Congressional Punk Out on Non-Discrimination Bill

September 28, 2007 at 9:44 am 3 comments

The drama over transgender inclusion Employment Non-Discrimination Act continues unabated. Signs are pointing to the House leadership are stripping language that would provide workplace protections for transgender Americans from the bill against the wishes of major LGBT advocacy organizations. The non-inclusive language has the approval of gay House member Barney frank who is seen as the go to person on LGBT issues in Congress.

From Planet Out:

Human Rights Campaign spokesman Brad Luna confirmed that House leaders were likely to consider a bill without trans protections.

“HRC is deeply disappointed and did not assent to this position,” Luna said.

Steven Adamske, spokesman for ENDA co-sponsor Rep. Barney Frank said that putting a trans-inclusive bill on the floor for a vote could result in a bruising debate that would make it very difficult to revisit the bill.

“The one thing we don’t want to do is embolden the enemy,” he said of Republicans who might be looking to exploit the vote as a wedge issue.

What the Democratic leadership is forgetting is that no matter what bill is debated the Republicans and their homo-hating proxies including the men of Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family and the American Family Association will come out in opposition. In any event, President Bush will veto the bill if it manages to get through Congress.

Now rather than working with the LGBT community to shore up votes from wavering members of the House, the Democrats have now pissed off one of their most loyal constituency groups.

Advertisements

Entry filed under: Advocacy, Congress, Democrats, LGBT, Liberals, Politics.

Will Republicans Condemn Rush Limbaugh’s Slur Against American Troops? “I’m Gonna Kill That Fag”

3 Comments Add your own

  • 1. jonolan  |  September 28, 2007 at 10:44 am

    I doubt that the “Trans” language would have been acceptable in any case. When dealing with employment discrimination they’d have to add many clauses to deal with TV vs. TG and pre- , mid- and post-OP TGs.

    Reply
  • 2. Bloggernista  |  September 28, 2007 at 11:00 am

    The trans-inclusive language was developed by lawyers, lobbyists and activists in conjunction with congressional staff so it should pass muster. In any event, the bill should remain inclusive.

    Reply
  • 3. jonolan  |  September 28, 2007 at 12:17 pm

    I sincerely doubt it would “pass muster” by anyone with a concern other than for trans’ rights. These Bills almost never have specific enough language to deal with complex scenarios.

    Some examples of issues:
    Must an All Female Gym (say Curves) allow a CD or pre-Op F2M to work there?

    At what point does a Trans gain or lose the right / privilege / duty of serving in a combat MOS in the military?

    Don’t get me wrong, I want this type a legislation to be enacted but I doubt this pass at it would have worked for the trans. It’s going to be a long hard job to get the rules logical and workable for all parties concerned.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


AddThis Feed Button
Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory

Blog Stats

  • 833,064 hits

Archives


%d bloggers like this: