Making history is now good politics

Our U.S. Senate interrupted its regularly scheduled dysfunctional to make some history this past week.

On Thursday, the Senate voted 64-32 to extend protections afforded under the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Basically, under federal law, employers can no longer fire or decide to not hire someone simply for being gay or transgendered.

Our Senate actually busted a filibuster and built a bipartisan majority to pass major legislation. Ten Republicans voted aye. Oh, and it happens to be a major civil rights victory decades in the making.

Republicans who run the House say no way, no dice. We'll see.

IOWA ALREADY THERE

This is been-there-done-that territory for Iowa, which added sexual orientation and gender identity to the state's civil rights code in 2007. And, actually, the Iowa House approved those protections way back in 1989, but couldn't get the Iowa Senate to go along. Iowa is now one of 22 states with protections on the books.

But that doesn't mean both of our U.S. senators were on board. Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley voted to filibuster the bill and then voted against it. Iowa may guard the civil rights of its citizens, but Grassley didn't see any reason to make sure all Americans are treated fairly.

On Tuesday, Grassley said he's more worried about the freedoms of people who want to discriminate based on their religious views. Never mind that the bill exempts churches, schools and businesses directly affiliated with churches, as well as barring the federal government from retaliating against religious institutions that don't comply.

And it turns out that people with deep religious convictions also support civil rights. As the New York Times pointed out Friday, five of the Senate's seven Mormon members backed the bill. That includes Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, hardly a secular leftist.

Grassley worries it will hurt “small businesses,” even though businesses with 15 or fewer employees, which make up the majority of small businesses, are exempt. The senator is convinced that the change will lead to a bunch of complaints and lawsuits.

FEW CLAIMS

He only had to look to his own state to refute that claim. According to numbers provided to the Government Accountability Office by the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, just 4 percent of employment related discrimination claims between 2008 and 2012 dealt with sexual orientation and gender identity. That's 306 claims out of 7,467.

Iowa's experience suggests that this isn't really a big deal for businesses. It is, however, a very big deal if you happen to be among the 306 folks claiming discrimination.

Some Republicans and allies complained that expanding civil rights would mess up the labor market. Iowa's unemployment rate is 4.9 percent, which ranks eighth-best nationally. Five states in the top 10 offer civil rights protections similar to the federal bill.

Target Point, a research firm that once crunched numbers for Mitt Romney, found that 68 percent of Americans support the ENDA expansion, including 56 percent of Republicans. Heck, the firm found that eight in 10 surveyed thought it was already the law. And if they work for a company that does businesses in multiple states, it's probably already company policy.

Maybe all of this is why Grassley and most other opponents were so quiet Thursday. The silence speaks volumes about a remarkable shift in political reality.

THE HISTORY

If you're 23, you're all like, whatever. No biggie. But if you're 43, like me, this is pretty remarkable.

In 1989, gay civil rights was seen as an astounding and dangerous idea. Even in 2007, it took considerable procedural theatrics in the Iowa House to get the bill to the governor's desk.

In 2004, conservatives railed on “the gay agenda” to drive a cultural wedge and nail down those famous values voters to keep the presidency. It hasn't been all that long since a lot of Democrats ran as fast as they could from the issue, fearing its electoral implications.

That's all changed. Civil rights advocates are on the offensive, with public opinion increasingly on their side. And it's Republicans who are trying to run away from the issue and change the subject, fearing electoral implications. House Republicans' refusal to bring up ENDA for a vote will become a political liability. Eventually, I predict, there will be a vote.

Speaking of liabilities, in front of this dramatically altered backdrop, would-be leaders of the free world will come to Iowa and campaign for Republican caucus support as if none of these changes have happened. The campaign to win a national election in 2016 will start in a place where the GOP's core remains adamantly convinced that it is still 2004.

It doesn't have to be that way, of course, if enough Iowa Republicans would heed and appreciate the message sent by the GOP 10 who voted yes in the Senate Thursday. Backing fundamental fairness in America is now good politics.