| |
Home Page
Who We Are
The Only Question That Matters
Board of Directors
Contact Us
Join Us
City Council
Links
Log Cabin-DC ByLaws
Our Privacy Policy
|
|
|
Log Cabin - DC
Opinions
LOG CABIN - DC ENDORSES E.N.D.A.
"ENDA" is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2001 sponsored by Christopher Shays (R-CT) (the Act or similar legislation has been re-introduced in successive Congresses). It would add "sexual orientation" to the list of those currently protected by federal law from employment discrimination, which currently includes race, religion, sex, national origin, age and disability. The Log Cabin - D.C. Board voted in favor (with one abstention) of endorsing ENDA, and, following some debate, a substantial majority of the members ratified that decision at meeting of the members. This endorsement represents our chapter's belief, first, that discrimination against gays and lesbians in the context of employment (in both the hiring and the salary review/promotion processes) continues to be widespread throughout the United States, particularly outside of the major urban centers; and, second, that the only practical remedy to this discrimination, other than individual persuasion or similar non-governmental efforts to convince employers to "do the right thing," is passage of federal legislation.
Legislative solutions, however, are seldom the first choice of Republicans, particularly when the proposed legislation would apply to private employers. This reluctance was voiced during the member debate of the ENDA endorsement. Those opposed expressed their conviction, consistent with Libertarian Party philosophy, that any and all proposed governmental regulation of how employers run their businesses constitutes a restraint on liberty which must, ipso facto, be resisted at all cost. Supporters agreed that Republican Party policies are frequently sympathetic to the anti-regulation, Libertarian point of view and so Republicans seek, whenever possible, to limit government regulation of, or interference with, the free enterprise system and the businesses that comprise it. However, they noted that the party long ago acknowledged the need for some reasonable regulation of businesses to prevent those abuses -- and the resulting restraints on liberty -- that naturally occur when economic power is unbridled by rational restraints.
For example, one of the 20th century's greatest Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, engaged in "trust-busting" and supported passage of federal anti-trust laws to prevent monopolistic behavior and price fixing. Other examples of federal regulation of the private business sector that are broadly recognized as legitimate include the securities laws (to prevent fraud and assure full disclosure), the food and drug safety laws, copyright/trademark regulation, and consumer protection laws, among many others. ENDA recognizes that, if hiring or promotion decisions can be legally made on the basis of genetic or other non-choice factors unrelated to competence (which clearly includes those based on race, sex, national origin, and sexual orientation), then workers can be hired or promoted for reasons other than their ability to do the job. And, the more this occurs, the more likely it becomes that the product produced or the service provided will not be of the highest quality possible or priced as low as it otherwise could be. Ultimately, of course, the consumer (i.e., all of us) -- as well as the free enterprise system itself -- pays the price of allowing employment discrimination to distort the process.
This result, of course, is in addition to the more self-evident consequence: gays are denied their right to the "pursuit of happiness" for which the Revolution was fought and upon which our system of government is based. Ensuring that liberty and expanding it to all persons was why we fought a Civil War, and has been the basis of every subsequent civil rights movement. One would think ENDA should be a no-brainer by now.
ENDA does not cover employers with fewer than 15 employees and exempts religious institutions and organizations from its application. It does not create any new federal agency or bureaucracy as responsibility for administering it would be given to the pre-existing Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (E.E.O.C.). Given that there has been no serious, or even noticeable, effort either to abolish the E.E.O.C. or to repeal the protections the law and that agency currently provide for women, racial minorities, and those of "non-traditional" national origin, supporters of ENDA believe that opposition to this bill begs the question "why is it we can't be protected, too?"
The opposition to ENDA primarily comes from certain leaders of the Christian right who, some gay rights advocates allege, apparently still believe that sexual orientation is a matter of choice or free-will, which is repudiated by both science and logic. Although the precise cause of one's sexual orientation has yet to be isolated, no credible scientific or medical evidence exists that supports the theory that it is a matter of choice for the vast majority of individuals. And, as advocates note, not one of those who say being gay is a matter of choice can also describe how it was that they happened to make the "right choice" -- to be heterosexual. If there is choice involved then all individuals must exercise that choice -- it simply cannot be that homosexuals choose their sexual orientation but heterosexuals do not. If heterosexuals do not choose to be straight, then homosexuals cannot be said to choose to be gay.
Choice proponents also somehow ignore the fact that sexual orientation must be instinctive or else the human species would have died out long ago -- although when pressed, they do admit one's sex drive is instinctive. Banning discrimination on the basis of instinctive or genetic characteristics has been a hallmark of 20th Century American democracy, and the Republican Party was founded on the idea of eliminating one of the most deeply-rooted and deadliest forms of discrimination, that based on race. Log Cabin - D.C. believes it is time to continue that tradition by outlawing at least one mode of expression of an equally insidious form of discrimination, that based on sexual orientation.
For all of the above reasons, Log Cabin - D.C. supports passage of ENDA at the earliest possible moment. This same legislation has a history of repeated delays and roadblocks and has produced an endless stream of creative, but specious, reasons for opposing it. These delays, the identity and vehemence of those in opposition, and the consistent failure of opponents to propose viable alternatives, further demonstrate, in and of themselves, that discrimination against "deviants" does indeed exist and has tremendously powerful supporters. It shows why passage of this bill is of overwhelming practical and symbolic importance to the gay community.
| |
|
|
| |
