SOUNDBITES — “The most important thing we can do right now is we got to … secure the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — and it’s got to include full transgender protections. I believe that if we all concentrate our efforts where it needs to be concentrated, which is on the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, we can get the job done. … If we can get ENDA enacted and signed into law, it is only a matter of time before all the rest happens. It is the keystone that holds up the whole bunch, and so we need to focus our energies and attention there. … We’re very close to the 218 [votes in the House]. We’re within spitting distance, and I think we will get it. We are not as close on the 60 in the Senate, but we will be, and this will happen, so I think it’s going to take that focal energy point.” —John Berry, director Office of Personnel Management and Obama’s top gay, addressing the Out For Work’s convention in D.C. about the importance of passing ENDA (ahead of other gay rights legislation)
As for repealing DOMA via the Respect for Marriage Act? “I will tell you personally I believe that I think the courts will strike this down before Congress will have to repeal it legislatively. And thank goodness because, in this case, the backbone is not there in Congress.”
Andrew
I don’t see the connection to “everything else.” Plus, ENDA won’t pass. Not this Congress. The religious reality, of the Senate will reject it. America is 70% religious, the Senate is 99% religious. That’s a big problem for all things “gay.”
It would be helpful if we looked at the religious makeup of our politicians, rather than just their political parties. Example: Harry Reid – Mormon.
TimNCGuy
@Andrew: it may be referring to the fact that passing ENDA would create LGBT as a legal ‘class’. Once defined as a legal ‘class’, similar to race, gender, ethnicity etc it should be much easier to get all the other rights passed.
Andrew
@TimNCGuy: I don’t see “why.” The obstacle is religion, not an easier way to identify us.
Prof. Donald Gaudard
@TimNCGuy: Gays have been treated by the courts as a “class” since the 1970’s decision by the California Supreme Court in the case of Gay Law Students v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph.
aeblikkon
@TimNCGuy: Yes, but a class that can be burdened with so many exceptions, like the religious, military, small business, and dress code exceptions in ENDA that they are deserving of a very narrow band of protection. Which is why we get a separate act of ENDA instead of being amended into the Civil Rights Act as race, sex, disability, etc. are.
The Gay Numbers
@TimNCGuy: A class under the law, and plus, the law would be based on equal protection. It would make other equality arguments easier such as with courts to point this out as “see the nation and states are no longer where they were. They have evolved, and so should you.” This is how one shapes laws overtime to move it down the road further each time. Part of the problem I have with the Olson case is that it leap frogs this process by going for the whole thing right away rather than allowing the normal dance you would see in these sorts of civil rights situation.
The Gay Numbers
@aeblikkon: Again, it moves the ball. Something- the equality under the law argument being validated even if imperfectly- is better than nothing – no validation at the federal level in the laws at all.
Mark
@The Gay Numbers: So, like HRC, I guess you’re suggesting we have another 30-40 years before we achieve full equality. “Just keep moving the ball,” right?
We have made little progress in the last 40 years. Nobody has a plan for equality. We just keep begging for acceptance. It’s pathetic.
The LGBTQ Community needs a strategy and a plan. Right now, we have nothing.
Jason
GAY LOGIC FAIL.
Rob
I agree with John Berry. Not because ENDA will help us in court cases (though it may), but because it will make it easier for gay people in red states to come out. That, in turn, will help us get other rights at the Federal level.
The Gay Numbers
I have no idea how long it will take. You are the one making hyperbolic assumptions. It is a matter of a different strategy that has proven to work in the past versus the strategy being proposed, which has never been tested. The likelihood of the never been tested strategy relying upon a reactionary Supreme Court to expand civil rights laws even as they are contracting civil rights laws in other fronts by now including a whole new class. So, you can label it as you want because really your HRC point is a dishonest assessment based on emotions, not fact. We are discussing legal strategies, not something unique to HRC, that other civil rights groups have used versus those we can assess have a very small chance of success. The result of a bad S.Ct. ruling before its time being stare decisis, which means case law that later courts, even liberal ones will feel compelled to follow. This again requires a little less hyperbolic jingoistic slogans, and a little more figuring out how we can win.
The Gay Numbers
By the way- if the case rulings are bad for us under a decision coming out of the Olson case, the reality is that under stare decisis unlike your hyperbolic states, I can say that we are looking at decades. This is how the law works and cases move up the stream. For example it took 20 years to overturn Bowers v Hardwick with Lawrence v Texas in part because of the respect given to the prior case law, and that was with everyone calling the prior case law under Bowers a complete sham even when I was in law school in the mid 90s.
reluctantcommenter
@The Gay Numbers: i am not a lawyer, so this stuff usually doesn’t make sense to me. but you’re saying the olson case could do more harm than good to the gay rights cause because it might establish a negative precedent/case law that would have to be eroded through decades of legal battles?
rudy
@reluctantcommenter:
Yep.
ENDA’s job protections creates activists and openly gay people throughout the country who would love to have even half the rights California gays now enjoy.
Sending the Olson case now to the Supreme Court is a huge gamble. Previously, the court has simply looked to see how the majority of states have handled matters like this. If they compare the number of states with laws for marriage to the number of states against and take DOMA into consideration, we lose.
And of course, even if against all odds Olson wins, Republicans will start on a constitutional ammendment immediately.
Forget sex and a social life – we’re all going to need to work two jobs just to cover political donations.