ENDA | News

Senate Advances Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in 61-30 Cloture Vote

Cloture_enda

The Senate has approved the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, invoking cloture in a 61-30 vote. The final debate and vote will likely come later this week.

On the Republican side, Senators Ayotte, Collins, Hatch, Heller, Kirk, Portman, and Toomey voted in the affirmative.

The fight in the House of Representatives will be tough. More on that HERE.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney released the following statement after the Senate vote:

The President welcomes the Senate’s bipartisan first step towards final passage of S. 815, the Employment Non‑Discrimination Act of 2013.  He has long supported an inclusive ENDA, which would establish lasting and comprehensive Federal protections against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  He thanks the lawmakers from both sides of the aisle who have stood up for America’s core values of fairness and equality, and looks forward to the Senate’s consideration of ENDA.  He also encourages lawmakers to ensure that the legislation remains true to its goals as it is considered.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. It's a nice symbolic victory, but it won't even get a vote in the House. The time when this could have passed and been signed into law was in 2009-10. The reason that it didn't pass at that time is because our "leaders" give top priority to heterosexual crossdressers and transsexual bathroom issues. Those are more important than gay civil rights, and they actively oppose a law that simply protects all workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation for the sole reason that such a law would not cover crossdressing and transsexualism. They were told that ENDA could pass, but not if it included open-ended "gender identity" provisions.

    The deranged ideology of LGBT, which says that gays must subordinate all their goals to demands of crossdressers and transsexuals is the reason that ENDA didn't pass then and won't pass for years to come.

    Posted by: Tom | Nov 4, 2013 6:59:55 PM


  2. Tom, constantly changing his user name to post anti-trans ignorance and stupidity. How proud you must be of your bigotry.

    Ayotte/Portman have an amendment they will be proposing hence that is the reason they voted to advance ENDA to a debate/full vote. Toomey has a separate amendment he is proposing. So all three voted to advance ENDA with the promise of amendments being added with, apparently, the idea of stiffening the "religious protections" within the bill.

    This is awesome from a symbolic level because there has never been this amount of focus and pressure to pass ENDA before. It's still a dead bill but at least there's attention on ENDA now and we have 8 Republicans (Murkowski wasn't there today) who support banning anti-gay discrimination. That's definite progress. It's just unfortunate it won't go anywhere.

    Posted by: Francis #1 | Nov 4, 2013 7:06:05 PM


  3. With friends like Tom, who needs enemies?

    Posted by: Tyler | Nov 4, 2013 8:15:46 PM


  4. @Francis#1 - Saying that homosexuality is tied to crossdressing and gender identity disorder/dysphoria is bigoted. Opposing that view is not bigoted.

    @Tyler - Who ever said I was your friend? I am gay. The ideology of LGBT is objectively anti-gay, so I am no friend to it or to anyone who adheres to it.

    Posted by: Tom | Nov 4, 2013 8:49:44 PM


  5. Tom is upset that trans people are finding the strength to be Out and Proud, and are increasingly more embraced, while his own parents really regret not having that abortion.

    Ignore him - he's a troll coward with capers for testes.

    KUdos to this move, here's hoping true equal protections for LGBT people make their way to the US of A.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Nov 4, 2013 9:01:34 PM


  6. So Tom, instead of doing the right thing, and insuring protections for everyone, we should just throw the "T" under the bus for our own selfish reasons? That about sums it up for you? Hypocrite... you whine about not being included and protected because of your orientation, but will willingly sacrifice other persons' rights for your own benefit. Pathetic. Human rights are human rights... for everyone. And by the way, I am the G in GLBT, not a T or any other letter.

    Posted by: graphicjack | Nov 4, 2013 9:04:29 PM


  7. Kiwi - I am delighted that trans people are out and proud. They should pursue their rights. And we should support them. That does not mean that they own us or that we are obligated to tie everything we do to them, any more than we should feel so obligated to any other ally. Why would it be so terrible for them to pursue a gender identity bill while we pass ENDA? Is it because you and they know that it would never pass, so you happily sell out gay civil rights to marginally increase their chances? I'd say that makes you something of a traitor to gay people.

    GraphicJack, the original ENDA did provide protections for everyone. Every worker would have been protected against discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation. Trans people would have benefited from that protection. If their gender expression was perceived as a sexual orientation issue and they would have suffered discrimination because of that, they would have had a remedy. And everyone else would have received a remedy for sexual orientation discrimination. But because of folks like you, mindlessly forming your opinions based on an string of letters that some people threw together in the 90s, we accomplished nothing. Nobody benefited. Nobody received any protections. And that's what you prefer. That no one benefit so long as you can uphold some bizarre ideology which says that gay people have an obligation to make their top priority the issues of mostly non-gay people.

    Posted by: Tom | Nov 4, 2013 9:55:07 PM


  8. Please don't simply dismiss Tom as a troll. It suggests you have no stronger response to his arguments. Just saying.

    Posted by: Ken | Nov 4, 2013 10:53:54 PM


  9. Tom raises a good point.

    T people deserve employment protection but not at the expense of LGB people.

    Posted by: MaryM | Nov 5, 2013 4:11:10 AM


  10. @Ken, "Tom" is a troll, one posting the exact same comments as "Matthew" the other day. The only response to him is to note how ignorant he is on gender identity discrimination, this ignorance obvious when he keeps highlighting "heterosexual cross dressers" as the main beneficiaries of an inclusive ENDA. The fact is many gay people are discriminated against on the basis of gender presentation and identity--in the real world, there are considerable overlaps--which the transphobic and internal-homophobes cannot accept. Including gender identity along with sexual orientation is simple common sense, benefitting L G and T people, and it works just fine in states like mine, where the non-ignorant are leading.

    The Senate vote is a good step forward, one that should be used to force House members, particularly Republicans, to take a stand. If Boehner doesn't allow a vote, that is a stand.

    Posted by: Ernie | Nov 5, 2013 4:21:23 AM


  11. Um, not really Ernie. Sexual orientation is one issue. Gender identity and expression is another, maybe even 2 other issues. It isn't common sense to lump them all together in one bill, especially when doing so means that nothing gets passed. Why not just have 2 bills, one dealing with sexual orientation and one with gender identity? Then there can be a vote on each one.

    Posted by: Ciara | Nov 5, 2013 12:43:17 PM


  12. Actually, @Ciara, the basis for discrimination against many gay people is gender oriented, so protections on the basis of gender presentation and identity protects both gay and transgender people. Irrational homophobia and transphobia come from the same ignorant place. Throwing transgender people under the bus isn't going to make Republicans like gay people more, yet the transphobic in the gay community keep believing it.

    Posted by: Ernie | Nov 5, 2013 4:47:31 PM


  13. Thank you, ERNIE, but it's no use trying to reason with these anti-Transgender folks. They remind me of Tea Party people--just unreasonable...and probably ugly.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Nov 5, 2013 4:52:13 PM


  14. Indeed, Derrick. No T allowed in their Tea Party mentality. Cause sexual orientation is totally unrelated to gender, and all gay people are perfectly gender conforming, or they should be, dammit, cause it's so upsetting to think that the gender nonconformity that's been intertwined with sexuality since the dawn of time might actually get legal recognition, gasp!

    Posted by: Ernie | Nov 5, 2013 5:13:45 PM


  15. Trans protections are really making this bill hard to pass. The gender issues should be separate. Plus, after they change their legal gender, they have all equal rights as their new sex and they don't need any new protections. The trans protections in the current bill are just for crossdressers who don't want to change their sex.

    Posted by: litper | Nov 7, 2013 2:48:41 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #1458« «