IN 1972, THE DEMOCRATIC Party made a fateful decision from which it has never recovered: it nominated George McGovern for president. The gay rights movement is on track to emulate this disastrous choice.
Later this month, Congress is expected to vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would make it illegal to fire someone based upon his or her sexual orientation, as it is currently legal to do in 31 states. ENDA has existed in some form or another for more than 30 years, but only now does it have the votes to pass Congress.
The bill’s chief sponsor is Rep. Barney Frank, the greatest champion of gay rights in Washington (Full disclosure: I was an intern in Frank’s district office in high school, many moons ago). Frank, oddly enough, is now being assailed by a coalition of nearly 300 gay rights organizations across the country calling itself “United ENDA,” whose supporters have called him names like “sell out” and “traitor” because he opposes adding a provision protecting gender identity to the bill.
Frank does not disagree with the notion of protecting transgender people from workplace discrimination; he just realizes that a bill with such language has no chance of passing. For more than a decade, he has tirelessly worked to build a coalition of liberal and conservative Democrats along with moderate Republicans to support his version of ENDA. But this is not good enough for the all-or-nothing McGovern wing of the gay rights establishment.
MANY OF THESE activists would do well to brush up on the history of the 1972 Democratic presidential primary. For liberals, it felt redeeming to nominate an ideologically pure leftist like McGovern, whose mantra in the ’72 campaign was “Come Home, America.” But America overwhelmingly rejected this message and re-elected Richard Nixon in a landslide, giving him the second largest popular vote margin of victory in the history of the United States (McGovern won a single state, Massachusetts, losing his own, South Dakota).
It’s not that the Democrats had a dearth of eligible candidates at the time. There was Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson, a champion of organized labor and a hawk on defense in the mold of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. Or Hubert Humphrey, vice president under Lyndon Johnson, the party’s nominee in 1968 and a hero of the civil rights movement. Either of those men could have presented a formidable challenge to Nixon.
Those who supported McGovern, like those who support inclusion of the transgender provision, were no doubt motivated by their desire to have clean consciences; McGovern believed in everything they did. But how clean could their consciences have been for enabling the re-election of Nixon, and how clean will the consciences of Barney Frank’s critics be if their insistence on the transgender provision leads to ENDA’s failure? People’s jobs are at stake here, not just the lofty abstractions of “solidarity” and “justice” about which the anti-ENDA forces so melodramatically whine. The objective position of Frank’s critics is that gay people should continue to be fired just because a miniscule minority—transgender people —is not included in this bill.
THOSE COMPRISING UNITED ENDA characterize the people who oppose a transgender-inclusive bill as “selfish.” But who’s really being selfish? The pragmatists like Frank who want to pass a good bill rather than fail with a perfect one, or the noisy activists claiming that all our rights be put on hold until they get their way? One expects this sort of political naïveté from grassroots activists and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. What’s appalling is that ostensibly wiser heads at organizations such as Lambda Legal, National Stonewall Democrats and even the Human Rights Campaign — which has withheld support, but does not openly oppose the current version of ENDA — are acting so irresponsibly.
Let us all praise the faux-heroics of the gay rights movement’s McGovernites; fawning recognition, after all, is what they seek. Don’t get me wrong: These folks are perfectly entitled to go down in a blaze of glory, ideologically pure on the road to abject political failure. But they should not expect to drag the majority of gay people down with them.
The
following comments were posted by our readers and were
not edited by the Washington Blade. We ask that you
treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will
be removed.
TXWhtBoy on 10/24/0712:44 PM:
Finally! I have been continually assailed over at the Huffington Post for saying the same thing. The purists like Sarah Whitman and others would rather no one be protected than work on this issue in incremental stages. The same people who advocate the "all or nothing" strategy live in states that already afford the community protections. They are the selfish ones. By thinking that since they have state protections, they DESERVE the full Federal protection and if they don't get that they will take their toys and go home. I know that more Gays and Lesbians feel like me but are afraid to speak up out of fear and are quickly shamed into silence if they do. Harking back to Seventy-Two, Now is the time for the Great Silent Majority to speak up and tell the ideologues to shut up and listen for once.
clintworldwide on 10/20/079:01 AM:
Yes, it is a heartbreaking choice. I looked up some polling numbers last night and found that a recent Gallup poll found almost 90% of Americans in favor of federal antidiscrimination protection for lesbians and gays but a recent HRC-funded poll found only 60% for TGs. Even that dropped to 40% for certain jobs, such as those dealing with children. With such low support, passage of the TG inclusive ENDA was never possible. Public support for government health insurance has remained above 60% since before 2000 but you see how little progress we've made on that. As for the LGBT legal groups, there are many legal experts who feel that Lambda and NCLR are exaggerating. Reading the two bills, this seems to me to be the case It also seems a stretch to assume that existing TG protections will be at risk, as it does that men and women who are fired because they are gay but who happen to exhibit characteristics of the opposite sex will not be able to claim discrimination. Case law for TGs has benefited by LG laws, and keep in mind that now 31 states currently have nothing. I've been an activist for a long time, and have seen how the groups can circle the wagons when they've made a tactical or philosophical mistake. If the Tammy Baldwin amendment fails as miserably as expected, this will be used as justification for HRC and the more moderate groups to switch tactics. Also, at 90% public support, it would be unwise to assume that Bush can't be moved to sign.
ZoeB on 10/20/071:53 AM:
clintworldwide - a heartbreaking choice. I wish it were that simple though.
Courts have consistently ruled that "after due consideration, failure to prevent discrimination" is the equivalent of "legally allowing discrimination", nullifying previous caselaw in ambiguous situations. What that means is that all previous decisions favourable to GLBTs are nullified, and only apply to GLBs now. This exact argument was used in Etsitty vs Utah Transit Authority recently. It was *because* Congress had considered laws protecting Gays, and hadn't passed them, that Gays were not protected under Title VII.
In summary, TGs will lose existing rights if hell freezes over and this bill ever becomes law, as they did in NY with SONDA.
Would the Civil Rights movement have tolerated a law that protected the rights of Immigrants, if it meant a diminuation of the rights of other minorities?
Worse, every Civil Rights legal firm has affirmed that the new bill only protects those who "pass for straight". Gender identity and appearance has been considered, and not deemed worthy of protection, so dismissal of gays (or anyone else) whose gender appearance differs from the norm is now explicitly permitted.
Would the Civil Rights groups have tolerated a bill that only protected those who "passed for white"?
clintworldwide on 10/19/079:40 PM:
ZoeB- I wish I had something more positive to tell you, but don't think NGLTF and ilk are being honest with you. The minute we have a democratic president who will sign the LG ENDA, they will support it, as they should. (And as they did in New York.) As Bush probably won't sign, all of this positioning is academic and disengenous. There is a great deal of injustice in the world, whether it be against gay men and lesbians, transgendered people, African Americans, immigrants and women. But we can't fix it all in one bill. Would gay activists have been justified to ask African Americans to hold off on the 1964 Civil Rights Act unless it included sexual orientation? What if African Americans had agreed with us on principle and as a result the 1964 Civil Rights act never happened? We'd all still be waiting, and how much good would that have done? I wish I could tell you that I knew when American society would evolve to the point that a trans bill could pass. If indeed we reach the point where we CAN protect several million gay men and lesbians in the South and Midwest, we should do so. Our choice is not to help trangendered people or millions of lesbians and gay men; our choice is to help millions of lesbians and gay men or no-one.
ZoeB on 10/19/077:15 PM:
clintworldwide - you have the luxury of living in Boston. I assume Boston, Massachusetts. Another state where gays are protected, but transgenders are not. How many years have they waited so far? How many years has it been since you were granted rights, but they were not? How much progress has the Gay community made in helping them? Boston may be Heaven if you're Gay, but it's pretty close to Hell if you're transgendered. So when will it be feasible? Perhaps if your state had shown even the slightest inclination to "go back when it feasible" your words would have beeb believed. But no, there was always something more important. Same-sex marriage. Housing. DADT. Enough. This line is no longer credible. It hasn't been since NY and SONDA.
clintworldwide on 10/19/074:43 PM:
I say go James. And bring on the name-callers, who have nothing intelligent to say so try to resort to intimidation. It is unfortunate that we live in a country where both transgendered and gay men and women face deep and damaging discrimintation. It is also shameful that more gay men and women do not have empathy for trangendered people who face even worse discrimination than we do. However, sadly, while I will continue to work for antidiscrimination for trans people, (as well as universal health care and environmental protection), I can't get everything I want in one bill. A gender-identity bill is simply not possible right now. A bill protecting millions of gay men and lesbians in places like Oklahoma and Mississippi is. Frankly, it doesn't matter much to me, as I live in Boston where I have the luxury of state protection. However, however high-minded it is wrong that we ask millions of lesbians and gay men to suffer in the closet while we wait to protect a much smaller group of trans people. The moral choice is clear: protect who we can now without forgetting that we must protect others later, when it is feasible.
Mark on 10/19/073:10 PM:
The four comments the proceeded mine seem quite harsh, one actually attacking Mr. Kirchick and calling him names. Is this productive or does it really add to the dialog? I am all for transgender protection, as I think everyone should be treated equally. Let's not fail to note, however, that if we stand on the principal that none of us gets any rights until all of us gets every right, a lot of people who could have been protected against discrimination will not get that protection. I have friends who are transgender and I care a lot for them, but why are they grouped with gays and lesbians? Why are people who suffer from gender disphoria groupled with people who are attracted to their own gender? They are two different groups, both deserving of the same protections that everyone should have. Why should one group give up their protections because the other group may not get them as quickly? Please think about these issues instead of reacting with a knee jerk against anyone who might suggest that evolution might be more effective then revolution in the current situation. If we listen only to the most radically liberal elements of our own communities, how are we any better than the right wing Rush Limbaugh spouting neo-conservatives?
kellib on 10/19/0711:02 AM:
Does Mr Kirchick beleave following a ethical and moral conviction into a unsolicited conflagration unrsponsible? Mr. Kirchick is urging capitulation of integrity for fear. We will stand together Mr Kirchick while you stand aside. You will see us in victory everyday our courage leads our lives. Prior to HR2015 I viewed Gay and Lesbian issues as seperate, now they are personal to me and I am involved.
ZoeB on 10/19/079:42 AM:
Mr Kirchick may fall for stories that match his prejudices, be they from Scott Thomas Beauchamp or Barney Frank. But some of us are not quite so gullible.
We've seen what happened in NY in 2002. We've heard what every single lawyer with civil rights experience has had to say. Some have even checked the caselaw.
300 GLBT groups are firmly against, with just one DNC puppet lukewarm. This is not some fringe, some ultra-ideologically pure minority shouting down common sense.
In the 60's, no Civil Rights group would have tolerated any legislation that only gave civil rights to those who "passed for white". We won't tolerate a bill of goods that only covers those who "pass for straight".
jeri_hughes on 10/19/078:03 AM:
Congratulations to the gay community? A bill created to defend us from employment discrimination was reduced to a bill that defends Larry Craig and Joe Solomnese. And it passed committee! Wake up people - a trans-exclusive ENDA has all of the teeth of a civil rights act defending those who can "pass" as white, and articulate and present with a "Caucasian" demeanor. For those who have the gall to call the trans community selfish, I have nothing but contempt. Trans people have been out and about and fighting for queer rights since the beginning of the movement - know your history! Compton's and Stonewall aren't just colorful names. No matter, the majority of the community - people like Tammy Baldwin, Evan Wolfson, Steve Goldstein, and so many courageous and determined others - have decided to stay united and fight for the rights of everyone. They were betrayed and lost this skirmish, but they will persevere. They are not ashamed of the "queers" in our community. In contrast, I personally feel shame for the cowards who would declare a defeat for our community as a victory for human rights because their personal sense of security has been enhanced. Sadly, they won't care. They are too stupid to be ashamed of themselves, on top of being too ignorant to know that they should be. - Jeri Hughes
ARV on 10/19/074:13 AM:
James Kirchick is a selfish bastard. His appeal of behalf of the “majority” of the community Is a farce; he cares nothing for them. James wants this bill passed as long as it benefits him. He mocks those who refuse to compromise their beliefs. James is part of the new breed of conservatives, after all...selfishness is righteousness in his mind. The transgendered community is most vulnerable to what ENDA is designed to protect us from, and the injustice most of them suffer on a daily basis is far beyond anything most of us could cope with. Abandoning them simply to hasten our own safety is inexcusable. James Kirchick is a coward with no principles aside from his ego. Don’t be fooled by him.
