|
|
                   |
Civil Rights & the CourtsFact Sheet #108-2-06
The Communications Workers of America has always fought for and promoted equal treatment under the law for all Americans. We share with the vast majority of Americans the ideals espoused in the Bill of Rights - that all people are created equal. The rich diversity of America has been both challenging and rewarding. From that diversity, we have surely strengthened and enriched our nation as a whole. Unfortunately, individuals and minority communities are still in need of protections from the ignorance of bigotry and prejudice. The 108th Congress must work to extend the promise of the Bill of Rights to all Americans and resist reactionary impulses to undermine or roll back our civil liberties. Hate crimes, employment discrimination and coercive tax policies continue to oppress minorities. Where legislation is lacking, Congress must write new protections. Where legislation is already in place, we must turn to unbiased courts for justice and redress. America Deserves a Balanced JudiciaryThe composition of the federal judiciary is a civil rights issue of profound importance to all Americans. Those individuals charged with dispensing justice in our society have a direct impact on civil rights protections for all. As such, the federal judiciary must be perceived by the public as an instrument of justice, and the individuals who are selected for this branch of government must be the embodiment of fairness and impartiality. Nominees to the federal bench merit close scrutiny. They must be able to demonstrate that they will be impartial arbiters of the law so that litigants will reasonably be able to feel that they are receiving a fair hearing. The federal courts should not Anyone committed to social justice and equal rights must concern themselves with the caliber of those officials nominated or appointed by the President to protect the independent judiciary and our civil rights. CWA is committed to supporting those nominees committed to the expansion of our civil rights and will oppose those who by their own actions or words indicate their willingness to restrict our freedoms. Hate Crimes PreventionCWA supports The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2003, S.966, introduced in the Senate by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and The Bipartisan Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2004, being introduced in the House by Rep. John Conyers (D-14th MI) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-18th FL). This badly needed legislation is a constructive and measured response to a problem that continues to plague our nation -- violence motivated by prejudice and hate. Current federal hate crimes law limits the government's jurisdiction to federally protected activities, such as voting. It does not permit federal involvement in a range of cases involving crimes motivated by bias against the victim's gender, sexual orientation or disability. This loophole is particularly significant given the fact that several states have no hate crime laws, and at least 20 states have extremely weak hate crime laws. A stunning example of this flaw became evident in September, 2000 when hate violence struck one of our own. CWA member Danny Lee Overstreet was gunned down in Roanoke, Virginia for simply being in a gay café. Six others were also shot in the same incident. No Federal assistance was provided for local law enforcement. This legislation will close these loopholes, and provide State and local authorities enhanced support from the Federal Government. It creates an Intergovernmental Assistance Program to provide technical, forensic or prosecutorial assistance to state and local law enforcement officials in bias crime cases. And, under this legislation, Justice Department officials must approve all federal prosecutions, ensuring restraint, and further ensuring that the states will continue to take the lead. Equality In the WorkplaceCWA supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2003 (ENDA), HR.3285 introduced in the House by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-4th CT) and S.1705 in the Senate by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA). This legislation will finally protect all Americans from senseless workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. Throughout the country, qualified, hardworking Americans are fired, denied job opportunities, or otherwise discriminated against for reasons that have nothing to do with their work performance and abilities. Employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, whether such orientation is real or perceived, effectively denies qualified individuals equality and opportunity in the workplace. Those who experience this form of discrimination have no recourse under current federal law or under the Constitution as it has been interpreted by the courts. Currently, federal law provides basic legal protection against employment discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin, or disability, but not sexual orientation. ENDA would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, providing basic protection to ensure fairness in the workplace for Americans who are currently denied equal protection under the law. ENDA does not create "special rights." In fact, this legislation explicitly prohibits preferential treatment and quotas. In addition, it exempts small businesses, religious organizations and the military, and does not require benefits to the same-sex partners of employees. Fairness in the workplace has been recognized as a fundamental right and should be protected under federal law. Taxation of Domestic Partner BenefitsCWA supports the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act of 2003, H.R. 935, introduced by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-7th WA). This bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the exclusion from gross income for employer-provided health coverage for employee's spouses and dependent children to coverage provided to other eligible designated beneficiaries of employees. When employers offer accident and health plan benefits to employees who elect to cover their domestic partner or other loved ones, the fair market value of that coverage is included as imputed income for tax purposes. As an example, if the fair market value of the coverage is $200 a month, the amount of income upon which the employee is taxed increases by $2400 per year. Depending on the tax bracket in which the employee falls, the additional tax burden may be prohibitive. It is a sad irony that the continuation of this discriminatory tax policy both increases the middle class tax burden and decreases the number of those covered by health insurance - situations that have received well-deserved attention by bipartisan majorities in both Houses. Still, this small step has been overlooked for too long. CWA believes that the taxation of negotiated employee benefits, including domestic partner health coverage, should be treated the same as spousal or dependant benefits. To continue to do otherwise is an unacceptable form of marital status discrimination. This legislation will end unfair taxation of these benefits and allow employers and employees to negotiate compensation based on real-world, market considerations. Amending the ConstitutionCWA opposes any attempt, such as the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, HJR 56 and SJR 30 introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-4th CO) and Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) respectively. This attempt to amend the United States Constitution to limit the rights of its citizens is unprecedented and unwise. This particular amendment would turn 225 years of Constitutional history on its head by discriminatorily intruding into the traditional authority of states in matters of family law. The proposed amendment is also antithetical to the Constitution's guiding principle to provide equal protection for all. It proposes to use one of our nation's most revered documents as a tool of exclusion, amending the Constitution to restrict the rights of a group of Americans for the first time in history. The proposed amendment would not only prohibit states from granting equal marriage rights to same-sex couples, but apparently seeks also to deprive same-sex couples and their families of fundamental protections such as hospital visitation, inheritance rights, and health care benefits, whether conveyed through marriage or other legally recognized relationships, running afoul of basic principles of fairness as well as causing harm to real children and real families. Amending the Constitution is a measure that is rarely used, and it is only done to address great public policy need. Since the Bill of Rights' adoption in 1791, the Constitution has only been amended seventeen times. The Constitution itself, and subsequent amendments, were designed to protect and expand individual liberties, not to take away or restrict them. Nevertheless, the resolution proposes to restrict the rights of a whole class of people. At a time when our nation has a great many pressing issues, exerting time and energy on a divisive and discriminatory constitutional amendment seems a poor use of our resources. For further information, contact:
Home Page | Buying Guide | Committees | Contact Us | Editorials
|
