Roll call here. John Lewis and others here.
I could say a lot about the bill that passed, the fact that it doesn't cover my Trans friends, that it caused a lot of ill will in the community, that it drained resources that will be needed for future fights, but I won't. I'm happy for the members of the community it will cover should it become law.
In the meanwhile, I made a donation to NCTE and will continue to support the efforts of the Trans inclusive organizations to also achieve their own protections from discrimination at work.
44 Responses to “ENDA passes the House by a vote of 235-184”
take a guess who voted no.
Yeah, I saw it... Barrow too.
Although I was surprised that Bishop voted for the bill.. I think Congressman Lewis works him over in the bathroom before this vote and hate crimes.. either that or his has some really cool blackmail photos...
"I think Congressman Lewis works him over in the bathroom"
WTF!!!!!!!
They are not republicans...
IRE get your mind out of the gutter... I meant like old school..
Best response so far from someone upon hearing that ENDA passed without including the Trans community:
KISS MY ASS! - from Monica Helms
Spot on Monica!
sorry Jules, it was too perfect.
Yeah, sure "compromise" if only that had actually been the case, and not what occured.
Dividing to conquer, so GOP of you all.
50 years between the 15th and 17th ammendments, I'm so sure Susan B was "celebrating" too, oh oops my bad she was already dead.
and this attitude pretty much sums up why America is so fucked " continue to fight for the other group or simply waste time and effort on legislation that certainly would not have passed?"
One day I would love to live in a country where civil rights was for every American citizen.
I guess it much be so easy to judge and decide which groups should be allotted civil rights when the last time some groups had to fight for their equal rights was killing Native Americans.
aaah, America - the home of the free.
wtf...
Why would you want to introduce legislation that YOU KNOW WILL FAIL just to have a vote...
As DG siad, you can't get everything you want. i mean, yea thats kinda life, but i dont get why its an all or nothing scenario...
maybe im a bad person to hold an opinion about this cause i dont really care about LGBT issues. they just dont affect me.
And smitty, im pretty fine not granting civil rights to every citizen, NAMBLA comes to mind (not equating the T community to NAMBLA in any way, just sayin)
IRE... best if you do stay out of it.. it's obvious you really DON'T know anything. NAMBLA has nothing to to do with this discussion whatsoever.
Smitty,
My friend reality wants to meet you.
Anyway, I'd like for both of you to sit here and tell me that if the other group had been included then the bill would have passed.
You won't because it's been said already that the bill would have failed.
All I am saying is why not gradually try to improve things. If you're told "include this and it won't pass" then drop it from that bill and include it in some other legislation.
Actually, I'd argue that both of y'all are against civil rights for trying to deny three of the four groups their rights since the bill wouldn't have been passed with all four groups included. If all groups involved can't have it then you two apparently don't want any of them to have protection. How do you like that?
Great let me know when else i cant have an opinion.
Ill do the same for you.
Righteous indignation out of two folks who near as I can tell have done little to help pass either version of ENDA. Special.
I'm not angry and I seriously doubt IRE is angry at anything.
Neither of us have said anything for or against ENDA in this thread.
However, you are the one wanting to deny workplace protection to three groups, simply because the fourth group would have caused the bill to fail. You are the one who got angry and decided to take your ball and go home.
Still, you cannot deny a single thing I have said. The bill would NOT have passed with the transgendered group included.
Genuine curiosity here. Do any of you think that it would have been more damaging to fail a trans-inclusive bill and then pass the stripped version? Would that first failure make it much harder to add the T's separately?
So why did hate crimes pass then? We recognize the trans community are folks who have crimes committed against them but not some one we can protect at work...
I'm not denying anything, it is what it is, it's the way it was done was wrong. That's the part you all are not getting.
Had Barney not thrown them under the bus, and stood as a community, not with held money from his very powerful finance committee, strong armed folks, whispered the right things here and there... who knows..
Bills are hacked to pieces all day long, every day~ Hello, SCHIP, the VA, schools. Who suffers the poor, babies, vets- they are left out of lots of things every day, my point was that all those promises of "we'll be back for ya" and gleefull expressions don't feel very nice when you're the one under the bus.
It's just not different with this either.
So yeah oh happy day for those who just might get their protections, or not.
Who knows? I'll tell you right now that the bill would not have passed. Socially Conservative Democrats can make or break a bill with the number of members they have. You're lucky that a few of them didn't go and vote against this measure.
I don't get why you are so upset that at least some of the members of your community are getting some type of workplace protection.
I guess it's an all or none philosophy. I know you're using the bus excuse, but still, why not at least be somewhat happy for some of your community?
Smitty and/or Jules,
Would you have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it did not include gays or disabled people? It didn't.
If some people back then had insisted that gays should be included 43 years ago, we might still be waiting for a bill that made it illegal to discriminate based on race or sex. But they got what they could back then, and it has been a good thing.
Hey, gay people have had to wait for 43 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to have the opportunity to pass a bill out of the House prohibiting discrimination against them. It wasn't until 2 years ago that transgendered people were added to ENDA.
I would rather have a non-trans inclusive ENDA than no ENDA at all. And that is the choice here. And everyone fails to acknowledge that transgendered people are already protected in certain situations under current law, under Title VII, gays and lesbians are not.
It might be fine to oppose this bill for not being trans-inclusive if you were from NY or California, which already has strong state laws that prohibit discrimination on sexual orientation and for transgendered people. But, remember, Georgia has nothing. And by holding up this bill until everyone is included you are telling keeping gay Georgians who have waited 43 years for something, to wait longer for society to catch up toward acceptance of transgendered people, and all the while it is still perfectly legal to discriminate against them.
Decaturguy,
I'm glad you brought up the states part of this. We had a discussion in class today about this legislation and my professor said it was more of a ceremonial thing because the groups were already protected under law. I called one of my friends in YDG who happens to be gay and he laid out the entire states issue that you brought up and explained how some states have laws protecting gays, however, GA is one state that does not.
I'm not saying I support ENDA or that I am against it, I just think the entire "all or none" philosophy is wrong in this situation. Leave it to Smitty however to come up with some completly off the wall response.
Rural,
I think there are many good reasons to support including transgendered people in ENDA. But it is just not politically doable right now. There are many, many good people who have struggled just to accept gay and lesbian people as part of society, now once they are OK with it, we throw this on them and it is just too much. Look, there are still many people in the gay and lesbian community who can't figure out why transgendered people should be included in their movement. So, while I would support including transgendered people in the bill if it could pass, I can certainly understand why it wouldn't.
I am really, really tired of seeing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 referenced to justify an exclusive ENDA. It doesn't.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not intended to protect against sex discrimination. An opponent of the act amended it to include that protection, in an effort to kill the bill.
In spite of that, Congress passed the bill. Because to that Congress, an end to discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin was more important than continued discrimination on the basis of sex.
Had this Congress been faced with the same choice, they would have found a way to cut women from the bill.
The relevant historic question is not, "Would you have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it did not include gays," but rather, "Would you have excluded women from the Civil Rights Act of 1964?"
From what I hear, the answer would be "yes."
Yes, they would have cut women from the act. And they would have given a lame reason: because the votes weren't there; because America wasn't ready; because minority men had been waiting for some arbitrary number of years on the magic clock. And so on.
And they would have been wrong, obviously.
Well some right wing congressman (John Barrow?) could have tried to amend the bill to add transgendered people in order to try to kill the bill, but they didn't. Our two openly gay members of Congress decided that it would kill the bill in this case, so they dropped it. You can call them sellouts if you wish, but I'm proud of them and I'm proud that they got this bill passed, even with 30 some odd Republicans supporting it.
The Republicans did try to amend the bill, but the leadership stopped them.
The same leadership can claim that inclusion would have killed the bill, but I trust the leadership not a bit. They lied throughout this drama, and they continue to do so. At this point, anyone who would believe anything that they say is a sucker.
Also, I see that you didn't answer the hard question yourself, DG. Would you have cut women from the Civil Rights Act out of a misguided fear that they would have killed the bill?
You are comparing apples to oranges, Drew. A powerful committee chairman added it to the bill at the last minute without debate, maybe to try to add a poison pill or maybe not. In any event it passed. Before him, it was never anticipated that "sex" would be included in the Act. So, yes, I would have voted for it with or without that last minute amendment in order to ensure that African Americans could no longer be discriminated against in employment, housing, etc. To do otherwise would have been outrageous and irresponsible and I were considered a supporter of civil right back in 1964 I would have been expected to vote for the bill.
It's apples to apples. The maneuvers are different but the question - what to do when a bill includes a more popular form of discrimination along with a less popular one - is not.
So you would have cut women from that bill, out of fear that it would not pass otherwise, had you the opportunity - and you would have been wrong. Doesn't that give you pause when you defend those who cut transgendered people from this bill?
So Drew in short: let's keep certain groups from having rights just because not everyone is included.
That is just how?
Decaturguy,
Well, how about explaining it then. I've stated on here before that I am not too familiar with these issues. Which, I guess if it was easy to explain and support, then issues like these would not be destroying our party.
Drew,
Again, the "all or none" philosophy in this situation is sad. Instead of being happy for the three groups being represented, you'd rather none of them get any protection. If you're such an advocate of civil rights, then why not praise the fact that at least a small step is being taken.
People like you and Bernita are really the ones "against civil rights".
For the same reason, IRE, that it's unjust to give one person food while another starves, when there is plenty for everyone.
And RuralDem, you might as well demand that I praise the same.
Solidarity requires sacrifice. One person can often benefit at the expense of the rest. Over time, it's better, both for that one person and for the rest, to forgo that personal benefit until all can share in it.
Here, if we stand together, it might require a few more years before everyone is covered; but if we're divided, some will have their rights now, while others will have to wait much, much longer than if we'd stood together.
It doesn't seem right to demand that some suffer for so long so that others can benefit immediately. At least to me.
well this has been an interesting discussion. I won't speak for Smitty, but I would add is that it's not that I'm not for anyone achieving their "civil rights" heck, no one is pulling my civil justice card that I know of.
What I think we've been trying to say, is when it's at the expense of another group it's a hollow victory.
Oh I realize it's pragmatic and expedient, but its not right, at least not in my world.
It also brings up several practical matters of coalition building and movement politics.
Now that we've seen some members as less "equal" than others, how do you work together with those groups in the future if you are HRC and others?
Seriously this is going to be a problem with DADT advocacy with marriage, with domestic partnerships. It's just not that "one" issue. It's not a slightly damaged bridge, the on ramp was blown up too.
As progessives, we are supposed to be fighting for all, not some. We can't just fight the fights we can win, we need to fight the fights that need fighting.
So, if it's not right for three of the four groups to be protected in this legislation, then are you advocating the removal of women and minorities from being protected? I mean, right now "all" are not covered. Should workplace protections be removed from every group until all groups are covered?
I realize you're lumping all four groups into one, which I still don't understand, but I can tell you right away that people are more likely to support protections for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals before they support protecting transgendered individuals.
Do I know the background on why transgendereds were removed from the legislation? No. But I do know members of Congress have constituents and I guarantee you a majority of those constituents do not support adding workplace protection for that group.
Whether or not it's right is not my point. My point is, why the all or none philosophy? And since you hold that philosophy in the case of LGBT issues, then why not extend it to minorities and women as well, since according to you, not everyone is protected?
All I know is that I stand with Rep. John Lewis who yesterday said from the House floor that passing ENDA, even with transgendered people not included, was "the right thing to do." Otherwise, it would continue to be legal to discriminate against gay Georgians. That is what would be wrong.
Women, disabled and "minorities" where previously covered.
This like the Hate Crimes Bill was necessary to cover the groups not already protected in the 31 states with no appropriate legislation for employment non-discrimination.
Oh and by the way this bill is crap, we can all still be fired if we display "certain" behaviour not consistant with our birth gender.
Religious and military employers are still exempt.
I'm with Drew, I would have waited for a better bill and one that included everyone along with stronger language.
As to how it happened; the hellish journey of HR3685, you should know it's really nothing to be celebrating. Along with passing the torture AG, congress has nothing to be proud of this week, oh and geting punked twice cause they don't know Roberts Rules for shit.
Hold on a second now. You've been advocating an all or none philosophy. I realize other groups were previously covered. What I am asking you is that if you truly support "fighting the fight" until all groups are covered, then why are you not advocating for a removal of the groups I listed? If you're saying they should still have workplace protections, then why are you so bothered that LGBs are possibly going to be added?
You can wait for a better bill all you want, but it seems to be that if you're the liberal, oh, I'm sorry, I mean "progressive" that you claim to be, then you would be happy that some groups are getting the workplace protections that you and other liberals feel are needed.
Happy is such a relative word.
Here's what would have made me "happy"
1. That the so called equality experts would have waited for like 50 f'ing seconds after hate crimes and the freeper crew to digest that before rolling out ENDA, and finding it necessary to drop folks for political gain. Working on the timing and the roll out not dumping and running.
2. That the real T-inclusive groups would have been at the table when the "offending" provisions were striped and not found out about it in the media after HRC had pledged 3 days earlier to stand by them at a confer. with 800 trans folks.
3. That folks who promised "hearings" followed through, and had time to do the education piece that was necessary.
4. That Barney wasn't a Transphobe, always has been.
5. That americans would seperate who you love, and who you are from their own warped ideas of sexuality
6. That more people knew trans folks, not thought they did cause they saw a drag queen once.
7. That some rich gay white men weren't so homophobic themselves.
8. That the closet is where you keep your Jimmy Choo's not people
RuralDem, for the last time...get off my bra strap and find something to do with your life. Your fixation is quite troubling.
I love how you always use this excuse "I am not too familiar with these issues." but you seem to have a damn opinion on everything about the subject. Why don't you ever sit back and listen sometimes when you don't know diddly about the issue? Do you even know a transgendered person? Have you ever worked next to a transgendered person? Of course in your small mind, you will take those questions as I'm discounting your opinion because you have no experience. I'm not discounting your opinion but what I'm saying is thatyou should take some time and listen to those who have directly fought for the issue longer than 5 minutes.
Here's my final question for you and I will type slow so it is easy for you to read -- what have you done in the last 12 months to a.) support the democratic party and b.) support constituency groups?
Do I really have to repeat this? The Federal Courts are already allowing discrimination cases by transgendered people to proceed under the prohibitions against sex discrimination under Title VII. Discrimination based on sexual orientation under this theory has been uniformly rejected by these same courts. So, as gay people, why should we wait around until it is politically acceptable to include transgendered people (who already get some degree of protection under current law) while it is still perfectly legal to discriminate against us? It doesn't make any sense.
Need cites? Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 104 L. Ed. 2d 268, 109 S. Ct. 1775 (1989); Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000); Rosa v. Park West Bank & Trust Co., 214 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 2000); Rentos v. OCE-Office Systems, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19060 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
Smitty,
You're the one who jumped in replying to me. Run along now, your usefulness in this thread has long since ended.
By the way, correct me if I am wrong but I normally only say I am unfamiliar in regards to LGBT issues. Good friends of mine in YDG who are in the community have helped shed light on these issues for me. I always let it be known that I do not know much about these issues because I do not want to come off as offensive and as a bigot, because I do not mean to be that way. I should use your pathetic excuse and say "blahblah you don't know me" but I won't.
Unlike you, I have no problem admitting when I am wrong.
Again, I ask, and this is to both Bernita and Juliana. If you believe that all groups or no groups should have workplace protection, then are you in favor of removing minorities, women, etc.. until everyone is covered?
It seems that y'all are only in support of helping the LGB community if it means helping transgendered s as well. How "progressive" of you.
Bullshit, Decaturguy.
You know damn well that the Supreme Court would not sustain a decision that held that the Civil Rights Act prohibited anti-trans discrimination.
You know damn well that those decisions are as anomalous and fleeting as the ones that once held that the Civil Rights Act prohibited anti-gay discrimination.
Really. It's one thing to say that these protections are not practical at present.
It's a poisonous lie to pretend that they're not necessary. You should be ashamed.
Oh, so now I'm a liar for pointing out the fact that the courts have held that Title VII protects transgendered people from discrimination, yet does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. That's real nice.
Yes, actually, you are, because there is no such consensus, and no reasonable person could conclude that there is.
But you know what? Let's pretend that there is. If those cases represent a consensus that the Civil Rights Act prohibits anti-trans discrimination, then clearly, these cases - Heller v. Columbia Edgewater Country Club; Nicholas v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc.; and Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. - represent a consensus that the Civil Rights Act prohibits anti-gay discrimination.
By your own metric, none of use require ENDA. We're all well-protected by unchanging, liberal, and benevolent courts.
A more honest assessment of the effect of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins is here:
http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/summer04/protectlgbt.html
It's use by the Clinton-era Department of Justice to try to protect every letter in GLBT is here:
http://www.transgenderlaw.org/ndcaselaw/doj.htm
Fact is, it's not enough to provide any real security to anyone. Argument to the contrary is simply dishonest.
I guess as Decaturguy has said, I don't get why the T community is with LGB. Maybe its for greater solidarity but from what I know many Transgenders when they switch say they are straight men/women.
But yea, its great to say we need to fight for everyone or justice for some is justice for no one.
Me? id like to be able to say yea, ive achieved something.
and just because a certain group is not included in ENDA, that doesn't mean progressives wont continue to fight for the T community, at least i wouldnt think they are. i dont think any progressives are saying, well our work here is done.
And I guess those who are upset about this should ask, objectively, at the end of the day, what is best? This current version of ENDA passing, or maybe nothing?
Yes, you are, Decaturguy, as surely as you would be if you were an anti-gay member of Congress who cited similar cases which favored gay workers as evidence that gay people don't need ENDA.
Like I said, you should be ashamed.
You are really out of line Drew. You should be ashamed of your ignorance on this issue. Instead of actually doing some research and thinking about this issue, you are just going with your gut reaction as to what you think is right.
To my knowledge, there is no valid caselaw that says that sexual orientation discrimination is covered under Title VII. Yet, there is valid, very promising caselaw, from appellate courts no less, that says that gender non-conformity is covered as sex discrimination under Title VII and it has been used to protect transgendered people from discrimination in employment.
Does that mean that I don't think that transgendered people should be specifically covered? Of course not. But am I willing to not provide protection to everyone else while we wait for society to catch up? Hell no. Particularly when transgendered people already have some protection under current law.
You should really be ashamed of yourself for not only misrepresenting my position, but being ignorant. My position is the reasonable one here. You are the one who apparently does not support extending our anti-discrimination laws to millions of people now, who would have to wait, maybe years, for protection, if we followed your advice. And then there would probably be a new group that wants to be included at that time to hold the whole thing up again.
Unfortunately, I think there are certain people in the GLBT community who are invested in defeat. You seem to be one of them.
Actually, Decaturguy, I did do research on this issue.
For one, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins did not involve a transgender plaintiff. The plaintiff was, as far as the court was concerned, a non-transgender, heterosexual woman who had been told by a partner to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry" if she wished to be promoted and criticized her for being "overly aggressive, unduly harsh, difficult to work with and impatient" when similar behavior was excused or applauded in men.
While a good decision, it is not as radical as you have pretended it is.
Since then, yes, the case has been used to protect transgender plaintiffs who have been able to persuade the rare sensitive court that they faced discrimination not because of their identity (as transgender) but because they did not conform to a gender norm.
Furthermore, the case has been used to protect gay plaintiffs who have similarly been able to persuade the rare sensitive court that they faced discrimination not because of their identity (as gay) but because they did not conform to a gender norm. See Heller v. Columbia Edgewater Country Club, Nicholas v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., and Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc.
Click my name for a link to the American Bar Association website, which describes the issue further.
Suffice it to say, while Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins does provide a measure of protection to ALL workers, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, it does not provide any greater protection for transgender workers than it does for gay ones.
And it's bullshit to claim otherwise, as you have here.
Otherwise, it's clear that there are those both inside and out of the GLB community who are willing to pretend that black is white in order to justify screwing over the T.
The fact that I am not one of them does not mean that I am "invested in defeat"; rather, I'm not so invested in victory that I would minimize the dire legal status of transgender workers.
Really, if you want to argue that this decision is practical, fine; that is at least arguable.
But if you want to pretend that the system is kinder to transgender workers than it is to gay ones, well, you might want to sell that to a different audience. Bill O'Reilly, perhaps? Rush Limbaugh?
They seem to thrive on that sort of inversion of reality.