New York Republicans stand proud for discrimination

On Tuesday the New York Senate Investigations and Government Operations Committee took up S502, sponsored by Daniel L. Squadron, (D-Brooklyn waterfront and lower Manhattan), known as GENDA, the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act

The bill's purpose:

Prohibits discrimination based on gender identity or expression and includes offenses regarding gender identity or expression under the hate crimes statute

The bill had the backing of Gov. Cuomo. The New York State Assembly has passed a version of GENDA ten times. The Senate has blocked it more times than the Assembly has passed it. Squadron had to use a procedural device on Monday to force Tuesday's action.

But the committee once again blocked the bill, 6-3.

Today, the Senate stood with Trumpian divisiveness, discrimination, and fear. As the Trump Administration rolls back basic protections for transgender Americans, the Senate Majority has an obligation to ensure all New Yorkers are protected. Today, not one Republican Senator voted to support basic fairness for all.

--Squadron

Preceding the vote, Squadron explained GENDA very simply:

It ensures the basic fairness, the basic civil rights that the vast majority of New Yorkers take for granted for transgender New Yorkers.

It’s about people’s lives and the right to do what most New Yorkers take for granted.

Legislation at the state level is especially important at a time when Trump has rolled back transgender protections as part of his campaign of divisiveness and fear.

--Squadron

Sen Andrew Lanza (R-Staten Island) jumped to Trump's defense...sort of:

Comments made about President Trump and his ‘divisiveness’ leave me to wonder if this is more political nonsense, or is it about substance? If you asked me in the last eight years, I would have told you that President Obama was the most divisive president in my lifetime.

--Lanza

I believe that you can’t discriminate on the basis of any immutable quality.

--Lanza

You know, like religion...or Lanza's favorite, political discrimination.

Lanza said that his daughter told him that students in colleges who were conservative, Republican or suspected of supporting Trump faced discrimination from the left.

Every generation deals with these types of cruelties … The better approach is to not discriminate against anyone for any immutable quality.

Lanza, of course, denies that gender identity is "an immutable quality."

Brad Hoylman (D – central Manhattan) said the bill was “so important” because transgender rights were expressly left out of the human rights bill passed years ago in New York.

It's morally reprehensible that the state Senate considers transgender New Yorkers to be second class citizens.

I voted against it because I don't believe it is a good bill. I believe the better more inclusive approach is to prohibit discrimination against anyone based upon immutable qualities.

--Lanza

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

boriscleto's picture

For supporting the "Independent Democrats" and allowing the Republicans to keep control of the Senate...

up
0 users have voted.

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

Strife Delivery's picture

I find issues like this to not only to be tiresome but also frustrating.

The Constitution grants the means of equal rights; however it was always used a shield to not do as such.

For instance, the phrase "All men are created equal". That seems to me, a most basic and human quality. Of course, the founders had no desires to truly do this, considering the issues of class, race, gender, etc. However, the phrase itself is paramount to any discussion regarding human rights and overall dignity.

Each new issue that gets brought to the forefront, there is a guard of conservative thinkers meant to block it. And, in this instance, I mean conservative in this sense of preserving, or put another way, conserving the current order. But, overall, perhaps we merely need to do one, fell swoop, law or amendment, that will cover any potential future developments that will occur.

Gay marriage? Boom, this X amendment
Trans rights? Boom, this X amendment
Gay adoption? Boom, this X amendment

Any and all future social rights issue that are supported by some in society but not another would quickly and efficiently be shot down by invoking this X amendment.

Edit: Just to clarify in case I left room for speculation, I am fully with you and your writings here Robyn. It just seems that each decade brings forth a new issue, one that has to be fought over for long periods of times that seem so tiresome. At times, you have to try and wonder "Ok why is gay marriage a problem? Ok why are trans rights a problem?" You just kind of groan at conservative mindsets who say "No we can't have these things". That's why if somehow at some point "we" have power, either a congressional law or an amendment that would hopefully deal with any and all potential issues that arise in the future. No more having to fight for equal rights on X issue, you would already have them by invoking said law or amendment.

up
0 users have voted.