Get married, get fired?

From Al Jazeera (BTW, I really like their reporting)

[T]he dilemma now facing a growing number of gay couples: They can legally marry, but they may also be fired from their jobs, thrown out of their apartments and denied service at businesses because of their sexual orientation. Many say the increased visibility of same-sex partners, even in small towns in conservative states, will lead to greater acceptance of gays. But particularly in the short to medium term, it could prompt more instances of discrimination.

...

“I didn’t expect marriage equality to happen so quickly — and it’s a good thing. I’m not complaining,” says Ted Martin, executive director of Equality Pennsylvania, an LGBT advocacy group. “But because you don’t have civil rights protections in place, someone even talking about their marriage could be used as grounds to terminate someone.”

Why am I not surprised? Using Hobby Lobby against gays

From the Atlantic,

This week, in the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court ruled that a religious employer could not be required to provide employees with certain types of contraception. That decision is beginning to reverberate: A group of faith leaders is urging the Obama administration to include a religious exemption in a forthcoming LGBT anti-discrimination action. 

Their call, in a letter sent to the White House Tuesday, attempts to capitalize on the Supreme Court case by arguing that it shows the administration must show more deference to the prerogatives of religion. 

"We are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need," the letter states.

Because nothing speaks to the love of God like refusing to hire a homo.

The President on ENDA

From the Huffington Post, an OpEd by POTUS:

Here in the United States, we're united by a fundamental principle: we're all created equal and every single American deserves to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. We believe that no matter who you are, if you work hard and play by the rules, you deserve the chance to follow your dreams and pursue your happiness. That's America's promise. 

That's why, for instance, Americans can't be fired from their jobs just because of the color of their skin or for being Christian or Jewish or a woman or an individual with a disability. 

That kind of discrimination has no place in our nation. And yet, right now, in 2013, in many states a person can be fired simply for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.
As a result, millions of LGBT Americans go to work every day fearing that, without any warning, they could lose their jobs -- not because of anything they've done, but simply because of who they are. 

It's offensive. It's wrong. And it needs to stop, because in the United States of America, who you are and who you love should never be a fireable offense. 

That's why Congress needs to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, also known as ENDA, which would provide strong federal protections against discrimination, making it explicitly illegal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This bill has strong bipartisan support and the support of a vast majority of Americans. It ought to be the law of the land.

Employment discrimination

What if you get married and your boss fires you as a result? What if you can't find a new job because you're LGBT? It happens. It's legal. It's why we need employment nondiscrimination (ENDA).

Freedom to Work sent nearly identical resumés to Exxon Mobil.  Guess what? The gay one didn't get the job. 

Roman Catholic Bishops oppose ENDA because they oppose marriage equality

The US Roman Catholic bishops oppose ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act), writing in a recent letter:

For example, we have seen state Supreme Courts repeatedly rely on state-level ENDAs as a basis for creating a state constitutional right to same-sex “marriage.” We consider it very likely that ENDA, despite referencing DOMA, could be used for similar purposes at the federal level. The highest courts of California, Connecticut, and Iowa have declared that the traditional definition of marriage is “discriminatory” and lacking any “rational basis,” and so violates the constitutions of their respective states. Cases are now being brought in order to create a federal constitutional right to same-sex “marriage”—whether by striking down federal DOMA, or by striking down California’s Proposition 8 in federal court. If ENDA were to pass, we would expect lawyers to invoke it in federal court under the federal constitution, just as they invoked analogous state laws in state constitutional litigation. If this strategy were to succeed, it would represent a legal and moral disaster comparable in many ways to Roe v. Wade. As leaders of the Catholic Church, we have a moral obligation to oppose any law that would clearly contribute to this outcome.

Are you clear on that? It's more of the slippery slope.

Of course, it's not the only reason they oppose ENDA. It's the usual religious institutional argument that they should be able to hire people who support their tenets, even in non-religious functions. As Andrew Sullivan writes,

Legally protecting gays from employment discrimination is now, apparently, illegitimate for Catholics. Why? Because non-procreative sexual acts violate church doctrine, and protecting employees who might engage in such acts in private therefore violates church doctrine. How does anyone know that the gay person in the office or factory is engaged in non-procreative acts? You don't. You assume it. But the assumption is enough. And so firing gay people cannot be made illegal - or it would be a restriction on "religious liberty."

Notice that there is no attempt here to argue that straight people who violate church doctrine - anyone who masturbates or uses contraception, is divorced or re-married - should not be protected from discrimination. It is always just the gays who are the target, because their identity inherently proves their iniquity, while most straight people can hide theirs..... It does not matter whether they are good at their job; their orientation, even if no one even knows it results in sodomy, is sufficient to allow them to be fired and no law be broken.

....The bishops say they'd like to protect gay people, but only if they can be seen as in no way endorsing sexual acts. But you can't do that. You can't enact a law protecting some gays from discrimination while omitting others, the distinction being whether they are engaged in non-procreative acts. It would be unenforceable, as the Bishops seem to imply.

And so they have a choice: favoring a civil society to protect individuals from unjust discrimination or not. When it comes to gays - and only gays - the Bishops have taken a stand. It is a de facto endorsement of obvious injustice. It is a profound betrayal of the core message of Jesus: that the already despised should be embraced not stigmatized, that the victims of discrimination be protected not marginalized.

Why the GLBT community is mad at Obama

This comment from Daily Kos user craigkg enumerates the numerous mis-steps of the Obama administration with respect to the GLBT community. Let's just look at the recent ones:

*The Windy City Times revealed it had found a 1996 candidate questionnaire from Obama's run for the Illinois state Senate in which then Prof Obama stated his unequivocal support for same sex marriage meaning that his position on the issue has devolved from one of full equality to one of opposing equality opting for a segregationist institution instead.

*After the Iowa Supreme Court decision, the Obama White House released a statement on the ruling reiterating Obama's opposition to marriage equality and failed to even use the word "equal" at all. After a mini-blogosphere storm started to form, a "corrected" release was sent out changing the clause "he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive protection under the law" to "he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal rights under the law."

*After Vermont successfully overrode Gov Douglas' veto of the marriage equality bill and after Maine and New Hampshire's bills were signed into law, the White House's response was: " "

*The White House started deleting pro-GLBT language on the White House website. The outcry over the removal of the items prompted some of the material to be put back, but with much weaker, softer language forcing yet another revision of the language to placate the outrage.

*While appoint some GLBT persons to his administration, none of the appointments have been very high positions, the highest being the Director of Personnel Management. Obama passed on selecting an openly GLBT nominee to the Supreme Court and none of his other judicial appointments have been GLBT meaning there is still but one GLBT judge out of approximately 860 federal judgeships (0.12%).

*Obama has passed up several high profile opportunities to suspend separations under Don't Ask, Don't Tell when the discharges of 2nd Lt. Sandy Tsao, Lt. Dan Choi and Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach became publicly notable. GLBT servicemembers continue to be discharged at a rate of approximately two per day.

*The Obama administration successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to deny a hearing on Lt. Col. Fehrehbach's challenge to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

*Obama's DOJ files an incendiary brief in a challenge to DOMA that relies on analogies to incest and pedophilia (or more correctly ebophilia) and goes well beyond what was necessary to secure that the petition in question is not granted a writ of certiorari.

Add to that a publicity stunt over "benefits" for gay employees that doesn't even include health care. The pattern here is one where he actually doesn't support our families or our equality. What happened to the guy I elected?

Update craigkg turned his original comment into a longer diary post at Daily Kos.

UpdateWockner reviews the "gay tsunami" that hit Obama

No chance to fix ENDA, DADT, or DOMA: Obama admin spokesman

Both Pamshouseblend and AmericaBlog quote John Berry, the highest profile gay appointee in the White House (and the openly gay head of the Office of Personnel Management), as saying that ENDA, DADT, and DOMA cannot (or will not) be dealt with by Obama any time soon.

ENDA is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Basically it says you can't fire someone simply for being gay.

DADT is Don't Ask Don't Tell. It's how the military fires gay people. It says that you can serve in the military as long as you don't tell anyone (or they don't pursue, but they do).

DOMA is the egregious Defense of Marriage Act , that means my valid California marriage evaporates the minute I drive over the border. BTW, Berry apparently says that Obama "owns" the hate-filled, insulting brief that was filed to defend DOMA.

Berry: We don’t have the votes to do Hate Crimes right now, we don’t have the votes to do ENDA, how are we going [to get “don’t ask, don’t tell?

Well, we aren't if you don't try to help, are we?

That is our "fierce advocate" for change.

Now, who wants to join me in the back of the bus? looks like we'll be there for a while.