Meet the House Republicans Who Don’t Hate Gay Rights

Five Republicans are urging House Speaker John Boehner to bring the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to a vote.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattymatt/4998802091/in/photolist-8BJaGX-8BJh72-8BJebr-7ECB6X-aCEDht-9mi8Lu-9mf41i-9mi7tE-9mi6Z1-9mf3qi-9mi69A-9mi6BE-9nKHDF-9nNLgG-8X6dMz-8X9f2A-8X9eZq-8X6e3K-8X9eTd-dHZtYX-doYuyC-dLZ7ED-bxzFzR-bxzFPn-bjENTU-bjENVA-bjENFh-bjENY3-bxzFF6-bxzFSg-bxzFwK-bjENNb-a3iNAs-ciJthb-bjErHw-bxzjUB-bjErMu-bjEs5Q-bxzjP6-bxzjQt-9mf4EH-aFRNKP-aFDD8Z-dQ2vJn-hmc8W5-hmc3k7-8MGSUB-hmbxXp-dNNM3y-ef5jkX-efbevY/lightbox/">mattymatt</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


LGBT rights advocates celebrated last month when the Senate passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, legislation that would ban employers from taking their workers’ sexual orientation and identity into account. The bill even garnered votes from 10 Republican senators, a sign of a possible emerging bipartisan accord. But that triumph was short lived. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) opposes ENDA and says he has no intention of letting it receive a vote.

Not all of Boehner’s Republican colleagues agree with his take. A coalition of five Republicans and five Democrats from the House penned a letter to Boehner this week urging him to at least allow a vote on ENDA. “As cosponsors of H.R. 1755 – the House’s companion legislation, we respectfully encourage you to bring this timely and commonsense legislation to a vote before the House of Representatives before the end of the 113th Congress,” the letter reads. “An innate sense of fairness compels our country to rise above all forms of workplace discrimination.”

The list of Republican signees isn’t too surprising. Reps. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.), Jon Runyan (R-N.J.), and Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) all hail from purple or blue states and are among the most moderate members of the House Republican caucus. But they have their party’s best interest at heart. A poll from last month found that a majority of voters want Congress to pass ENDA—not just voters countrywide, but in every single congressional district. “It seems to me that this legislation is fair, it’s reasonable, and it is broadly supported by the American public,” Dent, one of the bill’s Republican cosponsors, tells Mother Jones. Dent says that supporters of the bill might try to introduce the measure at some point as an amendment, possibly to the National Defense Authorization Act.

Dent is confident that, should Boehner relent, enough Republicans would side with Democrats to pass ENDA in the House. “I haven’t done a formal nose count or whip count, but I believe the votes are there,” he says. He pointed out that in 2007, when ENDA last received a vote in the House, 35 Republicans approved the bill. But despite the overwhelming increase of public support for LGBT rights over the last six years, Dent isn’t confident a vote on ENDA could match that level of support today. Too many of his colleagues are in safe districts now, where they don’t worry about general elections but are terrified of offending the party’s conservative base and facing a primary challenge. “That might help explain why not as many have been willing to cosponsor the bill,” Dent says. The prospect of fewer Republicans voting for ENDA in 2013 than in 2007 is especially depressing for the bill’s proponents when you account for the fact that there are 231 Republicans in the House today, compared to just 200 Republicans for that 2007 vote. “The Republican Party has to be about addition, not subtraction, [and] inclusion, not exclusion,” Dent says. “This legislation would help the party broaden the base. It’s that simple.”

Republicans often distance themselves from accusations of bigotry by explaining their opposition to ENDA as an issue of protecting business interests. Dent doesn’t buy that rationale. “American industry has moved beyond this already,” he says. “What’s being proposed here is something that many companies have already adopted. I don’t see this bill as in any way controversial or one that would make life difficult for employers.”

It truly isn’t controversial for most of the country, just a small segment of the population that tends to be vocal in Republican primaries. But with the public increasingly tolerant of LGBT rights, a ban on workplace discrimination is inevitable. It’s just up to Boehner whether that achievement will come under his watch.

“Clearly this is a generational issue,” Dent said. “There’s no question about that. I suspect that within a fairly short period of time, many people will question why we’re even having a debate about this particular piece of legislation.”

Read the full letter:

Mr. Speaker,

On 7 November 2013, the United States Senate passed S. 815, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 (ENDA) by a bipartisan vote of 64 to 32. As cosponsors of H.R. 1755 – the House’s companion legislation, we respectfully encourage you to bring this timely and commonsense legislation to a vote before the House of Representatives before the end of the 113th Congress.

An innate sense of fairness compels our country to rise above all forms of workplace discrimination. ENDA would help us move towards this goal in a manner that balances worker protections with respect for religious employers. Keeping with the notion that employees should be judged on their merits alone, the bill explicitly prohibits preferential treatment or hiring quotas. We are not seeking special privileges – just equal protections.

Job discrimination against any American creates an uneven playing field that runs contrary to the basic notion of equality and our economic efficiency. What matters most is not that we share the exact same beliefs as our coworkers or employees, but that we take pride in our work, respect our coworkers and customers, and get the job done.

It is our hope that this legislation will be brought to the House Floor – to allow the members to vote as they see fit – and demonstrate to the American people that Congress can work in a bipartisan manner on an important issue of fairness.

Sincerely,

Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA-15)                

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY-18)

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL-27)     

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ-9)

Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY-22)            

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO-2)

Rep. Jon Runyan (R-NJ-3)                 

Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR-5)

Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY-19)               

Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI-3)

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate