Harkin calls on Obama to sign anti-discrimination executive order

Basically, it's an ENDA-style executive order covering government contractors. At this point, politically, it couldn't hurt the President to do everything he can to shore up the base. And while he is, every bit helps.

Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa called on President Obama once again to sign an executive order banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity among federal contractors. Activists have pressured the White House on the issue for much of this year, because getting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) passed in Congress is nearly impossible with Republicans in control of the House, but the Obama administration has steadfastly rebuffed pleas to sign the order.

"Absolutely, he should [sign the order]," Harkin said on my SiriusXM OutQ radio program at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte last week. "A number of us have written him a letters about this, that he should sign it. I mean, federal contractors, people who contract with the federal government, and use taxpayer money, should not be allowed to discriminated on the basis of sexual preference or sexual orientation. So, I think the president should sign that. And we're going to continue to put the pressure on him to do so."

Read the rest of this post...

Gay/trans rights bill voted down in Florida

Jacksonville.com (yet another paper that doesn't make it obvious what paper they really are):

Councilman Warren Jones filed a bill in May adding sexual orientation. He later amended the bill by deleting language that gave protection based on “gender identity” and “gender expression.” Equality Florida, a group that advocates anti-discrimination laws, objected that the change watered down the bill by eliminating protection for transgender individuals and would allow discrimination based on gender stereotypes.

But the change picked up support from council members who otherwise were inclined to oppose the bill. The 10-9 vote Wednesday was against the substitute legislation put forward by Jones.

The failure to amend the bill forced a second vote on the original bill filed by Jones. The council rejected it 17-2 with only Jones and Councilwoman Denise Lee in favor.

Read the rest of this post...

Ryan now refusing to say if he still supports ENDA

Photo via Shutterstock

I wrote yesterday that someone should ask Paul Ryan if he still supports ENDA. He voted for ENDA in 2007, right before voting to kill it. I thought that since the gay Republicans keep crowing about Ryan being such a great VP pick, someone ought to ask Ryan if he still supports ENDA. Lila Shapiro at HuffPost did, and here's what happened:

Ryan's congressional office directed questions about ENDA to Romney's campaign, and Romney's campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

What's particularly interesting about that is that Ryan now seems equally afraid of angering the gays as he does the religious right. It's a sign of the religious right's waning influencing that a conservative GOP VP candidate is afraid to say that might not support a gay rights bill.

Interestingly, Romney has also flip-flopped on ENDA (now that he wants to be the nominee of a party run by the far right, Romney is suddenly anti-ENDA - like Ryan, Romney was for ENDA before). Read the rest of this post...

Ask Ryan if he still supports ENDA gay rights law he voted for in 07

I'm getting tired of gay conservatives crowing about how Paul Ryan is more pro-gay than even Mitt Romney (yes, even Mitt Romney, who once bragged about being more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy, but now doesn't support anything pro-gay at all).

Ryan, the gay Republicans tell us, voted for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), legislation outlawing job discrimination based on sexual orientation.  What the Gay Rs don't tell you is that Ryan then turned around and voted to kill the bill.

So it'd be fairer to say that Ryan, like his partner in the campaign, Mitt Romney, is somewhat "bi" when it comes to his support for the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

But why leave it to the gay Rs to define Paul Ryan.  Let the man himself clear up any confusion.  Some intrepid reporter needs to ask Paul Ryan if he still supports the ENDA gay rights bill that he voted for in 2007.  Whatever the answer, it'll certainly make news. Read the rest of this post...

Chick-fil-A admits it's anti-gay. Phelps' defend them.

Hey, at least we have it on the record.  I've seen that business in airport - at least now I know that the talk isn't just talk. It's an evangelical business that doesn't like gays.  Good.  Then we and our friends don't ever have to go there.

The asses even invoked the hateful "Adam and Steve" line.

From the LA Times:

Chick-fil-A is “very much supportive of the family,” according to Dan Cathy, president of the popular fast food chain. That is, “the biblical definition of the family unit,” he said.

And that doesn’t include Adam and Steve, suggests Cathy, whose father S. Truett Cathy founded the Atlanta-based company.

In a new interview with Baptist Press, Cathy puts on the record what critics say his company’s actions have indicated for years. “Well, guilty as charged,” he said in the interview when asked about Chick-fil-A’s backing of families led by a man and a woman.

I can't wait until they discriminate against one of their gay employees in a state that has legal protections. These quotes could prove quite useful in a multi-million dollar discrimination lawsuit.

This, from Jeremy at GoodAsYou, is priceless - and he's confirmed it's actually from the Fred Phelps klan.

This is the kind of the hate the Bible sadly helps feed. Bottom line is that modern translations of the Bible all tell people to kill gays. They do. Pretty much all of them. And I don't care if it's a wrong translation or what. Churches across America have no problem using a book that tells their parishioners to go out and kill gay people. And we wonder why we have a problem in America with bullying, and more generally, hate.

Dan Savage was right. Read the rest of this post...

Gay money flowing to Obama, Log Cabin fibs about Romney's gay positions

The article isn't a great shock. I always suspected a good deal of gay money would flow to President Obama's re-elect, regardless of what he did on DADT or marriage. But. It was clear that there was growing disaffection in the community, and that disaffection spread like a virus to other key Democratic constituencies and the media.

I truly believe that the administration's mishandling of gay issues at the beginning set the tone for the media coverage of, and conventional wisdom about, the entire administration. So it's good, and important to their re-election chances, that they finally nipped it in the bud by moving forward on a number of key issues like DADT and marriage.

What's interesting to me is that the gay Republicans are still trying to claim that Romney isn't all bad on gay stuff.

Really?

From Jen Christensen at CNN:

But some gay Republicans say Romney is not totally close minded on LGBT issues. "On gay issues, where Romney stands is not as black and white as it seems," said R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization for gay and lesbian Republicans. "One thing he has been consistent on, as governor and as a candidate for president, is he has spoken in broad terms about ending discrimination in the workplace. He has said there is no room for it."

Romney is for ENDA? False.

From the Nation:

In December 2007 Romney appeared on Meet the Press and was asked by Tim Russert whether he still supports ENDA. Here’s how the exchange went:

MR. RUSSERT: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it?

GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.

MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level.

GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level.

In fact, Mitt Romney opposes ENDA, opposes the repeal of DADT, opposes the repeal of DOMA, and opposes marriage. Barack Obama is for ENDA, for the repeal of DADT, for the repeal of DOMA, and for marriage.

That gives Romney a 0% record on the most important issues to the community. (And if you think he's good on gay partners' immigration rights or trans rights, you're high). Obama hasn't been perfect on our issues, but with some cajoling we got significant - I'd even say "historic" - movement on marriage, DOMA, and DADT.

How much more black and white would Log Cabin like it? Read the rest of this post...

ExxonMobil against consider proposal to bar anti- gay, trans discrimination

ExxonMobil has turned this proposal down before. Nasty company. Big Oil. Enough said. From Chris Johnson at the Blade:

All eyes will be on one of the nation's largest publicly traded companies next week when shareholders will vote on whether the company should make LGBT protections part of its formal non-discrimination policy.

At a meeting set for May 30 in Dallas, shareholders for the ExxonMobil Corp. will vote on a resolution to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the equal employment opportunity policy for its estimated 82,000 workers — a change the company has resisted.

The resolution is being put before shareholders by New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli. He's trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, which owns more than 16 million shares of ExxonMobil at an estimated market value of $1.3 billion.

Read the rest of this post...

Some top gay donors allegedly withholding donations to Obama SuperPAC

From Greg Sargent at the Washington Post:

Some leading gay and progressive donors are so angry over President Obama’s refusal to sign an executive order barring same sex discrimination by federal contractors that they are refusing to give any more money to the pro-Obama super PAC, a top gay fundraiser’s office tells me. In some cases, I’m told, big donations are being withheld.

Read the rest of this post...

Jon Stewart talks with Zach Wahls, tackles Obama's refusal to issue executive order on ENDA

The Daily Show last night had Zach Wahls as a guest talking about his new book, "My Two Moms."

Wahls, who John met with in February, was phenomenal in the interview.  He is probably one of the single most effective spokesman we could have on our side, given he undercuts all the fear mongering about kids raised by or around gay couples. Plus, the structure of his book, which talks about the values of the Boy Scouts (he's an Eagle Scout), and how he learned those values from his moms, is just brilliant (especially given the recent national attention on the Boy Scouts anti-gay policies).

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Stewart also tackled the Obama Administration's unwillingness to issue an executive order banning workplace discrimination for federal contractors.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Read the rest of this post...

Will Log Cabin endorse Romney?

From Chris Johnson at the Blade:

The debate over whether to endorse Romney could prove thorny for Log Cabin. On one hand, the organization is likely to feel pressure from its Republican base to throw its support behind the party’s standard-bearer in the general election. On the other, Romney has backed anti-gay positions during the primary season, including support for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country and a pledge to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

If history is any guide, then Log Cabin may withhold support for Romney because of his support for the federal amendment. Log Cabin endorsed George W. Bush in 2000. But in 2004, the group created a national stir when it withheld its endorsement of Bush’s re-election due to the president’s support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In a 22-2 vote, the Log Cabin board decided to withhold the endorsement.

I doubt history will be their guide. Romney used to be as pro-gay as Ted Kennedy, as he liked to say. Not anymore. He's not only bad on marriage (though so is Obama), he's pro-DOMA, anti-ENDA, and anti- the repeal of DADT pro-DADT. Romney's downright awful on gay rights nowadays. n the top 3 issues, he's bad on all of them. Still, based on his past, I could see the gay Republicans endorsing him, which would be a bit nuts considering that we're voting for the Romney we have today, not the guy who liked us twenty years ago. Read the rest of this post...

Cleve Jones wants your stories of workplace discrimination to share with President Obama

As we reported yesterday, Cleve Jones, an icon in the fight for LGBT equality, has been named a White House Champion of Change and is going to meet with the President on Thursday. This meeting between Obama and Cleve is coming at an opportune time. Top staffers at the White House, led by Valerie Jarrett and Cecilia Muñoz, have told us that the President won't sign the non-discrimination executive order. We've also heard that from Jay Carney and other press spokespeople, too. But, Cleve will be talking directly to the President -- and we have not heard directly from Obama on this issue yet. So, Cleve wants to share real stories of workplace discrimination with the President. If you have one, let Cleve know. From GetEQUAL's Robin McGehee:

This week, civil rights advocate Cleve Jones will be honored at the White House as a "Champion of Change" -- a well-deserved honor. Cleve has been at the forefront of our fight for so very long and is truly an inspiration. His work in the LGBT and labor movements have allowed him to champion workers' rights for decades. We know he will press the President to address the issue of workplace discrimination. If you know someone who has experienced workplace discrimination, please share this email with them and ask them to submit their story so that we can share it with Cleve before he meets with President Obama: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6535/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=6883 Everyone deserves to feel safe and protected at work, and to experience a level playing field in the workplace. Sadly, the people who are most marginalized and vulnerable are often the ones who face the greatest discrimination. We need the President to sign an Executive Order now, ensuring that government money is not used by federal contractors to discriminate against LGBT workers, and paving the way for a legislative solution that would bar workplace discrimination across the board!

If you've faced discrimination, share it with Cleve so he can educate the President about the issue. Do it here. Read the rest of this post...

Is this the same thing as a trans-exclusive ENDA?

A friend emailed this morning and asked why this post isn't the same thing as a trans-exclusive ENDA.  It's a point that I hadn't considered, I was happy to tout the trans victory.  But his point was why it's okay for trans rights to advance independently of gay rights, but not vice versa? Read the rest of this post...

Big transgender ruling from EEOC

From Chris Geidner at MetroWeekly:

An employer who discriminates against an employee or applicant on the basis of the person's gender identity is violating the prohibition on sex discrimination contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to an opinion issued on April 20 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The opinion, experts say, could dramatically alter the legal landscape for transgender workers across the nation.

The opinion came in a decision delivered on Monday, April 23, to lawyers for Mia Macy, a transgender woman who claims she was denied employment with the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) after the agency learned of her transition. It also comes on the heels of a growing number of federal appellate and trial courts deciding that gender-identity discrimination constitutes sex discrimination, whether based on Title VII or the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

The EEOC decision, issued without objection by the five-member, bipartisan commission, will apply to all EEOC enforcement and litigation activities at the commission and in its 53 field offices throughout the country. It also will be binding on all federal agencies and departments.

Read the rest of this post...

Cleve Jones is a White House Champion of Change, will meet Obama this week

Cleve Jones, a major force in the quest for LGBT equality, has been named a White House Champion of Change, according to his Facebook page and a tweet:

I'm looking forward to meeting President Obama in the White House this week as part of the Champions of Change program.

Yep. Cleve is going to meet with the President this week. Great timing, considering the ongoing controversy over the LGBT non-discrimination executive order. Cleve, who now works in the labor movement, speaks with great moral authority on issues relating to LGBT equality and discrimination. I hope the White House will listen closely.

For those who may not know, Cleve cut his teeth in the movement working with Harvey Milk. Most recently, he helped organize the October 2009 March for Equality. (He also notes on his facebook page that he didn't get invited inside during the march.) And, he was the visionary behind the AIDS Memorial Quilt.

If you watched the L.A. production of "8, The Play," you saw Cleve playing Evan Wolfson.

The White House "Champions of Change" website states:

The best ideas come from the American people. Everyone has a story to tell, everyone has a part to play.

I imagine Cleve Jones has some stories to tell. Read the rest of this post...

White House increasingly acting unilaterally, except on gay issues

NYT:

[I]ncreasingly in recent months, the administration has been seeking ways to act without Congress. Branding its unilateral efforts “We Can’t Wait,” a slogan that aides said Mr. Obama coined at that strategy meeting, the White House has rolled out dozens of new policies — on creating jobs for veterans, preventing drug shortages, raising fuel economy standards, curbing domestic violence and more.

Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”

Aides say many more such moves are coming.

But on gay rights, like the ENDA executive order, we're told that they prefer to go the legislative route. On gay stuff, we can wait. Read the rest of this post...

Things about to get a whole lot worse on ENDA executive order

GetEqual is about to start protesting Obama for America offices nationwide. Read the rest of this post...

Why do gay issues (supposedly) look political but women's issues don't?

More power to them for acting on Domestic Violence.  But it is curious that the last few weeks have been devoted to the gender gap, hitting Romney on women, and then there was the whole Hilary Rosen blow up regarding Mrs. Romney and stay at home moms, and now suddenly there's White House action on what issue?  Women's issues!

It looks like the White House is trying to woo women for the election.  And that's fine.  Woo away.  But it's hard to say that you can't woo gays this year with an ENDA executive order, because it would look like pandering, but it's okay to woo women.

This just in from Vice President Biden:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Vice President

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 18, 2012

We Can't Wait: President Signs Memorandum Establishing Policies for Addressing Domestic Violence in the Federal Workplace

Today the Obama Administration announced new efforts to help combat and prevent domestic violence in the federal workplace. President Obama today signed a memorandum that will require federal agencies to develop policies to address the effects of domestic violence and provide assistance to employees who are experiencing domestic violence.

“We know that domestic violence doesn’t just stay in the home. It can extend into the workplace, with devastating effects on its victims and costs that ripple across the economy. Federal employees aren’t immune. The President’s Memorandum sends a message about what the federal government—and all employers—can do to end this abuse. Today, President Obama directed the federal government to become a model for all employers in providing a safe workplace and support for any employees who suffer from domestic violence. For the first time, all federal agencies are required to establish policies to respond to the legitimate needs of employees who are being abused and who might need help, ” said Vice President Biden.

Domestic violence affects both the safety of the workplace and the productivity of employees. Victims report being harassed at work or distracted from their jobs because of abuse. The steps the Administration is taking today will build on ongoing efforts to improve workplace safety and assist victims of domestic violence.

The memorandum directs the Director of Office of Personnel Management, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other interested heads of agencies, to issue guidance to agencies addressing the effects of domestic violence on the federal workforce. The guidance will include steps agencies can take to intervene in and prevent domestic violence against or by employees; guidelines for assisting employee victims; leave policies relating to domestic violence situations; general guidelines on when it may be appropriate to take disciplinary action against employees who commit or threaten acts of domestic violence; steps agencies can take to improve workplace safety related to domestic violence; and resources for identifying relevant best practices related to domestic violence.

Since Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, annual incidents of domestic violence have dropped by more than 50%. However, domestic violence remains a significant problem facing women, families, and communities. According to the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 1 in 3 women in the United States will experience rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some time in their lives, and more than 12 million individuals experienced violence in the one-year period covered by the survey. While women are disproportionately affected by domestic violence, men can also be victims.

President Obama and Vice President Biden have focused on the important issue of domestic violence since day one, naming the first ever White House Advisor on Violence Against Women during the first months of the Administration.

In October 2010, President Obama and Vice President Biden announced unprecedented coordination across the Federal Government to respond to and prevent domestic violence and sexual assault. In addition, this administration pushed colleges and universities to act to prevent sexual assault on campus, and it modernized the definition of rape so that this appalling crime is more accurately reflected in our national crime statistics.

The Violence Against Women Act expired in 2011, and while we wait for Congress to reauthorize this critically needed legislation, the federal government is doing its part.

Read the rest of this post...

White House LGBT Exec Order debacle: One week later, still mired in controversy

A week ago, the White House announced that the President wouldn't be signing the LGBT non-discrimination Executive Order. And, the fallout continues. I have to imagine that the political geniuses on the campaign and at the White House figured that this would slide by. After all, we're now smack in the middle of the campaign. Their opponent, Mitt Romney, has been burnishing his anti-gay credentials, including an endorsement from the race-baiters at NOM. Surely, they must have calculated, this will be a mere bump in the road.

Wrong -- like so many calculations made by Team Obama, especially when it comes to the LGBT community.

In Roll Call, "The newspaper of Capitol Hill Since 1955" (sub. req.), Rep. Jared Polis took a whack at the White House:

“Without a Congress that’s willing to pass [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act], I wish the president was a little more aggressive to pursue nondiscrimination,” openly gay Rep. Jared Polis said in a brief interview Monday.

The Colorado Democrat, a leader in the LGBT Equality Caucus, said Obama made a strategic misstep last week when he announced he wanted Congress to move on enacting a nondiscrimination policy for all workers rather than issue an
executive order that could protect employees working for federal contractors. With a Republican-led House and a Congress now focused on the elections, the chances of passing a gay-rights-oriented bill this year are dim at best. And the prospects could remain equally grim if Democrats fail to win back control of the House in November.

“I was disappointed they haven’t reached out yet,” Polis said, noting that he had not spoken with anyone in the administration sincelast week’s announcement. “They certainly have a lot of explaining to do in the LGBT community.”

They're not explaining it well at all.

Watch this exchange between White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and the Washington Blade's Chris Johnson.

Okay. So, now, they want to do ENDA legislatively - and it's like DADT? The only thing like DADT is the way Carney is obfuscating, just like Gibbs did when he got DADT questions.

Speaking of DADT, Chris Geidner has an analysis pointing out four reasons why the contractor executive order is not like DADT:

Asked if the administration misjudged the response from Obama's supporters to the decision not to pursue the executive order, Carney defended the decision as "the right approach."

He said, "The president believes that, in this case, the right approach is to try and build support for ENDA. I think that a good example, again, is to look at the approach that was taken by this administration in dealing with his commitment to repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and working with Congress and working with the Pentagon to make sure that that came to pass. There was criticism at the time that we weren't taking the right approach. In the end, I think, it has been shown to have been the right approach and to have been an effective approach in building support and ensuring that in its implementation ... that the implementation itself has been extremely effective."

There are four major distinctions between what happened surrounding DADT repeal and what is going on with the administration's actions to advance LGBT workplace protections, distinctions thus far ignored by the White House.

Geidner's four distinctions, all backed up with supporting info., are:

First, the control of Congress was in the Democrats' hands in the 111th Congress.

Second, although a formal moratorium on DADT discharges was not put in place prior to DADT repeal, the administration did take interim steps to lessen discrimination while awaiting legislative action on the repeal.

Third, unlike with DADT repeal, the relevant agencies appear to be fully on board with the executive action being sought here.

Fourth, unlike the DADT discharge change, the additional effects of the proposed executive order being sought by advocates with regards to workplace discrimination have impact beyond that which would be achieved by ENDA.

Kinda demolishes the White House arguments.

Yesterday, Mike Signorile wrote a great post over at Huffington, providing some context for what the White House decision means politically and for the LGBT movement:

The problem for the campaign is that the White House itself brought this issue to everyone's attention by calling the meeting of LGBT activists, inspiring reports of a "rift" with gays where there previously wasn't one, and it's not going to go away anytime soon, as activists now have the support of LGBT people across the country who are suddenly focusing in on this issue.

One thing that's being asked is how gay leaders allowed this to happen. Paul Yandura, a gay former Clinton aide, says the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) gave the administration a pass, with HRC sitting on its polling on the issue when it should have released it publicly months ago, and NGLTF not even sending out a press release right after the meeting to criticize the president.

A larger problem is that HRC endorsed the president a year ago, and all the group appears to have gotten in return was his presence as a speaker at their annual dinner. That helps them sell lots of tickets, but doesn't do much in attaining tangible rights. Had HRC not endorsed Obama until now, they could have told the White House, "This is what we want for our endorsement."

The gay groups worried about losing access not only do a disservice to the LGBT movement in this regard, but by not publicly making it clear that refusing to sign the order will be a bigger headache for the president than that imagined during any "panic," they badly serve the president, as well.

This should never have been a controversy. The White House needs to fix it -- fast. Read the rest of this post...

White House says the "time is right" for ENDA. Uh, no it's not.

From Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly:

Facing continued fallout from the Obama administration's decision not to proceed with an executive order banning LGBT discrimination by federal contractors, White House spokesman Shin Inouye tells Metro Weekly today that "the time is right for a comprehensive legislative approach" to address anti-LGBT workplace discrimination -- a reference to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act -- although he added that "the Administration hasn't taken any options off the table."

In responding to questions about the decision on Thursday, April 12, White House press secretary Jay Carney had pointed to "an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act" as providing "lasting and comprehensive non-discrimination protections" for LGBT people. He had, contrary to today's statement, said, "[W]e do not expect that an EO on LGBT nondiscrimination for federal contractors will be issued at this time."

Um, nothing is getting passed in the Republican House, and it's not even clear we have the votes in the Democratic Senate - but for sure we're not getting it passed in this GOP House - so the time is not right for ENDA to pass in Congress.

And what is this about no options off the table?  So, they might do the executive order this year?  Huh?  This is starting to feel awfully messy and unfocused.

The administration should have gotten at least two of the community's top demands done in the first four years - ENDA, DADT repeal, DOMA repeal.  They opted for one big one, and a few lesser ones.  And now they're paying the price in an election year. Read the rest of this post...

More fallout from the no-go ENDA executive order

Photo via Shutterstock

It will be interesting to see how much election-year trouble the administration may have gotten itself into by deciding not to move ahead this year with an executive order adding sexual orientation and gender identity to an already-existing executive order that bans discrimination by federal contractors.

A lot of people don't realize that we already have an executive order covering all the traditional civil rights groups.  This move would simply ensure that everyone is covered.

While it's understandable that the administration doesn't want to do something it perceives as controversial during an election year, as we've written on this blog numerous times before, when is a good time, a "safe" time, to move ahead on civil rights?  If civil rights were 100% popular we wouldn't need to be advocating for them.

Having said that, banning employment discrimination has always been popular, so it's questionable how much trouble the President would get in by signing this executive order.  In fact, we saw with the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, that after putting up some resistance to the repeal, the Republicans basically folded.  Once we got enough votes to break their filibuster, GOP Senator John McCain, who was leading the attack against repeal in the Senate, didn't even bother using the remainder of his floor time - and he had hours and hours left - to try to embarrass the President on the issue.  Just as surprising, two additional, and unexpected, GOP Senators voted for the repeal on final passage.

Why?  Because gay and trans civil rights just aren't that embarrassing any more.  At least they shouldn't be.  And aren't... outside of Washington.  In an era in which Republicans are increasingly afraid of saying anything anti-gay, lest they incur the wrath of moderate swing voters, Democrats remain queasy on the issue, and it isn't entirely clear why.

More on this story here. Read the rest of this post...