To be, or not to be. Is the human sex drive a constitutive and defining characteristic of human existence ? like the need for air, water, and food ? or, like ambition, vanity, possessiveness, and worldly attachment, just another governable human drive whose expression says nothing about fundamental freedoms and civil rights?
A question arguably at the crux of many a gender rights controversy, it lately is central to a looming Congressional clash over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a gay rights bill, supported by several Baltimore-area lawmakers, that may receive a House floor vote this week.
“I would suspect that it will go early in the week,” said Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America policy director for cultural issues, who added that the bill ? if recently stripped, transgender identity protections are not reinstated ? should pass both branches of Congress.
A presidential veto looms, however, Barber said.
Advanced to accord federal workplace protections to gay, lesbian, bisexual and, possibly, transgender parties, ENDA ? to the extent that transgender issues ultimately are included ? is supported by a range of gay activist groups, even though a number of states, including Maryland, already have similar laws on the books.
Typically, these groups view human sexuality and its varied expression as congenital, defining and essentially immutable ? and thus, like skin color or disability, eligible for special, federal civil rights protection.
It is opposed by Christian and other traditionalists who believe that the human procreative urge is a governable drive whose expression is a personal choice, subject to moral evaluation and thus unbefitting special protection as a fundamental right.
“[This bill] discriminates against everyone else for this special group,” said Evalena Gray, Maryland state director for the Concerned Women for America, who worried that the law could force business owners to hire gays and possibly transvestites in contravention of their own religious and assembly rights, “which is not because of their color, but because of the choice they made.”
The stripped bill ? H.R. 3685 ? however, currently exempts small businesses, the military and certain religious organizations from coverage, though these exemptions? effectiveness is doubted by Barber.
“Across the board the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that employment decisions should be made from a person?s qualifications and work ethic,” said Brad Luna, Human Rights Campaign spokesperson. “So there is a compelling reason why the federal government should provide protections to a group of people who are discriminated in the workplace.”
