Quantcast

«

»

Jul 14 2013

ENDA Likely to Pass Senate

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would add sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression to federal anti-discrimination laws regarding employment, passed a major hurdle by getting voted out of committee in the Senate. And three Republicans, including one of the longest-serving conservatives, voted for it:

This morning, the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee voted 15-7 to advance the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) with support from Republican Sens. Mark Kirk (IL), Orrin Hatch (UT), and Lisa Murkowski (AK). The bill, now headed for the Senate floor, is considered instrumental in preventing workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and mending the “broken bargain” of unequal treatment of LGBT workers under the law.

The bill now moves to the floor, where it is likely to pass. Now the bad news: There isn’t a chance in hell the House even touches this bill, much less passes it — despite the fact that polling shows that even Republican voters strongly support it.

6 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    slc1

    It should be pointed out that Murkowski and Kirk both have come out in support of same sex marriage.

  2. 2
    Chiroptera

    … despite the fact that polling shows that even Republican voters strongly support it.

    That’s interesting. I wonder to what extent the loud, vocal Tea Party actually represents the views of the majority of the Republican Party? I wonder whether a majority might realize that the current Democratic Party actually represents their views better?

    Obama can counter Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” with his “Let’s try to make at least an ounce of sense” strategy.

  3. 3
    Modusoperandi

    There isn’t a chance in hell the House even touches this bill, much less passes it — despite the fact that polling shows that even Republican voters strongly support it.”

    Of course. The GOP represents the Will of the People. Some people, anyway. Jerks, mostly.

  4. 4
    steve84

    The GOP represents only the Will of the Rich.

  5. 5
    dogmeat

    Obama can counter Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” with his “Let’s try to make at least an ounce of sense” strategy.

    While this would be logical, the evidence suggests that they’d generally rather hold their noses and vote for whatever nutcase has an (R) after their name. You have a few who change parties, most I see shift to “independent,” which often lets them bitch about both parties. Hard to say how many of those independents then turn around and vote Republican anyway, but given that Romney broke McCain’s record for most votes (by a loser) suggests that while official Republican membership & affiliation may be down, the willingness to vote for Republican candidates hasn’t really changed that much. Add in gerrymandering and we’re unlikely to see the House change hands any time soon. The positive side is that the nuts running the asylum in the GOP means they’re less likely to elect really insane senate and presidential candidates, but the house is likely to get nuttier and nuttier.

  6. 6
    Michael Heath

    Chiroptera writes:

    I wonder to what extent the loud, vocal Tea Party actually represents the views of the majority of the Republican Party?

    It’s my observation that those who aren’t passionate about their politics are very apathetic about the wingnuts on their respective sides. They demonstrate no cognizance of the implications when carrying out logical conclusions to siding with a party where Michelle Bachmann or Steve King fit in nicely.

    Chiroptera writes:

    I wonder whether a majority might realize that the current Democratic Party actually represents their views better?

    That requires a certain level of informedness. During the 2012 campaign season David Heddle lamented that there there was no political party which combined fiscal conservatism with liberalism on social issues. My jaw hit the floor on that comment given the Democrats don’t just talk this game, but have been demonstrating their loyalty to these two positions since at least the Clinton years. (I do not support fiscal conservatism but instead promote expansionary economic policies, which no political party in the U.S. currently supports though I think the Democrats would if the GOP take respectable Burkean/Freidman positions.)

    I’ve recently concluded, last ten or so years, that most voters affiliate with certain political parties for a host of reasons, where most don’t do so based on a deep understanding on how each respective party invests its political capital in regards to candidates and policy. That would be the rational place to start, but few take the time or have the capability to so capably.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site