Why is Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) a bigger issue then the Employment Non-Discrimination Act?

[BrentWil]

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a proposed bill in the United States Congress that would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity for civilian nonreligious employers with over 15 employees. This would help allot more people then changing the DADT policy.

My basic question is, why are we not pushing this harder?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Touchdown]

7. As a gay man and a union brother, I can assure you...

I doubt he really cares about either.

[Chulanowa]

2. Because that's "real"

We liberals have a bad habit of style over substance. Big broad issues often take a backseat to whatever "looks good" - in this case, a bill that would affect every GLBT man and woman in the country takes a backseat to a law that affects a small but highly visible portion of that community.

It could also have something to do with jingoism. It's easier to sell "We need to end DADT because we can't fight terrorists if you fire all the arabic translaters who happen to also be gay!" than it is to sell "All gay people have the right to fair employment"

Especially when you consider how toxic labor issues are in American politics these days.

[Uzybone]

12. ding ding ding

[The Philosopher]

3. Well

I have a theory that the least amount an action helps a group of people, the better it is politically. It gives that person a right to say, "I've done something to help them, when the previous administration hasn't." But it has such little impact so that it doesn't unshackle the group so they can reach full equality.

[bobbolink]

4. Why aren't gay homeless youth a priority?

What they suffer on the street is horrific.

:cry:

[zipplewrath]

5. DADT impacts more folks

Without looking up the numbers, I'd bet DADT affects more people, either directly or indirectly. I would bet that the general priorities are probably DADT, DOMA, and ENDA in that order. Sadly, although DOMA probably affects more people, DADT is the more achievable goal. Besides, DOMA won't probably change much immediately. But it is important.

[BrentWil]

8. No it wouldn't

There are small number of people in uniform. The law would force all business that employee over 15 people to not discriminate. That would be huge.

[Deep13]

9. Not even close.

In most of this country anyone can be fire or not hired or not promoted or denied housing because he or she is gay.

That means gay people in those places can't even come out of the closet.

[zipplewrath]

17. I'm just not aware that is all that much going on

I mean, I know it goes on, I'm just wondering about the magnitude, as compared to the thousands getting expelled every year. I know a fair number of gay people, none of them speak of losing jobs.

[Chulanowa]

24. I hate to be "that guy," but...

Gay marriage is worthless without the employment security to back it up. I'm all for equal rights in marriage, don't mistake me, and I'm not saying it's not worth fighting for. But at this point? It'd just be frosting with no cake. It's a "gesture" issue, something fashionable and feel-good. Something that a lot of people are willing to stand behind because it's cost-free and makes them look good. Meat and potatoes stuff like ENDA, though? That's where the real measure of equality will be seen. And the sad fact is, it's not even on the radar. Much like the Equal Rights Amendment, another must-have in our polity.

[zipplewrath]

25. Not so sure the numbers will back that up

The reasons that the marriage issue is so important is purely economic. Issues of inheritance, child custody, and health care get all wrapped up in that issue. That potentially affects every single gay couple out there. ENDA, and I don't want to minimize it, will only impact those that are in danger of losing their jobs. Every gay person I know has a job, and is out. (Of course, I obviously don't know people who AREN'T out so....)Although ENDA would make the FEEL better, and I guess might make them feel (and be) more "mobile", I suspect it wouldn't actually change that many situations.

Now, you can make the case that there aren't that many gay couples that will actually get married. That may be true, in the beginning anyway. But once it becomes a real possibility, I suspect you may see folks choosing it for the same reasons many straight couples do, the legal benefits are just too hard to turn down. And I suspect this will become more true as the next generation grows up being able to expect it as a real option.

I think in some ways the original question involves splitting alot of hairs. All three of these issues are "important". Priorities are being set right now based alot upon perceived political/judicial opportunities. Strangely, there seems to be the least popular resistance on DADT right now, and so there is alot of focus on that issue. The day after DADT is overturned, I suspect ENDA will become the next "battle cry".

[Chulanowa]

26. I'm not saying ending DOMA isn't important

Like I said, it's worth fighting for.

However... if your boss is still legally able to throw you out on your ass because you just got married?

My opinion is just my opinion, of course. But it's that if one has to come before the other, ENDA should come first, if for no other reason than it provides rights for a broader category and provides a protective framework for marriages.

[zipplewrath]

29. I understand your point

And quite honestly, I think it is a minor issue about which one gets passed first. Either way, they both have to get passed. I'm just not aware that the numbers are comparable.

[BrentWil]

35. Well, it is a timeline thing...

THe order may determine if they all happen in 2 to 5 years or if they all happen in 20.

[treestar]

6. Because that would be a positive step

And we are negative around here.

Apparently service in the military is the only way gay rights need be addressed. And if the Democrats do one step wrong in the process, they are anti-gay.

[Sweet Charming Dem]

13. Hyperbole, thy name is treestar.

[Prism]

28. So you're saying working to get rid of DADT is a negative thing for you

Nice to have that one down in black and white. Nothing unsuspected, but sometimes the unguarded, unvarnished true feeling is a nice change.

[treestar]

32. Of course I did not say that

What a twisting. Admirable.

The negativity around here explains why we never hear of this proposed act, which admittedly would affect more people.

And nobody is getting any positive credit for writing or introducing this bill. Why? Because it is a positive, and it's so much more fun to dwell on a DADT court case and claim the POTUS does not support what he supports, due to failing to understand - willfully - the way the DOJ and courts have operated for decades if not centuries.

[boston bean]

10. I have the same question about the ERA.

I think it would be the best option. No courts, no states rights, no congressional partisan reversals.

[Deep13]

11. Frankly, because it is a relatively easy sell.

A person is willing to get his head blown off for his country, but can't because he's gay. That's a pretty tought case to make. Right now, a majority of Republicans think DADT needs to end. It's only the religious right standing in the way.

[dsc]

14. I think the theory is that it will be easier to pass ENDA if the government itself

isn't discriminating in the same way.

[BrentWil]

15. Yeah, but that bill seems to have less resistance..

I am just saying. Seems an easier bill to pass.

[dsc]

16. I tend to agree with you

I think ENDA should have been tried first especially once DADT ran into trouble.

[Jamastiene]

18. It isn't.

DADT is just in the news more right now because of the latest ruling. ENDA is important, but as of right now, just trying to earn the right to die and/or get maimed for this country is an uphill battle all by itself.

I'm not sure you realize how much opposition there really is to ENDA, btw.

[BrentWil]

19. Could you expand on the opposition to it? Is it more then DADT? NT

[Unvanguard]

37. Probably.

ENDA would probably pass a floor vote in the House, but might fail a motion to recommit to get rid of the transgender protections. It definitely would have serious difficulties getting past the filibuster line in the Senate. That is why it has not been brought to a vote (not that these obstacles excuse the failure of the Democratic leadership to put much effort into getting past them.)

[TexasObserver]

20. Strange way in which to pose a question.

Do you find it unusual when a poster writes a thread in such a way to create a wedge issue where there is none?

You seem intent on making support for two important concepts vie for approval.

My basic question is, why are you posing the question in the manner you are?

[BrentWil]

22. I support both..

Just didn't understand the focus on DADT. It is a strategy question, not a question about support.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Who is we?

It is an ongoing process. The one with costumes and locations gets the most press, it is also the oldest and the one which involves the government discriminating, which kind of sort of needs to stop before they ask others to do so. Also, again, who is this we? The question is why are you not working harder on ENDA?

[BrentWil]

23. Just wrote my congressmen

And we are people who support civil rights for gay people... I thought.

[Prism]

27. President Obama, more or less.

It's simply in the news more of late because of the high profile actions of military protesters and the administration's defense of court rulings. It's also a more controversial matter as far as process goes.

President Obama made specific promises and used hyperbolic language to describe his advocacy of gay issues. For him to then enter office, refuse to really lobby for DADT repeal, force bogus compromises, institute delays, defend the statute in court, have it resurrected after it was struck down, and refuse to halt discharges is a high profile betrayal by an individual - the President. That tends to focus ire, because in this case one man really can make a world of difference. He simply chooses not to.

DADT is also mutli-pronged in that we have a variety of solutions - all of which Democrats are failing at. The President is on the wrong side of the judicial and executive solutions, and the Senate is failing legislatively. When you have many possible ends to DADT, and all of them are currently getting hosed by the people who promised us otherwise, there's going to be a lot of bad feeling.

ENDA is a betrayal and the LGBT community is appalled. For the Democrats to have had the majority they did the past two years and still fail to enact this legislation is a stunning let down. Oh, President Obama doesn't seem to care either (when does he ever, really), but ENDA is one of those things where I think the LGBT community doesn't get it. I mean that in a confused sense. We're sitting here watching Congress and the President completely stymied (and a little shell-shocked, I think) that they issue has never made it to a vote. There isn't even major opposition to ENDA, they're simply . . . not doing it.

I think DADT is more of an active betrayal - The President is deliberately and actively working against us - whereas ENDA is a kind of passive one. It's off in limbo, untouched, unaddressed, unmentioned by the politicians.

Neglect just doesn't engender the same feelings as a punch in the face. Right now, on DADT, this administration is repeatedly punching us in the face.

You're going to get a different reaction from people on account.

[frustrated_lefty]

30. It's war-time.

The sheer idiocy of DADT is accentuated due to our current involvement in two wars. We're tossing competent, skilled volunteer soldiers out of the military while simultaneously using stop gap procedures and sending others on back to back (to back) tours. We're rejecting soldiers with unique skills, like fluency in Arabic, when there is a desperate need for those skills in the military. Issues like this start to drive home to the average person the practical consequences of bigotry.

There's also the fact that social movement tends to organize around individual representatives of a cause. Wittingly or not, I think Lt. Dan Choi has fallen into this role. Would this have happened if we weren't in the middle of two wars? Probably not.

It isn't a choice, btw. It's not like people have to choose between DADT or ENDA as the only policy issue they're allowed to address. People can do both, and the world won't blow up. Promise.

[Renew Deal]

31. DADT is a discriminatory law.

It's a wrong that must be righted.

[BrentWil]

33. I agree

It isn't that I don't think it should be repealed is that I was questioning the strategy of not going for this first.

[donco6]

34. Is something happening with it that I don't know about?

Last I heard it was dead as a doornail.

[Unvanguard]

36. The ordering is a matter of what is politically achievable.

ENDA was supposed to have come first, but it's had problems (motion to recommit in House, lack of sixty votes in the Senate), and more progress has occurred on DADT, which is essentially a successful Senate vote away from repeal.

As for level of effect, ENDA in theory would have more effect on people's lives, but I don't know if that would be true in practice. Anti-discrimination laws, while valuable things, are not that effective because of the high burden of proof they require.