Closer to Equality in Family Leave

The Associated Press is reporting that the Department of Labor is set to interpret existing law to allow family leave for same-sex couples:

The Family and Medical Leave Act allows workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year to take care of loved ones or themselves. The 1993 law, which also allows employees to take time off for adoptions, has previously only been applied to heterosexual couples. The Labor Department planned to extend those rights based on a new interpretation of the law, the officials said. There was no plan to ask Congress to change the law, which means future presidents could reverse the decision.

It's a welcome step during a month when many communities are celebrating Pride. In a state like Tennessee, it's particularly welcome because we have little hope for marriage equality in the near future. It's further evidence that President Obama has appointed people who are trying to find ways to make life better for GLBT families.

With all that said, though, until we pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees will not be out at work and are unlikely to ask to use this benefit. And until we have marriage equality, any of these admistrative changes can be taken away. Every step forward has been a mixture of relief and frustration. We can't help but feel relieved when these advances are announced. Each one means that the bar is moving a little higher (sometimes inches), but the need is so much greater. The frustration remains. It's not ingratitude; it's the desire for equality.

Two kinds of incrementalism in advocating job protections

First, let me say that incrementalism has become a bad word in the GLBT blogosphere. I don't say that's necessarily a universally shared view. But it's important to acknowledge at the outset that incrementalism with much justification is a bad word. Perhaps the most progressive president and Congress ever were elected in 2008, and the GLBT community's expectations were high after the election. Incrementalism was swept away as a necessary evil, a relic of the Bush-II years. Impatience is the order of the day.

TYPE 1--One meaning of incrementalism from the Bush years is particularly onerous--the effort in 2007 to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) without gender identity. Saying it that way is too clinical, though. What it meant was that transgender people, a sector of the population most susceptible to job discrimination and violence, would be left behind. The transgender community and allies have every reason to be on the lookout for this kind of incrementalism in current discussions of ENDA. Some voices in the GLBT community, not many of them saying so in public, continue to think that it would be sensible to go for ENDA with sexual orientation only and come back for gender identity later. As ENDA continues to be delayed, it may be that more of those voices will emerge from the shadows in an attempt to get something passed.

My first reaction is a philosophical NO. I can't see the justification for leaving behind a class of people who need these protections. I don't think that statement needs an elaborate "proof." I know it's not self-evident to everyone, but it is for me. It's probably not too persuasive, though, to certain kinds of incrementalists. They see themselves as practical people who want to move the ball forward...granted it's usually for themselves. But they see themselves that way nonetheless.

The most persuasive argument against that type of incrementalism is that it wouldn't move enough people to matter. The same people who are screaming about the imagined dangers of transgender people in restrooms (where's the evidence on this?) are completely opposed to any job protections based on sexual orientation. They are onto and completely opposed to ANY incremental approach. The Traditional Values Coalition is just one example. The fire fueling the opposition to ENDA in any form burns just as hot no matter how much of our community is included. I assure you that the Religious Right will not back down against a truncated ENDA.

So I say we just need to stand and fight.

TYPE 2--Despite my opposition to that type of incrementalism, there is another type that I completely support. The closest example I can draw on is the 2009 Metro non-discrimination ordinance. I don't believe we could have gotten half the support for an ordinance that would have applied to the private sector. Since no law (although there was a resolution in Shelby County and a Metro Schools policy) had ever been passed granting job protections in TN based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the territory was just too new. That's a sad statement on the state of equality in Tennessee, but it's where we are. Although the ordinance only applies to Metro government employees, it includes both sexual orientation AND gender identity. We wouldn't compromise on that point. There was an attempt to run a bill without gender identity, but it got amended to be inclusive. We were clear on this point from the beginning and our Council allies stood firm. No one was left behind. There was no question about coming back for anyone. Everyone took that small but important step together. It's a gain we can let sink in and build upon.

So until ENDA passes, TEP and others will continue to advance non-discrimination measures at the state and local levels in Tennessee. I believe we have an obligation to protect as many people as we can, protect them inclusively, and protect them with measures that can actually get the votes.

Maybe that's not philosophically consistent. I don't know. But from a practical point of view I would respond to the naysayers with this argument. My guess is that most of the members of Congress who support ENDA represent districts with at least one city that has some kind of non-discrimination ordinance. I believe that passing local ordinances makes it safer for members of Congress to support ENDA. I wouldn't say it's the definitive factor in their support, but it's a part of the puzzle. So I don't see that kind of incrementalism as a hindrance to achieving the larger goal of passing ENDA. If anything, it's a boost because it educates people in that congressional district about the issue of job discrimination.

-Chris Sanders

Presidential proclamation on Pride month and the remaining items on the equality checklist

President Obama has issued his proclamation of June as Pride month. After detailing the actions his administration has taken, which are far more than his predecessors though themselves fraught with compromise, he lays out remaining issues to be addressed as we move toward full equality:

"Much work remains to fulfill our Nation's promise of equal justice under law for LGBT Americans. That is why we must give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. We must protect the rights of LGBT families by securing their adoption rights, ending employment discrimination against LGBT Americans, and ensuring Federal employees receive equal benefits. We must create safer schools so all our children may learn in a supportive environment. I am also committed to ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" so patriotic LGBT Americans can serve openly in our military, and I am working with the Congress and our military leadership to accomplish that goal."

I am glad to see repeal of DOMA, adoption rights, ENDA (vaguely) , and safe schools mentioned. These are all advances that would help Tennessee's GLBT community given the constant fight we have over adoption, the lack of employment protections, ongoing challenges with bullying, and our state constitutional amendment that enshrines marriage discrimination. I think the President's remarks also acknowledge that what the Senate Arms Services Committee and the full House have passed is not yet a real repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

The President's proclamation is hopeful. The questions that remain are how hard the President is willing to work to advance these proposals and how hard the community is going to have to work to bring pressure to bear on him and the Congress to cross the finish line.

Politics of Ignorance: Marriage Rhetoric in TN Elections

A quick comment on the appearance of rhetoric about marriage in the upcoming August primary in Tennessee and the need for protections against job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in our state. Video link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpb5lKAi2iU . Best of all, you get to push (or punch, if you prefer) my nose to play the video.

-Chris Sanders

Yes, you can still be fired for being gay or transgender in TN

In an otherwise wonderful piece in today's Tennessean on the hiring practices of a local charity, there was an important error:

Today, that has changed. New employees at World Relief have to prove they are Christians. They sign a statement of Christian faith and must get a letter of recommendation from their minister before being hired. At most workplaces, that would be illegal.But religious nonprofits, even those that get government grants, get special exemptions. They can hire and fire employees based on their religion or sexual orientation — something other employers can't do.

Yes, other employers in Tennessee can fire you for being straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender. There are no employment laws at the federal, state, or local level that would protect a Nashvillian or anyone in Tennessee employed in the private sector from being fired on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. That's precisely why the GLBT community is pressing so hard for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA. Individual employers have inclusive policies such as AT&T, Vanderbilt University, and now Metro government, but there is no blanket law covering everyone.

ENDA, the role of the federal government, and Kerry Roberts

In light of the Obama administration's recent directives on barring discrimination against federal employees based on gender identity (sexual orientation is already covered) and recent talk that there may be movement on Don't Ask Don't Tell, I asked the question on Twitter, "...will that give them enough moral authority to move on ENDA [Employment Non-Discrimination Act]? I followed that with: "In other words, does fedgov need to be able to say, 'We've put our own house in order before moving into the private sector?'"

Much to my surprise, 6th District congressional candidate Kerry Roberts responded:

RT @tnequality Does fedgov need to be able to say, "We've put own house in order b4 moving n2 private sector?" // Fed should never b there.

I'm not wild about the content of the response, but I'll get to that in a minute. First, I should note that his position on ENDA won't differ much from current 6th District Congressman Bart Gordon's, although we may get the chance to find out otherwise if the House votes on ENDA in March. Second, I have to commend Mr. Roberts for responding, especially since I wasn't directing the question at him in particular. It's a refreshing sign of engagement.

Now for the substance of the response. I understand the anti-government perspective and I know that it's the kind of talking point that plays well with a huge chunk of his voters. But I followed up with questions that in all fairness he hasn't had time to answer. I asked whether he believes the federal government has a role to play in protecting people from racial and religious discrimination in the workplace. To the first, the conservative line used to be "No quotas." But getting beyond that and the now almost unreflective anti-government response, what's a conservative to say in such a situation? Would Roberts really say he favors dismantling existing employment protections? And even if he said he did, would he really act on those convictions?

I doubt it. But I hope I find out. And considering he was willing to reach out in the first place, who knows? I just might.

Family Action targets ENDA and DOMA and so do we

The Family Action Council of Tennessee has been writing about the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Respect for Marriage Act, which would overturn the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

Family Action's objection to ENDA is that it would cause a problem for employers with religious objections to people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and want to have the ability to fire them or not hire them in the first place. It should be noted that ENDA does not apply to religious organizations. But it would apply to organizations and businesses that are not religious in nature such as Exxon or the State of Tennessee. What if there is a director in one of their departments who has a religious objection to hiring people with different sexual orientations or gender identities? Too bad. I fail to see how a religious understanding of sexual orientation or gender identity should be the basis of whether someone at Exxon or in State government gets a job.

That's really the issue. It's not that the top leadership of most large employers like the State of Tennessee have established some policy that seeks to root out GLBT people. The problem with large employers with hundreds or even thousands of supervisors is that some of them will bring their views of us to the workplace and use their power to deprive us of work. ENDA would deter that sort of discrimination.

Family Action is nervous about the Respect for Marriage Act, not because it would immediately lead to same-sex marriage in Tennessee, but because of the surprising ways that federal action reaches into the states. I agree that the Repeal of DOMA will not immediately lead to marriage equality in Tennessee. But working to repeal DOMA is the one constructive thing people in Tennessee can do to bring it closer.

So this coming Sunday, which is National Coming Out Day, we'll be gathering to contact our Members of Congress about ENDA and the repeal of DOMA--two pieces of legislation that can make a big difference in states like Tennessee where the advances in equality are beginning but small.

Cooper signs on as ENDA cosponsor

Tennessee Congressman Jim Cooper has signed on as a cosponsor of H.R. 3017 the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The law would protect workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In an email to constituents, Congressman Cooper noted:

While the majority of Fortune 500 companies and a number of states already protect the LGBT community from workplace abuse, the federal government does not, and workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is, tragically, still a common occurrence in workplaces across the nation. ENDA will simply ensure equal rights for all of our nation’s hardworking employees, and will make vital steps towards eliminating workplace discrimination altogether.

Thank you Congressman Cooper for working for passage of ENDA.

Nashville Pride Coverage: More acceptance but few protections

Claudio Pinto writes up Nashville Pride for the Tennessean this morning. The piece focuses on GLBT people--young and old--and their perceptions of how Nashville has changed.

But times have changed enough that Joshua Hargrove, 29, thinks being gay in Nashville today is no big deal."A couple of times, I've had people I work with tell me a story about a gay couple they know. And that's their way of saying, 'Hey, we know you're gay and we're OK with that,' " said Hargrove, who works in the Nashville public schools' IT department.

And I think that's largely true. I was glad, however, that the piece pointed out the state legislative framework in which even progressive Nashville exists:

Tennessee is still no bastion for gays and lesbians. They don't have the right to marry here, and there's no legal recourse for those who are fired because of their sexuality.

Exactly right. There are no employment protections in Tennessee based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. Unless you work for the UT system, Metro Nashville Public Schools, a Tennessee Board of Regents school, a private employer who offers protections, or Shelby County government now, there are no protections. This is exactly why the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act is important and it's exactly why TEP is advocating an inclusive non-discrimination policy for Metro Nashville government employees. Getting employers to protect GLBT employees is basic to our economic security.

You can check out any time you like...

Apparently a Brentwood hotel owner realized he had gay employees and wanted to pull an "out of sight out of mind." WSMV and Out & About Newspaper have the story.

It seems the hotel's own policy covers sexual orientation. That presents a problem for the owner. The other issue is that the hotel is on the Davidson County side of Brentwood, not the Williamson County side. That means that the employees can bring their case to the Human Relations Commission, which can hear complaints based on sexual orientation.

I hope they do that and some resolution can come. But what this incident points to is the need for Congress to pass the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) in the coming year.

So What Does Nikki Tinker Think about GLBT equality?

Don't miss my article featuring an interview with Nikki Tinker in this month's Triangle Journal (p. 5).

I asked the candidate about her views on hate crimes legislation, her opponent Steven Cohen, ENDA, the Federal Marriage Amendment, and civil unions.

The quality of the Triangle Journal is improving with each issue. Congratulations to Co-Editors James Cox and Len Piechowski, the Editorial Review Committee (Will Batts, Jamie Griffin, Alan Herbers, and David Mabury), and all contributing journalists!