Obama Mistakenly Puts Faith Back in the Senate to End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Since Judge Virginia A. Phillips' injunction earlier this week requiring the immediate halt in the enforcement of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" there has been a lot of debate on whether the Obama administration should appeal the decision. The New York Times reported today that on Thursday the Justice Department filed a request for a stay on the judge's decision pending an appeal. They have asked her to respond by Monday "given the urgency and gravity of the issues".

The Justice department argued that the sudden restructuring of the policy would be "enormously disruptive and time-consuming, particularly at a time when this nation is involved in combat operations overseas." So in other words we can put our own troops' civil rights on hold while they put their lives on the line every day to fight for the rights of others? How does that make sense? It is true that putting an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will result in the necessary adjustment of other military policies, but it is a weak argument for allowing the continued violation of a group's civil rights. Abruptly ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will most likely result in our public servants having to work a little harder and our government having to spend a little more money in order to see that restructuring of all related policies is completed in a timely manner with the least disruption, but that is the small price the government must pay for years of discrimination of its lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members.

It is apparent that President Obama, who promised that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy "will end on (his) watch", wishes to have Congress make the final decision on the future of the policy. This is a scary thought, considering the strong possibility that Republicans, most of whom do not support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" appeal, will take back majority in the House and/or Senate after the midterm elections. Obama agreed with Christian Berle, deputy executive of Log Cabin Republicans, statement to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "to do what it takes in the lame duck session to end 'don't ask, don't tell' legislatively". I hope that Berle was right when he said that if Phillips suspends her ruling then "justice will be delayed, but it will not be denied". The lame duck session may be the last chance for many years to put an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". 

Obama was quoted as saying "Congress explicitly passed a law that took away the power of the executive branch to end this policy. We have, I believe, enough votes in the Senate to go ahead and remove this constraint on me". In politics, believing that something may happen, is of no real value because politicians flop  back and forth on issues more than a fish out of water. If you really want the policy to end on your watch Obama, then do not appeal Judge Phillips' decision and allow the policy to meet its overdue demise. Why gamble on the fact that you may get enough Senate votes to end the ban yourself when it was the same Senate that put a stop to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" appeal less than one month ago.

So which one is it Obama? Do you want Congress to put an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Do you want them to officially hand you a special invitation allowing you to put an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Or do you want to forgo all uncertainties and allow "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to come to an end now with Judge Phillips decision? Quit talking around the issue and take action! I hope that Obama's promise to put and end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on his watch is not just another piece of the broken promises puzzle that he has become an expert at constructing.

Let's Not Forget About ENDA

With so many LGBT rights violations occurring on a daily basis, it is easy to overlook and forget about related issues that are not highlighted in the media. Just recently I was reminded of the fact that 29 states do not have laws to protect lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders from employment discrimination. In these states an individual can be fired, refused being hired or promoted, and harassed based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. It is an outrage that these practices are allowed to occur legally in a nation whose core values are supposedly based on equality and protection of the rights of its citizens.

In 1964, when LGBT rights were not yet at the forefront of politics, Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed into federal law. This Act included Title VII, which prohibited employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, many organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign and the Task Force Action Fund, are fighting to see that the Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA) is passed into federal law. ENDA would provide the LGBT community with similar employment discrimination protection that is provided to others by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  

ENDA was first introduced in Congress in 1994, and has been introduced every year except during the 109th US Congress. Unfortunately it was in 1994 when the Republicans took majority of both the House and the Senate, and it was not until 2007 that the Democrats regained majority of both. So, it is not surprising that ENDA and many bills including acts for the equality of LGBT rights took a backseat for over 12 years. It seemed that in 2009 ENDA had a good chance of passing into federal law after two hearings for the bill were held, but eventually it got "put on the shelf" until a later date.

So what should we expect now? With the threat of the Republicans regaining majority in the House and Senate, is it inevitable that ENDA will be put on the back burner once again? At a time when the US unemployment rate continues to hover at the high rate of 9.5% and the economy is suffering from one of the worst recessions, it is of the utmost importance that Congress protect all individuals, including the LGBT community, from workplace discrimination. By not protecting lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders Congress is allowing employers looking to cut costs to easily target these groups without the threat of repercussions.

Is it not written in the Constitution of the United States of America that "nor shall any State... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws"? If the Federal government refuses to pass a law protecting the LGBT community from employment discrimination, then shouldn't the States take the responsibility upon themselves to ensure that all groups are provided 'equal protection of laws'? If an individual cannot be fired based on race, sex, religion, or national origin, isn't it unconstitutional to allow an individual to be discriminated against based on sexual orientation or gender identity?

Even one of the most famous quotes in the history of the United States afford the LGBT community equal rights:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"

LIFE: the individual's right to life should be considered inviolable

- but yet the government's allowance, and even acceptance, of discrimination against the LGBT community has fueled the unfounded hate of the prejudice, leading to a high rate of murders targeting LGBT individuals. Included in these rates are the suicides of LGBT individuals that were pushed to the edge due to mental, physical, and emotional violent acts against them.

LIBERTY: the right to liberty is considered an unalterable aspect of the human condition. The right to liberty includes personal freedom: the realm in which the individual is free to act, to think and to believe; the right to seek employment wherever one pleases

- but yet employers are allowed to discriminate against anyone that is openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. How can a LGBT individual be free to act, to think, and to believe openly if they run the risk of possible economic hardship? How can the LGBT community share the same rights to seek employment wherever if their sexual orientation may put them at a severe disadvantage?

The Pursuit of Happiness: it is the right of citizens in the American constitutional democracy to attempt to attain - "pursue" - happiness in their own way, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

- but yet in the attempt for an LGBT individual to pursue a career that makes them happy, they run the risk of giving up the right to live openly.

Our founding fathers had it right when they included the above quote in the Declaration of Independence. So why is it that history has since been filled with groups having to continuously fight for equal rights? The answer is simple: Ignorance.

On the upside, as of September 2009,  87% of Fortune 500 companies had implemented non-discrimination policies that included protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation, and 41% had policies that protected against discrimination based on gender identity.

You can take action now by contacting your representative via email or by calling. Let your representative know that you support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, H.R. 3017/S. 1584, and that he/she should support the passing of ENDA immediately. The U.S. Capitol switchboard is open 24 hours per day. The number is 202-224-3121. Give the operator your zip code and ask to be transferred to your representative.