Anti-Gay Republicans Threaten to Kill Trump's New NAFTA Deal Over LGBT Protections

I still get ask at times by former Republican colleagues when I am going to return to the GOP.  A case in point was earlier in the year at a friend's funeral when I encountered another former City Committee member who was always gracious to me.  I politely said "no time soon" given the GOP's never ending homophobia and efforts to limit or take away my rights.  In addition to supporting discredited "conversion therapy," Virginia Republicans killing every gay friendly bill in the last session of the General Assembly, 40 anti- gay Republican members of Congress are now threatening to vote against Trump's new NAFTA trade agreement if LGBT non-discrimination provisions are not removed.   A copy of their letter to Trump is set out at the end of this post.  Politico looks at the efforts of these bigots to in effect give Christofascists special rights to discriminate against others.  Here are article highlights:

Protections in the new North American trade pact for LGBTQ people are roiling conservative lawmakers in the House, who are urging President Donald Trump to rescind them.

They are displeased that the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement contains requirements that workers be protected from discrimination on the basis of sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity.

“A trade agreement is no place for the adoption of social policy,” reads the letter, which carries the names of 40 lawmakers and was sent Friday. “It is especially inappropriate and insulting to our sovereignty to needlessly submit to social policies which the United States Congress has so far explicitly refused to accept.”

It’s one more landmine in the path of Trump’s biggest trade achievement. Already, labor groups have expressed some concern that mechanisms to enforce new worker protections aren’t sufficiently strong and hinted that the incoming Democratic House might seek changes.

Now the conservatives, including House Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), are hoping to revise the deal before it gets signed. 

"This is language that is going to cause a lot of people to reconsider their support of the trade agreement, and to the point that it may endanger the passage of the trade agreement unless something is done," [GOP] Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) told POLITICO in an interview.

Adjusting the deal is a tall order.

The countries are expected to sign the agreement on Nov. 30 at a G-20 summit in Argentina, the day before the current Mexican administration leaves office. The easiest way for the administration to address the conservatives’ concerns is to persuade Canada and Mexico to change the language before the agreement is signed. If those countries balk and the administration is concerned about having enough Republican votes to win approval, it could attempt to negate the language through the implementing bill. But that would be highly unusual and give many Democrats another reason to vote against the legislation.

Tweaks can be made through so-called side letters. But this particular demand is certain to leave Canada especially cold.

The LGBT provisions were a Canadian priority — part of the so-called progressive trade agenda championed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and described as a “big win” by his government. And the Trudeau government already is less than enthusiastic about entering the agreement while steel tariffs remain in place.

But it’s unprecedented language in a U.S. trade agreement. . . . The conservatives say this would undo other administration policies.

The letter argues that USMCA contradicts other administration work on sexual orientation and gender identity, and would also make it impossible to end a pair of executive actions from the Obama administration forbidding workplace discrimination.

It accuses the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative of working against administration policies.

In reality, the federal government is somewhat divided about whether employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is illegal under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a question that turns on how judges interpret the word “sex” (one of the law’s protected classes, along with race, religion, and national origin).

[T]he Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which continues to retain a Democratic majority, still adheres to the Obama policy that the Civil Rights Act outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Federal appeals courts are split on the question, and the Supreme Court has never taken up the matter.

Paul Ryan Neanderthal Approach to Women's Issues

I could write at length on the anti-woman batshitery that Paul Ryan has indulged in, but the image above summarizes it well.  Indeed, Romney is just about on the same page as Sarah Palin and the most extreme Christianists like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and the loons at Traditional Value Coalition who would like to take women back to a 1950's like existence. Despite Romney's and the GOP talking heads' efforts to depict Ryan as a moderate on social issues, the truth is that he's a far right extremist.

Democrats Push "Paycheck Fairness" Bill

In response to my post the other day about the misogyny of women who support the Republican Party even though the party is anti-woman, a woman apparently from Texas left a snarky comment about ME having no credibility.  Looking at her "profile" (which naturally hides her identity) she showed a penchant for following Christianist and home schooling blogs  - no surprise with respect to the latter.  Her reading habits indeed typifies to me the women in the GOP.  They are so wrapped up in religious brainwashing and the avoidance of objective facts that they don't know the difference between their ass and their elbow.  She took particular offense at my statement that women don't earn the same wages as men for the same job. Never mind that objective facts support my contention.  The comment author obviously needs to get her nose out of her KJV and open her eyes.  Politico looks at efforts of Democrats to push legislation that would end pay disparities for women.  Here are highlights:

Sick of the fights over contraception and Planned Parenthood? Get ready for a new front in what Democrats call the GOP’s “war on women.”

Five female Democratic senators pressed for legislation Wednesday aimed at closing the wage gap between men and women. The Paycheck Fairness Act would bring up to date the Equal Pay Act, which was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson nearly 50 years ago.

Democrats cited statistics showing that women today are still paid 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, or $10,784 less a year on average. That’s the equivalent of 183 tanks of gas or 92 bags of groceries.

“Women still make less for doing the same job with the same education as men do. The pay gap is as real today as it was 49 years ago,” Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski, the longest-serving female in Congress, said at a news conference.

“We’re saying … we’re mad as hell and we’re not gonna take it anymore.” Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has promised a cloture vote on the pay bill the week of June 4, after the Senate returns from its week-long Memorial Day recess.

Republican opposition has given Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) a chance to frame the issue of equal pay as yet another example of the GOP’s war on women.  “As I look at the record of Republicans on women, it is not good,” Boxer said. “Personally, I say it’s a war on women. The more they protest it, the more I say it, because I truly believe it.”

Democrats counter that the Paycheck Fairness bill is much stronger than the Ledbetter Act. They say Ledbetter keeps the courthouse door open for women to sue for discrimination, while Paycheck makes it tougher to discriminate in the first place. Ledbetter does not address compensatory or punitive damages; Paycheck does. And Paycheck makes it illegal for employers to retaliate against workers for inquiring about their colleagues’ wages.

ENDA Next Target on Teabagger/Wingnut Radar

While still shrieking and wailing over the "socialist agenda" being furthered by the recently enacted health care reform bill, the loonies at World Net Daily are now seeking to enrage their reality untethered followers by depicting ENDA as a program to require "gay hires" or even enforce quotas. Never mind the actual language in the proposed legislation or the fact that most polls show a large majority of Americans support employment discrimination protections for LGBT employees. Even callers on a small TV talk show in Martinsville, Virginia, were supportive of Michael Moore's action to seek redress against the Virginia Museum of Natural History. Always seeking to spread hysteria, Wing Nut Daily also describes ENDA as an effort to target "Christian employers." Here's a sampling of the WND rant:
*
Now that the health-care fight has proven House Democrats can muscle through legislation without a drop of bipartisan support, plans are underway to resurrect a bill that would make employers susceptible to lawsuits for refusing to hire "gay" or transsexual employees.
*
The bill does make exceptions for the U.S. military, religious organizations and some businesses with non-profit 501(c) designations, but makes no provisions for business owners' consciences. A small construction company that wanted to maintain a Christian reputation, for example, could be sued if it refused to hire transvestites. Openly homosexual members of the House, enthused by the health-care victory, are now looking to return from the congressional recess to begin work on ENDA.
*
"This bill would force Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to hire people who openly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors," said Barber, "despite a sincerely held religious belief that those behaviors are dangerous, sinful and not in keeping with basic morality. "ENDA would essentially force employers to check their First Amendment protected rights to freedom of religion, speech and association at the workplace door," he said.
*
The sad reality is that the Christianists want freedom of religion and anti-discrimination protections for themselves, but do not give a damn about the rights of other citizens who may hold differing beliefs and faiths. It is all about the Christianists and screw everyone else. As for the proposed H.R. 3017's actual provisions (these quotes are from Section 4), here are some highlights:
*
(a) Employer Practices- It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--
*
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity; or
*
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify the employees or applicants for employment of the employer in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment or otherwise adversely affect the status of the individual as an employee, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.
*
(f) No Preferential Treatment or Quotas- Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to require or permit--

(1) any covered entity to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area; or
*
(2) the adoption or implementation by a covered entity of a quota on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

*

Once again, the "Godly Christian" set views itself as exempt from the Commandment against lying and bearing false witness. It's par for the course.

Christianists: Gay Non-Discrimination Bill Will Stifle Free Speech

Colorado Rep. Jared Polis, with 60 co-sponsors, has introduced the Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA), or H.R. 4530, which would put lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students on "equal footing" with their peers, much as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did for minorities and Title IX did for women. Not surprisingly, the Christianist wingnuts are overwhelmed in hysteria and near convulsions at the thought that their ability to brutalize LGBT youth might be subjected to limits. As I have noted numerous times before, the Christianists believe free speech and freedom of religion are a one way street: they protect the Christianists right to do whatever they want and abuse whoever they want, but God forbid that other citizens have comparable rights. It's ALWAYS all about the Christianists and their desire to disparage and marginalize others. Here are highlights from Fox News' coverage of the far right rant:
*
"That's a violation of those kids who want to express opposition to LGBT opinions or behavior. People have a legitimate reason to be concerned about this -- not because they're 'haters' but because you're now trying to balance different rights."
*
Other critics, meanwhile, say the bill will be used to push what they say is a homosexual agenda in public schools. "It seems pretty consistent with Kevin Jennings being appointed in the Obama administration," said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit public interest law firm, referring to the controversial founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network who now serves as the assistant deputy secretary for the Department of Education's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
*
"When [Jennings] founded GLSEN, his idea of a safe school was one that pushed a radical homosexual agenda by even encouraging first and second-graders to engage in homosexual activity," Staver said. "So I think that's the impetus behind this bill. We have an administration that wants to push a radical social agenda."
*
H.R. 4530 is closely modeled after Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bans discrimination on the basis of sex. It contains the threat of loss of federal funding for non-compliant schools and says that no state may be immune under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution from suit in federal court for violating the Act.
*
Staver, of the Liberty Council, said the legislation is intolerant of any "opposing or traditional" views and called on Congress to be more focused on the country's economic woes, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the threat of terrorism.
*
Staver and Liberty University/Liberty Counsel are an embarrassment to Virginia. I truly wish that more members of the judiciary would grow some balls and call anti-gay discrimination for what it is: religious based discrimination which is ALREADY illegal if the Courts would simply call a spade a spade.

Obama Administration Tells LGBT Employees:F*ck You

In yet another dismaying move, the Obama administration is defying a federal court order that same sex partnership benefits be afforded to a lesbian employee of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court in California. The Advocate has some of the details on the outrageous move by the administration and Lambda Legal has issued a strong condemnation of Obama's further sell out of the LGBT community. And it's not just the LGBT community that is increasingly disgusted with Obama's failure to deliver on any campaign promises. He is proving to be a spineless wimp who caves in over and over again to Wall Street, the health insurance lobby and the pharmaceutical industry. Average Americans are being sold out over and over. First, here are some highlights from the Advocate:

*
The Office of Personnel Management has concluded that it does not have the legal authority to provide benefits to the spouse of Karen Golinski, a staff attorney who works at the U.S. court of appeals for the ninth circuit in San Francisco.
*
Because she is a federal employee, Golinski’s benefits are overseen by the Office of Personnel Management, which effectively serves as the human resources department for about 1.9 million federal workers nationwide. Golinski’s insurer, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, declined to provide health benefits for her legal spouse, Amy Cunninghis, but ninth circuit chief judge Alex Kozinski said that violated the court's guarantee of equal employment opportunity and that same-sex spouses were entitled to benefits under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.
*
The OPM official said the decision was not taken lightly within the agency, which is headed by John Berry, the highest-ranking LGBT official in the Obama administration. The official added that the predicament underscored the importance of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.
*
In short, Obama's minions are offering up mealy mouthed, disingenuous excuses. Lambda Legal is not impressed and has some strong words for the weazel sell out and neither am I. Obama is doing exactly what Creig Deeds did in his disastrous campaign - ignoring his base and acting like a Republican. Here are highlights:
*
“The Obama Administration is rejecting yet another chance to do the right and legally required thing” . . . “We are once again surprised and shocked that the Obama Administration is rejecting yet another chance to do the right and legally required thing, disregarding both the order, and the substantive analysis, of the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit about what federal law and the Ninth Circuit's employment rules require in this case.
*
Judge Kozinski, a Reagan appointee, is widely regarded as among the brightest judges on the federal bench, an expert in issues of judicial independence, and notable for his common sense approach.
*
Lambda Legal believes Judge Kozinski is clearly correct that employees of the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Department of Justice do not have superior authority to interpret federal law than federal judges. Lambda Legal also finds it troubling and very disappointing that the Obama Administration has chosen to express its views of these legal questions through Friday-afternoon press statements stating that it will not comply with Judge Kozinski's direct orders, rather than by presenting its legal reasoning to Judge Kozinski in this proceeding so that we can respond on Ms. Golinski's behalf in the duly-established administrative forum in which Ms. Golinski is required to present her discrimination claim.
*
Today, again, these Executive Branch officials are refusing to respect both Judge Kozinski's duly-issued order and his clear, compelling legal analysis. This is not the approach to issues of LGBT equality we had anticipated and deserve from the Obama Administration.

ENDA - A Pragmatic Approach is Needed

John Aravosis over at America Blog (http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/if-wishes-were-horses-beggars-would.html) pretty much sums up my view on ENDA and the need to get it passed in some form as opposed to losing the whole ball of wax:

"And, once we succeed in getting the T added back to ENDA, what's the plan for convincing the Republicans and conservative Dems to endorse transexual rights, to vote for a trans inclusive ENDA? I haven't noticed a massive pro-trans ad campaign, TV campaign, op ed strategy, or anything else over the years.

We debate gay issues all the time publicly, and it's still taken us 30 years to get to the point where we have a shot at passing ENDA for the gays. And now we're expected to easily pass it with gender identity added on (ENDA has been around for 30 years, while gender identity got added to it for the first time this year) when there's been no real education of the American people or the Congress whatsoever (and yes, I know the transgender organizations have been lobbying congress since the early 90s, at least, but that is not the same as a national education campaign such as we've had on gay issues - and even then, we still have an awful time when gay issues come up for a vote, especially when the congress turns Republican (and there's no guarantee it won't again sometime soon)). It's just my gut, and I hope I'm wrong, but I fear that anyone who thinks the US Congress is going to pass a "transexual civil rights in the workplace bill" any time soon is deluded. I'd love to see it passed, I support its passage, but wishing (aka "insisting") doesn't make it so.

So insist away that the Dem leadership put the T back in to ENDA, but please don't call it a victory when ENDA goes down in flames as a result of your actions, and 25 million gays and lesbians are told to wait a few more decades for their civil rights (assuming they live that long, don't lose their jobs in the meantime, etc.). If losing is your definition of victory, then we can all pack our bags and go home, because we can achieve that victory - have been achieving that victory for decades - without lifting a finger or donating a dime to a knowier-than-thou gay group.

I have transgender clients and my heart goes out to them for what they have to endure. But, the passage of any form of ENDA is a win for gays in Virginia who currently have NO protections against employment discrimination whatsoever. Part of politics is doing the possible, not holding out for the impossible.

ENDA hits snag over transgender inclusion

Regardless of whether or not Chimperator Bush vetoes the Matthew Shepard Act, it is absolutely critical that ENDA be passed. I get call routinely form employees who are harassed or fired due to their sexual orientation and must regretfully tell them that in Virginia (and the majority of the states) there is NO legal protection or recourse. ENDA is the best chance for a correction of this terrible reality. I have no desire to throw transgendered individuals under the bus, but passing a watered down version of ENDA is better than nothing. Also, even if transgendered are not specifically protected, the mere existence of ENDA would likely have some deterrent effect. Here are highlights from the Washington Blade (http://washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=14507):

House Democratic leaders are strongly considering dropping anti-discrimination protections for transgender persons from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, after an internal Democratic head count on Wednesday found that the bill would likely be defeated if it included the trans provision, multiple sources familiar with the bill said.

The current version of the bill calls for banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, terms that are defined in the measure to include gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender persons. As of late Wednesday, it appeared likely that the trans provision would be removed, setting up a potentially divisive fight within gay activist circles over whether or not to support an ENDA bill that excludes trans people.

“There has been an unraveling of the bill in the last week,” said a lobbyist familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “We’re hearing that Speaker Pelosi is very worried about how the gender identity issue will play on the floor,” the lobbyist said. The lobbyist and other sources said Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), among other Democratic leaders, expressed concern that the defecting Democrats would help Republicans garner enough votes to pass a motion either deleting the transgender language from the bill or recommitting the bill to committee, which effectively would kill the entire bill.

“The speaker is committed to passing the strongest possible ENDA bill,” said Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s press secretary. A decision to drop the transgender language from the bill is likely to cause a split in the coalition of civil rights groups that have lobbied for ENDA for more than a decade.

Half a pie is better than no pie whatsoever. I hope the gay rights groups do not go at each other's throats and play into the hands of those in the GOP who want to kill ENDA in its entirety.

National Day of Silence

In the wake of the National Day of Silence, I have been thinking about today’s LGBT youth and how optimistic it makes me feel that so many individuals will have the courage to be who they truly are at such an earlier age than I did, and that they will have the opportunity to be open about who they love. As you will eventually figure out, I am a romantic at heart.

Along these lines, my boyfriend/partner went out of town yesterday evening and this morning I was truly missing him as I lay in bed alone (He’s in the picture at left with our crazed cat, Bella). One of my favorite things in the morning is to lie cuddled and spooned with him in the morning, just enjoying and savoring the feel of his skin and the warmth of his body against mine, as I feel like I want to utterly melt into him and become one with him. I could do this for hours and I think in some ways, this is most sensual and erotic thing a couple can do and experience together.

Sadly, it’s something I never felt with intensity when I was married, demonstrating, I guess, that no matter how very, very hard one tries to deny their true sexual orientation, emotionally a part of it can never be fully subdued or repressed. Hence, I can only speculate on the lack of full connectedness that the professional “ex-gays” must feel in their “forced” marriages, be it due to religious fervor, the desire to conform to family expectations, or, as I believe is the case with some, for a job and steady income paid by “Christian” Right organizations (i.e., ex-gay for pay).

I do believe a big part of what will change society’s view of LGBT people is for each of us to be open about ourselves and challenge the “Christian” Right lies that sexual orientation is a “choice” and/or just about sexual acts. The simple fact is that our brains are wired to have romantic love others of the same gender, plain and simple. I recently began attending a men’s group run by a psychologist friend that serves as a support group of sorts for men in mid-life who have undergone dramatic and emotional events in their lives – in my case coming out after 24 years of marriage and coming out professionally in the local legal community. The group has been interesting so far and, even though I am the only gay in the group, it’s been informative. Despite all our differences and varied pasts, we somehow connect and can identify with the past struggles and work at changing past behavior patterns that each of us is going through.

In fact, when I described my closeted teen age years, college experiences, and married past, and then my first sexual experience with another guy (brought on by alcohol and stress overload, and definitely not planned), one of the other guys made an amazing remark. He quickly spoke up and said how for the first time it all must have felt real to me because I was no longer playing a role. I admitted that it indeed had felt that way and left me to struggle for two years trying to decide what to do. Despite how much I cared for my wife when we were together, there was a connectedness and completeness that just wasn’t there (through no fault of my wife) compared to that one unplanned encounter during which I thought to myself “this is what I’ve always needed.” It was remarkable that a straight guy readily understood the emotion.

As the votes on the federal hate crimes legislation and EDNA approach, I hope all gays will be open to friends, family, and co-workers and urge them to contact their legislators in Congress (and the Whitehouse, since I fear “Dear Leader” to quote Pam Spaulding, may consider vetoing the bills if they pass Congress).