First, Miller's seat is considered very safe, and McCotter's somewhat safe, even under the worst of political tides.  Yes, Knollenberg is in a targeted district – but there's no domino of the type Siksai suggests.  But Knollenberg has in the past deviated from the Gary Glenn scorecard – on the federal gay marriage ban amendment in 04 he voted no – and that was long before there was any anti-Republican wave. In fact, it was a risky thing to do at the time. If you notice the pattern here – the metro-area Republicans voted one way, and the others the other way.  There are logical demographic & electoral reason for this, as well as the fact that this bill also had a provision in it that prohibits “preferential treatment” for gays along with prohibiting discrimination against them — indeed, as a matter of conscience, that clause alone makes this piece of legislation reasonable, and a mirror of the principles embodied in the MCRI-Proposal 2 of 2006 applying to race, ethnicity, and gender.

Indeed, this law is as much a triumph for the anti-preferential treatment model of anti-discrimination law as it is anything else.  You're right – it doesn't relate to same-sex marriage, but since it prohibits preferential treatment, and is limited to employment law, I don't think it presents a horrible precedent.  On the other hand, I would sympathize with Gary Glenn if he were to frame the issue as a matter of First Amendment associational and religious choice.  Of course, that argument was made in the 1960s against the Civil Rights Act dealing with racial discrimination.  So long as this law only prohibits employment discrimination though, and it clearly also prohibits preferential treatment, I'm with Knollenberg philosophically (the logical basis for that is complicated, but involves contract theory and government neutrality). I suspect that these folks might actually think some of these issues through when they vote – setting aside rhetoric and reality.

Oh, and for the benefit of your editor, I've worked for Knollenberg's son in the past, but might conceivably work for other “conservatives” adhering to Gary Glenn's position.  I wonder if I've damaged myself here.

Finally, I'm curious as to how long you gave the Washington offices to respond to your query.

First, Miller’s seat is considered very safe, and McCotter’s somewhat safe, even under the worst of political tides.  Yes, Knollenberg is in a targeted district – but there’s no domino of the type Siksai suggests.  But Knollenberg has in the past deviated from the Gary Glenn scorecard – on the federal gay marriage ban amendment in 04 he voted no – and that was long before there was any anti-Republican wave. In fact, it was a risky thing to do at the time. If you notice the pattern here – the metro-area Republicans voted one way, and the others the other way.  There are logical demographic & electoral reason for this, as well as the fact that this bill also had a provision in it that prohibits “preferential treatment” for gays along with prohibiting discrimination against them — indeed, as a matter of conscience, that clause alone makes this piece of legislation reasonable, and a mirror of the principles embodied in the MCRI-Proposal 2 of 2006 applying to race, ethnicity, and gender.

Indeed, this law is as much a triumph for the anti-preferential treatment model of anti-discrimination law as it is anything else.  You’re right – it doesn’t relate to same-sex marriage, but since it prohibits preferential treatment, and is limited to employment law, I don’t think it presents a horrible precedent.  On the other hand, I would sympathize with Gary Glenn if he were to frame the issue as a matter of First Amendment associational and religious choice.  Of course, that argument was made in the 1960s against the Civil Rights Act dealing with racial discrimination.  So long as this law only prohibits employment discrimination though, and it clearly also prohibits preferential treatment, I’m with Knollenberg philosophically (the logical basis for that is complicated, but involves contract theory and government neutrality). I suspect that these folks might actually think some of these issues through when they vote – setting aside rhetoric and reality.

Oh, and for the benefit of your editor, I’ve worked for Knollenberg’s son in the past, but might conceivably work for other “conservatives” adhering to Gary Glenn’s position.  I wonder if I’ve damaged myself here.

Finally, I’m curious as to how long you gave the Washington offices to respond to your query.