If scientists ever do discover “the gay gene,” here’s one bit of good news: Under a new law, your future employer won’t be able to test you for it to see if you qualify for the job.
Without the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, businesses from the Fortune 500 to your local carpet cleaner can fire you whenever they want just for being queer. But the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act will at least preclude them from running genetic tests on you beforehand to learn whether you’re a ‘mo.
Sure, the GIN Act is mostly aimed at keeping employers from being able to require job applicants and employees from revealing whether they carry a certain gene that puts them at risk for cancer or disorder, but by default it’ll also prohibit them from running a queer test on you.
How come? Because employers are also the health insurers of so many, which represents a conflict of interest that lawmakers actually have a problem with! The law, passed last year, takes effect next weekend and is described by the New York Times as “the most important new antidiscrimination law in two decades.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Beat that, ENDA.
Just be sure that you aren’t running your mouth about your sexuality — because eavesdropping on your genetics is still legal.
While the act makes it illegal for employers to intentionally acquire genetic information, it includes a “water cooler” exception, as in a case where a manager overhears one employee telling another that his father had a stroke.
Under the act, it is legal for a manager to garner genetic information from an obituary, for instance that an employee’s mother died of breast cancer. And if a manager asks why a worker took off a week to care for his father under the Family Medical Leave Act, it generally will not be considered illegal if the employer learns that the worker’s father has pancreatic cancer.
The act, however, prohibits use of such inadvertent knowledge to alter the terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
“The challenge becomes what if down the road, the employee has a lot of absences or his performance is off, and you discipline the employee,” said Michael P. Aitken, director of governmental affairs for the Society of Human Resource Management. “The employee could come back and say, ‘That’s because you knew I had a genetic marker.’ ”
ksu499
I’m sure the US Council of Catholic Bishops will manage to get some exemption put in for those with religious objections.
WTF?
I would imagine so, since it hasn’t been entirely vetted by the scientific community.
Keith Kimmel
Well now, this is one piece of good news.
dan
What’s the bets the religious make up an exception for their abortion rule for gay gene testing?
Wade MacMorrighan
What about testing a fetus for the gay gene before it’s born? Just imagine how many parents would abort their child if they knew, claiming that it was for the baby’s own good, so that he/she wouldn’t be teased and live a “normal” life! In fact, I have heard many religious women claim that if they DID know their child would be born Gay, than they WOULD abort the pregnancy! Wouldn’t this be a form of genocide?
trav
http://hea.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/3/373
In the 1990’s there was found a gene that supposedly meant one would be more likely to be gay. There’s still debate about it, and it’s validity. So this is probably the gene they’d be looking for.
romeo
I hate to ask this, but where have you guys been? There’s all kinds of research being done, mostly in Europe. The last I heard there is more than one gene and/or combinations that contribute as well as a fairly common (common enough anyway) chemical process that happens in the womb. There’s a major BBC special hosted by Barrowman that’s scheduled for PBS some time this year that will update the findings so far. Needless to say, nothing much is creeping in to American media about this. They need to keep it all a “mystery” so they won’t have to actually do anything for us.
All in all, I guess I’m glad I was born an American, just wish I didn’t feel like I need to take a shower all the time because of it.
romeo
Interesting, from what I’ve heard about what they’re finding out, the evidence is becoming overwhelming that it’s biological, but complex. No single gene that can be pointed to, or, more importantly, eradicated. It occurred to me that with possible multiple biological causes and degrees, that may explain the differences we see in gay people, butch/fem, etc.. We’ll see.
In any case, even the Catholic Church is starting to accept the idea of a biological cause in some of its quarters, and, of course, preparing anti-gay rhetoric accordingly. Some of the so-called elites in this country are starting to deal with it, but there is still, I think, a great deal of fear and loathing about “normalizing” homosexuality. They’re just not ready for that quantum leap.
But ours is to persist and endure. We owe that to our brothers and sisters in the future, and those who have suffered and also endured in the past. I screw around a lot on this site and others, but bottom line I take being gay very seriously. Many of us do, but many don’t, and that’s a pity.
FakeName
“Twilight of the Golds” is about a pregnant woman who learns her fetus is pre-disposed to homosexuality. Brendon Fraser plays her gay brother. Not completely satisfactory but still worth seeing.
1EqualityUSA
60 Minutes did a piece about gays in which twins were featured. (Google video 60 Minutes, Gay, twins.) This segment, headed by Leslie Stahl, spoke of physiological components to one’s sexual orientation. Studies are being conducted about orientation being influenced by the mother’s own immune system. The more boys a mother has, the greater the chances that one of her youngest will be gay. (Population control? I wonder.) The mother’s immune system, subjected to the “y” chromosome, sees it as a foreign substance, so that by the 3rd or 4th male, physiological responses are often set into motion, a combination of genetics, hormones, and immunological systems are being studied, as to why some turn out gay. I cannot comprehend anyone being able to point a judgmental finger at these youngsters. Back in Biblical times, had they known, what we are just now beginning to comprehend, perhaps Paul (Saul) would have had a deeper understanding. Perhaps any religion that discriminates against gays would benefit from this research.
Rainfish
@ TRAV …Below is a link with more detailed information about the search for the “gay gene”.
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/genomics/2002/Pierce/gaygene.htm
romeo
@1Equality #10: I saw that,too, about the mother’s immune system, but that doesn’t explain me, I’m a firstborn. Also doesn’t explain my father, a sister and then him. My brother had some angst, but finally decided to go with women, he’s a very button down conventional soul, and he’s already been married twice so far. LOL I think they’re going to find that it has multiple biological causes for most gays, and maybe even some individuals that are on our team from purely environmental conditioning. I think that’s what screws people up when they’re trying to evaluate it. It just isn’t easy to figure out. LOL
Bottom line, Nature is relentless in putting us out there. Reminded of one of Heraclitus’s aphorisms that always fascinated me: “Nature loves to hide.”
In any case, time for America to just fucking grow up and deal with our reality. We’ve all suffered enough.
1EqualityUSA
Romeo, My partner, her brother, sister, and Father are all gay. Familial ties must play a role in it. In my family, only the Labrador was queer. Go figure.
romeo
LOL 1Equality, I’m tempted to make a really dirty but funny joke about that Labrador, but I don’t know you so I don’t know if you’d think it was funny. LOL
1EqualityUSA
He was into heavy petting…go ahead Romeo…