10/12/2007
Barney Frank and Activists Dig in Their Heels Over ENDA
Above, highlights from Barney Frank's press conference yesterday on ENDA.
The conflict between the Democratic legislature's will to pass a bill that excludes transgender people and the desire of the vast majority of LGBT groups to pass an inclusive bill has spilled into the mainstream media over the past 24 hours.
The AP reports: "The debate over including transgender people has sharply divided gay rights activists, many of whom are trying to kill a stripped-down bill without protections for transgender workers that Frank and Democratic leaders hope will win House passage this year."
Both Frank and the executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force Matt Foreman have acknowledged that it's strange for the two groups to be on opposing sides of a progressive issue.
Said Foreman: "We're not going to be split off this way. We're driven by principle. No civil rights movement has ever left a part of its community behind - and we're not about to be the first. I never thought in a million years we would be on the opposite side of Barney Frank and it is painful."
Frank countered, "Politically, the notion that you don't do anything until you can do everything is self-defeating. These things take awhile. The transgender issue is of relatively recent vintage. Fighting your friends can sometimes be difficult."
Gay Rights Backers Split on Bias Bill [ap]
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 8:50 AM EST by Andy in Barney Frank, Democratic Party, Discrimination, ENDA, Matt Foreman, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Barney is correct.
Posted by: ousslander | Oct 12, 2007 8:55:58 AM
This "all or nothing" mentality that our community so often has on issues will once again cause our community to lose once again.
The leaders of these so-called national GLBT organizations do not have the best interests of "middle America" gays and lesbians at heart when they proclaim they are working for everyone. They sit in their big buildings on both coasts-comfortable that they have rights while we gays and lesbians in the heartland fight sometimes for our very lives. These co-called GLBT leaders do not come to our states because they do not see our states as winneable.
We must take what we can get at the moment and then go back and fight for those who have been left out. Everyone deserves rights and eventually we will all get there but only one step at a time.
Posted by: Paul B. | Oct 12, 2007 9:03:45 AM
foreman is a f'tard. barney is right.
Posted by: nic | Oct 12, 2007 9:13:36 AM
It's a shame Barney lied to all of us. with tha "Here's two weeks to get the inclusive bill passed. Which I support as much as anyone does"
Then he spends those two weeks undermining efforts instead of supporting them. Sure it won't be as likely to pass if you actively work against it Barn.
Sad.
Posted by: Kathy | Oct 12, 2007 9:21:01 AM
I'm afraid I have to disagree here. We need to stick to our principles, have confidence in them, and recognize that we are winning people over. I could not look any of the "T" people I know have worked long and passionately on my behalf in the face. Justice will be sweet; let's not tarnish the justice by leaving some of our brothers and sisters out in the cold.
Posted by: Jim | Oct 12, 2007 9:29:10 AM
Matt Foreman is a blowhard and frankly he doesn't represent my interests as a gay man. Transgendered people are not part of my community any more than any other person. I'm tired of people lumping those with sexual identity disorder with people who are homosexual.
White women, when they won the right to vote, certainly left black women behind. They didn't refuse to push for the right to vote until black women could as well. Let's be realistic.
I 100% support a fully inclusive ENDA bill including transgendered because I feel they deserve equal protection under the law. HOWEVER, if the bill won't pass, it won't pass and if there's a chance we can get sexual orientation listed as something that cannot be used as a basis for employment discrimination, why should we not let the bill pass without biting each other's heads off?
Posted by: Carrie B | Oct 12, 2007 9:29:44 AM
non-inclusive ENDA would remain non-inclusive for a long, long, long time. If we leave trans community behind now, they aren't going to catch up for a long, long, long time. OK with you?? Not OK with me.
I can't imagine a bill dealing ONLY with job protection for transexuals passing house/senate/veto anytime in near future. But I can imagine inclusive bill passing. Maybe not next year, but soon, because the gay community will keep pushing for it.
I don't think gay community will keep pushing for trans inclusion once non-inclusive bill is passed. It won't have the support of many (see Carrie B's post), and for others who may support it, it just won't be a high priority anymore.
NOW is our chance to push a bill that covers the entire LGBT community -- and by "now" I mean next few years, not necesarilly this session. If we miss that chance by taking easy road to "rights but some but not for all," the road to "rights for all" gets a LOT longer.
BTW, Carrie, in mentioning your post as example above, I don't mean in any way to insult your opinion that trans community is not part of your community. Perfectly entitled to your opinion, which I respect, but disagree with.
Posted by: DARB | Oct 12, 2007 9:40:29 AM
I believe John Aravosis sums up a valuable political lesson in his recent article in SALON:
"Conservatives understand that cultural change is a long, gradual process of small but cumulatively deadly victories. Liberals want it all now. And that's why, in the culture wars, conservatives often win and we often lose. While conservatives spend years, if not decades, trying to convince Americans that certain judges are "activists," that gays "recruit" children, and that Democrats never saw an abortion they didn't like, we often come up with last-minute ideas and expect everyone to vote for them simply because we're right. Conservatives are happy with piecemeal victory, liberals with noble failure. We rarely make the necessary investment in convincing people that we're right because we consider it offensive to have to explain an obvious truth. When it comes time to pass legislation, too many liberals just expect good and virtuous bills to become law by magic, without the years of legwork necessary to secure a majority of the votes in Congress and the majority support of the people. We expect our congressional allies to fall on their swords for us when we've failed to create a culture in which it's safe for politicians to support our agenda and do the right thing."
We have a tremendous opportunity to do accomplish some tremendous good for millions of Americans. Let not the 'perfect' be our enemy here.
Posted by: Laurence Ballard | Oct 12, 2007 9:48:25 AM
I understand that transgendered people are lumped together with homosexuals because of gender role issues and how none of us conform to the norm, but honestly, being transgendered and being homosexual or not the same thing.
And to assume that I support a "non inclusive" bill means I would not later support an "inclusive" bill is simply not factual. It makes no sense to hold back progress because we can't get everything we might want the first time around.
And if you really want to get at the heart of how I feel, I don't actually think it is the job of the government to inform businesses on how they should or should not hire or fire people. If the company I work for chose to terminate my employment because I was gay, or because of my race, I think they have every right to do that. It wouldn't be very nice, or frankly very smart since I'm good at my job and since it is likely I would make it well known that they discriminate based on those factors in a hope that people would stop providing them business. But private corporations should have the liberty to hire and fire whoever they want for whatever reasons they choose to. Telling them otherwise to me is a violation of the core value of freedom we hold dear. I understand we pass Employment Non-Discrimination legislation to effect behavioral change and promote acceptance, but I simply don't see that as a role of our government. However, since I'm in the minority there (clearly) and have accepted that that view of government is not realistic, then I feel if we are going to use our government as a tool to promote social advancement, then gays should have the protection under the law that people of certain races and religions do. As should transgendered people. I just think practically speaking, those two groups do not have to be lumped together simply because our community tends to lump all of us together.
Posted by: Carrie B. | Oct 12, 2007 9:56:21 AM
why is it a given that if an ENDA bill( that doesn't include transgenders) passes, it automatically means that transgenders will remain dis-included for a "long, long, long time"? i am not trying to be difficult; i just want to know why that is the presumption.
Posted by: nic | Oct 12, 2007 10:03:18 AM
"Transgendered people are not part of my community any more than any other person."
Good. Now let's talk about gay people. The label "transgendered" could fall on about one third of gay people I've seen throughout my life at every gay bar, every Gay Pride event, every gay... any damn gay thing. And half of them don't dress in the clothes of the opposite sex. They simply break rules of gender role conformity. I'm am not going to have some bigoted gay man (who sounds like something out of the White Citizen's Council) define who is and who aint gay.
To put it quite simply, boys, what y'all saw in "Brokeback Mountain" aint gay. What y'all saw in "La Cage Aux Folles" was and still is.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Oct 12, 2007 10:07:12 AM
Good question, Nic. It's a convenient assumption for those who oppose Frank's efforts. I was also interested in the phrase in the article that the "vast majority of LGBT groups" support a trans-inclusive bill. That's probably true, but I wonder if that translates to a vast majority of gay people. I doubt it.
I would like to see a trans inclusive bill but I think Frank's effort is pragmatic and effective. I don't necessarily believe it will be a long long time before trans people will be included. Attitudes are changing rapidly.
Posted by: sam | Oct 12, 2007 10:11:07 AM
NIC,
Obviously, that's just my opinion. To crystal ball.
But it's my opinion for a few reasons:
(1) I think that it will be a very long time before many politicians (and certainly before a majority of politicians) are willing to go out on a limb for trans rights.
(2) I think that there are a lot of people in the gay community who resent the association of "gay rights" and "trans rights", and view them as very different things. This will make it harder for the large gay rights organizations to aggressivly push (or prioritize) a purely trans-rights agenda. Would result in loss of community support and funding.
That said, I understand that I may be somewhat "chicken little" about this, and that gay rights orgs, and politicians/the public would do the right thing in fairly short order vis-a-vis trans inclusion in ENDA. I just have serious doubts. And I really do believe that we would be able to pass an inclusive bill before too long.
Beyond that, personally supporting a bill that specifically and knowingly carves out a group that, like it or not, is associated with the LGBT movement, and that includes some of the strongest and most vocal supporters of all-inclusive civil rights, leaves me a little queasy. I just can't do it.
Posted by: DARB | Oct 12, 2007 10:17:49 AM
Derrick,
Being a crossdresser and being transgendered are two different things. And I don't know what gay bars you got to but 99% of the ones I go to have men who conform pretty much to the "normal" dress for men. They just happen to like to sleep with other men. Throwing on a dress for Pride or Halloween is not the same as being transgendered. And being transgendered is not the same as being gay (though admittedly one person can be both).
By saying they are not part of my community, I mean that the majority of gay people do not have gender identity issues. Most gay men and most lesbian still feel comfortable as being men and women respectively. It's two completely different issues and to say otherwise it to simply be incorrect.
I am in no way bigoted either. I don't treat anyone differently because they are black or white or gay or straight or transgendered or not transgendered. Period.
Posted by: Carrie B. | Oct 12, 2007 10:22:14 AM
Who appoints these “leaders” and “spokespeople” in the lobby groups that supposedly speak for all gay folks? These people are just the whores of “K” Street, no different than those from the NRA, Catholic League, the Sugar Growers or the Pharmaceutical companies.
You DON’T speak for me, so STFU! Barney Frank is the correct voice in all this. Keep your yap shut, long enough to hear what he’s saying. No one is being thrown under the bus.
Posted by: Marq | Oct 12, 2007 10:27:50 AM
It takes a heckuva lot more courage for a Transgendered person to come out and exist than it does for me as a gay man.
Let the history books expose congress for their hypocrisy if they won't vote to protect us all. Personally, I'd rather not have rights I've never known, than have them knowing I abandoned my brother.
So it may take a little longer? There is no wrong time to do the right thing. It's about integrity, people.
Posted by: Jesse Archer | Oct 12, 2007 10:28:09 AM
"...No civil rights movement has ever left a part of its community behind..." -- Matt Foreman
That sounds as warm and fuzzy as can be but FACTUALLY it is patently and categorically NOT TRUE.
History is full of examples where civil rights movements left part of their communities behind!
If you're going to fight Frank's ENDA strategy, at least do so with honesty and integrity. Lord knows we get enough lies, misrepresentations and exaggerations from our enemies. Who needs them from our friends?
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 12, 2007 10:28:30 AM
Sam, you doubt that even the majority of gay people support an inclusive bill (I tend to agree with you there), yet you don't tink it will be a long time before trans people will be included? Think about that. If even a large part of the gay community doesn't support inclusion (and I personally know a lot of people who don't), how will get the general public, and thus the politicians, there any time soon? I know that people HATE this phrase, but to me this really does have a "throw them under the buss" feel to it (or at least "make them sit at the back of the bus").
Posted by: DARB | Oct 12, 2007 10:31:27 AM
The reason why it is harder for a transgendered person to "come out" is very likely the same reason it is harder to pass a bill including them. Gay people have fought very hard to be accepted and we have made amazing strides in the last 40 years. Why should we be punished simply because transgendered people have not yet gotten to a point where the rest of society is willing to accept them the way they MIGHT accept us? In a perfect world, I'd say we should all be included, but if you've got any beliefs that you are living in a perfect world, I'd say you need to look around.
Posted by: Alexy | Oct 12, 2007 10:34:26 AM
I'm a 'gender-conforming', sports-loving gay man, and I refuse to accept anything less than 100% inclusion for ENDA. How soon we forget who stood up at Stonewall. How foolish we are to think that half a loaf is fair enough.
Remember or regret it later.
Posted by: Gary | Oct 12, 2007 10:39:37 AM
Transgendered people are "lumped" together with gays and lesbians because WE have to stick together to fight inequality and oppression. Just as many racial and ethnic groups fighting for civil rights in the U.S., who have different countries of origin, speak different languages, and have vastly different cultures, have generally united as one (pan-ethnicities) to fight for civil rights, we must fight for and protect every part of LGBT (and that includes racism and sexism within the LGBT community). I'm ashamed to read many of the comments related to this post. I disagree with Frank's states that "the notion that you don't do anything until you can do everything is self-defeating". Standing up for those who are oppressed even if they “are not the same” as me is a sign of character, humanity, courage, and PRIDE! I remind you of Martin Niemöller's statement:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Posted by: GT | Oct 12, 2007 10:45:33 AM
DERRICK,
i've known boys just like from "brokeback" who ARE gay. let's not over-generalize. what i want explained is the premise that excluding trans-genders from ENDA now necessarily means that they will not be included for decades.
DARB,
if you've read this blog before, you know that i am of the politics-is-half-a-loaf school of thought championed by the late, great molly ivins. i'll say it again, politics is incremental. if we demand everything, we may get nothing. but, if we win battles, we will eventually win the cultural war foisted upon us by the religious right. let us not throw out the baby with the bath water; the all-or- nothing notion will only lead to our defeat.
Posted by: nic | Oct 12, 2007 10:47:59 AM
The vote count on ENDA was within the margin of error with gender identity included to cover transgender people AND bisexuals, lesbians & gays. Why stop efforts when it was going to be vetoed when with some more work - it could pass. Why split people for no reason?
To those who say politicians won't support transgender people in legislation - polling shows a 1% difference in support for transgender & gay people. 40% of the population urrently lives in jurisdictions with gender identity protections.
And a little history is instructive. When PA passed the hate crimes bill in 2002 - a bill that included transgender people - we had a Republican House, a Republican Senate & a Republican Governor.
People point to NY - but never look to us - a much less blue state. Or Maine. James Carville calls PA "Philadelphia one one side, Pittsburgh on the other & Alabama in between".
What was the difference here? People tried the same split the community nonsense - in fact they also tried to say - hey we'll pass that for transgenders only - that's inborn & being gay is just a behavior. We stayed together - none of us would sell the others out.
And legislators - Republican legislators - had to listen to who we said needed to be covered.
Posted by: Kathy | Oct 12, 2007 11:05:23 AM
NIC- You are right that politics is/has been half-a-loaf and incremental. But it doesn't have to be. That mentality is playing into the hand of those in power (wealthy, white, heterosexual men) - those who make the rules and define who is included in the game. Of course politics is half-a-loaf. That mentality maintains and reproduces inequality or, at the very least, makes it harder for others to gain power and equality, which reduces the power of those currently in power. We will always lose if we simply play by their rules. When this issue is written in history books do we want to be another group that left someone else behind (like women and men of color, the poor, the disabled, etc.) because “politics is half-a-loaf” or do we want to be the group that stood up for what is right and what equality for all really means? To not stand up for everyone who is oppressed is what will truly lead to “our” defeat!
Posted by: GT | Oct 12, 2007 11:06:37 AM
The issue of how to proceed with ENDA was not the major issue for me when I read the first threads on this topic. But now I'm in total agreement with those who believe in an inclusive ENDA or no ENDA. What was the issue for me (suprize) was this incredible arrogance of some homosexual men who make this distinction between gay and transgendered. It's almost as though you people have "come out" since the 1980's and are creating YOUR OWN criteria for what is gay. Do you think that when violent gay-bashers are deciding what kind of "faggot" to bash, they make their decision based on the of level effeminacy exihibited by their victim?
In my life, I have meant many gay men who thought they were "unclockable" in terms of how traditionally masculine they THOUGHT they carried themselves. When they open their mouths the only that separates them from the drag queen is the drag.
There are a number of definitions of transgender that I've read. The one that makes sense to me is anyone who rejects (or has ever rejected) their society's expectations of gender role behavior. If nothing else, having been called a "faggot" should make you more accepting of those in the gay world who gender role rebels--brave ass souls, they are.
Child, please, GAY means diversity. Gay can range from Dave Kopay and Roy Simmons to Holly Woodlawn and The Lady Chabliss of Savannah...aint no bigoted homos gonna' change that.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Oct 12, 2007 11:07:00 AM
I am now sadly convinced that Matt Foreman may have early Alzheimer’s, be otherwise mentally ill, or using drugs that have distorted a former man of integrity into a simple if shameless liar. How else to explain his blatant lies above that are so easily disproved? Quote, “No civil rights movement has ever left a part of its community behind - and we're not about to be the first. I never thought in a million years we would be on the opposite side of Barney Frank and it is painful."
Only FIVE years ago HE was the one, as head then of Empire State Pride Agenda, that angrily defended not including transgenders in a job protection bill that was finally being voted on in the New York state legislature, after a similar to a federal bill three-decade plus wait. He then told “The New York Times,” ''No one's denying that transgendered people need protection. We're certainly not. We're a political advocacy group. For us this isn't a morality play. This is about winning rights for people as quickly as we can. The notion ... that the State Senate that has clearly been reluctant to act on this would just accept it blindly, is beyond naïve.'' So much for Foreman’s memory and/or integrity. [He also seems to have caught “HRC We Disease,” equating himself/his group with the entire movement.
And, Kathy, is no better, still slobbering nonsense about how “if only evil Barnedict Arnold were working for not against us a trans-inclusive bill would instantly pass.” Well, moron, substitute some study of history for your hysterics. The first gay rights bill was introduced in Congress THIRTY-THREE YEARS AGO! If passage were as simple as the action of one man why has it taken that long? And where was Foreman and HRC and all of those other Holy 300 [alleged] groups? IF they actually have so much political clout versus mere ability to stir up a toxic cloud of dust WHY haven’t they “forced” Congress to pass even a simple gay rights bill before, let alone one including transgenders.
I’m extremely encouraged that so many here are speaking to practical political reality rather than transphobia or indifference. But those who are exhibiting what psychiatrist’s call “magical thinking”—still talking as if a trans-inclusive bill is now possible or that its absence justifies DENYING potential job protection to MILLIONS of gay men and lesbians, many with children, particularly the latter, I suggest you do a Jack McFarland: walk over to a mirror, pretend your Cher, and slap yourself in the face while shouting, “Snap out of it!”
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 12, 2007 11:10:42 AM
NIC is right. Holding out for a trans inclusive ENDA is like the homos saying - sorry, we don't want Civil Unions, we'll hold out without family rights and benefits for about 50 more years till we get real Marriage.
I think many of the people saying pass the GLB ENDA now DO support Trans folks being in ENDA. They are just more pragmatic and realistic than the purity-at-any-cost folks and will take what we can now as its a step towards a common goal.
Posted by: beergoggles | Oct 12, 2007 11:16:08 AM
Derrick gets it. Carrie B, there's nothing stopping you from joining up with Peter LaBarbara(not Streisand) and "Concerned (Fascist) Women of America."
Barney Ftrank is a politician which means he doesn't believe in ideals -- only in DEALS. Rights of any kind to him are not something to be fought for, only "brokered." Therefore the transgenders, not being 'saleable in his eyes, get thrown under the bus.
What Barney has come to learn is that the transgenders are driving. And always have been.
Need I remind you children of Stonewall? Of coruse that's ancient history to you people who believe everything's wonderful since "Will & Grace" was a "mainstream" hit.
To our enemies sexual orientation and gender are one and the same. The majority of posters in here want to treat gender issues like a dotty aunt who we send to her room when "important" guests come over for dinner.
Not only is this a FUCKING INSULT to people whose lives matter, it's a delusion to suspect they have nothing to do with us.
I am a 60 year-old gay man who has been out and proud the better paert of those years (roughly since high school.) Not being a lesbian I have cannot speak from personal understanding about lesbian lives and lesbian desires.
But if there's one thing I know it's that we have the same enemies.
The same goes for the transgendered, who I do not claim to udnerstand either -- though I greatly admire the delightful and oh-so-wise Kate Borenstein.
What I've alos come to realize is that the enmies of LBGT aren't merely straight fundies. Also included in their number: Andrew Sullivan, John Aravosis and Barney Frank.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Oct 12, 2007 11:23:37 AM
The Niemoller quote?!?!?!? Now "they" are "coming for" transgenders the way they came for Jews and Communists and trade unionists??????
And passage/failure of bills in Congress is based on "margin of error"?!?!?!
And Jack & Ennis weren't gay?!?!?!?
WE INTERRUPT THIS DISCUSSION FOR AN URGENT WARNING FROM THE CDC: "The spread of Mad Tranny Disease" is happening faster and its destruction of civility, honesty, and mental stability worse than we first imagined. We urge everyone to stay inside your homes why we try to find a cure."
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 12, 2007 11:30:38 AM
And, Kathy, is no better, still slobbering nonsense about how “if only evil Barnedict Arnold were working for not against us a trans-inclusive bill would instantly pass.” Well, moron, substitute some study of history for your hysterics.
=====================================
Wow - you need to calm down Leland. You're going to give yourself a heart attack.
Let's help you here. No one said would pass immediately - I said would pass with more time. The time we have between now & when any bill will get signed by a President. Remeber your Schoolhouse Rock Leland - it's not law when it just passes the House.
Jack McFarland? Cher? Never heard of them. That must be some of the non-gender variant manly man gay talk only accessible to those like yourself.
BTW - as far as reality & history Leland. I've been involved in passing 4 civil rights bills covering lgbt people.
Care to share your credentials?
Posted by: Kathy | Oct 12, 2007 11:31:39 AM
Herr Ehrenstein. Perhaps if you read books other than the ones you wrote yourself you would have learned that the myth that transgenders were solely responsible for Stonewall is just that—a myth. Straight folk singer Dave Van Ronk accidentally got swept up in the event and was beaten by the cops trapped inside the bar and one of the 13 people they managed to eventually get to the police station and book. Shall we give straight folk singers credit for the modern gay rights movement, too?
But one doesn't have to have read any book to understand that your immoral moral equation of Andrew Sullivan and Barney Frank is, at best, deranged. Call the CDC quick. I'm sure they have a toll-free number.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 12, 2007 11:41:34 AM
Do y'all really believe that most homophobic yahoos in Congress and the state legislatures believe there's a difference between gay and transgendered? It's all "faggots" to them. Lavatory Larry Craig would make it clear he has nothing to do with transgenders. But ol' John McCain would ask, "transgender? What's that? Men who want to be women? You mean like gays?"
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Oct 12, 2007 11:43:10 AM
Leland,
Brevity (not invective) is the soul of wit. Thought you might be confused about that. Just trying to help.
xoxo
Posted by: DARB | Oct 12, 2007 11:44:41 AM
Who said "transgenders were solely responsible for Stonewall"?
Why you did of course.
Good little KAPO. Look -- Joan Walsh is going to toss you a cookie!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Oct 12, 2007 11:56:16 AM
Well said Kathy, David E., GT and Derrick.
Leland, since when did you become a Log Cabin Republican? Aren't they always talking about "practical political reality" as well?
Posted by: RJ | Oct 12, 2007 12:04:13 PM
I don't now foresee Leland getting a TR T-Shirt from Derrick any time soon!
However, John Aravosis should hang up his keyboard, as just about everything he said was wrong. The problem with pundits is that they type first and ask questions later. Doesn't Andrew Never Wrong Sullivan know he reads like a crank after all these years? People who publish should at least have the modesty to ask themselves how it might be possible they could be wrong and to do some cursory fact checking as well before letting the presses roll. Aravosis makes it clear that writers with any kind of reputation treat their column inches like a sandbox. Likewise, anyone trying to get their POV out there should follow some basic thinking-through on the issue du jure rather than typing from the hip.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Oct 12, 2007 12:09:58 PM
Fascinating debate, but a crucial fact is being ignored:
ENDA WILL NOT BECOME LAW, with or without the "T". Bush is expected to veto it, and there aren't enough votes to beat his veto.
So throwing the "T" community overboard is a big mistake, in my view, because what was just a symbolic vote is now an empty symbolic vote.
Posted by: patrick | Oct 12, 2007 12:18:46 PM
No, the passages of a gay-rights ENDA is anything *but* purely symbolic. It is strategically crucial. Pass it today and let the GOP Prez veto it. That practically guarantees that the next Democratic president can make it law.
Posted by: adamblast | Oct 12, 2007 12:33:34 PM
I've been involved in passing 4 civil rights bills covering lgbt people. - Kathy
If that's true it is hard to believe that they passed with the kind of lies and misrepresentations and character assassination you have resorted to today.
How many civil rights bills that passed in the the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have you "been involved in?"
Posted by: TG | Oct 12, 2007 12:43:14 PM
what concerns me is that the non-gender-inclusive bill does not only simply remove the T from LGBT. there is also a provision in the bill that (forgive my not knowing the exact wording of the proposed bill) excludes people not conforming to "generally accepted gender roles." ie: effeminate men and butch women. depending on the employer and the circumstance, that can absolutely apply to every single solitary gay man and lesbian, since an employer could argue that men who sleep with men do not conform to "generally accepted gender roles."
so, the version of ENDA being debated stands to exclude every person that it purports to protect.
i do NOT support an ENDA that does not include protections for gender identity for this and myriad other reasons. i also feel that Barney Frank may be a gay politician, but he is, first and foremost, a politician.
Posted by: Matt | Oct 12, 2007 12:46:56 PM
RIGHT ON FRANK!!
Some of these same critical state and Fed LGBT org trumpet "civil unions" as success and incrimental towards "full equality" or as in Wash state..."the best we can do in this political environment"
This is just a took to get donations funnelled to them.
Posted by: MCnNYC | Oct 12, 2007 1:12:24 PM
Derrick--"Do you think that when violent gay-bashers are deciding what kind of "faggot" to bash, they make their decision based on the of level effeminacy exihibited by their victim?"
Sadly, in my experience that's exactly what happens a lot of the time. Certainly some guys get bashed when leaving a gay bar or event, but even bashers know how to pick their targets. I'm 6'2" and fairly solidly built, and no one ever says a damn thing to me. (And no, I'm not pretending to be a hyper-masculine cowboy.) All my friends who have been bashed or even mugged are the slight, rather obviously effeminate ones who are about 5"6'. It makes me feel a bit guilty...but grateful. And no, I wouldn't throw them under the bus.
Posted by: Paul | Oct 12, 2007 1:51:05 PM
If that's true it is hard to believe that they passed with the kind of lies and misrepresentations and character assassination you have resorted to today.
Posted by: TG | Oct 12, 2007 12:43:14 PM
==================================
If you're going to say I've lied and not be guilty of what what you're accusing me of - you might consider supporting your statements.
BTW - when people call me the kinds of things that people have here - I'm going to respond. If you think otherwise - you must have me confused with Glenda, the Good Witch.
Posted by: Kathy | Oct 12, 2007 2:10:08 PM
Yeah, Paul, after I wrote that and read it I said to myself, "child, what the fuck are you talkin' about."
We all get a little dramatic when we're discussing an emotional topic--doesn't mean we should stretch the truth though. Having said that, one of the things that stops violent gay-bashers from going after you "traditionally masculine" gay men is the fact that they don't know y'all are gay. When they find out, some will try you. And if they do, Paul, I hope you whup the "down low" shit out of 'em. I know you will.
Oh, and that "down low" goes for both white and black...and Latino.
Are there any Asian "down low" guys?
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Oct 12, 2007 2:25:05 PM
When you posit OPINIONS as FACTS, e.g., "... Barney lied to all of us. ... Then he spends those two weeks undermining efforts instead of supporting them" and from yesterday, "trying to derail their efforts" / "People tried the same split the community nonsense" / "sell the others out" / "Republican legislators - had to listen" [they didn't have to, they chose to] / and, again, from yesterday, "more committed. As evidenced by not having given up yet" that defines lying to me, Madame.
LF
"disengenuous troll"
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 12, 2007 2:37:16 PM
"because what was just a symbolic vote is now an empty symbolic vote"
That's just wrong. A vote now puts people on record and makes it extremely difficult for them to backtrack later. (Remember how the media loves to scream "flip-flop".)
Passing a bill is a lot like baking a souffle. You have to nuture it and keep it quiet until its done (ie,. ready for the vote). Making a lot of noise around too soon and it'll collapse. That is what is at stake now. We can debate all day long whether the tactics used were wrong and divisive. They were. But if a vote doesn't happen and win, we will not see another vote for at least 6-8 years. That's politics. (I've been working on issues like this for 25 years, including two statewide ballot measures. I've seen this all before ...)
Posted by: Garrett in SF | Oct 12, 2007 3:22:55 PM
The overwhelming negative response to the Democratic sell out of ENDA by Frank and Pelosi is both reasonable and honorable. Reasonable because the gutting of ENDA is not just aimed at transgendered people but at our whole community. Lambda Legal, not identified as a source of hysterical flights of fancy says the evisceration of ENDA affects all of us. http://data.lambdalegal.org/pdf/ltr_enda_frank.pdf
And it’s honorable because the vast majority of GLBT organizations and activists refuse to support throwing transgendered people under the bus and surrendering our ability to confront employers. The truth is bigoted employers make fortunes paying substandard wages backed up by the threat of unwarranted firing on the basis of homobigotry. You can rest assured that these employers will figure out some way to show their appreciation for the work of Botox Pelosi and Barney Quisling.
Few are willing to admit that they actually enjoy being victimized, or, even worse, enjoy victimizing transgendered people. Those few include John Sullivan, John Aravosis, Barney Frank and the editors of a few right wing local gay papers. Their isolation on this question is only exceeded by their increasing hysteria and dishonesty.
The list of groups opposing the betrayal of ENDA demonstrates the overwhelming strength of opposition. They include
*National Black Justice Coalition
*National Center for Lesbian Rights
*National Center for Transgender Equality
*National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs
*National Education Association's Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Caucus
*National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Inc.
*National Lesbian and Gay Law Association
*Al-Fatiha Foundation for LGBTIQ Muslims
*Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders
*Gay and Lesbian Medical Association
*GLSEN - the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network
*Immigration Equality
*Jewish Mosaic: National Center for Sexual and Gender Diversity
*Matthew Shepard Foundation
*Metropolitan Community Churches
*Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
*Pride At Work, AFL-CIO (yahoo)
*Queers for Economic Justice (yea)
*Soulforce Q
Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | Oct 12, 2007 3:50:25 PM
Ah, the tin pot socialist slithers forth yet again from beneath his rock, autogenerating yet again his catalogue of exaggerations.
“overwhelming”
"sell out”
“gutting”
“evisceration”
“throwing transgendered people under the bus” [really, do you get a dollar every time you use that cliche?]
“surrendering”
“Botox Pelosi” [carefully, Billy Budd, you're bordering on misogyny there]
“Barney Quisling”
“enjoy victimizing transgendered people”
“betrayal”
and he has the balls to accuse others of “increasing hysteria and dishonesty”???
Dishonest as in refusing to mention that Frank systematically and logically shot down most of the claims of Lambda Legal. And in remaining having nothing to do with the possibility of actually passing such a bill no matter how much screeching you do; no matter how much you confuse repeating the same false, hysterical, slanderous claims over and over again with reality; no matter how much you confuse thrift store self-righteousness with being right.
Why list so few of the Holy 300 groups? [How long will it before they equate them with the 300 Spartans?] Maybe because most of them no one outside their own circle jerk has ever heard of.
You could add all of the members of all of these groups together, even those dishonestly representing themselves as unique not overlapping-membership organizations, and you wouldn’t come close to representing ONE-TENTH of the gay and lesbian population of the US. But excuse me, I have to get back to reading the annual report of the Al-Fatiha Foundation for LGBTIQ Muslims. I’ve never seen one printed on a single index card before.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 12, 2007 4:15:26 PM
Yes, Bill, try to bully us with your LIST. If a lot of groups say something then it must be true, right?
You are unreasonable and dishonorable.
Posted by: Gregg | Oct 12, 2007 4:22:22 PM
Derrick, back to our off-topic discussion: I have a long and sometimes unfortunate history of being friends with straight guys who I think find me a "safe" gay to be friends with because I'm not especially queeny (though I certainly loosen up after a few drinks---as have many of them, sexually that is; hence the "unfortunate" aspect if they freak out the next day). Actually, most of my friends are straight. I don't know why that is, but I don't lose sleep over it because I'm very, very out to everyone I know and have been since I was 13. And I spend plenty of time at gay bars, events, etc., so there's absolutely no self-loathing involved. In fact, last year I ended a 15-year relationship. (I'm 35 now.)
On the down low issue, there are scads of Asian guys like that. I live in San Francisco, which has a large Asian population, so perhaps I see more of it than people elsewhere. But in the past few years I was friends with a closeted Filipino nurse (who eventually ravaged himself with meth---very sad) and hooked up with a Japanese guy who I later discovered is married (yes, to a woman). Thai culture is more accepting of gays, but Chinese, Malaysian, and other tradition-bound Asian cultures generally are not. Given that San Francisco is half Asian, their numbers are vastly underrepresented at gay bars and events (though with bars, that may partly be because many Asians don't drink much).
Posted by: Paul | Oct 12, 2007 5:25:56 PM
Hey, I'm the only one here who ACTUALLY lives under a rock! I haven't seen the light of day in years! When it comes to sex, I'm like a croc, waiting to ambush his prey. They never knew what hit them!
Anyway, considering Bill P. finds Bernie Sanders a sell-out and his rainbow flag is monochromatic red, the stars will not align to his vision in a thousand years. However, Leland, you have vocally supported the Matthew Shepard Foundation several times on these pages, so don't be too bitter.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Oct 12, 2007 5:59:34 PM
“Their isolation on this question is only exceeded by their increasing hysteria and dishonesty.” That’s what really upset Frances. Becasue it describes him so well.
But I wasn't even talking about him, much less trying to pull his chain. I was referring to the big boys like his political bed partners John Sullivan, John Aravosis, people with a grudge against transsexuals like Barney Frank, and the usual dismal assortment of rightist Democrats and Republicans.
I certainly wasn’t talking about a burned out hack like Frances. Compared to the big boys he's just a frothy mouthed attack Chihuahua, hysterically yapping and nipping at heels.
Frances listed several terms I used that accurately described the backstabbing of ENDA, which like DOMA and DADT is a further reminder of the Democrats' undying passion and fondness for us. What Frances didn’t do is prove that gutting ENDA is not a betrayal, treachery, etc. Because at this point nobody believes him except a tiny pack of outdated reactionaries who,like Frances are shitting on the floor as they leave the movement.
His hysterical defense of Frank and the fact that he wants to be appointed Altar Boy in Chief for Hillary is what drives Frances to extreme ranting. Good. He drives more people to the left. I love it.
Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | Oct 12, 2007 6:59:43 PM
Barney is right.
The best way to give someone a helping hand as they get on the bus is if you're already on the bus. Pass ENDA without the "T" and THEN work like the dickens to get them added. The all or nothing leaves everyone off the bus.
Posted by: BJ | Oct 12, 2007 7:41:38 PM
omg! the ideas, the notions, the theories, the hypotheticals ... what a great site this is! we share so much together, but we differ so much. that's what makes a family. that's the stuff that dreams are made on.
i am now going to see a production of federico garcia-lorca's "the house of bernarda alba" tonight. it's an all female cast revolving on the idea of male influence and the opression of family values as represented by the stultifying emperiousness of a matriarch. freudian? perhaps. but, garcia-lorca was a homesexual executed, at the age of 38, by the nationalist movement in spain that gave rise to the fascist, generalisimo francisco franco.
it gives one pause, maybe?
peace to all you ladies and germs. remember that we're all in this sh*t together.
Posted by: nic | Oct 12, 2007 8:03:23 PM
Barney still rents boys. Maybe they should have equal rights too and not be exploited.
Posted by: Ken P. | Oct 13, 2007 12:20:56 AM
Ken, rentboys make the decision to exploit themselves.
Posted by: Paul | Oct 13, 2007 6:41:22 PM
Carrie B., to spout such "libertarian" nonsense shows the foolish thinking of some people who want to be "oh so trendy" conservative. No company should be able to terminate anyone's employment simply because they can. Fairness demands that there be a "just cause" for termination. What is even more sad is that ANY natural-born citizen of the U.S. should even have to petition Congress for what are the most basic of civil rights and human rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution. The proper role of government is to protect those liberties and rights. Unfortunately, corporatism has taken over America and corporatism has no need for government or civil liberties. To give private companies such power negates anything and everything that validates our democratic-republican form of government. No gay, lesbian or transgender American should be denied their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (e.g., fair access to employment or housing).
Posted by: mike | Oct 15, 2007 5:34:07 AM
Carrie B., to spout such "libertarian" nonsense shows the foolish thinking of some people who want to be "oh so trendy" conservative. No company should be able to terminate anyone's employment simply because they can. Fairness demands that there be a "just cause" for termination. What is even more sad is that ANY natural-born citizen of the U.S. should even have to petition Congress for what are the most basic of civil rights and human rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution. The proper role of government is to protect those liberties and rights. Unfortunately, corporatism has taken over America and corporatism has no need for government or civil liberties. To give private companies such power negates anything and everything that validates our democratic-republican form of government. No gay, lesbian or transgender American should be denied their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (e.g., fair access to employment or housing).
Posted by: mike | Oct 15, 2007 5:34:19 AM