Gay Couples May Soon Have to Choose Between Getting Married and Not Getting Fired

[DonViejo]

By Mark Joseph Stern

The U.S. Constitution protects gay people’s right to marry the person they love. It does not, however, protect them from getting fired for doing so. Throughout the first decade of marriage equality, most states that legalized gay marriage also proscribed anti-gay employment discrimination, rendering this legal dissonance moot. But as more and more states find marriage equality foisted upon them by a judicial mandate, this discordance in rights presents something of a ticking time bomb for the LGBT movement.

Currently, Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation with both gay marriage (thanks to a federal judge) and no employment protections for gay people. But as this dizzyingly polychromatic Guardian chart illustrates, several other states also boast same-sex marriage while lacking hospital visitation, adoption rights, or housing protections for sexual minorities. In New Mexico, a man can marry his male partner—but can be forbidden from visiting him in the hospital. In New York and New Hampshire, trans people can be evicted from their houses and fired from their jobs for being trans. In Hawaii, a gay student can legally be kicked out of school based solely on his orientation.

And when the Supreme Court almost inevitably legalizes marriage equality nationwide, the chasm between gay marriage and broader LGBT equality is going to expand rapidly in dozens of red states. Marriage equality was supposed to be an umbrella issue, pulling purportedly lesser gay rights into its sweep. To some extent, this strategy has succeeded: Most Americans now profess a generalized support for gay equality. But in direly reactionary states, it may take decades to convert this support into legislative action—even after the judiciary renders gay marriage a settled issue.

There are some stopgap solutions here. President Barack Obama has ordered most hospitals to provide visitation rights to gay couples, extended LGBT protections to federal employees and federal contractors, and forbidden gay and trans discrimination by HUD-assisted housing programs. But administrative regulations and executive orders can’t extend as far as a federal measure would, and a Republican president could swiftly reverse them on his first day in office. An ENDA-type federal law could permanently outlaw this kind of discrimination everywhere, but the Republican-controlled House refuses to pass one, and LGBT job discrimination remains legal (and common) in 29 states.

more
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/07/03/gay_couples_may_soon_have_marriage_rights_but_still_face_discrimination.html?

[OKNancy]

1. sickening

[shenmue]

2. So sad

I hope this changes, and soon.

[theHandpuppet]

3. The USCCB is fighting ENDA tooth and nail

On the grounds that it violates their "religious freedom".

http://www.usccb.org/news/2013/13-194.cfm
http://www.usccb.org/news/2013/13-200.cfm

[RKP5637]

4. So many in this nation LOVE hatred, persecution and dumping on people for

absolutely no reason than pure hatred. In a country that professes equality and freedom, it is always so ironic that civil rights and equality are constant battles for all types of people. It is a constant WTF.

[csziggy]

5. "Separate but equal" should be illegal

If a couple is married, no matter what the genders of the two people are, they should have ALL the rights conveyed by marriage. THAT was the argument against "civil unions" - they did not convey the rights of marriage.

This is insane, to continue this discrimination in the face of legalizing same sex marriage. Unless "marriage" has been re-defined to specifically exclude same sex couples from the same rights as heterosexual couples, every right traditionally conveyed by a legal marriage HAS to be given to EVERY married couple.

[wandy]

6. Today its about birth control stuff..............

Tomorrow it will be about Gays.
Sooner or later it will be about green eyes. Or at least some genetic trait that has to do with coloration.

Oh what a tangled web we weave...............

[davidpdx]

7. The person is right about all the EO's being undone if a Republican is elected

I don't see the whole thing getting better until we have a solid majority in both the House and Senate. I disagree with the author that it is inevitable that SCOTUS will legalize gay marriage. We really don't know what they will do, which is why we need to replace Scalia or Thomas soon (both if possible).

[etherealtruth]

8. Revolting

[NutmegYankee]

9. Extremely revolting!

I myself am a bit extreme on this issue. I think a married gay partner always has a right to visit their spouse, and if a hospital refuses they should just ignore them and push past. If someone like a guard comes to use force to oppress them, I think the spouse should be able to use whatever force they deem necessary to stop the oppressor.

I'm over the "religious" argument. The bigots can believe whatever the hell they want. But once they use those beliefs to oppress someone from engaging in a fundamental human right, they deserve whatever happens to them.