Massachusetts Congressmen Push Special Rights for Homosexuals

Geraldine A. Hawkins
December 10, 2002

A bill, which is sponsored by Senator Edward M. Kennedy and the entire Massachusetts delegation, would give special to rights to homosexuals across the entire country.

This proposed legislation is causing grave concern among employers at small businesses and at religious organizations.

"The question is what's the goal of ENDA," says Tafel. "Only 15% of Americans claim they would want to discriminate against a gay employee. And the business community is way ahead of the government on diversity and freedom. So, why all this energy on a bill that won't really change the lives of gay Americans?" As the voice of gay conservatives, Tafel proposes a free-market solution for those homosexuals, who do, perhaps, "just want to be left alone":

"As gay Republicans, might we commit to creating a national job bank network for people who are fired because they are gay? If a gay person is working for the 15% who support firing gays, chances are they don't want to win in court. They want a new job where they can be themselves."

When Tafel first proposed his idea for a job bank, "people [in the gay community] kind of mocked it, saying it was a 'cover up,'" Tafel tells MassNews. "But it is an informal reality."

If a person is fired because he is homosexual, people would send an e-mail around, saying this person needs a job. It happens very rarely that a gay person is fired because of discrimination, Tafel says, But when it does, people definitely jump in and start working on it. It rarely happens to people at the top of the totem pole. It's usually someone in their twenties who's just starting out.

Tafel, who is from Massachusetts and worked as an aide to Bill Weld, cited the case of a restaurant chain in the South called Cracker Barrel, which had a policy of firing people because they were homosexual. "Even they have developed a non-discrimination policy," Tafel tells MassNews, reinforcing his contention ENDA is unnecessary, indeed counterproductive.

"ENDA is seen as a measure of success in the gay community, because non-discrimination laws are sacrosanct," Tafel tells MassNews, "but where non-discrimination laws are in place, employers are afraid to hire gay people, because if it doesn't work out, they are afraid to fire them. It's scary for employers. If you're an anti-gay employer, you weed people out before you hire them."

The bill would forbid discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation," defined as "homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality" whether "real or perceived." The legislation applies also to one's "associates," and is meant to cover both reality and "perception." It is S1284.

Would Apply to 94 Million Private Employees

In addition to millions of government employees in thousands of offices across the country, ENDA would also apply to 94 million private-sector employees who work for 866,000 companies in about 2.2 million places of business. warns the U.S. Senate's Republican Policy Committee.

In a study entitled, "The ENDA-Scope," the Senate's Committee asks some tough questions about Sen. Kennedy's pet project:

o Must every employer who has religious or moral scruples about homosexuality treat the promiscuous homosexual exactly the same as the celibate or continent homosexual?

o Would a willingness to hire the continent but not the promiscuous be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of ENDA? They both have the same orientation; it is the behavior that the employer finds relevant.

o Does it matter that some heterosexuals are not married and their disability must be based on something more than their heterosexuality, and that some homosexuals are married so that they have no disability under the rule irrespective of their homosexuality?

According to the homosexual Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU "has a list of horror stories of employees who have been fired because they were perceived as being homosexual."

However, Rich Tafel raised some eyebrows in his community when he wrote in a "Capitol Briefing" last May: "I can tell you anecdotally that as I travel all over the country, I almost never hear from anyone who was fired because they were gay. In fact, I hear almost every other issue being passionately argued but that one. As gay Republicans, this might be a chance to show where the free market is ahead of big government."

Every Massachusetts Congressman co-sponsored ENDA. For the record, they are John Oliver (Dem., 1st), Richard Neal (Dem., 2nd), James McGovern (Dem., 3rd) Barney Frank (Dem., 4th), Martin Meehan (Dem., 5th), John Tierney (Dem., 6th), Edward Markey (Dem., 7th) Michael Capuano (Dem., 8th), Stephen Lynch (Dem., 9th), and William Delahunt (Dem., 10th).

Kennedy Has Been Primary Spokesman

Senator Kennedy has been the primary spokesman for ENDA for ten years. Two weeks after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Kennedy's press secretary Jim Manley said that Kennedy was "not going to get sidetracked" from his ENDA's passage by unexpected national security issues.

But others were quick to counter. "I'm surprised that anyone would have the audacity to try to play on the emotions of the American public, to play on the compromised situation and schedules of members of Congress in order to try to move legislation like this," said Stephanie Mollins of the Family Research Council at that time. "There has been an unspoken understanding among members of Congress, among leaders on [Capitol] Hill, that they would not bring forward or push any legislation that was of particular contention and controversy during the congressional session as they are dealing with these difficult issues of terrorism, of national security and so forth."

According to a Oct. 1988 study by Simmons Market Research Bureau, homosexuals do not qualify as a disadvantaged minority group, because on the whole their earnings are substantially higher than those of heterosexuals. This was disputed by some in the homosexual community, including the Human Rights Campaign, which claims: "The problem with the data is that the values quoted for 'homosexuals' are in no way representative of the average gay and lesbian; they are for homosexuals who subscribe to one of 8 leading gay newspapers; they thus belong to a select group within the gay/les community."

But a spokesman for the American Family Association, Ed Vitagliano, says, "Homosexuals may or may not earn more or less than most straight people, but most married people have to be thinking about children, responsibilities, college. The point is that gay people, as a group, have more disposable income, and this undermines their position that ENDA is necessary. If the homosexual community is wealthier than the general population, they fail one of the Supreme Court's own criteria" as a disadvantaged class and a target for discrimination.

"A couple of studies have come out since then that at least cloud the issue," Vitagliano tells MassNews. "As a community, gay people are going to have more disposable income. They travel more, they go to the movies more often, they take more vacations. Corporate America is seeing them as a target, a niche market. This is why many corporations are willing to advertise in The Advocate and Out magazines; they are wiling to sponsor Gay Pride, domestic partner benefits (even though most gay people don't take advantage of it).

"Setting aside all the problems it would cause for religious organizations and small businesses, as well as clogging the courts, it is increasingly unnecessary," Vitagliano tells MassNews. "What company will risk the wrath of the homosexual community? They are reaching almost favored status. Even Andrew Sullivan [homosexual journalist and activist] says there's no need for ENDA."

"One could argue about whether or not homosexuals should have some protected status," he continued, "but when nearly half the Fortune 500 companies come out [with gay-friendly official statements], that nullifies the need for ENDA."

The Human Rights Campaign lists their sponsors as American Airlines, Mitchell Gold Company, Cingular Wireless, Nike, Olivia Cruises and Resorts, RSVP Vacations, BoxOfficeTickets.com, Beaulieu Vineyard and Centaur, among others.

"If you look at states like Massachusetts that have ENDA-type laws, you will find that there are not a lot of complaints filed with state employment agencies," he says. "The proof of the danger of these kinds of laws is New Jersey, where they took that law and went after the Boy Scouts. The intent of these laws is to go after organizations that disagree with them to force a wholesale change in our culture's view of sexuality, marriage and family," he tells MassNews.

"They try to persuade, to win the hearts and minds, and when that doesn't happen, they coerce, go after intransigent organizations like the Boy Scouts that you know aren't going to come around voluntarily."

Vitagliano says, "All you need is one activist and one lawyer to go after one Christian day care center or the Boy Scouts. Activists are very shrewd in convincing people like Governor Bill Weld that homosexual kids have to be safe, and that opens the door to Fistgate at Tufts [where students were instructed in performing homosexual acts].

"They're after wholesale cultural change. They get their foot in the door with a law, and that's their beachhead," Vitagliano contends. "They insist that the culture change its views; they don't just want to be left alone," he says.

"They will take something that was passed to mean one thing, like housing discrimination and they will broaden it to include marriage," he claims. "The core of the homosexual movement is rebellion. They think, 'the only way we are going to have full freedom is for society to agree with us.'

"Take Mothers' Day in New York. They claim that it is a heterosexist institution, and they decide, 'We have to change society and change their minds.' A place where homosexuality is considered abnormal (like a Christian day care center) has got to go. They decide, 'We have to make an example of them so that Christian day cares are thumped into submission along with everybody else until, say in 30 years, everybody thinks homosexuality is an approved lifestyle."