NOVEMBER 22, 2009
   Login or create a new account  ?
Join Washington Blade on FacebookJoin Washingtonblade on MyspaceJoin Washington Blade on Twitter!
The Latest:
HRC won’t support ‘gay-only’ ENDA

The board of directors of the Human Rights Campaign approved a policy statement Wednesday saying the group will not support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, if it excludes language protecting transgender persons from discrimination.

HRC came under fire from transgender advocacy groups in 2007 when it announced it would not oppose a “gay-only” version of ENDA, which called for banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

That decision came after Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives said they did not have the votes to pass a trans-inclusive version of the bill and the bill would be defeated unless trans protections were stripped from the measure.

“It’s the policy of HRC that the organization will only support an inclusive ENDA,” says the statement, which the board approved in a closed meeting in Washington on March 25.

“In 2007 House leadership informed us that there were insufficient votes to pass an inclusive bill, so they decided to vote on a sexual orientation only bill,” the board says in its statement. “We made a one-time exception to our policy in 2007 because we strongly believed that supporting this vote would do more to advance inclusive legislation.

“We will not support such a strategy again,” the statement says. “We look forward to Congress sending President Obama a fully inclusive ENDA for his signature.”

HRC spokesperson Trevor Thomas said the policy described in the statement is not new.

“The statement is a reiteration of our current policy and should not be portrayed as new or a shift — this has always been our policy and is a clarification considering what happened in 2007,” Thomas said.

Over the objections of a coalition of gay and transgender advocacy groups, the House passed a gay-only version of the bill in October 2007. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who supported the gay-only version, introduced a separate bill calling for non-discrimination protections in employment for transgender people.

Both bills died in 2008 when the Senate failed to vote on ENDA and the trans measure remained stalled in a committee.

The same coalition of gay and transgender groups opposing the gay-only version of ENDA lobbied hard for the Senate not to take up the bill in 2008. The coalition argued that it would be better to wait until 2009, when they believed a Democratic president and a more gay- and trans-supportive Congress would be better inclined to pass a trans-inclusive version of the bill.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have said they would like to bring up both ENDA and a gay- and trans-inclusive hate crimes protection bill this year, but they have yet to place either measure on their legislative calendars for a debate and vote.

Permalink


Spacer
email password
 
Please review and follow Washington Blade’s current Comment and Discussion Policy. Guidelines updated as of August 22nd, 2009. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

celt
Hagerstown
0
a day late, and a dollar short

Posted 4/1/09 - 8:02 AM


wjf
Arlington, VA
0
Quotejeri .:

wtf, thank you. we are family.

We are family, we are one.  Warmly - your friend

Posted 3/29/09 - 10:17 PM


jeri .
1
wtf, thank you. we are family.

Posted 3/29/09 - 9:00 PM


wjf
Arlington, VA
1
Quotejeri .:

1000 years? a symbol of your intent and willingness to exaggerate  and distort what i stated? stephen, you are transphobic. gender isn't an issue for you, and obviously you want to distance yourself and the "gay rights" movement  from gender related issues. well, employment isn't gender related, or shouldn't be. the issue conerns us all, but you would still see us divided. you want privilege, stephen, not equality. obviously you would have no difficulty putting that noose around a transgender neck.

This reminds me of an experience years ago. I was working with a black woman, a renowned civil rights leader. I came out to her and told her how important I felt including gay and lesbian issues were in any civil rights legislation. She actually told me to wait until race issues passed, and then we could look at gay/lesbian issues. I recall how offended, and angry I felt by her belief that there was a hierarchy of rights. I think your comments are instructive and important. trong> Jeri, count me in as your ally and friend.  I agree, a fully inclusive bill in the only morally acceptable option.

Posted 3/29/09 - 8:12 PM


jeri .
2
1000 years? a symbol of your intent and willingness to exaggerate  and distort what i stated? stephen, you are transphobic. gender isn't an issue for you, and obviously you want to distance yourself and the "gay rights" movement  from gender related issues. well, employment isn't gender related, or shouldn't be. the issue conerns us all, but you would still see us divided. you want privilege, stephen, not equality. obviously you would have no difficulty putting that noose around a transgender neck.

Posted 3/29/09 - 7:24 PM


stephenclark
Washington, DC
0
Is it proper for one civil rights issue that the country isn't prepared to address to hold back other civil rights issues that the country is ready to address? Absolutely not. jeri would obviously have gay Texans wait 1,000 years, if necessary, before ever conceding that we might enact ENDA in phases. Her version of solidarity never considers anyone's needs but her own.

Posted 3/29/09 - 6:35 PM


jeri .
1
stephen, i don't live my life under the misconception that life is fair. fair isn't a reality and never has been. i belong to a group which is suppressed solely because their orientations or mannerisms fail to conform to hetero/cisgender expectations. we work collectively to promote equality and justice for all. is it proper to expect inclusion in the results of that struggle? absolutely. is it proper for a majority within that group to exclude a minority for expedience? absolutely not. such an act would reduce that party to a partner in bigotry.  

Posted 3/29/09 - 10:39 AM


jeri .
1
stephen, two wrongs do not make a right. our struggle has a common enemy - discrimination. ignorance, intolerance, and fear sustain that enemy. the suggested expedience would support that premise. the reality is we all deserve the right to employment. if you do not feel solidarity with the community more is the pity. Franklin once stated "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." which knot would you prefer? would you be willing to place a noose over another's neck? and would that be fair or proper...

Posted 3/29/09 - 10:31 AM


stephenclark
Washington, DC
0
Jeri, I said the Senate, not the House. The Senate has always been the place where civil rights bills die because they have to overcome the filibuster. You are dodging. How many years do you believe it is fair for you to ask other people--who, FYI, also have compelling needs--to go without rights so that your rights can be piggybacked on their bill? Ten years? Twenty years? I'm afraid that your version of solidarity is a one-way street.

Posted 3/29/09 - 3:08 AM


wjf
Arlington, VA
0
Quotejeri .:

LOL sanchez, you really are too much. forget about gay, forget about trans...doesn't every law abiding citizen have a right to be employed without being discriminated against for any reason? shouldn't employment be based on merit and capability? so whether you are black, white, gay, brown, foreign national, or local born, christian or jew, muslim, trans, or atheist you shouldn't be hired or fired for that reason. differences should be respected, and in this country at least, celebrated. thank God we are different!

Jeri:  I would like you in person because I so appreciate your considered posts.

Posted 3/28/09 - 3:04 PM


jeri .
2
LOL sanchez, you really are too much. forget about gay, forget about trans...doesn't every law abiding citizen have a right to be employed without being discriminated against for any reason? shouldn't employment be based on merit and capability? so whether you are black, white, gay, brown, foreign national, or local born, christian or jew, muslim, trans, or atheist you shouldn't be hired or fired for that reason. differences should be respected, and in this country at least, celebrated. thank God we are different!

Posted 3/28/09 - 2:40 PM


wjf
Arlington, VA
2
Sanchez (aka “Phyllis Schlafly): trong>Have you learnt nothing from being gay?  Part of developing as a person is the ability to generalize from our own pain to that of others – we call this compassion. Your post (and unfortunately so many others) is hurtful.  People don’t “become transgender,” they are – just like we didn’t choose to be gay or lesbian. We chose to live an authentic life, so too with transgender folks.  trong>Come on, grow a heart!

Posted 3/28/09 - 12:49 PM


Sanchez
Laurel, Md
-2
Well, the simple answer is: don't become trans and then it won't be an issue.

Posted 3/28/09 - 11:08 AM


jeri .
1
stephen, the votes were there for an inclusive bill the last time it was presented to the house, in spite of the abundant misinformation that was spread by those who were afraid to go forward. the fear was that the bill wpould be sent to committee, rather than a vote...and quietly die. of course, the exclusive bill passed and died anyway. now is the right time to do the right thing...but it's always the right time for that. everyone deserves the right to be employed without being discriminated  against.

Posted 3/27/09 - 8:58 PM


stephenclark
Washington, DC
0
jeri, I'm focused on passing a bill. Aren't you? Solidarity involves give and take. Demanding a postponement regardless how few votes the inclusive bill currently has and no matter how many years the postponement would last is all take, no give. Show me the inclusive bill can be passed in the next Congress if we lobby for 2 more years, and I'm fine with that. Tell me the support is so weak that it'll be a decade, and, I'm sorry, but you're demanding too much from other people.

Posted 3/27/09 - 8:14 PM


jeri .
1
stephen, you focus on a legal issue, but "queer" expression is something that unites us all. unless of course you intentionally want to segregate every portion of the community.

Posted 3/27/09 - 7:59 PM


stephenclark
Washington, DC
0
Still no word about how many votes there are in the Senate? Are there 60? Great! Do it. Are there 57? Ok, maybe we can wait a couple of years and try for 60. Are there 51 votes? Only 40? Are there more than 30 votes? Are we tallking about asking "flyover" gays in places like Texas, Michigan, Ohio, and Florida to wait 2 more years for protections, 8 more years, 20 more years? At what point is jeri simply demanding too much sacrifice from the people she claims to want solidarity with?

Posted 3/27/09 - 7:57 PM


jeri .
0
sanchez, i may look straight to you, but anyone who knows me knows better. i am as queer as you can get, and obviously, i am very out. unlike your anonymous self. and ENDA shouldn't be and isn't about me, it is about EVERYONE in the LGBT community.  

Posted 3/27/09 - 7:55 PM


stephenclark
Washington, DC
0
jeri's claim that the gender identity language is critical to protecting non-trans people is based on a piece of Lambda propaganda that has been thoroughly debunked. Its creation was an example of how dishonest the "trans or bust" advocacy became two years ago.

Posted 3/27/09 - 7:54 PM


Sanchez
Laurel, Md
0
jeri.:  My dear, what do you mean by "...those who appear straight...?"  You look like a "straight" woman, so what "protections" do you need??

Posted 3/27/09 - 4:12 PM


Sanchez
Laurel, Md
0
Mistake HRD.  Little/Incremental steps add up to inches, feet, yards, and then...

Posted 3/27/09 - 4:09 PM


jeri .
1
When it comes to this issue, HRC is just a very bad joke. They have cosistently abandoned their constituents, and made a mockery of their mission. Gender identity and expression is a core issue to a significant portion of the "gay" community. Don't we all deserve protection from discrimination? Or should those protections be reserved only for those who appear "straight"?  HRC's previous action betrayed their core mission, and what is worse, divided the community. Dobson could not have done it any better.

Posted 3/27/09 - 10:47 AM


jeri .
2
pan style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Solomnese delivered his message...he mis-spoke when he represented HRC would oppose anything other than a fully inclusive ENDA.  Nothing has changed....not even the players. No matter what is publicly stated, HRC lacks credibility.

pan style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">ENDA is a very personal issue; people are literally dying. There are many organizations determined and dedicated to Equality becoming a reality.  Unfortunately, HRC isn't a part of the equation.

Posted 3/27/09 - 10:24 AM


ZoeB
0
They'll only support an inclusive ENDA... but won't oppose an exclusive one.

Right.

That's what they said in 2007. after saying they'd oppose an exlusive one. And then they ended up supporting the exclusive one anyway.

Why on Earth should we believe them again?

 

Posted 3/27/09 - 3:10 AM


mykelb
0
Who cares? I no longer support HRC!!!!

Posted 3/26/09 - 12:25 PM




Email signup EMAIL SIGNUP Facebook FACEBOOK
RSS field RSS FEED Twitter TWITTER
Page by page PAGE BY PAGE Sign up SIGN UP
Find the Blade FIND THE BLADE Feedback FEEDBACK
Masthead MASTHEAD Advertise ADVERTISE
MySpace MYSPACE Privacy PRIVACY
Washington Blade Window Media CONTACT US: E-mail | Masthead | Location and Directions
© 2009 | A Window Media LLC Publication | Privacy Policy
Advertise with us!