Audio: Barney Frank on The Michelangelo Signorile Show

The enemy of the good

Ah, politics.  There's that saying, "Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good."

Do you support a good "civil union" legislation that could pass, or do you cry "separate but unequal!" and hold out for a perfect "marriage" legislation that probably won't pass?

Do you support a good ENDA that protects LGB people and could pass, or do you cry "not enough!" and hold out for a perfect ENDA that adds the T but probably won't pass?

I don't have the answers and I see merit in both sides of the argument.  It exists in nearly every movement; mine being no different:

Do you support good marijuana reform that legalizes only for the sick and disabled and will pass, or do you cry "not enough!" and hold out for a perfect marijuana reform that re-legalizes for everyone and won't pass?

Do you support decriminalization of marijuana possession that could pass, or cry "not enough!" and hold out for decriminalization of all drug possession that won't pass?

Do you call for incremental policies designed to force the president's hand on Iraq and have some chance of passing veto-proof majorities, or do you cry "hell no!" and call for impeachments and purse-string cutting that won't pass?

Another saying in politics is "Politics is the art of the possible."  Today it is possible to protect gays, lesbians, and bisexuals from workplace discrimination.  Today it is not possible to pass the same bill if you include transgendered.

Is it fair for T-people to thwart equality for LGB-people?

Is it right for LGB-people to accept equality at the expense of throwing T-people under the bus?

With the marijuana questions, it is a bit easier, since no one could look at an emaciated, puking AIDS or cancer patient, and say, "Sorry, you can't have a doobie until I can have one."

Huge questions, few answers, lots of conflicting opinions.  Have at it.  Convince me one way or the other, because I'm on the fence on this one...

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 18:48:13 PM CDT

All good points, except...

The two catches (and I do think you make some excellent points), are that ENDA cannot pass right now even without gender identity (the Pres will veto it, and we can't override a veto, so we are stricly talking about a symbolic legislative victory right now) and an ENDA without gender identity terminology leaves gaping loopholes that render it virtually ineffective.

While there are certainly benefits to a purely symbolic legislative victory, the fact that ENDA will not be signed into law in any form right now calls into question whether the removal of gender identity is warranted by the relatively minor gains it will facilitate.  Furthermore, just as it would be symbolic to pass some form of ENDA in Congress, it would also be symbolic to fail to support the transgender community in that effort.  If we tell our representatives that we don't think we can support transgender equality right now, that sends a pretty negative message.

The loopholes I'll leave alone, as other individuals and organizations far, far more savvy than I am have already covered the subject. 

---

by: kellyanon @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 19:36:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Russ, I've had it with you.

Is it fair for T-people to thwart equality for LGB-people?

You know, or damned sure ought to know, that most gay / lesbian people are targeted because of their gender-varient behavior.  Any time anybody acts outside of gender norms, they are vulnerable.

You know, or damned sure ought to know, that an ENDA that does not include gender identity or expression will NOT PROTECT YOU, unless you are so straight acting that you completely pass.  Such a pseudo-ENDA will allow an employer to fire you because you are a man who is a bit femme, or a woman who is a bit masculine. "It's not that you are gay. It's that you're acting all femmy that we can't stand."

Now it's time for me to curse.  I am getting fucking tired of having gay people (and it does seem to be men most of the time) telling ME that I'm thwarting equality for them.  Fuck that shit.  At Stonewall, and Compton's before that, it was trans folk that led the fight.  Where would YOU be if not for those trans women taking off their heels and using them as weapons against the police?

And yet the GL's continue to misappropriate Stonewall, ignore Compton's, claim that Jeanne D'Arc was a woman when HE was a trans man, and erase the transgender community from queer history - and pretend that bisexual people don't exist or are "just afraid to come out".

Some "radical" you are, Russ.

Social outrage is power protecting itself; it is not morality. -- Andrea Dworkin

---

by: RachelPhilPa @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 21:15:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

just an fyi

Russ isn't gay. 

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 21:25:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That really doesn't change much.

I didn't know that he's not gay, but that does not change the transphobic nature of his message nor the anger of my response.  There's plenty of straight people out there who are perfectly willing to dump trans folk in the trash.

Social outrage is power protecting itself; it is not morality. -- Andrea Dworkin

---

by: RachelPhilPa @ Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:16:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rachel, your message is not appealing to this butch lesbian

You'll do better without the cursing. 

What's this about Joan of Arc?  

---

by: Holly in Cincinnati @ Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 14:24:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, Rachel, don't hold back

I was asking questions, not making statements.

"Is it fair for T-people to thwart equality for LGB-people?" is not the same as "It is not fair for T-people to thwart equality for LGB-people."

But I appreciate your response.  The whole "fired-for-femme" paragraph makes a very good point; however, I think that "defense" for the employer would only apply in some very obvious Charles-Nelson-Reilly-gay situations.  Most of the gay men I know wouldn't even set off Turbo Satellite Mega Gaydar, so it would be tough to say "you're acting too femme" if you were trying to fire them for their orientation.

Now since I've pissed you off, let's see how far I can push the envelope:  There should be standards in the workplace that lead to the acceptance of differences and self-expression, but not to the point of creating disruption.  For example, this lady...

...does not have an absolute right to be the undertaker at a funeral home.  Sure, I should be all P.C. and look past the shrapnel and see the kind, loving person she is, but I'm afraid me and 99% of the population would probably have a problem with her, even she wore a nice modest dress.

However, "acting femmy" or "acting butch", so long as those actions were within the norms of the opposite gender, would be a poor case over which to fire someone: how do I fire you for only being as butch as me?  If your "butch" action was to wear pants and sit legs akimbo in staff meetings, how do I fire you for that when I do the same thing?

But if your acting "butch" was over-the-top, beyond displays of masculinity that even the men are exhibiting, maybe that is a behavior to be deemed a workplace distraction.

Yes, it would be a beautiful world if we could all just "let it all hang out" and be our true selves in the workplace.  But we all -- even us straights -- have to put on a faux-persona when we go into the workplace.  I'm a stark raving radical (despite what you think) liberal progressive, but at work I have to play clean-cut, suit-wearing, apolitical corporatist.  My company president is a stark raving Born-Again™ conservative regressive, but at work he has to play clean-cut, suit-wearing, apolitical corporatist.

Before you respond with the "gays can't even discuss their family" route, let me agree with you.  Gay folks should be able to put up pictures of their loved ones at their cubicle and talk about their life partner just as much as the straight cubicle dwellers do.  No one should have to disguise their basic nature at work.

But, to the point, if an employee's gayness is causing a workplace distraction, not simply due to the fact of his orientation, but due to behavioral factors that impact the workplace, then it is valid to fire that employee, just as much as I'd fire the straight woman who always shows up to work in knee-high patent-leather boots, can't stop talking about being a dominatrix, and treats the male employees with little respect.

Or to the military angle: there's no reason to keep Don't Ask Don't Tell -- gay people can be just as professional a soldier as straights.  But if Private Gay is constantly speaking in double-entendre, making appreciative comments about his squad-mates physical attractiveness, and spending just a little-too-much lookee-loo time in the showers, how is that not as much sexual harrassment as the fireman who puts up a bikini pinup calendar in the firehouse in plain sight of the female firefighter?

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 14:30:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Russ, My attempt to get you on my side of the fence,

  Because you don't want to scream, "DON'T TASSER ME BITCH!"

  But if you are looking for a serious answer, I will try my best.

#1 The old days are not what they were 40 years ago.  The year is 2007, not 1967, and things have picked up speed.  The religious fanatics still live in the past way more than forty years ago. AKA " the good ole days"  Well those might have been the days, but times change, as well as the youth in our country.  I am raising two daughters and I am teaching them that a fight against discrimination is the right thing to do.  I hope that when I am a grandparent, that my grandchildren will be able to read in history books that people stood together to fight discrimination when they see it, and stood together to defeat it.  I believe it is a total shame that it is 2007 and I have to teach my daughters that we still haven't learned from history, and discriminating against any human being is wrong.

#2 See above.

  With that said, do I feel that supporting a GLB only in the house without the T is a good thing?  No, and not because I am a T, but for the fact that discrimination is wrong.

  And a stand needs to be made at some point in time when there is true
  EQUALITY, AND IF NOT NOW, WHEN?

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 23:58:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

a nitpick

you say that "today it is possible to protect LG & B people". 

respectfully, that's not at all true.  it may be possible to pass the non-t enda in one or both houses, but it will never get signed by bush.  so what do we do? 

1) try to pass non-t enda, watch it get vetoed if it passes, say we have momentum for next year (and a feather some dem's will be pointing to in their caps), and stay mum on the t-discussion?  or,
2) try to pass inclusive enda, knowing it may not pass either house, but getting the conversation started since we know the bill is dead with bush anyway?

i vote for #2.  because of bush, we won't get ANY enda whether we strip out ts or not.  all we'll get is a bad precedent, failure to begin the debate and division amongst ourselves.  but by keeping it inclusive and giving it a thorough hearing, we get the stage set for when a human being again occupies the whitehouse.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 00:15:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

on mj.

With the marijuana questions, it is a bit easier, since no one could look at an emaciated, puking AIDS or cancer patient, and say, "Sorry, you can't have a doobie until I can have one."

I have to disagree.  It would not in any way be easier for me to see my cube-mate fired for being trans, while i sit there employed, complicit in my employers bigotry.  You remind us of death by cancer.  There is also something called death by a thousand cuts.  It happens more slowly, but it is no less painful to watch, and can be just as fatal.  I can't rank the deliberate pain inflicted on cancer patients above or below the deliberate emotional and economic (=survival) pain inflicted on transpeople.  They are both hideous.

Further, denying a job to someone is much more fundamental than denying them legal access to mj.  I'm talking here mj on demand by non-disease sufferers.  There is just no comparison.  A person can lead a completely happy and healthy life without ever touching mj.  But without a job, life is pretty hideous.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 00:24:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

When you can be arrested for gayness...

...and imprisoned for acquiring gay sex on demand...

When you can be denied federal student aid for the rest of your life for having gay sex...

When you are forced by your employer to take tests to determine if you are gay before you can gain employment, and will be denied employment if you fail the test...

When you can be charged with a crime for merely being in the presence of gay people...

When you have to check the "Have you been convicted of a felony?" box on every job application because you were once caught having gay sex...

When the government can seize all your bank accounts and personal property for being gay...

When you're no longer allowed to vote or sit on a jury because you're gay...

When the government takes away your Food Stamps, WIC, AFDC, Section 8 Housing, drivers' license, foster kids, legal firearms, and occupational licenses for being gay...

When you're not allowed to adopt a child... uh, well... let's skip this one...

When the federal, state, and local governments spend a combined $18 billion per year trying to find, convict, and imprison you for being gay...

And when many of these penalties apply not for a conviction at trial of your gayness, but merely your arrest for gayness, even if the gay charges are dropped of a jury or judge finds you "not gay"...

...then we can talk about the comparisons to legal access to marijuana by the healthy.

Sorry, you pushed a button.

The idea that "Well, you don't have to smoke marijuana to have a happy, healthy life" makes me ask, "How do you know?  Maybe the marijuana leads to the happy, healthy life for some people."  I've led my life.  For the first 22 years without marijuana, I hated myself and often contemplated suicide.  Since marijuana, I'm happy, healthy, and productive, and love life.

Now, you might say, "Well, that's a medical use then."  We have a saying in the movement: all use is medical.  If it's a medicine, and you're using it, it's medical.  Not that medicines can't be misused; some people take cough syrup to get high.)  But the Willie Nelson likes to say that the biggest killer on the planet is stress and cannabis is the best medicine for that.

I could say that one could lead a healthy and happy life without ever touching same-sex genitals, too.  Would you consider that a happy life?  No, you'd argue that sexuality is a part of healthy human nature and to deny it is unhealthy.  I'd say the same thing about altering consciousness.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 14:57:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

two things he said

which leave me wanting clarification.
1.  he said that the trans lobbyists working with him asked to have the trans part of the bill removed if it would sink the bill.  is this true?  who is he speaking of? 
2.  he said that people weren't contacting their congresspeople soon enough.  well, did he put out a call for that?  did i miss something?  i recall getting routine emails from related orgs, but nothing on the level of "if you dont get your butts in hight gear now, this thing is dead".  sounded to me like blaming the electorate for the failure of our legislative leaders to inform us of their needs.  am i wrong here?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 19:04:56 PM CDT

two things

1. yes - who? why not name them?

2. if they could delay this a month now, and decades previously - why couldn't they delay a few months and put out that call to mobilise the community?  What caused this odd scheduling right after hate crimes passing? seems suspicious.

---

by: Kathleen @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 20:18:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i don't understand your answer

to 1.  i'm not asking for names, but rater a) was frank correct, b) what orgs do those individuals represent, and c) what is their reasoning?  i was frankly quite surprised to hear that trans representatives of transpersons would agree with him to strip trans protections from the bill.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 20:29:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are we on a snipe hunt?

Erm...  I've only listened once, but I believe what Frank said is that trans representatives are asking him to shelf the whole bill for now if it can't go through with gender identity coverage, not that they asked him to drop gender identity if it wouldn't pass.  I may be mistaken, but my interpretation of what Frank said differs from the original post in this line of questioning.

---

by: kellyanon @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 20:34:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ack! you,re right.

i mis-heard on the first listen.  i've just listened again and this time i heard it clearly: the call was to forget the bill unless it was inclusive.  sorry for the confusion!

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 21:23:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Now I've listened to it

---

by: Holly in Cincinnati @ Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 14:30:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i think he had a cold.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 15:15:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry Barney, Don't blame this on us and the orginizations,

  You are the sponsor of HB 2015, and by the looks of the dates as co-sponsors added their names, there was educating going on, and you must have been comfortable with the educating.  You had to feel realy comfortable when Nancy Pelosi said a vote would take place.  In September alone there where 12 more co-sponsors.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  COSPONSORS(171), BY DATE [order is left to right]:  (Sort: alphabetical order)
Rep Pryce, Deborah [OH-15] - 4/24/2007
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 4/24/2007
Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] - 4/24/2007
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 4/24/2007
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] - 4/24/2007
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 4/24/2007
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 4/24/2007
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 4/24/2007
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 4/24/2007
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 4/24/2007
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 4/24/2007
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 4/24/2007
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 4/24/2007
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 4/24/2007
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 4/24/2007
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39] - 4/24/2007
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20] - 4/24/2007
Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] - 4/24/2007
Rep Allen, Thomas H. [ME-1] - 4/24/2007
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 4/24/2007
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 4/24/2007
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 4/24/2007
Rep Emanuel, Rahm [IL-5] - 4/24/2007
Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [TX-15] - 4/24/2007
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 4/24/2007
Rep Moore, Dennis [KS-3] - 4/24/2007
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 4/24/2007
Rep Levin, Sander M. [MI-12] - 4/24/2007
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 4/24/2007
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14] - 4/24/2007
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 4/24/2007
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 4/24/2007
Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] - 4/24/2007
Rep Dingell, John D. [MI-15] - 4/24/2007
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] - 4/24/2007
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 4/24/2007
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 4/24/2007
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 4/24/2007
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 4/24/2007
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 4/24/2007
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 4/24/2007
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 4/24/2007
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] - 4/24/2007
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] - 4/24/2007
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] - 4/24/2007
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 4/24/2007
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 4/24/2007
Rep Matheson, Jim [UT-2] - 4/24/2007
Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] - 4/24/2007
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 4/24/2007
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 4/24/2007
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 4/24/2007
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 4/24/2007
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 4/24/2007
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 4/24/2007
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 4/24/2007
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 4/24/2007
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 4/24/2007
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 4/24/2007
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 4/24/2007
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 4/24/2007
Rep Neal, Richard E. [MA-2] - 4/24/2007
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 4/24/2007
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 4/24/2007
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] - 4/24/2007
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 4/24/2007
Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53] - 4/24/2007
Rep McNulty, Michael R. [NY-21] - 4/26/2007
Rep Udall, Mark [CO-2] - 4/26/2007
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 4/26/2007
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] - 4/26/2007
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] - 4/26/2007
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. [MA-9] - 4/26/2007
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 4/26/2007
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 4/26/2007
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 4/26/2007
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 5/1/2007
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 5/1/2007
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 5/1/2007
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 5/1/2007
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] - 5/1/2007
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 5/1/2007
Rep Holden, Tim [PA-17] - 5/1/2007
Rep Hodes, Paul W. [NH-2] - 5/1/2007
Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] - 5/1/2007
Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs [OH-11] - 5/1/2007
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] - 5/1/2007
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] - 5/2/2007
Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 5/2/2007
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 5/2/2007
Rep Kildee, Dale E. [MI-5] - 5/2/2007
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 5/2/2007
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 5/2/2007
Rep Carson, Julia [IN-7] - 5/8/2007
Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] - 5/8/2007
Rep Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [VA-3] - 5/8/2007
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 5/8/2007
Rep Dicks, Norman D. [WA-6] - 5/8/2007
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] - 5/9/2007
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 5/9/2007
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 5/9/2007
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 5/9/2007
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 5/9/2007
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 5/9/2007
Rep Carnahan, Russ [MO-3] - 5/16/2007
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 5/16/2007
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] - 5/16/2007
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [IA-3] - 5/16/2007
Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 5/16/2007
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 5/16/2007
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] - 5/16/2007
Rep Klein, Ron [FL-22] - 5/23/2007
Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] - 5/23/2007
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 5/23/2007
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 5/23/2007
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 5/23/2007
Rep Lantos, Tom [CA-12] - 5/24/2007
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 6/7/2007
Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] - 6/7/2007
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] - 6/7/2007
Rep Bean, Melissa L. [IL-8] - 6/7/2007
Rep Giffords, Gabrielle [AZ-8] - 6/7/2007
Rep Yarmuth, John A. [KY-3] - 6/13/2007
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6] - 6/13/2007
Rep Solis, Hilda L. [CA-32] - 6/13/2007
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] - 6/15/2007
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 6/15/2007
Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16] - 6/22/2007
Rep Castor, Kathy [FL-11] - 6/22/2007
Rep Biggert, Judy [IL-13] - 6/22/2007
Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] - 6/22/2007
Rep Udall, Tom [NM-3] - 6/26/2007
Rep Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY-20] - 6/26/2007
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 6/26/2007
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] - 6/26/2007
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 6/28/2007
Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] - 6/28/2007
Rep Rodriguez, Ciro D. [TX-23] - 6/28/2007
Rep Walz, Timothy J. [MN-1] - 6/28/2007
Rep Higgins, Brian [NY-27] - 6/28/2007
Rep Sarbanes, John P. [MD-3] - 7/11/2007
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 7/11/2007
Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 7/11/2007
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 7/11/2007
Rep McNerney, Jerry [CA-11] - 7/11/2007
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 7/17/2007
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 7/17/2007
Rep Jefferson, William J. [LA-2] - 7/17/2007
Rep Salazar, John T. [CO-3] - 7/17/2007
Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43] - 7/17/2007
Rep Watt, Melvin L. [NC-12] - 7/19/2007
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-34] - 7/19/2007
Rep Mitchell, Harry E. [AZ-5] - 7/19/2007
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] - 7/30/2007
Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] - 7/30/2007
Rep Cooper, Jim [TN-5] - 7/30/2007
Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] - 8/1/2007
Rep Hall, John J. [NY-19] - 8/1/2007
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 8/2/2007
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] - 9/4/2007
Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] - 9/4/2007
Rep Hooley, Darlene [OR-5] - 9/4/2007
Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] - 9/5/2007
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 9/5/2007
Rep Costa, Jim [CA-20] - 9/5/2007
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 9/19/2007
Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] - 9/19/2007
Rep Boyda, Nancy E. [KS-2] - 9/19/2007
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 9/19/2007
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] - 9/26/2007
Rep Larsen, Rick [WA-2] - 9/26/2007

http://thomas.loc.go...

  Now that is alot of support in the house, and if it was known that it wasn't going to make it Sept. 5th when the hearings were held, we would have been just as active.

  If the 100 plus orginizations knew there was the least bit of trouble, they would have spoke.

  Sorry Barney, but I am not buying it.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 20:14:01 PM CDT

I just don't understand y'all on this one

Just a couple thoughts on this: 

I hate to be the jerk one something like this, but I'm not sure why everybody's so hot to trot to put this bill through. We barely have a majority in the senate, much less enough sneators to override a fillibuster or a veto. We haven't got enough in the house to override a veto either. And the president probably wouldn't sign the damn thing with a gun to his head. Why are we spending so much time and effort trying to shove this through and debate the merits of trans inclusion when it's basically garunteed to go nowhere, trans inclusion or no?

We have all the spending bills, the torture crap coming out, SCHIP, and Iraq to go over again. These  are gonna be some nasty fights. I just don't think it's a good time to spend poltical capitol necessary to shove this through only to have it die on the senate floor or the president's desk. I don't think that could even be counted as some kind of pyrrhic victory. 

Not to dis any of the bill's supporters, it just seems like it would make more sense to be spending effort on raising funds and getting boots on the ground for the 08 election. I guess I just figure it'd be smarter to work hard at securing a real big victory in the presidency, the house, and the senate, then reminding the dems when they come to office how much they owe us. 

Maybe I'm missing something. 

---

by: Ferin @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 20:19:49 PM CDT

Indeed

I'm inclined to agree, although I confess that part of that is because I'd rather see the time taken to rally more support for gender identity coverage.

Barney Frank's position (and by proxy, the HRC's) is that getting some form of ENDA through Congress right now... having it passed by Congress... will set a precedent that will make it easier and easier over time to keep getting it passed until a president will sign it.  In and of itself, I imagine that's probably true.   Catch is (in my very inexperienced opinion), yanking gender identity now also sets a precedent, and every time a non-inclusive ENDA goes passes Congress it will make it harder and harder to include gender identity in future legislation.

At any rate, a lot of people on both of the roughly opposed sides of the issue share your curiosity about why there was a sudden rush to push some form of ENDA through at all costs.  Some people feel that it was an attempt to get another victory under Nancy Pelosi's belt before the HRC's annual dinner so she could secure loads of funding for Democrats.  I wish I could say that was overly cynical conspiracy theory, but I suspect it is at least partially true. 

---

by: kellyanon @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 20:30:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ding ding ding we have a winner !

 

 The dems are exploiting and dividing our community - just as much as the fundies but for different reasons.  These people feign ignorance ..gimme a break , they know exactly what they are doing with our constituency..its calculated and its down right rotten to the core. I am a green but tell ya what..i am gonna go back to Dem for the primaries..so i can vote Kucinich. He is the only one who apparently after over 40 yrs of usa lgbt movement and history gets it..its not all that hard to grok.  The art of the possible...oh please.  No enough already with be good, be practical, wait, ...screw that noise.  We pay taxes , we vote more than many other constituencies , we donate to campaigns....wtf more do they need to know.  And we will NOT set a precident that will only keep the T in bills up in the air for the next 20 yrs IF the country does not implode before then.  Look at the frikkin dems..they cannot even stop the war funding. And to get the Mathew Sheppard Act passed they attached it to war funding..  This country makes me sick. All the politicians pandering to fundie nut jobs..that only increases the fundie power. Why falwell ever had a seat at the table...beats me..oh wait , no it doesn't ..votes.   All these politicians have sold our constitution down the river..the LGBT community..we are no more then a political football to all the candidates but for Kucinich.  He gets it, he is NOT manipulative or willfully ignorant in his world view.  I am sick of the lesser of two evils - i want true good and a return to reason.  

---

by: proudprogressive @ Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:18:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

i don't get something

Frank says that it's easier to pass something now and add to it later, and always is easier to add to existing law and protections.

So--why not just add us to existing employment protections and laws without a standalone bill? And why not do with ENDA what they did with Bias Crime, which was to attach it to another, veto-proof bill? 

---

by: amberglow @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 21:51:50 PM CDT

"Frank says that it's easier to pass something now and add to it later"

But Frank is lying.

There are now more state gay rights laws that are trans-inclusive than are not.

A majority of those that are passed as trans-inclusive in the first instance, not as Frankenamendments.

Only four state laws have ever been Frankenamended to include us - and no other attempts have been serious (read: a higher priority than gay marriage.)

Incremental progress is a lie - and it always has been a lie: a lie to get us to go along with gay elitist transphobia.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 09:15:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]