Should We Amend the Civil RIghts Act and the Fair Housing Act to Include LGBT as a Protected Class?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**jasper76**

(NOTE: Sorry if I my acronym isn't up to date here. The nomenclature for classifications of sexual orientation, gender identity, etc seem to change alot)

Now that the gay marriage issue is settled, do we need to move on and address the fact that the LGBT community is not a protected class identified in the Civil RIghts Act or the Fair Housing Act? The LGBT community is clearly a minority vulnerable to discrimination in the workplace, businesses that provide public accommodations, and the housing and rental market (to what extent they are discriminated against, I don't pretend to know). If we, as a nation, value protecting minority groups through federal legislation, it seems only just that the LGBT community should enjoy the same legal protections as other minorities.

**Desubot**

I saw we remove ALL protected classes and just settle everything in the thunderdome already.

**Jihadin**

US Military

WASHINGTON — Pentagon officials announced Wednesday that the DOD will provide marriage benefits to same-sex couples for the first time, giving gay spouses access to health care, housing allowances and family separation pay.

The move comes little more than a month after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, which Defense Department leaders have said prevented them from offering federal marriage benefits to gay troops. Numerous government agencies have taken steps to offer health care and other benefits to same-sex married couples in the wake of the ruling.

In a statement, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the move reflects the Defense Department’s commitment to “ensuring that all men and women who serve in the U.S. military and their families are treated fairly and equally.”

The change, set to go into effect no later than Sept. 3, will mean tens of thousands of dollars in direct payments and covered health care costs for legally married same-sex military couples.

Housing allowances alone can reach up to $30,000 in annual payouts for married troops with dependent children.

Defense Department officials will also allow same-sex troops to take nonchargeable leave “for the purpose of travelling to a jurisdiction where such a marriage may occur.”

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia currently allow gay marriages. In a memo to defense staff, Hagel called the inconsistent state rules a potential hardship for same-sex couples, and said the extra leave time would “help level the playing field.”

Troops stationed outside the United States will be allowed up to 10 days of uncharged leave for a same-sex wedding, per approval from their command. Troops inside the United States but stationed more than 100 miles from a state that allows gay marriage will have seven days. Servicemembers will be able to use the marriage leave time only once in their career.

Gay troops who are already legally married could see retroactive benefits back to June 26, the date of the Supreme Court decision. Same-sex married couples who apply for benefits in the future will follow the same procedures and documentation as opposite-sex couples.

Since the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” law was repealed in 2011, gay rights advocates have pushed for extension of the married couple benefits to same-sex troops, arguing that the policy still amounted to discrimination in the ranks.

Defense Department leaders did extend access to family support programs and other resources to the couples, but said the Defense of Marriage Act — which forbade the federal government from officially recognizing same-sex marriages — preventing them from going further.

Mark Mazzone, spokesman for the military LGBT advocacy group SPART*A, said the changes will be a financial boost to many same-sex couples thus far deprived of equal benefits, and the leave time for travel to states that allow same-sex marriage show the military is committed to reaching out to gay troops.

“While some states are still saying same-sex marriage is a no-go, it’s clear with this that the military is accepting it,” he said.

In a statement, officials at the American Military Partner Association called the pending Pentagon announcement “a huge step forward for our families who for far too long have been excluded and cut off from support.”

Pentagon officials acknowledged that the new policy will require a host of policy regulation updates and some technical upgrades to existing systems. For example, the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System does not currently recognize same-sex partners for ID cards, and will have to be upgraded to implement the new policy.

Still, Pentagon officials are confident the changes can be handled in coming weeks.

The changes apply only to “legally married same-sex couples” and not gay troops who have state-backed civil unions.

So begins the foundation.

**jasper76**

The US Military always seems to be a step ahead on this kind of stuff.

**LordofHats**

jasper76 wrote:
The US Military always seems to be a step ahead on this kind of stuff.

Yes and No. The US military was one of the first government bodies to enforce desegregation on paper, but segregation was unofficially continued until after the Korean War, and profound racism was still prevalent into the Vietnam War. Also note that the US Military was one of the only government bodies to actually enforce straight out discrimination against LGBT individuals up until DADT was suspended in 2011 (as opposed to more subtle forms of discrimination, like just not recognizing a gay marriage as a valid legal marriage).

Really, what the Military has been traditionally is ahead of the bell curve on written policy, but traditionally its policy in practice has typically been behind the rest of the American society. That said, the above mentioned proposal seems quite promising for LGBT folk.

**cincydooley**

No. Get rid of the act entirely.

**jasper76**

LordofHats wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
The US Military always seems to be a step ahead on this kind of stuff.

Yes and No. The US military was one of the first government bodies to enforce desegregation on paper, but segregation was unofficially continued until after the Korean War, and profound racism was still prevalent into the Vietnam War. Also note that the US Military was one of the only government bodies to actually enforce straight out discrimination against LGBT individuals up until DADT was suspended in 2011 (as opposed to more subtle forms of discrimination, like just not recognizing a gay marriage as a valid legal marriage).

Really, what the Military has been traditionally is ahead of the bell curve on written policy, but traditionally its policy in practice has typically been behind the rest of the American society. That said, the above mentioned proposal seems quite promising for LGBT folk.

I suppose your right. Obama extended healthcare to same-sex partners for federal employees a good while ago, IIRC.

**LordofHats**

I think things will work out better for LGBT folk on this front (not trying to be a downer

). The Civil Rights movement was far more vehement and vicious in comparison

No. Get rid of the act entirely.

I give you points for just coming out and saying it, even though it's a bad idea

**cincydooley**

LordofHats wrote:
I think things will work out better for LGBT folk on this front (not trying to be a downer ). The Civil Rights movement was far more vehement and vicious in comparison

No. Get rid of the act entirely.

I give you points for just coming out and saying it, even though it's a bad idea

Why?

**Jihadin**

Whoa there High Speed

"Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) was the official United States policy on service by gays and lesbians in the military instituted by the Clinton Administration on February 28, 1994, when Department of Defense Directive 1304.26 issued on December 21, 1993, took effect,[1] lasting until September 20, 2011. The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service. This relaxation of legal restrictions on service by gays and lesbians in the armed forces was mandated by United States federal law Pub.L. 103–160 (10 U.S.C. § 654), which was signed November 30, 1993.[2] The policy prohibited people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability".[3]

Just throwing that in for clarification
I joined in 89 and remember being asked verbally and even signing documentation stating I was not a Homosexual. For the life of me I cannot remember being asked directly if I was a Bisexual.
Only time a Bisexual incident came up was a NCO came into 1st SGT office and stated he was Bisexual before we deployed to Iraq. Being the Individual stated in front of Senior NCO's and within earshot of the Commander we had to follow through on the paper work. Called JAG on how to proceed with the case who in turned told us to wait to only come back to tell us he still "Good to Go" being he like females.

Back to DADT all questions that was either on documents or verbal questions were removed concerning the "Subject"

**LordofHats**

cincydooley wrote:

Why?

Young black men are as much as 21xs more likely to be killed by police, there's been who knows how many threads discussing riots in multiple states, gay couples are denied basic services and civil recognitions because they have a matching set, a Black Church got shot up by a Confederate flag waving yahoo, women still get threatened with rape as a matter of course all over the internet, zealots all over the country still think white Christian male is the only demographic that matters at all, I don't know how many people just insult Muslims cuz why not they're all terrorists anyway, + a dozen more hyperboles I could throw out to poke fun at the silliness of repealing the Civil Rights Act.

**cincydooley**

The majority of which have no bearing on any of the outdated titles contained within the act.

**jasper76**

We're sort of in an awkward phase now where someone can get a same-sex marriage one day, and hypothetically in some locations get fired from their job, or kicked out of their apartment the next day, etc. I'll be interested to see how this pans out.

Clinton could press the issue as a campaign platform issue. It would be political gold. If most of the country supports gay marriage, the same majority would presumably support the extension of anti-discrimination protection, so she'd be able to capitalize on the crossover that exists from the gay marriage issue.

**Peregrine**

Yes.

/thread

**Polonius**

I'm sure it will happen eventually, but no time soon with the current congress.

Should we? I mean, I guess. Those protections do end up being a hassle for people that want to comply, and a pretty ineffective barrier for people that still want to discriminate.

**Jihadin**

Its up to the states leglislature to comply as fast as they can or as slow as they can.

**cincydooley**

Peregrine wrote:
Yes.

/thread

Well if peregrine says /thread we may as well lock this one up.

**Peregrine**

cincydooley wrote:
Well if peregrine says /thread we may as well lock this one up.

What else is there to say? Is anyone actually going to defend excluding those people as a protected class?

**Ustrello**

Desubot wrote:
I saw we remove ALL protected classes and just settle everything in the thunderdome already.

WITNESS!

**generalgrog**

May as well let those 5 lawyers in DC make all the laws. Just ask them to decide this issue for you.

GG

**Peregrine**

generalgrog wrote:
May as well let those 5 lawyers in DC make all the laws. Just ask them to decide this issue for you.

And here you are, right on schedule, with the conservative cliche. Let's be honest here, if one of those five lawyers had ruled the other way you'd be here celebrating the defense of "traditional" marriage and wouldn't have any complaints about "5 lawyers in DC making all the laws".

**Orlanth**

Peregrine wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Well if peregrine says /thread we may as well lock this one up.

What else is there to say? Is anyone actually going to defend excluding those people as a protected class?

Homosexual partnering is often a lifestyle choice in real life. A number of people choose partners outside their orientation for one reason or another or change their orientation.
However what you are proposing means that protection is given based on the gender of ones partner. So if a man moves in with a woman, no protection, later moves in with a man and gets protection. That sounds like discrimination to me. Someone who is ethnic is ethnic for life, some statuses are permanent, others potentially transientory choices. Sexuality is one of those.
Its all too easy to label people as gay, bi or straight but a lot don't make up their minds, or change their minds over time, to turn civic protection off and on dependent on current choice is amoral, to list all people with a tendency to switch as 'bi' is also unfair as the preferences are variable also. Part of the reason why classification is left to self identification. You also can't tell someone that because they switched partner genders this makes them classified as bisexual for life, they may have switched states between homosexual to heterosexual or vice versa. Having selective protection in these issues is a civil rights nightmare.

All this would achieve it to make heterosexuals second class citizens with reference to civic protection.

**Peregrine**

Orlanth wrote:
So if a man moves in with a woman, no protection

And this is where you're wrong. The man in that situation would get protection, they're just incredibly unlikely to need it since anti-straight bigotry is virtually nonexistent outside of conservative straw man arguments.

Someone who is ethnic is ethnic for life, some choices are permanent, others transientory. Sexuality is one of those.

So, since you're opposed to offering protection for things that aren't permanent, I'm going to assume that you're opposed to having religion be a protected class?

**jasper76**

Orlanth wrote:

All this would achieve it to make heterosexuals second class citizens with reference to civic protection.

You'd have to convince me that heterosexuals are frequently discrminated against on the basis of their sexuality for me to buy this.

Plus, the way the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act read does not specify sub-categories....e.g. it doesn't say black people can't be discrminated against, it says people can't be discriminated on the basis of "race". The law could easily be written to be neutral as to where you fall in the sexual orientation spectrum.

**sebster**

It seems to me that building a specific list of things that you can discriminate on is a really weird way to go about designing the law.

Really, any discrimination that doesn't impact on one's ability to work or one's suitability as a tenant is bad and shouldn't be legal. It's a silly hypothetical, but it seems strange to me that I could fire someone for being black and face serious legal consequences, but I can fire bald people all day long and the law doesn't care.

But then, that in turn comes back to the issues with right to work laws - if the employer doesn't have to establish what performance reason he had to fire you, then it's extremely difficult to prove that he had underlying prejudicial reasons. So really the ideal framework is one where the employer has to establish performance, disciplinary or economic reasons for firing someone, and in the absence of those any kind of unfair discrimination will become clear, whether that discrimination is race, sexual preference, being ugly or blue eyed or whatever else,

**sirlynchmob**

generalgrog wrote:
May as well let those 5 lawyers in DC make all the laws. Just ask them to decide this issue for you.

GG

They don't make laws, I've seen this argument a lot so let me help you understand how laws are made:

And yes they need to be protected so states like Michigen can't do stuff like this:
http://www.newnownext.com/michigan-house-passed-bill-allowing-emts-to-refuse-treatment-to-gay-people/12/2014/

**hotsauceman1**

The correct acronym now is LGBT+ because even the community realized it changes way to much. or LGBTQ because Queer encompasses all different things doing with gender.

**generalgrog**

Tell that to the 4 judges who dissented pretty hard.I'm sure they and Chief Justice John Roberts would disagree with your oversimplification of this issue.

GG

**sebster**

generalgrog wrote:
Tell that to the 4 judges who dissented pretty hard.I'm sure they and Chief Justice John Roberts would disagree with your oversimplification of this issue.

GG

Tell what to the four judges? Who are you responding to?

Why don't people use quotes when they're responding to one person?

**whembly**

sebster wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
Tell that to the 4 judges who dissented pretty hard.I'm sure they and Chief Justice John Roberts would disagree with your oversimplification of this issue.

GG

Tell what to the four judges? Who are you responding to?

Why don't people use quotes when they're responding to one person?

He's responding to sirlynchmob's recent post above.

If you read the dissent over that SSM ruling, those justices makes a pretty strong case that the majority was "legislating from the bench".

Which is absolutely rich coming from CJ Roberts' majority in favor of the Government on that last ACA ruling.