LETTERS
To The Editor:

H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), is taking fire from two sides, but for opposite reasons. The ENDA bill extends protected class status to include "actual or perceived sexual orientation." Thus, the current federal prohibition of employment discrimination against persons on the basis of their color, age or sex, will be expanded to include sexual orientation. Many Christian organizations, and individual Christians, claim this goes too far. And they don't like it. Some Christians say that this would force businesses, Boy Scouts, universities, schools, religious radio & TV stations, daycare centers, etc., to violate their personal and religious beliefs by hiring applicants whose behavior is considered as sinful; for example, this would prohibit certain Christian bookstores from refusing to hire known, outspoken homosexuals to sell material to Christian children. Meanwhile, "on the other side of town," many people in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, along with many sympathetic organizations, including the ACLU, have formed a coalition to oppose H. R. 3685 because, they claim, it does not go far enough. They insist that both sexual orientation AND gender identity must be included, to insure that the entire LGBT community is protected. They say that singling out sexual orientation creates an artificial line that leaves out transgender people, and any other people who do not match cultural stereotypes for masculinity or femininity. Perhaps with both sides objecting, the legislation will fail to pass (I sincerely hope so). But that's when the real trouble will begin. Look for both sides to emerge with new legislative proposals which will suit their opposing objectives, and which will guarantee that they will be back to fight again on another day. As German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck warned: "There are two things you will never wish to watch: the making of sausage and the making of legislation." Amen.

Chuck Esposito To the Editor:

Previously, Tom Graves presented some very distorted "facts" about SCHIP that unfairly pointed the finger at the Democrats. At least he could have done proper background research before spouting the talking points designed to make the Republicans look like fiscal conservatives after 7 years of uncontrolled spending. First, he stated that illegal immigrants were encouraged to participate in SCHIP. Now that really gets our dandy up, doesn't it! But the fact is, illegal immigrants are not only ineligible to participate but neither can legal immigrants until they have been legal United States citizens for at least five years. He also states that adults up to the age of 25 could participate, as if that was a new expansion of the program. But guess what? Even though adults up to the age of 25 could participate in the old program, under waivers approved by the Bush administration when Republicans controlled Congress I might add, this new bill that Bush vetoed prohibited new waivers for parents and phased out single adults from the program. He went on to rail against another "government run" program. Surely he knows that the program is funded by the government but run by private insurance companies, a public-private partnership that Republicans are so fond of, and rightly so because such partnerships are more efficient. But Tom tried to make it sound like a dirty word. I could go on but you get the gist of the distortions. Why do our politicians believe that we are so stupid that we'll buy whatever they dish out?

James S Fitzgerald