Bill to Protect GLB Workers Advances Without the T  | News | Advocate.com

||  News  ||
October 19, 2007
Bill to Protect GLB Workers Advances Without the T

Democrats on Thursday sent to the full House legislation that would prohibit workplace discrimination against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, despite bitter complaints from some because transgender workers would not be protected under the bill.

Democratic leaders pushed forward the current bill after discovering that including transgender workers in the legislation would cause it to fail in the full House, and promised to try and get additional legislation in the future.

''I believe that the step we are taking today will lay the foundation for passing these additional protections in the future,'' said Democrat George Miller of California, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.

But the exclusion of gender identity in the bill has caused a divisive split in the Democratic Party, with some saying they should take advantage of the Democrats' numerical superiority in the House to pass the first-ever federal workplace protection for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Others say the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should include everyone in the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender population.

''We won't support ENDA until all Americans are included,'' said Christopher Anders, the senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. ''Nobody should be cut out or left behind simply because Democratic leadership is too impatient to round up the votes needed to pass a comprehensive bill.''

Four Democrats -- Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, Rush Holt of New Jersey, Linda Sanchez of California, and Yvette Clarke of New York -- voted against the bill because of its exclusion of gender identity. ''We could have done better,'' Sanchez said.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat, said some Democrats led by Rep. Tammy Baldwin will try to include transgender-worker protection with an amendment on the House floor before a final vote.

The committee passed the bill 27-21, with all but four of the Republican members voting against the bill.

''When you strive to protect some people, you take away protections of other people,'' said Rep. Howard ''Buck'' McKeon, a Republican from California. ''That is the difficulty, and I think some of us on this side are representing some of those people that feel like as good as your intentions are, you're taking away their rights in their religious beliefs and dealings on a day-to-day basis.''

''Sexual orientation is not the same as race, gender, or age, which do not depend on perception at all,'' said Rep. Mark Souder, an Indiana Republican. ''This is a possible litigation nightmare, where perceptions are enough to cause lawsuits resulting to a hostile workplace for those with moral or religious concerns regarding homosexuality.''

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would make it illegal for employers to make decisions about hiring, firing, promoting, or paying an employee based on sexual orientation. Churches and the military would be exempt.

Federal law bans job discrimination based on factors such as race, gender and religion.

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have laws against sexual orientation discrimination. However, only nine states specifically protect transgender people from discrimination: New Jersey, Minnesota, Rhode Island, New Mexico, California, Illinois, Maine, Hawaii, and Washington. The District of Columbia also has a similar law.

By January laws also will be in effect in Iowa, Vermont, Colorado and Oregon. (Jesse J. Holland, AP)

© 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Reader Comments

These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.

Be the first to comment on this story.

Back to top

Submit a comment for this story:

*Type your comment here (Required, 1000 characters max.):

*Name (Required): 

*Hometown (Required): 

*E-mail address: (Required, but will not be displayed)

Is this comment for publication? 
Yes   No

Daytime phone number: (Required for print publication only and will not be displayed)

If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above. 

All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.

Comments that do not concern specific articles in The Advocate or on Advocate.com will not be posted or published. See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.

Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.