Obama Disappoints Gay Groups By Refusing To Ban Discrimination Against Gay Federal Contractors

[Purveyor]

By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, April 12, 4:36 PM

WASHINGTON — The White House says President Barack Obama does not plan to issue a ban on discrimination against gay federal contractors sought by gay rights groups. The decision disappoints a constituency that has been an important source of support for him.

White House press secretary Jay Carney says Obama is committed to gay rights and would support legislation that would protect gay, bisexual and transgender employees of federal contractors.

But he ruled out a special presidential order that would accomplish the same thing now. Gay rights groups say that Congress won’t act to pass such a law and that the White House should step in with an executive order.

Carney denies the White House is trying to avoid a politically sensitive issue in this election year.

MORE...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-disappoints-gay-groups-by-refusing-to-ban-discrimination-against-gay-federal-contractors/2012/04/12/gIQAvVNQDT_story.html

[vi5]

1. So does this means he's "devolving" on the issue?

Or is he just confident now that he can finally switch to "Republicans would be worse" mode because progressives have been sufficiently scared and cowered?

[kestrel91316]

2. He disappoints more than gays on this. He disappoints any straight with half a brain.

[Ian David]

3. If it wasn't disappointing, Purveyor wouldn't be posting it. n/t

[Occulus]

8. Go into the GLBT group and say that.

I dare you.

[Purveyor]

67. Do you care to expand on THAT? eom

[fascisthunter]

80. no... it's informative

[Tx4obama]

4. The words 'at this time' does NOT mean never.

... “Earlier today, we were told that the administration is not ready to move forward with a federal contractor nondiscrimination executive order at this time,” Solmonese said. ...

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/04/11/denied-white-house-says-no-to-enda-exec-order/

[dbackjon]

10. Exactly

[dbackjon]

9. SO WHEN THE FUCK WILL WE GET TREATED AS EQUAL?

WHEN the fuck will you stand up for equality for all AMEICANS?

Instead of excusing and spinning this spineless, shithead move by Obama, you should do what ANYONE THAT VALUES EQUALITY - by roundly condemning it.


EQUALITY DELAYED is EQUALITY DENIED.


I am fucking tired of waiting for equality. Discrimination doesn't affect you - but it sure the hell affects me.


WHEN IS THE TIME? 5 years??? 10 years???



Anyone defending the President on this should be ashamed to be called a Democrat. A true Democrat would excoriate him on ths.


Obviously, you don't give a fuck about equality for all Americans.

[Occulus]

16. perhaps tx4obama shares his views on this.

It's a question worth asking.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. at a convenient time to someone's political career.

[dbackjon]

36. So 20 years from now, when it will be not risky at all...

Gotcha

[La Lioness Priyanka]

39. or 30 or 40 or whenever is convenient for someone important

:eyeroll:

[FedUp_Queer]

52. I'll stick with this.

This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy.

---Guess Who?

[dbackjon]

57. Let me guess...

Someone who had a gay top advisor?

[Rex]

55. *Crickets*

nt.

[msanthrope]

13. Outrage aside, Barney Frank deserves to get EDNA passed....

I'm of the opinion that HR 1397 deserves a vote, and I happen to think that no Executive Order can do what an Act of Congress can with regards to an Article 1, Section 8 matter. Call me crazy, but there you are.....

[TriMera]

26. The EO would not effect ENDA.

This is not a request for an EO to replace the ENDA legislation. This EO would only cover government contractors and their employees. There is no reason that the POTUS should not do this except that he doesn't believe that it is politically advantageous.

[msanthrope]

34. Well, it would. It would give certain 'moderate' Democrats an out that I don't think they should

get.

An EO would allow certain 'moderate' Democrats to avoid a vote they should have to take, and,

An EO would provoke a court challenge that would effectively table the legislation pending in the House and Senate. (Sep. of Powers tends to do that.)

I am of the opinion that the Democrats in Congress need to take a public vote, and not depend on the President to bail them out of votes that may affect them with 'conservative' voters.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. How so? In fact it would show moderate democrats that the president expects them

to stand up for civil rights.

[msanthrope]

48. You do that with a phone call from the Oval Office telling them to stand up and be counted. Barney

Frank isn't done yet....

[TriMera]

42. ENDA has been on the table since 1994.

This EO is simple. It only extends to government contractors. As far as a court challenge goes, there can be a court challenge to legislation passed by Congress, too. Is that a reason not to pass legislation? Actually, it's the President who is taking the "out" with conservative voters. Maybe he is still evolving on this issue as well?

[msanthrope]

46. The problem is that if an EO is under court challenge, it's probable that Judiciary won't take the

legislation out of commitee....simply put, if you have a piece of ENDA under court review (i.e., the meat of the EO) you can't get ENDA out of committee.

A court challenge to a congressional act under Article 1, Section 8 would fare better than a court challenge to an EO--see DADT for the prime example of that.

[Tx4obama]

51. Press Sec Carney's quotes on the link below

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=1002554953

p.s. He refers to DADT too.

[Rex]

19. No it means, 'not now' as in ' maybe some other time'.

Which would make me feel like a second hand citizen. Not important enough to make it NOW.

[msanthrope]

23. Rep. Frank has pending legislation on this matter. Should the President not allow him an ENDA

victory????


Further, an EO can be overwritten by the next Repuke President. An Article 1, Section 8 matter is best taken care of by the Congress--see, DADT.

[Rex]

27. Why not join him in that victory? Can they not share it together?

What is better then a win? A win-win.

[TriMera]

30. It would be a win-win. See my post down-thread.n/t

[msanthrope]

50. As I explained elsewhere on the thread, having two branches of

government tripping over each other can squelch the whole shebang....

[Rex]

54. Why would they be tripping over each other? I fail to see it.

Maybe an incompetent administration would do so, but that is not the case in this instance.

[msanthrope]

62. Did you read my other posts??? I explain the mechanism quite clearly. nt.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. ENDA and this EO differs in scope.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by civilian, nonreligious employers with at least 15 employees.

The EO only effect companies that wanted federal government contracts.

I don't see how the EO would have trumped ENDA. The EO maybe would have set up an easier path to ENDA.

I mean defend the president as much as you want, but your argument really doesn't hold much water.

[TriMera]

32. Thank you. n/t

[msanthrope]

41. Actually, ENDA covers government workers and contractors, too.

If you pass an EO, you effectively table the ENDA legislation through two means---

1) Congressional intertia.

2) The inevitable court challenge of the EO which will cause the Constitutional Committee to table the legislation. (edited to add---its the Judiciary Committee it really has to pass through, and I can't remember if they still call the subcom 'constitutial' or whatever the frak.)


I think an EO is what you do if Barney Frank can't get a vote by the summer, FYI.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

44. Yes, i know. The EO is much limited in scope and could have been used to set

a precedent about supporting LGBT in employment non-discrimination.

There is nothing to argue that this would have lead to intertia or that Congress would not have proceeded with ENDA.

Nothing but massive speculation to defend the President from what was an act of bigotry.

[msanthrope]

58. So you want an EO to pre-empt an Article 1, Section 8 matter???

You may call it "massive speculation." I call it reading the constitution, understanding basic civics, and law school.

Again.....explain to me how you get a bill out of Judiciary when a major component/issue of the bill is in the courts. Explain that, please.

[TriMera]

69. Let me ask you something. How many times has an EO been overturned by the Courts?

I'll tell you how many: twice. What do you think the odds are that it will wind up in the courts? The POTUS just doesn't want to piss off his corporate buddies before the election.

[msanthrope]

70. Um. This tells me you never read why. Read the Youngstown case, and when you understand

why ----after the SCOTUS delivered such a smackdown to the EO power...why only two ever got there.

FYI......The fact that only two got there should tell you something.

[xchrom]

5. Du rec. Nt

[Iggo]

6. Yep. Any day now.

[dbackjon]

11. Obama - doesn't give a fuck about equality

Spineless

[msanthrope]

15. I disagree with you, respectfully. I think EDNA deserves a chance at passage, and if it doesn't

pass, then the President should consider an EO.

I think the President does care about equality.

[dbackjon]

17. Why should we wait?

He could help out people TODAY.

This would show Congress he is serious about it.


But it doesn't affect you, so no biggie, right?

[msanthrope]

20. Why would you assume it doesn't affect me? Issuing an EO gives Congress a pass. It also allows

the next Repuke president to wipe it away with a stroke of a pen....

[dbackjon]

22. Not if he challenges Congress to extend it to ALL AMERICANS

He needs to show leadership

[msanthrope]

25. I think he's shown tremendous leadership. You may disagree, I will vote for him in November.

Who are you voting for?

[dbackjon]

28. Ah, the old strawman rears his head

Obama > McCain, therefore I voted for Obama
Obama > Rmoney, therefore I will vote for Obama


Just because he is the lesser of two evils doesn't mean he gets a free pass from me, or anybody.

He needs to be out front LEADING the fight for equality.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. what a supremely lame argument. nt

[TriMera]

35. If all else fails...n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

37. i think its bigoted to cast aspersions on a minority group for standing up for their rights

we can never be loyal enough to the democratic party and its leaders.

[msanthrope]

43. Well, I don't disagree with the right, I just disagree with how to go about obtaining it....

Upthread, you indicated that both matters could be done---the EO, and ENDA....

But you haven't explained how the legislation passes the Constitutional Committee (i.e., House Judiciary subcommitee) if the EO is under court challenge.

[TriMera]

49. I especially love the part where those "loyal democrats"

come in and tell us how we're going about things all wrong and how little we know about the political process. That's my favorite part!

[msanthrope]

53. It's not the 'political process.' It's Civics. Tell me how an Article 1, Section 8 matter is best

handled by an EO?????

My argument with you isn't that the right should not be extended....it's HOW the right should be extended.

[FedUp_Queer]

45. Well, let's see.

Suppose I am a gay man (which I am), and I want the government to treat me as an equal in government contracting. I can vote for Obama who has refused to end discrimination based upon sexual orientation in government contracting or I can vote for Romney (or whatever dunderhead they choose) who (let's assume) is against ending discrimination based upon sexual orientation in government contracting. You're right. The choice is clear.

[msanthrope]

59. So who are you voting for???? nt

[FedUp_Queer]

66. Mr. M. Mouse. (That is, if they count my vote with the optical scan machines.)

[msanthrope]

12. I wouldn't consider an EO until Barney Frank's legislation is off the table. (HR 1397)

Rep. Frank actually has a pretty decent shot at ENDA passage this year, and unless he fails with that I wouldn't issue an EO.

Generally, Art 1, Section 8 matters are best accomplished by the Congress, not the Executive branch.

[Tx4obama]

14. Thank you for posting the best comment on this thread.

EOs can be overturned by the next Republican president.

Legislation passed by The Congress is much harder to be overturned.

[msanthrope]

18. Outrage aside, I'm a girl who loves a separation of powers debate. I know our President is

committed to civil rights.

You raise a good point---EO's can be overwritten. Acts of Congress???? Not so much.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. ENDA. nt

[msanthrope]

24. Dyslexia kicking in...I had to look a few times before I saw it....nt

[bigtree]

38. +

[dsc]

64. On what planet?

I doubt we have the votes even if it came to the floor but under the current, GOP leadership, which is going no where before 2013, there is zero chance of it coming to the floor. I have a better chance of winning the Boston Marathon than Frank has of passing ENDA in that House.

[msanthrope]

65. So if Frank can't pass ENDA in his last term, you want EO action????

I think we need a floor vote, however....I think even if we can't get ENDA passed, we need to push 'moderate' Dems to voice their vote. And if that fails, then you go the EO route, and hope and pray it survives the courts.

[dsc]

68. We don't control the floor

so there will be no floor vote. I would love to see ENDA pass but I just don't see any possible way for that to happen. In the meantime an executive order could be a god send.

[msanthrope]

71. So--You think a President who does not have the floor should issue EOs???

I get what you want, but our constitution demands that the Executive defer to the popularly elected body on issues that are their domain.

[dsc]

75. No it doesn't

He has every right to issue an executive order requiring that people contracting with the government follow certain rules just as Johnson did in regards to Affirmative Action to site but one example. If Congress doesn't like it, congress can pass a law over his veto to remove it if it so chooses. Or the next President can remove the order if s/he chooses.

[Broderick]

47. I don't get this one really

Seems to be a questionable decision.

[msanthrope]

60. As I've explained above, an EO could actually interfere with pending legslation....ENDA.

It's the DADT wars, again....if you have Executive action when Congressional action if called for, you do two things--

1) You encourage Congress to not do their job.

2) You set up a court challenge that harms your underlying issue.


It's not that the cat should be skinned---it's HOW you skin that cat.

[Broderick]

61. Ok. I hope you are right

But it won't lead to good press, and it appears LGBT groups are unhappy and feeling shat on again.

[msanthrope]

63. Good legislation is better than good press. I hope Barney Frank can do this last

Act. I really hope he can.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. As a gay man, I am disappointed by this.

As a Democrat, I say to myself, "Romney would be worse. McCain would have been worse. The Republicans are far worse on this issue than Democrats will ever be."

YMMV. For me, I can keep my eye on the prize (full rights for all) and know which party will be enacting gay rights before the other.

[gratuitous]

72. Pathetic

All the way around. Absolutely pathetic. "Carney denies the White House is trying to avoid a politically sensitive issue" translates to "We think you people are really, really stupid." But it's nice to see that our good friends at Focus on the Family (via CitizenLink) are pleased about this decision. I'm sure they'll all vote for Obama come November.

[ruggerson]

73. HERE IS WHAT OBAMA HIMSELF SAID TWO YEARS AGO

When asked about ways to circumvent legislation stalled in congress.

"There still a lot of things we can do administratively even if we don't pass things legislatively. So my ability to make sure that the federal government is an employer that treats gays and lesbians fairly, that's something I can do, and sets a model for folks across the board,"

Those who are offering varied excuses, such as an EO would harm the passage of ENDA in Congress, have no rational basis for their argument.

The Executive Order in question covers only Federal Employees - a very different legal protection than what ENDA offers.

There is NO, ZERO, NADA chance that ENDA will ever be brought to a vote in a Republican House. Anyone who argues that an EO might harm pending legislation in Congress does not understand the history of this issue.

ENDA has been "pending" for over 20 years.

FIVE other Presidents have issued Executive Orders in regards to employment in the Federal government.

In 1965, Johnson signed an Executive Order banning federal contractors from discrimination based on race, religion and gender.

This EO would have added sexual orientation to the list.

Obama himself has signed 115 Executive Orders so far in his Presidency.

115.

"There still a lot of things we can do administratively even if we don't pass things legislatively. So my ability to make sure that the federal government is an employer that treats gays and lesbians fairly, that's something I can do, and sets a model for folks across the board,"

Yeah, right.

[FreeState]

74. "my ability to make sure that the federal government is an employer that treats gays and lesbians...

"There still a lot of things we can do administratively even if we don't pass things legislatively. So my ability to make sure that the federal government is an employer that treats gays and lesbians fairly, that's something I can do, and sets a model for folks across the board,"

Thanks for pointing this out. Im so tiered of being treated like a political pawn. 75% of the public supports EDNA - there is not political damage from an EO here.

[BlueIris]

76. Lovely.

And by lovely I mean supportive of discrimination.

[Bohunk68]

77. So, Barney Frank is supposed to get ENDA passed

in the current legislative year? RIIIIIIGHT! How stupid do you think we all are? The only thing that surprises me is that we haven't been told to wait until after the election, or we are just wanting a unicorn farting rainbows, or, we don't understand the process. Or, look, Obama got DADT repealed!! No, he didn't. Congress did. He just signed it, after negotiating all over the place to give himself waffle room. The man doesn't have a spine. And, oh, that Change you can believe in? When is it coming? And, yes, I voted for him and yes, I probably will again. So, don't start that shit either.

[The Philosopher]

78. I'm disappointed in the President as well

but my disappointment doesn't make me a Republican nor does it make me forgetful of how the government works. And it certainly doesn't make me out of touch with reality. These are the three arguments presented by several posters on this issue and it's entirely insensitive. And, I think, that's the point. It is entirely insensitive to promote a President over people, especially a discriminated people. The following arguments are insufficient against the complaints that the President should have issued an ENDA EO and, when addressed, show they are only a defense of the President himself, not of his actions or reasons. After all, regardless of the arguments, it’s show that if you’re unhappy with the President, you’re voting for a Republican.

I’ve seen basically four arguments presented in defense of not issuing an EO. It’s possibly I’ve overlooked others, as I know I have on some that I see as irrelevant or addressed already in the responses to the four arguments.

The four are:

Argument 1: An EO can be overturned by the next President

Argument 2: An EO would invite Congress not to do its Job

Argument 3: An EO would be attacked by the SCOTUS

Argument 4: Such an attack would negate the EO's effect and stall ENDA.


Argument One uses a factual reality that's faced by all legislation and even the identity of the country. What the next four years brings cannot be guaranteed in the preceding years. We could get a Republican President; we could also get a Republican President, Congress, and Supreme Court. So if the President should be afraid to issue an EO that does good simply because the next in line can undo it, Congress should have similar fears. The fact the latter is hard to achieve than the former has no relevance: it is still a factual reality we all face. Therefore, this argument is irrelevant.

Argument Two is an absurdity. It both states that Congress is waiting for the President to issue orders, and upon failure does the job for him; and that Congress has such a view of itself that if the President made any comment or act that they see as their domain, they throw a hissy. The EO would not invite Congress not to discuss and vote upon ENDA, as an EO cannot mute the rules of Congress. Nor can it mute the importance of such a legislation, which would reach beyond the EO, and be more important. Therefore, this argument doesn't address reality (argument two, I mean).

Argument Three assumes two things: one, that if attacked it wouldn't be useful, which is wrong; two, that the President has already lost against the SCOTUS. Now, I'm not much for Republicans like most (I'm sure) of my Democratic colleagues, but just because the SCOTUS is a Republican one doesn't mean the President is an idiot. Someone would argue against the EO and the President would argue back, and the SCOTUS decides who has the better argument. That's it. The review by SCOTUS isn't a reason to issue an EO. In fact, it's more likely to be helpful, as it is one more point (other than the world not ending when LGBTers aren't discriminated against on the job) that ENDA should be passed.

The Fourth argument is a sub-argument of Three and a reflection of 1 and 2. If the SCOTUS reviewed, it is argued, the EO then it wouldn't be implemented and Congress would be unable to pass ENDA. This is a foolish argument, for in order to be reviewed someone must issue a complaint. Then the complainer would have to provide proof of a problem with the EO. It would be nice if, like with Health Care legislation, such proof was aired out in public. Because, in my lifetime at least, 2012 has been nice to showing idiots are idiots to the public like no other year.

There's also a bit of reality that hampers the fourth argument: Irritatingly, the Log Cabin Republicans were suing the government over DADT. They were trying to overturn the legislation before the repeal. They also did it during the repeal and after the repeal, as they won the case months after the President signed the repeal into law. There's no reason why ENDA cannot be passed if the EO is being reviewed by Congress.

And let us not forget that SCOTUS can review legislation at any time. Providing someone makes a (relevant) argument.

Whether or not I like the President (I do) or whether or not I voted for him and will do in the future (I did and will) is irrelevant to the issue at hand. He should have issued the EO and relieved a pressure on a discriminated group and provided one more piece of evidence that ENDA would not destroy the economy or the country.

[dbackjon]

79. Awesome reply!

[treestar]

81. Quit thinking of the EO as a miracle decree

What if Obama had done the EO on DADT that had been demanded over and over?

[ruggerson]

82. one does not preclude the other

n/t

[The Philosopher]

83. It would have shown

the military wouldn't have gone to shit, just like those surveys showed, except without being offensive or kicking anyone out. We're adults, we don't believe in magic, so we know what an EO actually is and what it can do. And what can be done at the same time it's issued. I'm sure everyone wants to make the Republicans super boogymen in order to excuse a decision of the President, but if the Republicans wanted to fight DADT, they could've accused the President of faking the survey results, just like he faked his birth certificate.

(He did not fake his birth certificate).