I am not surprised that the Chimperator is threatening a veto of ENDA if it is passed by Congress. When does Chimpy not do what Daddy Dobson and company demand? I nonetheless think it is important to get some version of ENDA passed and put Bush on the spot. If he vetos ENDA, then he will be out of step with roughly 68% of American who favor non-discrimination in the workplace. Moreover, it will be one more thing to hang on the GOP. As for Bush's alleged reasons, it sounds like his statement was written by Focus on the Family. For those who are interested, the text of ENDA can be found here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3685 Here are highlights from 365gay.com's story:(Washington) In its first statement on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would protect gays and lesbians in the workforce the White House said Tuesday the bill is likely unconstitutional and that if it passes in Congress the president's senior aides would recommend vetoing it. "[The bill] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)," the White House said in a statement.
In addition the White House said that provisions of ENDA "give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law. These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage."
Frankly, I fail to see how not firing someone who is gay or lesbian in any way gives significance to same-sex marriage.
2 comments:
It is difficult to understand how equality in the form of "liberty and justice" for "all" is contradictory. However, one wonders the actual verbiage of the bill and what it will be like as it is shorn and reshaped in committee before being presented for the president to sign. Are there indications that benefits must be extended to partners? If so, it could just be that it is a threat to the traditional idea behind marriage. Hopefully, those who have crafted the final legislation have been deft enough to focus on the issue and vigilant enough to keep it from becoming polluted.
thanks for this, i may have to comment on it on my blog too.
Post a Comment