Democrats and Republicans weren’t on our side on ENDA or when they overwhelmingly supported DOMA and DADT or when they ditched the hate crimes bill. If you look at their track record they’re as bigoted as the Republicans. They just lie about it, while the Republicans don’t even bother to mask their bigotry.
The leaders and owners of the Democratic (sic) party don’t have any principles, which is why they became Democrats in the first place. Nevertheless, some misguided fools are going to vote for them on November 4th. Electing Democrats or Republicans is a step backwards and a step away from activism. Luckily for our struggle, there are plenty of activists who sensibly don’t believe the Democrat’s BS and are ready and able to correct the mistakes of those without principles who vote for them.
natriley
I pity the legislators who want to make progress on gay rights. Congress has done precious little to build on Justice Kennedy’s broad declaration of equality for sexual difference in the Lawrence Decision. The Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws and said homosexuality like sexuality in general is not about sexual acts but about a broad range of activity that make us human beings. Since then Federal Courts have rejected the implications of this language. Congress must pass laws protecting the LGBT community if the courts are going to extend protections. Congress and the President must show that they support the Supreme Court by passing protective laws.
The position that compromise is unprincipled has intellectual clarity, but amounts to little more than the wish that an all powerful fairy wave a wand and we move from discrimination to equality overnight. Compromise is the price that we pay for dealing with reality. Discrimination must be overcome. It will not simply vanish because we make a better argument. Nor will the LGBT community be the first and only community to have perfect laws on its side as it moves from the margins to enjoying the full protection of the laws.
Brian Miller
I pity the legislators who want to make progress on gay rights.
I don’t. They just have to put their agenda ahead of their hopes for a multi-decade political “career.”
Legislators who get things done tend not to last as career politicians. Ones who obfuscate and lie for The Party are the ones who last.
Gay people should be seeking to elect and support politicians who get things done, and should encourage those who hang around and do absolutely nothing (and both Biden and Frank are in that category) to seek support, votes and campaign cash elsewhere.