Gay rights bill heads for first hurdle in Senate

Republicans keep asking why for they lose elections, well........here is one reason why. Discrimination of gays, and for Romney it was outing 47% of the nations voters.


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate prepared to push a major anti-bias gay rights bill past a first, big hurdle Monday, a clear sign of Americans' greater acceptance of homosexuality nearly two decades after lawmakers narrowly rejected discrimination legislation.

The bill that would prohibit workplace discrimination against gay, bisexual and transgender Americans could win Senate passage by week's end, but its prospects in the Republican-majority House are dimmer.

A stark reminder of the nation's changing views, lingering resistance to homosexuality and the political implications resonated in Maine, as six-term Democratic Rep. Mike Michaud, who is running for governor, said he was gay and questioned whether it still mattered to voters.

Hours before Monday's vote, President Barack Obama issued a fresh plea for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the first significant gay rights bill since Congress lifted the ban on gays serving openly in the military nearly three years ago.

All 55 members of the Democratic majority and at least five Republicans were expected to vote to proceed with the bill, giving Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., the 60 votes necessary. Reid's Republican colleague in Nevada, Dean Heller, announced his support on Monday, saying that the measure "raises the federal standards to match what we have come to expect in Nevada, which is that discrimination must not be tolerated under any circumstance."

 

Rare.us | Gay-rights bill clears first hurdle in Senate

YAYAYAYAYAYAYAYA! Now we need it to pass the House. Hopefully this will not start another shutdown...

 

Fantastic news. This is the first time ENDA has ever been passed by the Senate despite being introduced for over 17 years.

It's likely DOA in the House though as Boehner has already declared he's against it.

 

Repubs who oppose equality will undoubtedly ingratiate themselves with radical Ayatollahs who espouse the same sort of discriminatory practices in Islamic theocracies, but will not endear themselves to the American electorate.

In the wake of their disastrous and ineffectual government shut-down stunt, getting the loathed GOP Congressional berserkers to oppose this popular, progressive legislation is setting them up nicely for a comprehensive immigration reform knock-out left cross.

​

The GOP needs to dump that load that has been weighing it down:

 

The same people who (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about Republicans brought this phony bill forward. Laws are already on the books. This is about lawsuits,plain and simple. As well as identity politics.

 

No different than any other civil rights movement, we all know how this ends.

 

Absolute nonsense. What federal laws protect LGBT people from being sacked from their jobs?

It's already illegal to sack someone because of their race, religion, nationality, disability or gender... Why shouldn't "sexual orientation" be on there?

The 21 or so states that have outlawed workplace discrimination based on sexuality haven't seen masses of litigation. The claims from the far right are absolute desperate drivel. This is a bill a vast majority of Americans support (including most GOP voters), and it just passed the Senate with bipartisan support. Failing to pass ENDA is only going to alienate the House GOP even further from voters.

 

This is a totally reasonable bill, but Boehner is already coming out against it and will try to block it in the house.

Boehner's district needs to send HIM a resounding NO vote.

 

Laws like this are bs. We don't need government getting in the way of contracts between consenting adults whether it be who one marries, employs, does business with etc. That said I will be the first one to join a boycott of anyone who openly discriminates against anyone based on such arbitrary reason such as race or sexual preference. You can't legislate tolerance... I say let bigots see their businesses suffer and fail because of their hate; it would be a much more meaningful lesson.

 

These kind of laws mostly operate in the way of a deterrent.

I understand the "less intrusion" argument, but ENDA isn't controversial in the slightest to most people.

 

Well, liberals are turning society into a cess pool so why not? Gay rights, animal rights, tree rights, etc.....If you want to make something socially accepted then turn it into a "cause".

 

Please prove that SEXUAL BEHAVIOR is INBORN, as are the traits, such as race and gender, which were the basis of prior civil rights actions.

 

Don't need to. There's no legitimate reason for the state to prohibit two consenting adults from engaging in a marriage contract, it's a very simple matter of equal protection under the law.

Regardless of whatever your bigoted opinion may be, you lose this battle in the end. Mark my words.

 

Okay . . .

Here's the story,
Of a lovely lady,
Who was bringing up three very lovely girls.
All of them had hair of gold,
Like their mother,
The youngest one in curls.
Here's the story,
Of a man named Brady,
Who was busy with three boys of his own.
They were four men,
Living all together, but they were all alone.
Till the one day when the lady met this fellow,
and they knew they was much more than a hunch.
That this group,
Must somehow form a family.
That's the way we all became the Brady Bunch,
The Brady Bunch, the Brady Bunch
That's the way we became the Brady Bunch.

On the other hand the guy that played the straight father was seriously homosexual if I remember my television lore correctly. What that has to do with this is uncertain, but it does seem to have a vague connection to the topic somehow.

 

Funny, I didn't realise that religion was inborn...

 

I know its illegal to fire someone due to them being homosexual, not sure where this law is going.

 

There is no federal law preventing an employer from sacking someone for being gay. If there were this bill wouldn't have been introduced to Congress for over 17 years!

 

it should illegal to fire someone just cause they are gay.

same with not hiring them just cause they are gay, not allowing them to patronize your store or business.

same as not renting to them.

 

The same set of standards apply to everyone, regardless of genital preference= 14th Amendment claims are nonsense.

Please cite any marriage restrictions that are different for gays than for straights.

 

What reason am I allowed to give for not hiring this guy to head up my SW sales dept?



Because the reason is he will cost me money.

 

Please try and stay on-topic. We're not discussing marriage.

Again, if it's a crime to fire someone for being Xtian, why shouldn't it be a crime to fire someone for being gay? While it may not be proven conclusively that people are born predisposed to being gay, Christians OBVIOUSLY aren't born Christians.

 

Other than those individuals who would prefer to marry someone of the same sex, so no, the standards are quite clearly unequal. In either case, this isn't about marriage, it's about discrimination.

 

If that's such an issue why are the vast majority of big businesses in favour of trans-inclusive ENDA?

Is this a problem for companies in states that outlaw trans discrimination? If so, can you provide any sources for that?

 

You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

 

Yes, we need to promote this lifestyle, wherever we can:


Gay and Bisexual Men's Health


Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been increasing among gay and bisexual men. Recent increases in syphilis cases have been documented across the country. In 2008, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 63% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. MSM often are diagnosed with other bacterial STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections.

Gay and bisexual men can be infected with HPV (Human Papillomavirus), the most common STD in the United States. Some types of HPV cause genital and anal warts and some can lead to the development of anal and oral cancer. Men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who are uninfected to develop anal cancer.

Men Who Have Sex with Men

Among MSM, the estimated number of new HIV infections increased overall and among MSM aged 13–24. MSM remain the population most heavily affected by HIV infection. Comparing 2008 to 2010, the number of new HIV infections among MSM increased 12% from 26,700 (95% CI: 23,400–30,000) in 2008 to 29,800 (95% CI: 26,200–33,500) in 2010, with a 22% increase among MSM aged 13–24 from 7,200 (95% CI: 6,100–8,300) in 2008 to 8,800 (95% CI: 7,500–10,100) in 2010. Although MSM represent about 7% of the male population in the United States, in 2010 MSM accounted for 78% of the new HIV infections among males.

CDC published new incidence estimates in December 2012 in the CDC HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report series. These estimates use the Stratified Extrapolation Approach to extrapolate (to the rest of the United States) from areas contributing national data for HIV incidence estimates. For 2007-2010, this includes 18 states and 2 cities which comprised 24 of the 25 areas funded for HIV incidence surveillance. The Stratified Extrapolation Approach applies the ratio of the estimated incidence of HIV infection to the estimated number of diagnoses of HIV infection in a given year within the areas that did contribute data for incidence estimation to the estimated number of diagnoses of HIV infection in the areas that did not contribute data.
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm


That's not even counting vastly higher drug/ alchohol abuse rates, and suicide rates, as well.


Why do we keep pretending that this is NOT AN ISSUE? It is WORSENING, not IMPROVING.
It's the Elephant in the Room that NO ONE WILL DISCUSS HONESTLY.