Alex Blaze

Gay candidate blogs on ENDA

Filed By Alex Blaze | October 30, 2007 2:11 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: Colorado, ENDA, Jared Polis, transgender

Over at Kos, Jared Polis, the openly gay Democratic candidate for Colorado's second district, has a post up about an inclusive ENDA. Here's part:

I am sick and tired of hearing our DC leaders say that an inclusive ENDA cannot pass. Who are the US Representatives who would vote to eliminate workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but not gender identity? Are there any? Let them step forward so we can focus on changing their minds and their hearts. Their position makes no sense.

Ending workplace discrimination only for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals but not transgendered Americans would be the equivalent of passing a civil rights act that prevents only discrimination against Latinos and Asians, but not Blacks. Because the groups left behind are a smaller percentage of the population, it will be more difficult to ever include them.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Because the groups left behind are a smaller percentage of the population, it will be more difficult to ever include them.

Thios is one of the best statements I've heard in this entire debate!

So true...

And so right...

I'd say Mr. Polis needs to work on his analogical reasoning skills.

Whichever side one is on in this debate, banning discrimination against Latinos and Asians, but not Blacks (all defined by race) would be like banning discrimination against straights and bisexuals, but not gays (all defined by sexual orientation). No one has proposed that.

On the other hand, banning discrimination based on sexual orientation but not gender identity, which is what is proposed, would be like banning discrimination based on race but not age or disability. And that is exactly what Congress did in 1964. Congress then banned age discrimination in 1967 and disability discrimination in 1973 and 1990.

I don't generally work in analogies because they're generally crude. But others do.

It's not perfect, of course, but it's a much better analogy than race and age being separate. How about race and ethnicity? They're two different words in the list that usually accompanies anti-discrimination measures. So it'd be like banning discrimination based on race (blacks, Asians, Native people) but not ethnicity (Italians, slavs, Middle Easterners, who until recently were considered white).

Hmmmm... that's still not perfect.

But I don't think that the differences b/t the T and the GLB are really night and day. It's the same transgression. Maybe the wording just just be "gender transgressive" and call it a day.

Anyway, support openly queer candidates for office!