Dr. Jillian T. Weiss

Traditional Values Coalition: We Are Winning The Battle Against ENDA

Filed By Dr. Jillian T. Weiss | April 29, 2010 9:30 AM | comments

Filed in: Politics, Politics
Tags: Andrea Lafferty, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ENDA, Traditional Values Coalition, TVC

FromAndrea Lafferty the Traditional Values Coalition:

Transgender activists are concerned that gay activist Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) will throw them under the bus like he did before when ENDA came up for a vote.

The "gender identity" section of the previous ENDA was tossed out in order to secure passage in the House. The she-males are outraged that this might happen once again.

We are winning the battle against ENDA, but we can't stop putting pressure on Representatives until the bill is pulled from consideration.

TAKE ACTION: Tell your legislators to vote NO on ENDA.

More exciting news about ENDA after the jump.

Well, she might be right. She and her group are exploiting the division between gay and transgender people, and trying to pile-drive a huge wedge in between.

Roll Call, the DC magazine that all the politicians and their staffs read just published an article suggesting that legislators are dropping like flies because of the transgender inclusion.

All Republicans, though I do know of one Blue Dog who's confused by the whole "gender identity" thing. One might even say that he's "gender-confused."

And there's no doubt that anti-ENDA forces are going to try to make a motion to get "gender-confused" Blue Dogs to vote to send the whole hot mess back to Committee to strip out the gender language.

So, if you love Andrea Lafferty and the Traditional Values Coalition, here's your do's and don'ts.

DO NOT call your Congressmember today.

DO ASSUME that they're already for or against, so no need for you to make your voice heard.

DO NOT email Congress.

DEFINITELY DO NOT click here to tell them to support ENDA, HR 3017, including both sexual orientation and gender identity.

As a matter of fact, take the week off. We don't really need to fight for ENDA. Andrea Lafferty is fighting for you.


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.


The hammer Lafferty is using to drive that wedge is the sensitivity of politicians to parental concerns. Let me suggest that since the reported rates of incidence of school systems actually encountering problems seems to be low then surely language can be crafted to either exempt school systems or provide them "safe harbor" provisions on transfers or other options for dealing with transgendered employees. If the rate of incidence in school systems is actually high then perhaps it is even wiser to provide such "safe harbors" or exemptions. Take the hammer away or lose. Parents will die for their children. Just my simple perspective.

And yes Jillian I called and emailed my Senators and representative.

While I don't agree with any more exemptions in the bill, as the school systems do have flexibility under ENDA and other similar laws to address parental concerns, I say good for you for emailing your Congressmembers!

We're in a no-win there. For if such things are explicitly included, then that will be interpreted as meaning that Trans people are threats to children by their very existence.

Would you want such a threat to be working anywhere where they may contact children? At another school? Or in a government department? Or in a library, perhaps a children's library? Or in a store? Or anywhere where they could be in contact with children?

Maybe they should be prevented from living within half a mile of schools..... perhaps made to wear a tracking device, and be on a public register, since they're a threat to children.

Schools can already transfer teachers. It's usual for them to do so, but not universal.

And what about trans kids? They'll be used too. Should we have exemptions for them? So other kids won't get confused?

Maybe gays too. Make sure that schools are allowed to transfer them, or not hire them.

I don't see anything wrong with giving a little ground if it's helpful. But by giving ground here, we say that there's a genuine threat. I don't think that's a good move. From past experience, attempting to compromise has just led to greater demands, and no concessions.

What's needed is explicit inclusion in Title VII. Many people think we already have that, and that ENDA is thus not needed, it's grand-standing or attempting to go beyond Title VII.

Zoe you raise some excellent points. The problem is that standing on a ladder made of principles is a proscription for failing to harvest much fruit when the other workers are using forklifts fueled by the liquid emotions of over protective parents who don't always give a hoot about reality. You want to avoid coming up empty handed then you have to turn off the spigot on the fuel.

As I'm sure you know politics is the art of compromise with neither side walking away unscathed. As wise politician carefully chooses the specifics of the compromise because either there is a compromise or there will be no successful vote. Look at Barney and the bathroom issue. He was not being stupid nor was he trying to throw transgendered people under the bus. He was signaling that unless that sticky wicket could be compromised ENDA was DOA. If you want a repeat of 2007 climb that ladder of principles just as high as you care to climb it. Just don't scream too loudly when you come up empty handed.

Deena - consider what would have happened if the 1964 Act had had such exemptions for Blacks.

That schools were exempt from hiring them, as it would be too dangerous to have N...ers around children.

I don't think the consequences would have been acceptable. In fact, I think they might have been worse than no act at all. That's my fear.

Zoe now you are on interesting ground. I marched with MLK Jr. Before that I was in the first wave of integrated schools in Kentucky. You, if I recall correctly , you have no grounds to relate to any of that. Please explain to me how you can pretend to understand something you did not live through in this culture. Are you familiar with John Lewis? He is a friend. Have you ever witnessed, much less been in, a race riot? Do you even know who Bernard Bridges was? I'm not trying to dump on you but I fail to see how anyone in Australia has standing to lecture anyone in this United States about political realities. Let's take it one step further. Where were you when MLK Jr. was shot in 1968 and where were you when Bobbie was assassinated? I can tell you exactly where I was on both occasions and it wasn't in Australia wondering about my gender. This country, my country, has been through many trying times and will go through more. I hope you are not too offended but there are facets of this culture beyond your comprehension just as there are facets of Australian culture beyond mine.

I wish you the best and know you will appreciate how I can admire you even as I disagree with your understanding of what makes America great.

SarasNavel | April 30, 2010 3:43 AM

Deena, your list of personal involvement in the events surrounding the Civil Rights Act is fascinating. But that is all that it is, a list of events that you remember. While I would love to hear more, including personal memories of some of the lesser known moments that truly show the flavor of the time and the people involved, you have failed to invalidate or even speak to Zoe's point.

In the context of which you write, the Civil Rights Act was primarily about black equality, although it's reach was actually much greater and that is I believe, part of Zoe's point of bringing up black exclusion. ENDA in a similar context was supposed to be primarily about protecting from discrimination those who fail to meet the social expectations of "man" and "woman". That description includes gays, lesbians, bisexuals *and* those who differ most in appearance and are described as transgender. To exclude only that last group severely weakens the purpose of the bill to the point of rendering it little more than election year campaign fodder.


You are absolutely correct. I personally want no exclusions. However, there is a huge difference between getting something and getting nothing. The reality is simply that the "bathroom issue" is dwarfed by the "don't force exposure on the children".

Personally I think it would be good to actually require school systems seek out and hire teachers who are members of the GLBTQ "community". Set quotas. But...what I would like to see and what is achievable are vastly different things. Parents are very emotionally vested in "protecting" children.

We can battle all we want to and waste vast amounts of time and energy or we can find a way to remove the fuel that is feeding Lafferty's fire. IMHO we will not win by pitting logic against the emotions of parents. That is why I brought up the dynamics of history. It was not legislation that ended "separate but equal" in the school systems.

I just finished reminding Rep Cummings that I support a fully inclusive ENDA, and asked him to encourage its passage.

I just got off the phone with Rush Holt's office. I told the lady I spoke with that I know Rep. Holt supports passage of ENDA (he was one of seven in the House who refused to vote in favor of the non-inclusive bill in '07 because that version didn't protect transpeople), and I just wanted to register my support for the bill and for the repeal of DADT. The lady told me to expect a personal response from Rep. Holt soon.

I just got off the phone with congressman Boswell's office they will send me a written response explaining his position.As for Andrea Lafferty better arguements need to be made to take her out of her comfort zone especially when she is in a position of being interviewed side by side with a Transsexual person. Call her out on the environmental factors, call her out that extreme religious views are also listed in the dsm4,call her out on pedophilia point out that it negatively effects both the lgbt community and the heterosexual community.Point to the forefathers and their widely available position of believing in god but not using that belief to cloud your judgement and certainly not to base laws on.Put her in the position of having to be defensive and the facade will crack.

Ummm...my representative is The Honorable Vacancy????

Well, you definitely won't get charged for a long distance call.

You should be able to get that commitment easily, but I hear it's hard to get them to actually push the button to register the vote.

Don't feel bad, Crystal. A lot of the suits in DC are vacant.

I have contacted my representative and 2 senators to make clear that I and the gay constituents I know all support passage of ENDA with or without protections for so-called "gender identity".

I (hopefully) made clear that the inclusion of this extraneous category was the product of political maneuvering among certain gay groups, but that it had no resonance with the vast majority of gay voters. If legislators are wary of creating a federal right to sue employers over "gendered" bathroom access and workplace cross-dressing, then the answer is to cut that out of the bill and consider it separately.

That is what I told my reps. As to the folks on this blog, I can only ask why you are so insistent on driving a wedge in our community by insisting that ENDA go down to defeat rather than remove gender identity. Very divisive, IMO.

No, divisive is leaving the most vulnerable and discriminated citizens without protections to appease the richer and more influential segments of our community.

Divisive is selling out your values and morals for the sake of political convenience.

Divisive is allowing politicians to take the easy way out on this issue and then foolishly expect you're not making the same kind of result likelier the next time an LGBT issue is on the table.

Divisive is trying to claim the moral high ground when what you're really advocating is ensuring rights for some Americans by denying them to others.

Sorry, but your laundry list above describes things that may be bad, but not divisive. If ENDA passed w/o gender identity, the vast majority of gays and lesbians would be pretty pleased. Even those who would prefer that GI be included would not be all that upset if it didn't get in.

I know this is late, but I gotta show some love for this response. Perfect.

Oh Suze, how brave and independent and noble you are, calling your Representative to say gays first! I'm glad you thrust your selfish stance in our faces -- take that, trannies! No need to feel bashful about kicking us off the raft. It's every man for himself in Suze country.

Fortunately, you are an isolated minority among gays.

"I'm glad you thrust your selfish stance in our faces -- take that, trannies!"

Believe you me, I would never thrust anything in your face. I was just reporting on my discussion with my reps.

Also, this view that unless gays do exactly as you say and hue exactly to your priorities, they are being selfish just doesn't wash. If there should be proposed poison pill amendments to ENDA to provide federal workplace protection for "leather" men, the unhygienic, communists, or opera lovers, it wouldn't be "selfish" of you to oppose those amendments in order to get ENDA passed. You have a right to argue for your own rights without linking them to every cause in the world. So do gays.

"Fortunately, you are an isolated minority among gays."

You wish. You've been hanging around here too long.

Suze - even Avarosis appears to have learnt from 2007. Yes, you're not alone in your views. But you are becoming increasingly isolated. Why do you think that is?

What did you think of PO Sandeen's actions the other day. How do you explain those under your "political manouvering amongst certain gay groups" theory? And for that matter - when did you last risk anything in a GLB(without the T) cause?

People take note of this stuff.

Why not visit Joe.My.God or AROOO and have a look at the comments by those who share your perspective. Then ask yourself if you wish to be associated with that kind of batshit craziness. Take a look at the reactions of other commenters.

It's not a matter of some elite dictating to the great majority what they should think. Rather the other way round, the elite being convinced by the grassroots that this is the way forward. Actually "dragged kicking and screaming" would be closer than "convinced".

Good thing I'm not like you Suze. You see, my company wanted to fully pay for my hormones and explicitly include GI to the non-discrimination policy. I asked them to hold off until they offered insurance and equal benefits to the gay guy and two lesbians in the company.

You see, I feel that the issue of full and fair treatment is far more important than what's in it for me. Finally, the company did cost analysis on the particulars of the 3 G&L folks and the paperwork and HR time to include one of the gals who seem to have a new wife every 3 months would be to costly.

I'm good waiting if it means everyone is protected and covered.

OMG, Jillian where did you get that picture of Laugh errrrr T. It looks as if she just got done snortin 3 lines of Coke and a dildo in her behind. lmao

I think she is actually holding it!

"And I just pulled THIS out of my ass! Some she-male obviously stuck it there to try to turn me gay! This is what the she-males will do to ALL YOUR CHILDREN!!!!! Shove stuff up their asses, and tell them to have gay sex and then get an abortion!"

dizzy from rolling eyes at this nut job...

Angela Brightfeather | April 29, 2010 4:55 PM

For Pete's Sake!!!!!!!!!!
Why isn't the NEA of teachers and teaching professionals coming out and stating what an idiot and bigot Lafferty is?

We don't need Trans people hammering her, we need teaching professionals hammering her every time she opens her mouth. Why isn't someone rolling out these people on CBS to tell the truth and why didn't anyone see this coming in the first place?

Why isn't MSNBC and CNN covering this and asking all non LGBT people to support the legislation?

Angela, do you have any idea how traditional and conservative most primary and secondary teachers are? I think the only thing most of them are progressive on is labor rights. I am guessing most of a trans teachers collegues are right there wanting to get him or her kicked out.

Carol, you should note that both the NEA and the AFT support ENDA. I suppose Andrea would say that those commie homo-loving teachers are out to harm children.

Wow, I am amazed! It's a good thing, but it still surprises me. :)

Angela Brightfeather | April 29, 2010 7:18 PM

Jillian,

That is exactly what I am talking about.

I refuse to beleive that if they back ENDA then NEA and AFT won't come out and say they do in a statment against what Laffety is saying and expose her immediatley. Allyson did as well as expected but Lafferty would have been swept of the floor if she had to debate someone who spoke for the NEA. They would have put her right in her place on a number of points, including noting that she belongs to a recognized hate group and how that plays in the schools. How would that have gone down with the public coming from the NEA?

I have been saying from the git-go on this blog and others, that the silence coming from various parties supposedly backing ENDA is deafening, and for what purpose? There is a purpose in this madness, that points to the fact that the entire burden of this version of ENDA is being left to the smallest minority to defend, seemingly alone.

Two weeks before supposedly rolling on ENDA, and MSNBC is missing a chance to make Lafferty look like a total ass, is a waste of a good news story and a chance to swat the right across the chops. It's not making sense to me. Or there must be an awful lot of maneuvering going on behind the scenes that we are not privy to. It seems that the opinion among the beltliners is to remain silent and hope that Lafferty and the right rhetoric does not have the time to take hold and make enough of an impression to defeat
ENDA at this point. Personally I think thet the ENDA supporters need to push back in a strategic way and hit Lafferty and her ilk with the truth. That Trans teachers are just as good as non-trans teachers and worthy of praise.

Angela are you a parent? I only ask this because your stance leads me to suspect that you are not. The emotional aspects Lafferty is tapping into are real, forceful and fraught with explosive emotions.

SarasNavel | April 30, 2010 4:02 AM

And that is the problem. Lafferty is being allowed to set the rules and specific questions of the forum and debate around ENDA. If those groups would step in and talk about the larger ideals of education *and* refute her talking points seemingly almost as an afterthought, their endorsement would make a difference. The problem is that the national education groups are caught in a bind between doing the right thing and doing what a very loud extreme christian subset, and those sheep who would follow it, prefer. So they release a statement of support and nothing more.

As to Angela's statement,

"Or there must be an awful lot of maneuvering going on behind the scenes that we are not privy to",

I'm quickly becoming convinced that everything we've seen coming from Washington regarding ENDA, DADT, DOMA and a few other issues has been nothing more than a song and dance routine. Entertaining and just distracting enough to keep us from actually demanding much. Keep the issues moving, don't reveal anything and for God's sake, keep that 10% off balance politically. Grassroots works but it's weakness is revealed when it is presented with something more complicated than a single, stationary target.

Of course parents are pretty emotional about wanting the well-being of their children, but that doesn't mean they have to be bigots. Having raised three children, I'd be pretty viscerally disgusted at having to send my daughters or son to a school that discriminated on the grounds of gender.

Renee Thomas | April 30, 2010 10:43 AM

Deena,

I am trans and a parent. I can confidently assure you that my kids have learned and applied more knowledge and wisdom touching the inherent worth and dignity of humanity than you are apparently capable of comprehending. My kids have seen first hand, through their best friends, how same sex families raise happy and loving children. They see, in me and in the several lesbian and gay role models currently in their lives, that difference need not be feared but rather celebrated. They have learned that the respect of difference, all difference, is valuable. As difficult and challenging as having a transgender parent has been (and continues to be) for them, they both concede that they will be better people for the experience.

You on the other hand have missed those lessons. Actually, worse than missing them, you continue to actively reject them. My kids will inherit a world that will be in need of some serious work. Nevertheless, they're good kids, smart kids and they're up for the job. As for the hard and ugly parts that you leave in your wake - the stuff made more difficult by your indolence, your bigotry and your cynicism – they’ll roll up their sleeves for that too and plow right on through it.

Because that's the kind of responsible and loving people that their parents are working hard to raise.

Be nice Renee. I certainly did not mean to get your blood pressure up by suggesting that the reality of our society must be dealt with or there will be no house floor vote. I would prefer school systems to be required to hire GLBTQ members but that is just not going to happen anytime soon. Now the question becomes whether Lafferty and her ilk can be neutered and how to do it quickly with minimal collateral damage to the inclusion of gender identity when legislation is actually reported out of committee.

My point about parents was simply that they are both the largest group of voters and many also can be easily inflamed by Lafferty styled fear mongering. Would you classify yourself as the typical grade schooler parent? I hardly think so. The demographics are easily obtainable from the various sites that track that sort of data.

So, do you think logic and testimony will prevail expeditiously in this instance? I truly wish that were the case but I strongly suspect it is not. So please tell me your recommended winning strategy. I'm very interested in how you suggest proceeding.

Renee Thomas | April 30, 2010 11:35 PM

Fair enough Deena,

My apologies and I'll work harder at playing
nic(er). True enough though; my blood pressure is tweaked by the gathering storm that feels a great deal like 2007. You see, I have a great deal to lose.

As for Lafferty and her ilk, relentlessly pressing the attack against the Traditional Values Coalition as a known hate group would be a good start. Of course, she will simply parry that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a well-known den of leftists who are hell bent on destroying the Judeo-Christian ethic that made this country great. Apparently, from their standpoint, their God needs all the help he can get.

"Would you classify yourself as the typical grade schooler parent? I hardly think so."

Step off Deena, don't go there.

Notwithstanding being trans (which is simply an inescapable fact of life for me - much like you being gay) my hopes and concerns for my kids are very much in keeping with most "grade-schooler parents." Moreover, I would rather not comment on what you might do with your demographics, I mean I did promise to play nice and all.

Angela's point above is instructive:

" . . . We have years of defensible facts of Trans people who have worked as teachers to offset the Lafferty lies and she has nothing to rebut with, not one incident that I am aware of in all that time of what she is implying. Parents are not dummies and they know when their getting their chains jerked around by idiots like Lafferty and their kids are being used to propagate bigotry . . .”

I do hope you're right Angela - but the throng of parents Deena is referring to will not draw that conclusion unless we (and our allies) step it up and paint the TFC for the bigots and liars that they indeed are. We fight an uphill battle, with few real friends; it was never anything but that.

But where folks like you Deena (and you Suze) can effectively retreat into some sort of sanitized version of your private lives, many of us have no such option. With respect to your sweet dreams of equality achieved, it would be convenient I’d grant you both to be rid of us. You can play nice with Ms. Lafferty and she lull you into thinking that if you dump the "trannies" she and Lou will roll over when the less than inclusive ENDA comes up for a final vote in the Senate. But then of course, at that point you'll realize that you've been played and that her kind of "Christian" hates you just as much as they hate us.

"THEY CAME FIRST for the disgusting transpeople,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't trans . . . “

But Deena you and Suze know how the rest of Pastor Niemöller’s poem goes, yes?

Angela Brightfeather | April 30, 2010 11:49 AM

Deena,

Your not only wrong about me, but grossly wrong. At 65 I have a son and daughter and 8 lovely grandchildren. So I know children and their issues as well or better than yourself, especially since I had sole custody of my children after my first wife leaving her "not a real man" husband when they were 7 and 10 and my having to do the "single parent" balancing act. But all that is beside the point.

My point is that NEA only has to tell the truth, and the facts and then they make Lafferty look like the ass that she is. The facts are defensible and I am asking them to do nothing more than that. The stauchest of right wingers may come at them, but they can't change the facts of Transgender people working for years as teachers, let alone being paid retirement benefits from the school districts they were employed in, for what, doing a bad job of teaching? Lets wake the heck up here. We have years of defensible facts of Trans people who have worked as teachers to offset the Lafferty lies and she has nothing to rebutt with, not one incident that I am aware of in all that time of what she is implying. Parents are not dummies and they know when their getting their chains jerked around by idiots like Lafferty and their kids are being used to propagate bigotry.

Lets get NEA out there with Lafferty and let MSNBC and Maddow do a job on her. Obherman should have made her the "Worst Person in the World" when she appeared on CBS. Where's the left wing media when you need them?

I dont know that you can consider MSNBC or Rachel Maddow allies of trans ppl (tho cis-gay ppl, yes)? Maybe you are aware of some things they have done that I don't know about? All I know is Olbermann makes crude fun of trans ppl, and Maddow seems at best uninformed about and uninterested in trans issues, and almost certainly uncomfortable with them.

If I have missed some pro-trans (or even neutral-trans) content on MSNBC or on Maddow, pls let me know, I'd like to go take a look...

Good points Angela. But when have you seen the NEA go on the line in politics unless it involves teacher pay or benefits being reduced? You and I generally agree on Lafferty's basic character so what do you suggest that is both practical and a rapid response that has a chance of succeeding? If I understand you correctly there are plenty of existing school systems that successfully hire and retain people with differing gender identities. If that is true what is the imperative or over riding reason for covering school systems in ENDA? Why not let them continue to be successful and exempt them from ENDA in a "swap" to get the bill to the house floor. That would remove Lafferty's ammunition entirely.

Lachesis | May 1, 2010 2:25 AM

I don't understand the point of even considering exclusions. Do you really think we can appease these people? Of course not! This is all about destroying equality for all LGBT people using whatever week point they can find. Today its trans people in schools, but if we cave on this point, they'll just hammer on another. We need to stay on message and meet concerns head on.

Renee Thomas | May 1, 2010 10:59 AM

But to Deena's modest proposal:

" . . . If I understand you correctly there are plenty of existing school systems that successfully hire and retain people with differing gender identities. If that is true what is the imperative or over riding reason for covering school systems in ENDA? Why not let them continue to be successful and exempt them from ENDA in a "swap" to get the bill to the house floor. That would remove Lafferty's ammunition entirely."

Because even the most cursory of examinations reveals that, there are no broadly consistent standard to guide school districts toward an understanding and respect of gender variance. Allowing schools to opt out of ENDA will have the effect of placing that knowledge forever out of reach. Leaving respect of our individual humanity to the demonstrated wisdom of the “torches and pitchforks” crowd has not worked out so well, has it Deena?

I often wonder, if it were possible to globally shift the paradigm in an instant to an acceptance of gender variance as an intrinsic part of a holistic understanding of gender as both fluid and constructed, what sort of world might we have? When you spend much time being gender variant (and simultaneously studying the sociological phenomenon of gender expression), you soon realize that our shared bigotries are built upon that most ephemeral and corruptible of foundations . . .

Ignorance . . . Natch

Thus, education seems an effective answer to building that strong foundation wherewith to teach children that difference is not evil.

As constructions go, the faith in an invisible Deity that "instructs" the faithful to visit such perversions of humanity upon their fellow human being can only be seen as similarly ephemeral . . . and (if not entirely corrupt) then certainly corruptible.

You hate me - WHY?

Because, in the final analysis you're different and my god (and my genes) have taught me to hate and fear that difference.

Oh gosh Renee now you've gone and pulled religion into this. Sheesh, I'll pray for you tomorrow (hope you don't mind).

Please understand I am looking for something to get this legislation moving not for ways to gut the provisions. In one breath you say there are many examples of successful transitions in school system and then in the next you say don't trust school systems because all that is subject to so much variation. I agree. Fulton Mississippi left to its own devices is very unlikely to hire anyone deemed "strange" but...I did not suggest exempting sexual orientation so at least even they would be hard pressed to legally turn down a qualified lesbian teacher. I'm reasonably sure they would do it anyway.

Why not just drop the gender identity inclusion entirely and add language that states something about the original sex discrimination applying to anyone who is "reasonably complete" with a gender change? I'll bet that question will get me tarred and feathered but think about it. The problem with sexual identity is it foists upon society a very broad spectrum of self definitions totally "at will" by the applicant or employee. That is why opponents can easily create chaos around the issue.

There are definitions in the bill. No need to guess, Deena.

I am certainly not in favor of adding more loopholes or safe harbors or removing more protections from ENDA, indeed I am for taking some of them out of it. I do not see why employers with less than 15 employees are excluded for one thing. There are a lot of people who would be left without protection with that one provision. If the Right Wing so called Christian groups had their way, anyone who claimed to be a Christian would be exempt from hiring anyone they thought did not live up to their view of what they thought they should be. I do not think schools systems should be exempt for the same reasons they were not exempt from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. How can you say it is acceptable to discriminate against someone only part of the time?
So I am of the opinion, if they keep pulling teeth out of this Bill in time, it will be so useless and lacking in protection, that no one will have any support for it. Divide and conquer is the word of the day for those who would have ENDA defeated. Not only divide us within the LGBTQ community on the support end of this, but keep pulling bits out of the Bill until few will find a reason to support it except those who did not wish to see it passed anyway. They might agree to something like Employment Protection for LGBTQ persons by Bars and Taverns only after 10:00PM on the weekends, which have full moons occurring while on even numbered dates or some such crap. Give me a break!

So, how are you going to get ENDA moving. It is stuck in committee. That means there is too much muck sticking to the edges.

Renee Thomas | May 1, 2010 3:31 PM

No, I won't tar and feather you Deena . . . your inane suggestion simply isn’t worth my bother to refute.

But when you want to get serious, do let me know, won't you?

xoxo

Renee Thomas | May 1, 2010 8:11 PM

I'll let your inspired suggestion pass for a moment in favor of one that is perhaps a bit more mundane but seemingly to the point:

Equal Protection under the Law?

I know it's a quaint concept but what with us living in a constitutional republic and all, I thought it might be worth a mention.

Oh, but let’s do follow your rather insistent suggestion and decouple trans protections from ENDA, we can count on you to come back for us . . . right?

Deena??

Cue the sound of crickets

Oh, and on your way out of the bayou, don’t forget to scrape the muck off your shoes

Reality check Renee, the clock is ticking and Miller has clammed up. You can stomp and sputter slogans or you can try to find an acceptable compromise. I accept that my suggestions seem poisonous to you now where are yours? Am I wrong? Is it scheduled yet? Can you hear me now?

Renee Thomas | May 2, 2010 11:55 AM

Here's the deal Sweetums,

I'm not signing on to any plan that puts a gun to my head . . . or should I say, keeps it poised there.

That loud 'nuff for you dawlin?

Oh I hear you. You would rather keep the gun to your head by stalling everything in committee because you have no proposal that will fly in the face of opposition. I ask for your idea and you give me a platitude. Surely there is a way to advance ENDA out of committee. You have told me what won't fly now propose something that will.

All those of you arguing that your pet ideas ought to be incorporated in the bill are being very silly. You're not staffers on Capitol Hill, you're commenters on a blog that emphasizes taking action to move the bill through Congress. Who gives a flying doughnut whose idea is better or worse?

Get to work passing the bill.

Otherwise you're just more professors in Swift's Grand Academy of Lagado.

I have written, made repeated calls and sent emails. I am bothered by the silence. Have you heard anything new?

Renee Thomas | May 2, 2010 8:48 PM

If I am to understand correctly, at the moment there is broad progressive consensus for passage in the House. By the unofficial whip count, a workable majority favor passage of ENDA. The silence you note I suspect is part of a broader legislative strategy by the leadership in both the House and the Senate, which includes the fate of DADT (and down the road repeal of DOMA as well). The Democrats are playing a dangerous game of running out the clock while simultaneously working to sew up the base sufficiently (they hope) to stem the loss of seats in the House and Senate in the midterms.

Pushing too hard, too soon (and exposing too many democrats in vulnerable districts) could accelerate the losses. Deena, inasmuch as the fundie nutjobs are gonna try to roll you, me, all of us anyway (with or without Teh Trans) the answer is to shut down LGBT political fundraising entirely. Shut it down cold and keep it closed until the promises that were made . . . are kept. If you’ve got another stick long enough or strong enough I’m all ears.

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Finally you provide a suggested course of action. I like it but expect corporations to step into any shortfall in the pockets of politicians due to the recent Supreme Court ruling removing restrictions on them. Meanwhile it is May 3rd. The silence continues from Miller. I strongly support HR 3017 in its current version but there it sits unscheduled or more properly, postponed.

Renee Thomas | May 3, 2010 6:21 PM

On this, the eve of the 40th anniversary of the May 4th shootings at Kent State University there is another stick that I might mention . . .

As it applies to the wide range of unkempt promises to the LGBT community, the time has come for widespread, non-violent direct action. If the political leadership in the Congress and the "Fierce Advocate in Chief” thought two gay servicemen chained to the White House fence was fun - let's now give them not two - but how's 'bout 10,000 times two.

Wow, talk about short notice! I love the idea but I can't make it up there that quick. Can we schedule it for like June 4 maybe? Or do you think there are enough locals to have a go at it sooner?