Senate Democrats know the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) faces long odds, but they're moving forward on the pending legislation anyway. Aside from a modicum of moderate Republican support, the bill appears to have no realistic shot of success anytime soon.
Or does it? NBC's David Gregory asked Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus if he believes "gays and lesbians in America deserve equal rights." His response was unexpected (via Tim Murphy).
For those who can't watch clips online, Priebus specifically said, "I think they deserve equal rights in regard to, say, discrimination in the workplace."
Rachel made the case last week that the RNC chair may not be especially good at his job, and this clearly reinforces the thesis. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose giving gays and lesbians equal rights with regards to discrimination in the workplace, and yet Reince Priebus, hoping to find evidence of his party's elusive tolerance, said the opposite.
I suspect the RNC will walk this back quickly, if it hasn't already, but I also imagine congressional Democrats will use this going forward. After all, how often does the RNC chair inadvertently endorse the progressive line on a gay rights issue on national television?
Leave a Comment:
Ah, so LGBT folks can have equal rights in the work place but not in the bedroom or in the marriage chapel. It's so fun to watch the GOP have no idea what it really wants to say, and how it splits hairs on what is a civil rights issue and what isn't. Seems that Rrrrrrrreince would like to have also said that "I think that they (any one who isn't WASP) should have *some* equal rights, but not "fill-in-the-blank-here".
Umm.. LGBT folks don't need "equal rights" in the religious chapel. Religion, by its definition, is an exclusive membership and can exclude whomever they want for whatever reason they want. If a gay person doesn't like it, he or she can go to another church.
What you're probably insinuating is the civil contracted entitled 'marriage' as recognized by the government that gives certain rights and responsibilities to those that qualify.
Let's not muddy this point up any further. Nobody cares what churches do as long as those churches aren't dictating governmental law. ('cause that'd be sharia and nobody wants sharia - except maybe terrorists of freedom)
Indeed, back in 2004, when Bush and Rove were corralling the base into the voting booth by "defending" the "sanctity of marriage," I couldn't help scratching my head and wondering what the government was doing in the sanctity business.
ENDA was clearly not named by a gay. We clearly would have called it the Gay and Lesbian Employee Non-Discrimination Act or GLENDA. Yay, L. Frank Baum!
I'd prefer to think that no gay person would leave out bi and trans people just to make a joke.
If you'll excuse me now, I need to get this stick extracted from my butt.
The GOP DOES believe that gays should have the same rights in the workplace as other minorities. They just don't believe those rights should be the same as the rights of a heterosexual white male.
Actually I think the real problem is that Republicans don't want ANYONE to have workplace rights of ANY kind. I mean, it sucks to be singled out, but let's not distract ourselves from the truth, here. Republican don't have ANY workers' best interests at heart.
I wouldn't use "Republicans" and "GOP elected officials" interchangeably. Of rank & file GOP, 46% support same sex civil unions: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57433493-503544/poll-most-americans-support-same-sex-unions/
Then they need to start voting that way, if they want to avoid the label.
You know one thing that has struck me recently in all the equality discussions is this: Everyone keeps referring to "gays and lesbians". I think by continuing to refer to LGBT people as "gays and lesbians" we're giving the Republican party a bye to stop thinking of them as PEOPLE. They're not "gays and lesbians". They're people. Just like I'm not a "straight". I'm a person. We're all just people. We all deserve the same rights.
And you are kind, giving the republicans the label that they actually "think" - you are a good soul......
Kara, That's how this whole issue gelled for me. We are all people first. We are all citizens first. I have four adult children and nine grandchildren. I think of them all as people, citizens. I would find it intolerable if any of them were denied the rights they were born with because they fell in love with the "wrong" perpon.
Priebus is trying to throw a bone to the LGBT community as way to show that the Republicans do not hate minorities. Let him get Romney on board and push the Republicans in Congress into passing the law. That would put Republicans in a jam. Refusing to pass the law would show that Romney has no influence in his own party.
OFF topic: I would love to see TRMS discuss Republican-paid fraudulent voter registration in Northern California. The owner of Momentum Political Services, Monica Harris, who has a criminal record, had one-fourth of 31,000 reg. cards rejected for inaccuracies. In Portland, Ore. Harris stole $20,000 as a fundraiser for a voter initiative. She was sentenced to 14 months in prison. Yet, the Republican Party of Sacramento County paid Harris $5 for each voter registered. Harris got high-profile work in her effort to get voters for the re-election bid of Rep. Dan Lundgren, R-Gold River, CA. For Momentum Political Services in NorCal (Harris' group), there were many examples of voters having their party affiliation switched to Republican against their wishes (see Sac. Bee, May 13, 2012, article by Brad Brenan). Please look into this Rachel.
Is she related to Katherine of Florida, I wonder?
How big of them. How utterly divine of them. Just remember though that this in no way means gays are equal when it comes to marriage or insurance or...
Still very big of them, of course women should stay home with the kids and not use contraceptives nor have abortions since that is what the far right bible says and we all know that America is a Christian Nation whose laws were based on the bible.(or so these freaks are teaching your kids anyway-with public funds)
Romney pontificates about the values of Martin Luther King Jr. Can anyone out there in political-land sight a single Romney speech made about Dr. King in a non-political environment. I for one doubt this. Why would Mitt Romney be calling on Dr. King’s hallowed image now? The answer, I believe, is disgustingly vile, political and sociopathic in nature.
Let me make my case; Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. hated discrimination down to his bone marrow. It was not limited to blacks, or skin color. It was all inclusive, as he really did love humanity in the same manner of Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Gandhi. It was no accident that all three were assassinated. Each exposed the sinister face and under-pinning of hatred, and offered humankind an alternative that the masses found appealing in overwhelming numbers. The force of love can never be extinguished by logic, and those opposed can only try to extinguish preachers of love with violence. The bible refers to the death of this first preacher of love as the crucifixion!
Romney and his team have made a determination that spiritual blacks and their discomfort with gay marriage, if coupled with the revered memory of Dr. King, can be used to get them to vote against Barrack Obama who, as President, is acting in opposition to discrimination. That stand is, at this time, very difficult politically, but is consistent with the beliefs of some of the greatest men that the human race has ever produced. The Blacks, Jews, and Latinos in America know, better than any of the rest of us; the assault on the human spirit and its devastatingly crushing consequences just for being superficially different from a ruling majority.
This would be less of an issue if Ron Paul and his sons Rand and Ru had campaigned better.
How did Priebus get this job? He has the on-air presence of a potted plant. For those who think I'm engaging in a personal attack and should stick to "the issues," the job of a spokesperson is to SPEAK in an effective manner. Compared to smooth and articulate ops like Howard Dean or Ed Rendell, this guy is an embarrassment. He makes me actually miss Michael Steele.
LOL. Similar sleaze, but I don't think so.
"Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, and try to love one another right now." The Youngbloods. That is probably too Christian for many on the religious right.
Correction! ENDA already applies to gay and lesbian employees. You cannot discriminate based on one's sexual orientation.
The ENDA that's trying to be passed now extends anti-discrimination laws to those who are transgender or transsexual - in other words, gender identity. The EEOC has already ruled that gender identity is a protected class when it comes to federal employment, but the new ENDA will extend that to all employment.
A transgender person trying to get a private sector job can be denied because they're transgender and they would have no recourse under the law, unless ENDA gets passed.
No wait. I'm wrong. They would've been able to pass a sexual orientation version, but they added gender identity as another class and it died without passing the sexual orientation matter.