A small query to Mr Bush
Dear President,
According to the BBC, you have announced your intention to veto the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. If signed into law, this Bill would guarantee equal employment rights to Americans who are gay-and for that matter, to Americans who by chance, have mannerisms that make other Americans think they might be gay. As the Beeb reports it, you justify your veto on the grounds that "the bill turns on imprecise and subjective terms that would make interpretation, compliance and enforcement extremely difficult."
It is inherently difficult to police workplace equality, as unfair discrimination can be camouflaged and rationalised by many legitimate measures of a person's worth. However, as an essential prerequisite, policing needs clear and unambiguous legislation. Having read the bill in question, House Resolution 3685, I find it an admirably clear basis for protecting people from pointless discrimination. I would be most curious to know why you disagree.
So, Mr Bush, please point out the "imprecise and subjective" terms that you object to. Or, if you are referring to subtler legal flaws that are easily missed by people like me who lack legislative training, please explain these. I and many others would value the opportunity to increase our insight.
The only terms that I do find vague are those at the centre of the Bill: terms such as homosexuality, heterosexuality and sexual orientation. I cheerfully concede that these terms are loosely-defined and broad in their scope. Fortunately, as I hope you will agree, the entire point of the Bill is that whatever the precise definition of sexual orientation, it is irrelevant to the inherent worth of a human being, just as you would never discriminate among people based on their religious beliefs, political affiliation or personal wealth.
I would not normally draw your concern to such a minor matter, but in this case your continued lack of clarification lends an unfortunate impression that you are somehow unwilling to extend equal rights to homosexuals, even though this uncharitable interpretation is clearly belied by your staunch record of concrete action in defence of human rights. So I am sure that, for the benefit of myself and many other gay people both in America and abroad, you will be glad to set the record straight.
With my unwavering support of your office as defender of your nation's Constitution;
Best regards,
Wolf.
According to the BBC, you have announced your intention to veto the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. If signed into law, this Bill would guarantee equal employment rights to Americans who are gay-and for that matter, to Americans who by chance, have mannerisms that make other Americans think they might be gay. As the Beeb reports it, you justify your veto on the grounds that "the bill turns on imprecise and subjective terms that would make interpretation, compliance and enforcement extremely difficult."
It is inherently difficult to police workplace equality, as unfair discrimination can be camouflaged and rationalised by many legitimate measures of a person's worth. However, as an essential prerequisite, policing needs clear and unambiguous legislation. Having read the bill in question, House Resolution 3685, I find it an admirably clear basis for protecting people from pointless discrimination. I would be most curious to know why you disagree.
So, Mr Bush, please point out the "imprecise and subjective" terms that you object to. Or, if you are referring to subtler legal flaws that are easily missed by people like me who lack legislative training, please explain these. I and many others would value the opportunity to increase our insight.
The only terms that I do find vague are those at the centre of the Bill: terms such as homosexuality, heterosexuality and sexual orientation. I cheerfully concede that these terms are loosely-defined and broad in their scope. Fortunately, as I hope you will agree, the entire point of the Bill is that whatever the precise definition of sexual orientation, it is irrelevant to the inherent worth of a human being, just as you would never discriminate among people based on their religious beliefs, political affiliation or personal wealth.
I would not normally draw your concern to such a minor matter, but in this case your continued lack of clarification lends an unfortunate impression that you are somehow unwilling to extend equal rights to homosexuals, even though this uncharitable interpretation is clearly belied by your staunch record of concrete action in defence of human rights. So I am sure that, for the benefit of myself and many other gay people both in America and abroad, you will be glad to set the record straight.
With my unwavering support of your office as defender of your nation's Constitution;
Best regards,
Wolf.