…and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
Last Friday I briefly addressed the ENDA bill in this post, stating:
My opinion? Passing the hate crimes bill and ENDA will be long-overdue steps in the right direction. If the transgender issue will sink ENDA, take it out. We can address that another time.
Well, I made a snap judgment based on what turned out to be incomplete information on a much more complex issue than I had realized. In other words, I should have kept my mouth shut.
There has been a lot of cyber-shouting on all sides of this issue, especially at Pam’s House Blend and AMERICAblog. Discussion is productive; screaming and shouting really isn’t. I am truly fortunate in that I have an old friend who is a full-time lobbyist and activist for gay rights and that she took the time to discuss (not scream about) this issue with me by email and IM.
When I originally commented and posted on ENDA, I had no reason to doubt the proffered head-count of Representatives planning to vote for/against H.R. 2015, the fully-inclusive ENDA bill. Apparently, that head-count was not accurate.
When I originally commented and posted on ENDA, I was not aware that gender identity expression was not included in Rep. Frank’s and Speaker Pelosi’s “new, improved” ENDA bill, (H.R. 3685) and that meant that those of us who are perceived not to fit “appropriate” gender stereotypes (most of us) could be discriminated against on that basis. In other words, “I’m firing you because you’re gay” would be illegal but “I’m firing you because you look like you might be gay” would be perfectly legal.
When I originally commented and posted on ENDA, I was not aware that many localities have already passed legislation that is *fully* inclusive and that much of the needed education has already been done. We are progressing faster than I had realized.
In this year alone, states as diverse as Iowa, Colorado and Oregon have passed non-discrimination legislation that includes protections for transgender people. In fact, since 2003, every state that has passed non-discrimination legislation has included protections for transgender people.
According to my friend Marla, this may be the most accessibly written piece on the “GI-inclusion is necessary to protect the average gay person” angle:
The Bilerico Project | Don’t Forget…Gender Identity and Gender Expression Protect Us All
I see the points made by the critics of the “new, improved” ENDA bill but also see that the critics of the critics raise some valid questions. I don’t have all of the answers but a lot of good questions are being asked. I just wish the discussion had happened much earlier.
8 Responses to “…and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.”
Another solution is to define it as “not wrong.”
(a new topic for you editors to start on this site)
I oppose discrimination based upon sexual orientation and support the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, intersexed, and transgendered people to live the lives that they want to live rather than be restricting to living the lives that the rest of society dictates they must conform to.
But I think adding anothing hate crimes bill is taking us in the wrong direction. The problem with our society is a lack of tolerance–tolerance for other people’s beliefs and tolerance for other people’s lifestyles. Legislation cannot rectify this. People cannot be forced to tolerate other people’s beliefs and liefstyles–they can only be persuaded through honest discourse.
The idea that all we have to do to solve a problem is to simply pass a law…the world just doesn’t work that way.
Dear Nick,
Please explain how expanding hate crimes legislation to cover queer folks is “taking us in the wrong direction,” given your supposed support for gay rights.
See, by expanding hate crime penalties to cover queer-bashing, we send the message to all the hunchbrained bigots who think it’s OK to attack someone for their sexual orientation that it’s not. By trying and hopefully helping prevent violence, we help create a more tolerant society – remember, tolerance isn’t people agreeing, it’s people agreeing to disagree, which necessarily entails not attacking each other.
Honestly, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Please clarify your statements, or rescind them.
Sincerely,
beaverton_jewboy
See, by expanding hate crime penalties to cover queer-bashing, we send the message to all the hunchbrained bigots who think it’s OK to attack someone for their sexual orientation that it’s not.
I have a problem with this because I do not think we are sending a message at all. Bigoted hateful people who bash queers (using your word……not mine) do so with the full knowledge that doing so is against the law as much as is bashing a straight person.
Nick welcome to my world. You cannot explain your position that does not enjoin a backlash of “Your an idiot and please retract that statement” when it comes to certain positions.
I am not anti gay……I am anti gay legislation because I do not believe that our government should be in the business of legislating morality. Period. Therefore I am equally opposed to legislating in favor of Christianity as I am in legislating in favor of Gays.
Because these are moral issues and not legal issues. Laws should address legality not morality. Mostly.
To me despite being a social conservative I believe that our constitution would guarantee gays the right to marry. However we are calling upon our government to referee social issues and this is not the purpose of our government.
The rights of gays to marry or face discrimination because of their sexual orientation is not in the constitution unless Im mistaken. Male or female is but not orientation. Therefore this must be a states right issue and not a national government issue.
That is all Nick is saying…….I think…….and I agree.
First of all, thanks Holly — a great piece, and having discussions on this issue with those who better understand the history and consequences has also solidified (or at least shifted) my opinions on this issue.
As for some of these comments…I think there’s a bit of muddling between the hate crimes legislation and the ENDA, which is the subject of this post. While I disagree with your argument, Nick, you are of course correct in saying that it’s already illegal for a person to beat up or kill another person, regardless of the reason (which I guess is the reasoning as to why you think we don’t need to include orientation in the hate crimes bill). However, it IS legal, at least from the federal point of view, to fire someone from their job for being gay, even if there is no other reason for firing that person. Correcting that is the point of the ENDA. As Holly points out, even if the person is not gay, if they display behaviors or dress that indicate non-traditional gender identity, that person may be fired for no other reason, and that is one of the reasons it’s a bad idea to cut gender identity out of the ENDA.
Nick/Somebody-
Once again, I’m trying to be polite. I don’t think that calling people on obvious logical oopsies is rude. If you don’t want your ideas challenged don’t post them.
Your argument that laws and morals are two different things is very wrong. We legislate against rape. We legislate against murder. And we legislate against assault. Because they are wrong. But the fact is that many people don’t think it’s really wrong to assault a black person, or a Muslim, or a homosexual. They come from a place where difference is scorned, and those laws aren’t considered “real” to them.
Obviously, more laws aren’t going to change that, but there is value in repetition.
The fact is that there is a silent epidemic of anti-gay violence in this country. People in this country hate gays. Because they don’t think gays deserve rights, they don’t think the law applies. So they harrass, assault and even kill them.
And, like you, they don’t understand them. Apperantly you think expanding hate crimes legislation is anti-Christian. This shows how warped your thinking is about sexual orientation, that protecting people harms your religion. It shows that you don’t like gays. Am I wrong? It seems to me that your odd arguments are just bluffs to hide your desire to keep society anti-gay. Am I wrong?
Acknowledge that anti-gay violence is a problem. It’s a silent plauge that’s scarring generations of good, innocent people: even though gays “pass,” and are around 7% of the population, in 2004 blacks were only twice as likely as gays to be victims of bias crimes, according to the FBI. Think of how strong anti-gay hatred is in this country that those few gays who are identifiable rack up that many assaults! If you don’t think it’s a problem, you probably don’t consider gay people to have human rights.
Next, think about what we can do to stop this problem. If you hadn’t noticed, we take motive into account for crimes already. That’s what differentiates murder and manslaughter: the intent. Intent matters. All these folks who argue against hate crime legislation, then, are either oblivious to some basic facts about how laws work, or they’re just saying the things that need to be said to justify abandoning the fight against hate crimes.
Which are you?
-bjb
PS: This is obviously a beginning. The long fight to make a humane society demands that I call you on what I percieve to be your anti-homosexual bias, so that you can begin to change. Don’t think that just because I support government action, I’m not willing to do the heavy lifting over the long haul, myself, by engaging people. I hope you’re willing to make the effort, too.
I find the ‘legislating morality’ argurment complicated.
Of course, morality can’t be legislated.
We can’t make hate illegal; we can only make illegal certain behaviors that are caused by hate.
We can’t make bigotry illegal; we can only make illegal refusing to sell a house or refusing to hire based on bigotry .
When it comes to assault, it’s my understanding that penalties are stiffer if it’s a hate crime, so that’s probably the rationale for wanting to include all variations of sexuality.
On principle, I’m fine with legislating on that basis.
My only question about specific applications of such laws would be whether or not they work.
When it comes to discrimination in housing or employment, it looks like these laws do really work.
On the other hand, our drug laws, which were also enacted to make certain behviors illegal, have been a disastererous failure.
It’s hard to find one principle to fit both situations.
Perhaps the ‘does it work’ rule has to be used on a case by case basis?
There’s a third wrinkle. I’m strongly pro-choice. and I want the government to stay out of my private life. If those who think of an embryo as a person from the moment of conception (which to me is a cult-like obsessive way of thinking), gain the upper hand, they will want to legislate the behavior of pregnant women. It’s hard to find a principle that will suit both opposing legislating behavior in this case, and supporiting the hate crimes bill at the same time.
I’m reduced to not looking for overriding principles, but just taking these situations case by case,. That’s not wholy satisfactory, but maybe life is too messy to always be ideologically pure..
beaverton wrote.
The fact is that there is a silent epidemic of anti-gay violence in this country. People in this country hate gays. Because they don’t think gays deserve rights, they don’t think the law applies. So they harrass, assault and even kill them.
I will not, cannot and am not allowed to disagree with this. You are right. Yet these very same people understand that it is against the law to murder and assault any person………gay or not.
Again you are with this law trying to legislate their morality. Their morals by your standards are wrong and therefore should have a special law singling them out when their is already laws covering this activity.
Do you seriously think that making it a crime to murder a gay will stop those inclined to murdering gays Not do it? This is really the argument. Those that would murder KNOW its against the law to do so no matter what the race, creed, color or sexual orientation.
I have said that I am not opposed to hate crime per se but that it belongs with the states so that states can oversee it and protect its citizens. Not the national government which has its hands full.
We continue to put upon our national government more and more burdens which it cannot, willnot and is incapable of handling. It is time for the states to be involved in governing its own citizens.
Thus as the ops original post states:
In this year alone, states as diverse as Iowa, Colorado and Oregon have passed non-discrimination legislation that includes protections for transgender people.
and I responded with:
Therefore this must be a states right issue and not a national government issue.
That is all Nick is saying…….I think…….and I agree.
You wrote: Which are you?
I answered that. I am a states right advocate.