Why America makes me angry sometimes

[Rychard the Lionheart]

Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Currently, there are no federal laws that expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Congress has introduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 which would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace. The House held a hearing earlier this fall and the Senate will hold a hearing, November 5th 2009.


What ENDA Does

* Extends federal employment discrimination protections currently provided based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age and disability to sexual orientation and gender identity
* Prohibits public and private employers, employment agencies and labor unions from using an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity as the basis for employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, promotion or compensation
* Provides for the same procedures, and similar, but somewhat more limited, remedies as are permitted under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act
* Applies to Congress and the federal government, as well as employees of state and local governments

What ENDA Does Not Do

* Cover businesses with fewer than 15 employees (Why not all businesses)
* Apply to religious organizations (Would be nice if they were included)
* Apply to the uniformed members of the armed forces (the bill doesn’t affect the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy)
* Allow for quotas or preferential treatment based on sexual orientation or gender identity
* Allow a "disparate impact" claim similar to the one available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Therefore, an employer is not required to justify a neutral practice that may have a statistically disparate impact on individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identity
* Allow the imposition of affirmative action for a violation of ENDA
* Allow the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to collect statistics on sexual orientation or gender identity or compel employers to collect such statistics.
* Apply retroactively

Any news on this bill?

[Rychard the Lionheart]

Legal group pledges to defend pro-Question 1 churches targeted by ‘frivolous’ IRS complaints.

This was taken from the CNA website today.

Portland, Maine, Nov 13, 2009 / 03:09 am (CNA).- Opponents of Question 1, the Maine ballot initiative which vetoed the state legislature’s recognition of same-sex “marriages,” are encouraging their supporters to file IRS complaints against churches. In response, the Alliance Defense Fund has attacked such suits as “frivolous” and offered its help to targeted churches. Question 1 passed by 53 to 47 percent, with significant support from the Catholic Diocese of Portland.

Scott Fish, Communications Director of Stand for Marriage Maine, told CNA the day after the vote that Catholic support was “very crucial” to the outcome.

“The Yes on 1 campaign, had much support from Catholics statewide, working hand-in-hand with Evangelical churches throughout Maine, as well as other denominations,” Fish said.

Upset by the results, Maine Marriage Equality is calling on same-sex “marriage” supporters to file complaints with the IRS about churches that supported the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Erik Stanley, Senior Legal Counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, criticized the complainants to the IRS.

“This is an all-too-obvious attempt to use the IRS to intimidate pastors and churches as a means of punishment and to get them to be quiet,” he said in a press release. “We encourage the churches of Maine not to be intimidated and to contact us if they are contacted by the IRS.”

“Pastors and churches have a right to speak about biblical truths from the pulpit without fear of punishment. They can encourage their congregations to take a stand for marriage and can directly support legislative issues like Question 1 without running afoul of IRS rules,” he continued.

Stanley charged that groups that want to “redefine” marriage are “intentionally threatening” churches’ tax-exempt status to promote “fear, intimidation and disinformation to silence their voice.”

“ADF will stand with these churches to defend their right to free speech and religious expression against these baseless scare tactics,” he stated.

The ADF says that support of the kind which churches showed for Question 1 is “almost always allowable” by the IRS.

Some religious groups, such as one calling itself Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry, opposed Question 1. No IRS complaints against them have been reported.

The battle is over but the war still goes on.

[fredv3b]

Legal group pledges to defend pro-Question 1 churches targeted by ‘frivolous’ IRS complaints.

If these complaints are indeed frivolous then what have they got to be scarred about? Annoyed maybe having to collate and present all the necessary documents to defend themselves, but scarred? Unless they have something to hide.

[Rychard the Lionheart]

Fred.

Since they have not disclosed their finances since 1959, they are shit scared that if they were made public. They would have to justify and account for every dollar which is donated or earned by the church. Any illegal actions taken by the church might come to the surface in a investigation by a government agency, another fear the church has.

I wonder what the lawyers fees are, I bet their not donating their time and services for free.

[marshlander]

Now, a little off topic, but if I were American this would make me a lot less angry.

Cheers for this ten-year-old boy.

[marshlander]

However this act of spite would make me thoroughly upset, if not ashamed.

[Rychard the Lionheart]

A very brave ten year old boy to make a stand on an important issue.

[fredv3b]

However this act of spite would make me thoroughly upset, if not ashamed.

Its an interesting story, when you get into it is not quite as simple as it appears. It begins with the suicide of Ronald Hanby of Providence, Rhode Island, he had lived with his partner Mark Goldberg for 17 years. Prior to his death he had made a will, naming Goldberg as the sole beneficiary, he had given Goldberg power of attorney and also written a living will. Unfortunately, he had not made a 'funeral planning-agent designation', therefore according to state law only his next of kin (presumably his nearest living blood relative) is able to make funeral arrangements or take possession of the body from the morgue. (Purely, as an aside I wonder about the competence of the lawyer who drafted these documents for the couple yet, apparently, failed to suggest making this designation.) The undertakers would/could not do anything without a designation, the county medical examiners office who had possession of his body would not take Goldberg's phone calls as he was not a relative of the deceased, even the intervention of the Mayor was unable to change things. After 3 weeks a woman from the Dept. of Family Services, who had been 'passed the file' was able to see sense and had the body released to Goldberg. Even then the undertakers in Rhode Island would not arrange a funeral, so Hanby was cremated in Massachusetts 32 days after he died. (My source is here).

The situation arose because of the absence of a particular, and I would imagine fairly simple, legal document. However given the number of people who die without making a will, it is not surprising that gay people die without making a funeral planning-agent designation. (Although it is a little surprising in this case, given the other legal documents Hamdy and Goldberg had drawn up).

The Rhode Island legislature took up the case of amending this clear deficiency in state law. Sen. Rhoda Perry and Rep. David Segal sponsored a bill that would rectify this. The bill defined domestic partners (who would have the same rights as spouses with respect to funeral arrangements) as people who had co-habited with the deceased for at least one year and could provide evidence of financial interdependence, etc. The Bill was passed and then vetoed by Govenor Carcieri, who cited as his reasons that 1 years co-habitation was not long enough to prove the seriousness of the relationship, that claims of duration of co-habitation could be difficult to check, the bill mentions 'relationship contract' and 'domestic partnership agreement' neither of which have any meaning within state law, that it supplants the traditional rights of close family at a difficult time and, finally, that it is part of the erosion of traditional marriage.

Given that the Governor admits that domestic partners have been similarly defined in existing Rhode Island statutes it seems, to me, pretty unreasonable to veto this bill on those grounds. Similarly, if the bill did erode traditional marriage then doesn't do so any more than existing legislation. In any case given that people can make funeral planning-agent designations to anyone they want, they are unlikely to get married specifically so their loved one can make their funeral arrangements.

So where from here? The legislature may well simply over-ride the Governor's veto, which given they size of the Democrat majorities in both chambers they could do without any Republican votes. However more interestingly in his veto the Governor specifically makes this challenge, 'if the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnership, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the state of Rhode Island decide.'

[gaygay33]

Oh I didjn't know the health bill got passed, So what does it really mean and why are people so angry about it? Im not working right now and my health isnurances is crazy high, the only good thing is that 80% is paid by the state. What about a national dental care plan!?

I do get dental insurance but it's not much and teeth are important as well!

I keep reading these articals about how I lots of kids have rotting teeth and have to have their adult teeth pulled!!

[fredv3b]

GG33, Where do I start? I suppose one of our American posters should answer this but I can't resist having a go.

First, as I understand it, the health bill (or rather a health bill) was passed by the House of Representatives, a number of bills have been introduced in the Senate, one of which will need to be passed, then the two bills will need to go to a conference committee to resolve the differences between them and then finally the compromise bill will need to be passed by both the House and the Senate.

The majority of American families enjoy very good health care and they don't pay for the majority of it, their employers do. So they have little to gain by any changes. 80% paid for by the state means 80% paid for by other Americans, which by all accounts is not popular with American voters. Whatever scheme results will be a sizeable portion of the American health insurance market, will have a tendency to effect what other insurers offer and will certainly be able to exercise considerable power over actual healthcare providers, the hospitals, etc. All that adds up to a major increase in 'big government', which again, I am led to believe is not popular with the voters.

You are correct that American health insurance is very expensive, two reasons for this are, firstly, the litigious nature of America means that doctors in America have a tendency to do everything possible for a patient so has to have the best defence possible should they sue, whereas in other parts of the world doctors tend to use judgement more and do what is reasonably justified for a patient. I am not aware of any thing that has been proposed that would make a serious change to this factor. Secondly, the interaction between health insurers and health care providers is very bureaucratic as health insurers try to ensure that they only pay for what they consider was necessary and technically covered by the policy in question and health care providers try to get paid for everything that they considered necessary to do. A further problem is the use of the ER by the uninsured, ERs are generally an expensive way to treat a problem that another doctor, dentist, dept. of the hospital could have treated, if the hospital is unable to get uninsured ER patients to pay-up then the costs of their treatment become part of the general hospital overheads along with heating, lighting, building maintenance, etc. and is paid for by the insurers of all the other patients of the hospital.

From the perspective of the many Americans who get a good standard health insurance for them and their families from their employer, the proposals tend to look like paying more taxes and the perception of the federal government interfering with the health care of them and their families. Supposing that the government does manage to contain or even reduce the cost of health care in the US then these Americans will receive little direct benefit from this, their employers will pay reduced premiums and use the savings to make more profits and/or cut prices to their customers rather than pay their employees more. The benefits of increased profits or reduced prices will, eventually, circulate round the economy and benefit these Americans in question, but not in anything like the way that they would notice a change in their taxes.

That is my answer to what people are so angry about, if anyone disagrees with my analysis then please correct me.