President’s Advisors Recommend He veto ENDA
October 23, 2007 by Randy
Filed under Christianity, Current Affairs, Homosexuality, Public Policy
Here is the statement (emphasis added.)
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT - OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET - WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 23, 2007 - (House Rules)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
H.R. 3685 – The Employment Non-Discrimination Act
(Rep. Frank (D) MA and 9 cosponsors)
H.R. 3685 would extend existing employment-discrimination provisions of Federal law, including those in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to establish “a comprehensive Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” The bill raises concerns on constitutional and policy grounds, and if H.R. 3685 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
H.R. 3685 is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Act prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive manner possible. H.R. 3685 does not meet this standard. For instance, schools that are owned by or directed toward a particular religion are exempted by the bill; but those that emphasize religious principles broadly will find their religious liberties burdened by H.R. 3685.
A second concern is H.R. 3685’s authorization of Federal civil damage actions against State entities, which may violate States’ immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The bill turns on imprecise and subjective terms that would make interpretation, compliance, and enforcement extremely difficult. For instance, the bill establishes liability for acting on “perceived” sexual orientation, or “association” with individuals of a particular sexual orientation. If passed, H.R. 3685 is virtually certain to encourage burdensome litigation beyond the cases that the bill is intended to reach.
Provisions of this bill purport to give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law. These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage.
I don’t think the veto will be any big surprise but I don’t know that anyone took it for granted either. This bill actually divided the T from the GLB for quite a while (especially the leadership of the GLB’s and their supporters.) To watch it come down to this … well … let the uproar begin.
By the way, this is a very important statement of intent for the Administration but it is not binding on the President. If you are of like mind, I would encourage you to contact the White House, your State Senators and House Rep to say that you agree with the President’s Senior Advisors and would like for Congress to uphold his veto.
Hat Tip: Thanks C!
Related posts (automatically generated)
