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.'"
Posted 3:00 PM EST by Andy Towle in Barney Frank, Democratic Party, ENDA, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
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