SOME gay people? Are you even gay? This bill protects all gay people other than the .5% who happen to be transgendered. I guess all those gay people who would be covered should stand side by side with their trans brothers and sisters and say "we're happy to be fired because we're gay if we can't cover the less than 1% of 'queer' people who happen to be transgendered, our families can pay the price!!"

Your zero-sum view of politics makes you sould like a Republican. Which for all intents and purposes you may as well be because your stance is going to provide the same thing for gay people that Republicans offer - which is NOTHING.

Hey Shane, Actually you are factually incorrect. Gender identity protects gender non-conforming gay men, lesbians and straight folks. That's the rub. In my experience butch women and effeminate men are usually the most discriminated against and they are not protected on their gender expression at work and case law has suggested that sexual orientation does not cover gender expression.
So Shane, you aren't just throwing transgender people under the bus. You are throwing gay men, lesbians, and yes, straight folks who rock the boat on gender.

You don't sound like you care, which is fine, but that said, since the most discriminated gays and lesbians usually are gender non-conforming, the legislation ends up becoming meaningless without gender identity.

All the best,
Robert

The religious right wins victories little by little while we insist on all-or-nothing, which is a ruinous strategy that gets us nowhere. I do care - very much, but you sound so trans-focused that you really could care less if the legislation passes at all - which is a real shame considering how many people would actually be protected by ENDA.

ENDA would prevent gay men and women, butch, fem or otherwise, from being fired from their jobs - period.

And if transpeople feel we're never for them and always willing to throw them under the bus then why not go found an exclusive trans-rights movement instead of piggybacking on the GLB one? If we're such bad partners I'm confused why you all hang around in the first place.

Actually Shane, again, that is factually incorrect. Many trans people have a diverse sexual orientation. Many are gay, lesbian, bi and straight. Like it or not, we are part of the community.
The legislation isn't going to pass. Bush is going to veto it. So this is a symbolic move on Frank and Pelosi's part. The irony is that it has a symbolism that many, and not just trans people, find disgusting and embarassing. Not all in the gay and lesbian community agree with your position. In fact, so far I am finding that your position is a minority position. You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but your suggestion that gays and lesbians are protected under sexual orientation laws only is simply untrue. The case law does not support your interpretation of sexual orientation laws.

So at the end of the day, gutting enda simply makes it less protective of gays and lesbians and since it is symbolic only, it is just pathetic that this is being done.

Oh Robert - you live in the most leftist city in the country, surround yourself with Green party members, advocate picketing the Democratic speaker of the House at an HRC dinner and work as an organizer for a union - do you really think anyone in your circle is going to disagree with your position?

The fact is there is a big country between the two coasts with a lot of gay, lesbian and bisexual people in it who could benefit from ENDA's protections. Regardless of whether Bush will veto it or not, passing this legislation has enormous implications for our community. But you're so focused on "inclusion" you'd rather see the whole thing go down in flames. Your scorched-earth approach to politics is what has held the left back for years and what continues to imperil the advancement of the GLBT community today.

Personally attacking me gets you nowhere and shows the weakness of your position.

Fortunately there are many gay men and lesbians who have a different way of seeing things and I am honored and lucky to have people like them in my life, and no, they are not just from San Francisco.

Best of luck to you.

Even if you accept the premise that gender variant gays and lesbians are protected by the version that only includes sexual orientation, which it does not, what if they said, well, we think it is too hard to pass it if the legislation protects gay men too but since lesbians are easier, we will just protect them. Would that be acceptable? No.
Moreover, the premise that we are not all one community is not one that I share. Check out Stonewall, the pivotal point in Gay history books. who led the charge? Drag queens and trannies.

The truth is I wouldn't throw anyone under the bus and I am glad there a lot of people out there who wouldn't either-gay, lesbian, bi, and straight.
Until all are protected, none are protected.

"Until all are protected, none are protected." Actually that is factually incorrect. You're invested in believing that is true but the reality is millions of gay and lesbian people WILL be protected under ENDA.

These kinds of glib slogans may fill you with joy but they don't maker protecting GLB people a reality.

No one's attacking you personally Robert but when you advocate those positions you can't expect they'll not be called on in a debate such as this one.

I'm not denigrating the contributions of transsexuals. I just believe incremental progress is better than none at all. That is where our views are fundamentally different.

Fortunately over 20 LGBT organizations disagree with you.
http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/enda_letter

I can't believe you're actually wishing this legislation will fail. How disgusting - you're like Madame Defarge sitting and knitting the names of her enemies before the revolution. Maybe you should join the Christian Coalition - they're also hoping ENDA fails - make common cause!!!

Shane, you continue to personalize this. Over 20 National LGBT organizations including the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, PFLAG, and the National Center for Lesbian rights are opposing the current version of ENDA and actively lobbying against it.
I won't let you bait me into a personal argument or call you names. I will steer you to the best essay I have read on this so far in which the author correctly suggests that this is a moment of truth for our community. I am proud to say that most, if not all, are standing up for the occasion.
Read her essay here:
http://www.bilerico.com/2007/09/dont_fear_the_whip_count.php

From KatRose at http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3131:

1982: Wisconsin enacts a gay-only rights law, the first in the nation.

1993: Minnesota again attempts to enact the as-amended-in-1975, T-inclusive, Minneapolis language statewide; the bill succeds, making Minnesota the first state to enact a T-inclusive law.

2005: Illinois enacts T-inclusive gay rights law.

2007: Iowa enacts T-inclusive gay rights law

2007: Wisconsin's law is still gay-only

Based on past history at the state level....

Trans-inclusion may delay passage of a bill giving GLBs rights by years. The veto makes the point moot this time though.

But Trans-exclusion is effectively forever. 25 years and counting with zero progress.

So none of this "Trans will get theirs later" self-deception. They won't. They haven't in the past in similar circumstances.