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.
Share
Like what you read? Subscribe to The Bilerico Project by Email.
Want others to read it too? Use the buttons and links here to share this entry with others. (Move your cursor over a button or link to learn more about it.)
3 Comments
« WTB: EAT IT! LICK IT! SUCK IT! | Home | Obama tap dances around black LGBTQ issues »
Thios is one of the best statements I've heard in this entire debate!
So true...
And so right...
R | October 30, 2007 2:40 PM
Reply to this comment
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.
Steve | October 30, 2007 6:00 PM
Reply to this comment
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!
Alex Blaze | October 30, 2007 6:16 PM
Reply to this comment