10/11/2007
Barney Frank: Foes of Non-Inclusive ENDA "Can't Handle the Truth"
At a press conference earlier today, Rep. Barney Frank restated his position on an Employment Non-Discrimination Bill that does not include transgender people, The Advocate reports: "In remarks at a press conference on Capitol Hill this morning, Frank said that a sexual orientation-only ENDA could pass in the House with a margin of 15 or 20 votes, but that a transgender-inclusive bill wouldn't even garner an up-or-down vote on the floor of the chamber due to the lack of political support."
Frank called the anger over the sexual-orientation-only bill "counterproductive" and said that opponents "can’t handle the truth unfortunately." Said Frank: "Should we kill the whole bill? I have a very profound difference with people who say we should…I do not think you deny people protection if you can. A sexual orientation-only bill would be very helpful."
While he applauded efforts by the LGBT community lobbying for a trans-inclusive bill, he expressed dismay that such efforts had come so late in the process, according to The Advocate: "Frank asserted that pulling the sexual orientation-only bill would send a bad message to the country and would only hurt the LGBT rights movement. 'The headline will be, 'Pelosi pulls gay rights bill from agenda,' that they didn't have enough votes to pass it. I don't understand how that helps us.'"
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 3:00 PM EST by Andy in Barney Frank, Democratic Party, ENDA, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Isn't all this work--with or without transgender--a futile waste of time, since Bush is going to veto the bill? Why not just wait until the next president, and focus on other priorities now?
Posted by: Paul | Oct 11, 2007 3:06:58 PM
I still don't get it, regardless of the reality of Barney Frank's rationale.
Things I don't "get":
Why people, as a general rule, are so fucking imbecilic, Like at a rate of 99.985%.
Why is the human species so pathetic and childlike to expect everyone conform to their own standards and look alike, talk alike, act alike, etc.?
Why is it anyone else's business what other's do as long as they're not actually hurting someone else physically? Or murdering them?
Why do people get upset if a man wants to become a woman and have his penis "recycled"? It's not YOUR penis, is it?
Why is it okay to see breasts and vaginal pubic hair (mostly in THIS country) but a penis, which is a beautiful thing, is absolutely ABHORRENT and to be hidden from public view?
Why is it okay to murder people in a foreign country but it's illegal in THIS country to marry a person of the same sex?
Why is are the Torah, Bible, And Koran believed to be anything other than written historical accounts handed down over thousands of years, which, by all rights is about as accurate as playing the game "Telephone" over just as much time?
Fucksake, the list is endless. Maybe global warming is a good thing. There are days when issues like this make me believe that the human species is quite honestly like a giant plague upon the planet. Maybe the cockroaches will do a better job with it.
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Oct 11, 2007 3:17:08 PM
i agree with barney. politics is half a loaf. politics is incremental. you go with what you got.
Posted by: nic | Oct 11, 2007 3:25:20 PM
While I hope we can garner enough support for a trans-inclusive ENDA, we will be foolish to let ENDA as whole die if we can't get it.
People seem to think that bringing a bill up for vote is an easy task. Its not. And maybe this was handled entirely inappropriately (which I think it has). But we are where we are and if a vote doesn't happen on some version, that has enough to pass at least the House, then we'll be screwed for at least 6 more years. A lot o political capital has already been spend on this ... and politicians do not like to spend capital that doesn't bring a win for their side. It doesn't matter how morally right or wrong it is, its about the win. They need to show they voted for something that passed in House. It doesn't matter if it gets vetoed by Bush or if the Senate doesn't vote as well. If it goes this far and is shot down, it will be off the table for years. It it passes, people will be willing to vote for it as it will not "cost" them anything else -- but could cost them if they change their view. Remember FLIP-FLOPPING on record is used to bash any candidate. We do not want them on record opposing ANY version of ENDA.
And don't fool yourself into thinking we will more friends in 2009. They are interested in building a long term control ... and they're not going to spend a great deal of political capital on us until a democratic president's second term.
Posted by: Garrett in SF | Oct 11, 2007 3:31:18 PM
I agree with B.Frank. Let's secure the protection we can and move towards the goal of employment nondiscrimination for all.
Posted by: randypd | Oct 11, 2007 3:38:46 PM
I'm with Barney too. It would be wonderful for it to pass - despite the threat of veto from the shrub. It could be amended later to include trans issues.
Posted by: Shane | Oct 11, 2007 3:40:45 PM
I hope Barney prevails on this, because it's so damned important.
Fight for everything, take the half-loaf, and then go back for seconds.
Posted by: tjc | Oct 11, 2007 3:41:51 PM
I agree with Barney. (and with Nic)
Posted by: Chris | Oct 11, 2007 3:44:53 PM
Is Nancy Pelosi flicking Barney off in that picture?
Posted by: PaulR | Oct 11, 2007 3:48:35 PM
This is a really complicated issue, with the whole movement at stake. Do we piss off everyone who's heavily in favor of keeping it inclusive, especially with a really lousy record on making sure trans rights are added on later (even in states like Massachusetts, that hsn't happened... in 2 decades!)... or do we stick to our guns and keep the thing inclusive, trying to keep this fragile movement together? Either way, the chances of an ENDA passing with this current Senate and this current President is next to none: we need a larger senate majority (to avoid the filibuster) and a Democrat in the oval office before these things are going to become a reality.
I've gone back and forth on this issue on my own website, and on an internet-radio panel at www.leftahead.com... and for the life of me I can't say what's the better position, other than I fear trans rights won't be included for decades and decades if we don't make sure they're tacked onto the glb rights bill to begin with. Incrementalism only works when you make incremental gains, not pretend that they'll happen.
Posted by: Ryan | Oct 11, 2007 3:48:56 PM
So Rep. Frank thinks those of us who favor including transgender people "can't handle the truth." Well whoopdeedoo. George W. Bush will veto any ENDA bill that reaches his desk anyways, so what difference does it make?
Posted by: homer | Oct 11, 2007 3:54:11 PM
So Rep. Frank thinks those of us who favor including transgender people "can't handle the truth." Well whoopdeedoo. George W. Bush will veto any ENDA bill that reaches his desk anyways, so what difference does it make?
Posted by: homer | Oct 11, 2007 3:54:17 PM
Frank and Pelosi are wrong, and so are most of you guys here.
The votes are there if they force it (it's all horsetrading), but they never will force it because they know our community will not only forgive them for selling us out, but will go on to f***ing honor them at the next HRC dinner.
It's time to send all of them packing.
Posted by: mike | Oct 11, 2007 4:01:19 PM
I support Frank's plan specifically because I think it is the most realistic and most effective way to get transgender people covered by ENDA in the most expiditious way possible.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 11, 2007 4:42:20 PM
Send them all packing and then what? Let's face it, without the few Democrats who are willing to even fight for this (keep in mind Barney Frank is really the only Democrat with anything at stake in ENDA since he's the only gay in the village), we wouldn't be making ANY advances.
I agree with Frank simply because I don't see why we should give up the idea of having ENDA without trans gendered rights simply to keep from pissing of the transgendered. I'm not giving up an opportunity for protecting some people because not everyone is included. And frankly I still to this day say that sexual orientation and sexual identity are completely different things. I think we should all be protected under the law, but let's face it, if the choice is something or nothing and ALL is not even on the table, I'll take the something.
I just get really tired of hearing people say Democrats sell us out and we still support them. They are NOT selling us out. They could not even bother altogether in trying to secure non-discrimination in the workplace for any of us. They might try and they might fail miserably, but I certainly don't hear anyone on the other side of the aisle doing anything.
Posted by: Carrie B. | Oct 11, 2007 4:48:10 PM
Using terms like "selling us out" and imagining such a bill can be "horse traded," Mike is simply talking through his ass and so deserves no respect, but with all due respect to you, Ryan, you make the same mistake that so many others have in implying that including transgenders in the LANGUAGE of the bill equates to PASSAGE of the bill.
Those leading this stampede are acting as if trans-inclusive ENDA was a fait accompli, a huge juicy apple just waiting to be bitten into until Barney plucked it off the tree and ran away with it [AKA "sold us out," "through us under the bus," "trashed us," "gutted the bill," blah blah blah]. And they’re screeching so loudly that one can’t get in the logical question [among others]: “Why would Frank choose to do that even if he could?”
Controversial bills in Congress are almost identical to Supreme Court rulings. Failure is like a judicial precedent that results in years of waiting for a chance to pass until enough Congressmen change their attitudes or we change enough Congressmen. Similarly, successful passage, even of flawed bills, sets a precedent for passage sooner of better bills. "We legalized 'this' and the world didn't come to an end, we didn't get run out of office, so we can give them a little bit more."
But the lunatic fringe, joined by our so-called leaders, are acting like 5-year olds not getting their way, and, like children, don't care whom they hurt by their screaming, crying, kicking temper tantrum. They won't be any worse off than they are now but gays and lesbians will have even some legal job protections ripped out of their hands.
They screech: “NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY JOB PROTECTIONS FROM US!” No problem with that on its contorted face except 1. they’re screeching at the wrong people; 2. they don’t have the job protections yet, but the possibility of same; and, 3. what they’re really saying is, “you can’t take the possibility for job protection away from us but it’s OK for us to take it away from you [gays and lesbians].” Or: “my kids don’t have enough food so you have to kill yours.”
And never in my years of following and studying the movement have I seen greater vicious name calling. Granted, the worst have not come from the lips of organizations, not in literal terms. But the poison is still there even if it’s sprayed rather than stung. Saying someone has “betrayed” them is no different than calling that person a traitor. And it gets worse. For example, the queers of Queerty.com are comparing Frank to a snake.
At the same time, the hollowness of the logic behind the demands of those associated with “United ENDA” is not merely manifested in their verbal smears but in their factual distortions. The chant-like references to the“ 300 plus” organizations that support them conveniently ignores how few actual people they represent and how many of those are counted multiple times by virtue of being simultaneously in multiple organizations.
And the statistics they quote about the number of transgenders without jobs are phrased in such a way as to purport that ENDA is a job guarantee bill rather than a job protection bill. NGLTF’s Matt “Jim Jones” Foreman’s written, “A survey conducted in Washington, D.C., shows that 60 percent of transgender respondents report either no source of income or incomes of less than $10,000 per year, a clear indication of the desperate need for employment protections for transgender people.” In the absence of any qualifying statement, are we to believe that all of them are unemployed/underemployed ONLY because they are transgender? And that the morning after a trans-inclusive ENDA magically passes they’ll find offers under their pillows from the Job Fairy? Just how much Kool-Aid does the Born Again Rev. Foreman want us to drink? Certainly more than he was serving five years ago as head of Empire State Pride Agenda when a gay job protection bill was finally being voted on, after a similar three-decade plus wait, in the New York legislature and he said:
''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.''
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 11, 2007 4:55:46 PM
Wow, Leland, that was powerfully and cogently stated. I could not agree with your position more emphatically.
Crazy trannies...
Posted by: Becks07 | Oct 11, 2007 5:06:56 PM
I originally thought this was tied to an Iraq War funding bill, therefore making it unlikely to be vetoed.
Leland and Name Calling: Pots and Black Kettles, Kettles and Black Pots.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Oct 11, 2007 5:10:11 PM
What Leland said. Right on.
The entire history of the extension of civil rights to minorities has been one of incremental progress. ENDA has, for 30 years, been argued from a GLB perspective. The trans community was added to the bill quite late in the process (just a few months ago). Congress clearly hasn't gotten 30 years' worth of education and outreach from the trans community, and therefore they aren't yet ready to jump on the bandwagon in that regard. Is that so surprising? It took gay and lesbian people three decades of patient (and sometimes no-so-patient) lobbying and toil to get this far. I, for one, am disappointed that the trans part of the bill had to be omitted this go-around, but I am not for one moment surprised. The legwork just hasn't been done yet.
The fact that something is not 100% inclusive does not mean that it is maliciously EXclusive. We work with the possibilities we have. One step at a time, people. No one's throwing anyone under a bus, no matter how much the idealogues in our own community want us to think so.
Posted by: Brian | Oct 11, 2007 5:23:22 PM
I'm afraid I've got agree with Barney as well. I think the inclusive-only folks are great activists, but crappy politicians. And the activists aren't going to get a damn thing done without the politicians.
It doesn't matter that Bush will veto. It doesn't matter if it passes the Senate. Passing in the House now means it will pass in the House again next time, and with the next Democratic president it will become law. If it fails now, it won't matter if there's a Democrat in the White House or not, ENDA will be screwed for a good long while trying to built a trans-coalition.
Posted by: adamblast | Oct 11, 2007 5:41:17 PM
what a surprise, a harangue from the normally reticent leland!
give me a break, debby downer. while i agree with you most of the time, your atomic fly-swatter approach gets burdensome really quick.
ok, i get that you hate HRC, Riechen, and.... well, just post a list so that i will not have to endure the ponderousness of your next comment.
Posted by: nic | Oct 11, 2007 5:49:17 PM
Leland, two or three weeks ago and I would have agreed with you. However, I refer back to the definition of "incremental progress" - it's progress that continues in increments, a little here, then some more, etc.
Well, sadly, transgendered people haven't been allowed into the "incremental" bus. Case in point: in Massachusetts, we passed a glb non-discrimition act, protecting people on the job, in the late 80s. Here we are, almost 2008 - about 15 years later - and that incremental progress hasn't helped transgendered people on iota in this state. The same thing happened in NY.
IF we were actually advancing trans rights after we succeeded in glb rights, I'd be all for it. However, we haven't.
Furthermore, if we had a snow-ball's chance in hell of passing ENDA in any form right now (which we don't), I'd be in full favor of the split. However, it would be absurd to allow the split before there's any reasonable shot of passage and with the full knowledge that we've been leaving transgendered people far behind for decades - on things we could very well damn pass if we pushed it, at least on state levels. If we split it now, it would stay that way - and even if we got the Presidency and elected larger majorities of Dems in the executive, they're not going to touch GENDA. They'll pass ENDA, pat themselves on the back and continue to ignore transgendered people for decades mroe. The only way they transgendered people have a shot of getting discrimination protections at the workplace is if we force congress to vote on the one inclusive bill.
Posted by: Ryan | Oct 11, 2007 6:37:44 PM
*elected larger majorities in the legislative.
Posted by: Ryan | Oct 11, 2007 6:40:01 PM
my gosh my brain is farting... legislative branch. LOL.
Posted by: Ryan | Oct 11, 2007 6:41:03 PM
Sorry, Ryan, but you keep setting up false constructs. That transgender protections haven't been added in some places that have passed gay protections is tragic [and evolved that way for any number of reasons beyond gays simply not caring] but, using my analogy again, the hunger of one doesn't justify taking the food out of the mouth of someone else.
This amazing, admirable, and unprecedented attention to transgender equality should be used to attempt to make that a reality not throw away the potential for gay job protection first. 1 + 1 = 2. 1 - 1 = 0.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 11, 2007 6:53:22 PM
I think your math is off. It should be:
2-1=1. 0-2=-2
Posted by: Gregg | Oct 11, 2007 7:15:30 PM
GREGG,
so which side are you on, dude?
i'm w/leland.
Posted by: nic | Oct 11, 2007 7:33:27 PM
Really strange. Rep. Frank says he wanted and still wants everyone in the community covered. He agrees with community requests for more time - we get a very brief window.
Then - instead of working with the 300 groups who want to try for an inclusive bill - he spends his time berating them and trying to derail their efforts.
And today - he accuses people of single issue politics when he's the one pushing for a single issue bill.
Posted by: Kathy | Oct 11, 2007 8:06:10 PM
(keep in mind Barney Frank is really the only Democrat with anything at stake in ENDA since he's the only gay in the village),
Posted by: Carrie B. | Oct 11, 2007 4:48:10 PM
====================================
True - he is the only gay. Though there is a lesbian.
And she's as deeply involved in this issue as Rep. Frank. Though her statements indicate she's more committed to passing the inclusive bill than the gay guy.
Posted by: Kathy | Oct 11, 2007 8:12:27 PM
"[Tammy Baldwin's] statements indicate she's more committed to passing the inclusive bill than the gay guy."
That's the kind of hog shit that is stinking up this whole debacle. "Statements" are just words; per se meaningless. "Passing"? You're nuts to assert that it's just a matter of being "committed" and have no evidence, zip, nada, zero, zilch, that ANYONE is more committed than Frank to trying when the concrete cost doesn't outweigh the only theoretical benefits of the effort.
With all due respect to Baldwin, she's been in Congress 8 years. Frank has been in Congress 26 years. I think it reasonable to conclude from that that he knows the system better; is better at counting heads than she is; knows the difference between passing legislation and passing gas.
And, gee, St. Kathy, please reveal to us the source of the magical powers of these alleged "300 groups." Is it just possible that their powers, whatever their source, are far less than you imagine? Is it just possible that members of Congress are less easily stampeded than Matt I Worked Against The Trannies Before I Worked For Them Foreman, HRC, et al? Particularly when their antigay/antitransgender constituents far outnumber their gay/trans ones? Particularly, contrary to the dishonest characterization of what has occurred as a “groundswell” of outrage among every gay man and lesbian across the land when the reality is that most are at least conflicted and many more [unfortunately] indifferent?
Keep the cacophony of exaggerations, hyperbole, fantasies, and mutually reinforcing self-delusion playing. It’s your right. But at the end of this session of Congress, the votes, like Elvis, will have left the building.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 11, 2007 8:35:46 PM
It's breathtaking how much vitriol surfaces when it comes to whether or not to include transgender under the auspices of ENDA. And it's breathtaking how quickly GL pundits and political groups (since when has bisexuality be actually respected and engaged by mainstream gay and lesbian politics?) slap down even the thought that job discrimination against trans folk does not really concern gay and lesbian people. And yet, mainstream gay and lesbian cultures and politics are all about gender normativity. I mean, go to a gay club and find out how many superbuff Abercrombie gay dudes there will happily admit that he's a bottom. Fact is, gender discrimination can affect EVERYONE. If non-inclusive ENDA passes (which it probably won't), that will do little for the butch dyke who is fired from her job not because she sleeps with women, but because she isn't feminine enough. Or for the effeminate gay man who will never convincingly look or act like an Abercrombie model.
Posted by: M | Oct 11, 2007 8:42:02 PM
Wow.
I adore Barney, like every other gay person I know, but he and Nancy Pelosi and whoever else decided this strategy have handled this TERRIBLY. Like, just about as badly as possible.
The GLBT movement is made up of hundreds of organizations and groups, and they all felt like they got the rug yanked out from under them when they heard (over the news, mostly!) that the transgender protections were being dropped.
Barney's probably right about the politics (he would know), but he hasn't exactly been politic in handling it. With a little collaborative work and tact, we wouldn't have all this infighting.
I mean, jesus, we've got Pride at Work picketing the fucking HRC gala! All this madness could have been avoided.
Posted by: CB | Oct 11, 2007 9:06:53 PM
Keep the cacophony of exaggerations, hyperbole, fantasies, and mutually reinforcing self-delusion playing. It’s your right. But at the end of this session of Congress, the votes, like Elvis, will have left the building.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 11, 2007 8:35:46 PM
=======================
Ahem - you mean engage in the manner of reasoned and temperate debate you exemplified in that comment?
People disagree with you - lot's of them. We have just as much right to participate in the process and pursue our objectives as you do Leland.
Get used to it.
Posted by: Kathy | Oct 11, 2007 9:14:44 PM
http://tammybaldwin.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1416
Yes Leland - more committed. As evidenced by not having given up yet.
BTW - if you're the majority - why don't you have 300 orgs. on your side? Should be easy for you.
Posted by: Kathy | Oct 11, 2007 10:09:54 PM
I agree with Barney.
Posted by: Jeff NYC | Oct 12, 2007 12:18:47 AM
I think it's important that we not lose sight of the fact that we are ALL moving toward the same ultimate destination (ENDA that covers GLB and T people) we just have different opinions on how best to get there.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 12, 2007 12:41:00 AM
What about the Q! It's LGBTQ... don't forget the questioning community..we are not even in this bill! As a two spirt transdyke I AM the community! Shame on you gay men!
Posted by: two spirt | Oct 12, 2007 1:11:02 AM
What about the Q! It's LGBTQ... don't forget the questioning community..we are not even in this bill! As a two spirt transdyke I AM the community! Shame on you gay men!
Posted by: two spirt | Oct 12, 2007 1:11:02 AM
well yes you would be - if it includes both gender identity and sexual orientation.
though it likely wouldn't cover disengenuous trolls.
Posted by: Kathy | Oct 12, 2007 9:16:54 AM
Ahh...and Kathy hits the nail on the head. GENDER IDENTITY v. SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
Two different things. Two different issues. Period. Why should the protections of one be held back simply because there is no way to protect both?
Posted by: Alexy | Oct 12, 2007 10:04:39 AM
It will probably pass the Senate because it is attached to a military spending bill. I'd love to see Bush veto a military spending bill!
I think that Barney Frank is right. I also think that all of these gay organizations, especially the ones that spend one paragraph in their press releases talking about ENDA and the rest of the press release bragging about how powerful their organizations are, should have more political skill than they obviously do. I have started getting renewal notices from HRC and other groups, and I'm not renewing. I want to support organizations that know how to get legislation passed, not just throw rallies and hold signs.
Posted by: Ian | Oct 12, 2007 12:00:27 PM
IAN, the Matthew Sheppard (Hate Crime) Act is attached to a military spending bill. I don't think ENDA is. At least not yet.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 12, 2007 2:39:04 PM