Employment Non-Discrimination Act

[EL1]

On April 25, 2002, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP), chaired by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., marked up the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to the Senate floor.  This is not the first time the bill has been in up for action, but this is the first time when the Democrats were in power in the Senate.  This bill will protect Gays and Lesbians from discrimination in the workplace.  Senator Daschle, D-SD, the Majority Leader has promised action and passage by the Senate this year.

Currently, Gays and Lesbians are protected from discrimination only in 12 states (including Maryland) and the District of Columbia.

Bravo to the Senate “HELP” committee and to Senators Kennedy and Daschle for their hard work in the name of Equality.

 

[musicmaker57]

EL1 on 11:10 am on April 26, 2002[br]
On April 25, 2002, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP), chaired by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., marked up the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to the Senate floor.  This is not the first time the bill has been in up for action, but this is the first time when the Democrats were in power in the Senate.  This bill will protect Gays and Lesbians from discrimination in the workplace.  Senator Daschle, D-SD, the Majority Leader has promised action and passage by the Senate this year.

Currently, Gays and Lesbians are protected from discrimination only in 12 states (including Maryland) and the District of Columbia.

Bravo to the Senate “HELP” committee and to Senators Kennedy and Daschle for their hard work in the name of Equality.

Amen to that!!!!!!!

 

[BL]

"Bravo to the Senate “HELP” committee and to Senators Kennedy and Daschle for their hard work in the name of Equality"

That is all good.  But I would not praise these two clowns for anything.

 

[Ken King]

EL1,

Don't hold your breath with this getting through the legislative process.  As you have said it has been up before and shot down.  Just because the Senate has a minimum Democratic majority doesn't help as the bill must also get through the House which has an equally minimum majority for the Republicans.  As the Senate version of the Bill S.1284 has now moved to committee it has a chance to get to the floor but currently only has 40 sponsors.  The identical House version H.R. 2692 which was referred to four separate committees the day it was marked up and has had no further action taken upon it, it only has 190 sponsors out of the pool of 435.  It took the Senate 7 months to move this to committee and the House moved it after first reading on the day it was introduced.  Remember that you need a majority of each house of the legislation to approve it before it goes for the President’s signature.  Which if it does occur I think it is highly unlikely that he would sign it in the affirmative and that would then require two-thirds of the originating house to override the veto.  This will be a long haul to say the least.

While I see some need to level the playing field I just don’t see this bill getting much farther as it has not garnered the support of the House to get it moving within the process.  BTW were you aware that this act would not be applicable to the military or volunteer organizations?  Seems contradictory to the premise of equality, at least for me. Additionally this Act does not apply to the provision of employee benefits to an individual for the benefit of the domestic partner of such individual (health insurance and such).  Does that mean that heterosexual married couples can lose family coverage obtained through their employer if this passes?  If that is the case you can bet it will never go anywhere.  I think I will send a note to Mikulski and Sarbanes and ask.





(Edited by Ken King at 11:37 am on April 27, 2002)

 

[EL1]

Yes, Ken, the chances of it actually making it to law are slim.  Every time it goes to the floor and sees the light of day, it gets a little closer, though.

About the volunteer org.s and the military- churches are allowed to discriminate, unfortunately.  And Don't ask, Don't Tell will still be the law of the land when this passes.  That would take a different bill to change.

Where you talk about the domestic benefits, I don't see it changing anything.  All I see is that the bill says that it does not add same sex domestic benefits as the law of the land.  (approx 250 of the Fortune 500 do have them though)

 

[Ken King]

EL1,

When you said, "All I see is that the bill says that it does not add same sex domestic benefits as the law of the land. "  That is how you interperet the passage, but in its original form it says, "This Act does not apply to the provision of employee benefits to an individual for the benefit of the domestic partner of such individual."  No specifics were given as to if this is for same sex partners or not.   That could be an issue with getting the bill to law status.

 

[EL1]

Ken-

The bill says that it doesn't apply to the establishment of the benefits.  It neither establishes nor disestablishes domestic partner benefits.  This would take a separate bill.

 

[Hessian]

Bravo to Ted Kennedy and his excellent driving skills!
Bravo to Daschle and his skills at spinning lies and distortions!
If we only had more men like them America would be extinct in 20 years or less
Bravo!

 

[EL1]

Was Ted convicted of anything?  

What specifically has Daschle lied about or spun?

They are doing the right thing politically as a whole.  They're making America wake up and smell the 21st century.  You just don't like them because they're not Right-wing Ultra-conservative Bible-thumping Republicans.  

 

[BL]

EL1,

Kennedy is a criminal and you know it.  He got off because he has money and he is a Kennedy.  I don’t see how anyone could defend this idiot.  BTW who in the hell did he think he was when he decided to filibuster Ashcroft.

Nice, get drunk and drive off of a bridge and kill someone and then question the character of someone else!

 

[EL1]

BL-
You don’t like Kennedy because he tried to block a loser (couldn’t win reelection as Senator) from being confirmed as Attorney General.  I don’t agree with everything Kennedy stands for, but I do agree with some.  Anyways, that really isn’t the point of my statement.  Just because you don’t like a politician doesn’t mean that everything they do and stand for is bad.  I can’t stand Dubbya, but he’s doing a pretty good job with the war.

How dare he filibuster?  Its his right as a Senator to use Senate procedure to block something he doesn’t like.  Like it or not.  Eventually his filibuster was stopped and Ashcroft’s nomination proceeded.


(Edited by EL1 at 11:53 am on May 2, 2002)

 

[jimmy]

I HATE filibustering with a PASSION BUT---If you're gonna get on Kennedy for doing so, don't forget Bob Dole set the RECORD for most filibusters used during the period before he went against Clinton in the Presidential race....it's a problem on both sides of the issue...

 

[BL]

EL1,

No, I don’t like Kennedy because he killed someone and got away with it.  That is pretty much the reason.  He should be in prison if you ask me.  I don’t care what he has done after that.  He will have to work that one out with the man upstairs I guess

 

[EL1]

You're right, he will have to work that out with the big guy one day.  But the point is, again, just because you don't like the man/politician doesn't mean that he is ALL bad.  They can do good things, like being the lead sponsor of this bill.

 

[BL]

EL1,

I don’t have a problem with the bill.  Just the act of murder.  I am sure some people admire some qualities about other murderers, but that is good for them.

 

[EL1]

Other than the court of public opinion, which court was he convicted in?

 

[BL]

EL1,

Give me a break.  Can you say “cover up”.

 

[EL1]

Where is the evidence?  We could go on forever but won't get anywhere.  I'm not really a big fan of Kennedy's anyway (OK, I am, but thats not the point.).  Anyways, you get the point about the legislation.  

 

[vraiblonde]

Hear, hear.  Kennedy is nothing more than a common drunk who uses his family name and political clout to get him out of trouble.  Daschle is a liar and a hysteria-monger.  I'm not particularly thrilled with Bush - he campaigned on a few issues, now he's reneged on most of them.  I'm not impressed with his handling of the "war", either.  So for now, let's call me an equal opportunity politician hater.

Back to the topic (sort of):  I would like to see the Democrats or Republicans or ANYONE, for that matter, be brave and say that gays should have the same rights under the Constitution that any other tax paying citizen has.  This means the right to marry, adopt children, serve in the military, and all other things that are true RIGHTS.  I don't agree with domestic partner benefits because then everyone with a live-in, no matter how temporary, will be entitled to that benefit and it turns into this enormous cluster-you-know-what.  But if gays have the right to marry, which they should as tax paying Americans, then certainly the spouse would be entitled to dependent health benefits.

Or better yet, abolish employer health benefit programs and make everyone buy their own insurance.  That should solve the problem.

I still think employers and landlords should be able to discriminate against anyone they want in terms of their own private enterprise - women, gays, blacks, rock musicians, whatever.  To me, it's a foolish way to operate a business and limits your clientele, but that should certainly be their right.  HOWEVER anything that is paid for by my tax dollars must be available to ALL Americans.  And that includes federal employment, housing AND military enlistment.

 

[EL1]

For the most part Vrai, I agree with you.  Everybody should have the same rights gay, straight, black, white, etc.  I do agree with domestic partner benefits, at least for now, because gays cannot marry.  As soon as gays can marry, and can use spouse benefits, domestic partner benefits are no longer needed.