Today I received a response. I have copied it here for you to read, too.

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me about legislation that supports legal marriage rights for same sex couples.  I appreciate hearing from you.

As you may know, the Respect for Marriage Act, H.R. 3567, was recently introduced in the House of Representatives.  This legislation would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a bill passed in 1996 that seeks to “define and protect the institution of marriage” by allowing states to refuse to recognize legal same sex marriages performed outside of their state.  Further, H.R. 3567 will ensure that the federal government will legally recognize individuals as married if their marriage status is considered as valid by the state in which they were married.  While at this time I am not a cosponsor of this legislation, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this important issue.  H.R. 3567 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, on which I do not sit.  As the bill moves through the legislative process, I will keep your thoughts on this issue in mind.

Let me assure you that I share your deep concerns about the prejudices that members of the gay community face every day. That’s why I am a cosponsor of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2517) which would enable the domestic partner of a federal employee to be eligible for benefits in a similar manner and to a similar extent as the spouse of a federal employee. This eligibility would extend to retirement benefits, life insurance, health insurance and compensation for work injuries. There is already strong evidence in the private sector that offering domestic partner benefits improves the lives of affected workers significantly without a major financial impact. Another significant step forward along the path toward equal rights is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 (H.R. 3017), of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. This bill would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. These bills have been referred to the House Committees on Administration, Oversight and Government Reform, and Judiciary. It is my hope that these important bills will be brought to the House floor for a vote this Congress and I will continue to work toward their passage.

I am also proud to lend my support as a cosponsor to the Uniting American Families Act (H.R. 1024) to eliminate discriminatory immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain permanent resident status in the United States in accordance with current spousal provisions for obtaining permanent resident status. At this time, H.R. 1024 has been referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.

Please continue to contact me about the issues that concern you, as I both need and welcome your thoughts and ideas. [Lots of stuff here about how to contact him.]

Very truly yours,
JAY INSLEE

So I wrote back, through his web form, as the address the e-mail came from was a no-reply.

Hello Representative Inslee,

Thank you for your reply.

I appreciate your co-sponsorship of ENDA, immigration laws that acknowledge our relationships, and of federal employee benefits for same-sex partners.

However, your response to me regarding why you are not co-sponsoring HR 3567 seems–incomplete, if not disingenuous.

You say that you are not on the Judiciary Committee. I know of at least 95 co-sponsors of HR 3567, and there are 40 House Judiciary Committee members. As 16 of them are Republican, and therefore unlikely supporters of 3567, the response that you don’t sit on the committee in question was obviously not enough to stop some of your colleagues from co-sponsoring the bill. Even if every democratic member of the committee were a supporter–doubtful–there would be 71 other representatives who co-sponsored the bill and do not sit on that committee.

Furthermore, two of the bills concerning LGBT rights you say you are proud to co-sponsor have been referred to that same committee you are not on. So by way of explanation, this seems like a smoke screen.

I don’t think I read in your response a single word about why you aren’t co-sponsoring it. I realize it would be a dicey political move to go on record saying that you believe we don’t deserve the same rights you enjoy.

But in lieu of other information, it is the only conclusion I can draw.

One day we will have equal rights, whether you believe in them or not. I am asking you to be a leader on this issue. This is why we elected you–to lead, and to do what’s right for your constituents. My family are your constituents, and right now we have a small fraction of the rights that would be granted a heterosexual couple who, like us, had been legally wed.

I am writing to you from Iowa, where we are married on the state level. We are on a trip to visit our marriage, because it doesn’t live in Washington like we do. This extraordinary measure is only necessary because of DOMA.

I ask you to think about how you would feel in our position. What if one of your children were gay and couldn’t have the same rights as your other children? Would the injustice be clearer to you then?

I would like to discuss this issue with you in person. I have been in touch with [the scheduler] in your office to set up an appointment. I would like you to meet one of the families who struggles under DOMA.

You can read more about our journey and our family at our website, http://AreWeMarried.com.

I hope to speak with you soon.

Regards,
Ruby

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Wikipedia map of LGBT employment discrimination laws

Reading some reactions to the ENDA hearing today, I came across a blog post from Focus on the Family. [Forgive me for not linking to it, but my hit on their page was one too many. I am loathe to drive traffic to their blog.]

“So why aren’t we talking more about the religious liberty rights of for-profit religious corporations?  I haven’t seen a reasonable defense for denying a religious exemption to them, and I would argue that there isn’t one.”

Says the writer of the post. And indeed, current religious exemption law is on his side. Title VII  of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 says that the law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion:

“…shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.” [Emphasis mine.]

According to the Wikipedia entry on ENDA,

“Religious organizations are provided a special exception to this protection, similar to the principles of the Civil Rights Act. Non-profit membership-only clubs (except labor unions) are likewise not bound to this rule.”

I would argue that religious organizations, for- and non-profit alike, should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity in matters of employment. I can see that a person employed as, say, a minister, would have to belong to the religion as a job qualification. But do their accountants and school bus drivers have to drive and subtract with the blessing of the right God?

The wording of the 1963 act is a little odd: “…to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.” Connected with the carrying on of its activities–what does that even mean? Anything the organization does falls into that category. I’m sure the wording is purposely broad, but maybe it should be narrowed.

In this time of rampant unemployment, is it right to deny someone work because of sexual orientation, gender identity, or religion? Gayness is not an evangelical movement. It is not a virus. Letting heathens and queers in the door does not loose the foundation of the house of God. Giving these organizations the right to discriminate is sanctioning their claim to godliness; in fact it is tacitly agreeing that God would discriminate, too. On behalf of my queer Christian friends, I am offended.

As for the original question posed by the blogger as to why for-profit corporations should not be included in the exemption, I say this: Non-profit organizations are regulated. There are rules about how they conduct business, what business they conduct, and how they spend their money. Corporations, on the other hand, have much more freedom. They can apply all of their profits, for example, to lobbying, if the owners want to. They can freely endorse and fund candidates in elections. They can, in other words, more easily affect who governs and how. (If you don’t believe me, just look at how the insurance companies are influencing health care reform.)

It stands to reason, then, that special rights (and I use that term thoughtfully) granted to religious non-profits should not apply to for-profit corporations of any kind. The point of a religious organization (in theory) is to promote and uphold the religion. The point of a company is to reap profits. Why should professed religion exempt them from the rules of the corporate road?

I invite those with more than my paltry understanding of the law to comment further.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites