Bill Advances To Outlaw Discrimination Against Gays

[Gaybutton]

Bill Advances To Outlaw Discrimination Against Gays

By JEREMY W. PETERS
November 4, 2013

WASHINGTON — A measure that would outlaw workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity overcame a significant obstacle in the Senate on Monday as seven Republicans crossed party lines and voted to begin debate on the bill.

The 61-30 vote marks the first time since 1996 that the full Senate will consider a measure to extend federal nondiscrimination law to gay, lesbian, and bisexual people — a stark reminder, supporters said, that as the public has come around to accepting gay rights, Congress has been slow to keep pace.

It is also the first time that either house of Congress has voted on a nondiscrimination bill that includes transgender people.

Before the vote, senators speaking in support of the measure drew parallels to other fights to end discrimination, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. None of the Republicans voting against it spoke up.

“Here we are today, now taking one more step to make the American family more inclusive,” said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa. “No one should be discriminated against because of race, sex religion, national origin, and they shouldn’t be discriminated against because of who they love or who they are.”

Senators are expected to try to amend the bill in the next several days to address Republican concerns. One proposed change would broaden the types of religious groups that are exempt from the bill, and another would make sure religious institutions are not subject to retaliation by the government if they refuse to employ people otherwise covered under the bill.

If one of those amendments is approved, the bill’s sponsors say they are confident they will be able to maintain the level of support — 60 votes — to break a Republican filibuster attempt and pass the measure.

Federal law already protects people from discrimination at work because of race, religion and a number of other factors. But it remains legal in most states to fire or refuse to hire people because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Just 21 states and the District of Columbia offer such protections.

“The hatred that drives discrimination has no place in a nation continually striving to form a more perfect union,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont.

Senator Susan Collins, the Maine Republican who has pressed colleagues on her side of the aisle to sign on to the bill, said her constituents were often shocked when they learned no such federal nondiscrimination law existed.

“They just assume that our civil rights laws, which protect people from discrimination based on race, gender, religion, age, also protect individuals based on sexual orientation,” she said, calling the measure “common sense.”

The other Republicans joining Ms. Collins were Senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, Dean Heller of Nevada, Mark S. Kirk of Illinois, Rob Portman of Ohio and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. Another Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who voted for the legislation in committee and supports same-sex marriage, was absent.

Despite passing this procedural test, the fate of the bill remained uncertain. The Republican-controlled House was already signaling that the bill was going nowhere fast. Even before the Senate could act on Monday, Speaker John A. Boehner said through his spokesman that the bill “will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs.”

Nondiscrimination legislation including sexual orientation and gender identity has languished in Congress for nearly 40 years.

In 1996, the Senate came within one vote of passing one. Eleven years later, the House approved legislation protecting gays, lesbian and bisexual people — but only after stripping out the transgender provision. It went nowhere in the Senate.

For a few tense minutes on Monday evening, the outcome of the vote was uncertain. Ms. Murkowski’s absence meant that one more Republican who had not yet declared support needed to vote yes, or else the bill would have failed to meet the 60-vote threshold.

Mr. Portman and the bill’s main sponsor, Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, were in negotiations in the Republican cloakroom just off the Senate floor until the vote’s conclusion.

It was an unusual scene of last-minute haggling in public view, as the press and spectators in the galleries looked on. About a dozen senators, including Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and Charles E. Schumer, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, crowded around the entrance of the cloakroom trying to persuade Mr. Portman and Mr. Toomey.

In the end, all three agreed to vote yes, after Democrats said they would allow votes on the Republican amendments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/us/po ... urdle.html