Alex, you kick ass in that podcast. You really nailed the reasons why IE's decision is asinine and it was interesting to hear the hosts bemoan that IE couldn't articulate their position without twisting it around to sound like they opposed it because it didn't include trans protections - a blatant lie.

They have no justification for their position that puts so many Hoosier Congressman's votes in jeopardy. The entire board should resign in disgrace.

Great discussion, Alex. It's amazing to me how much better versed you are in these issues than the folks at IE. I don't think they even considered the damage they would cause to the votes of our congressional delegation - let alone how impossible of an idea it is to open up the Civil Rights Act for amendment. What a nightmare. The potential damage to the existing CRA more than outweighs any notion of "second class citizenship" as IE calls it.

I think the discussion of incrementalism could have been expanded upon some more, but that probably would have gone over most of the audience's head. But I think it's a salient point that IE decries ENDA as "incrementalism" while asking for a different "incremental" step in the next breath.

Their increment is bigger, but it's an increment nonetheless. Addition to the CRA would not vacate DOMA, it would not vacate DADT, and it would not vacate all of those state constitutional amendments. So it's still just an increment toward full equality.

You did a great job explaining all the issues, but more importantly proved how vital ENDA is to moving forward and how dangerous IE's position is to progress toward LGBT equality.