The language is all there in Gay City News, if you have eyes to read it, but for most of the GLBT community, nothing but the exclusion of transgendered protections from Barney Frank's version of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act -- protecting gays and lesbians in the workplace -- matters.
In a meeting this week with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, key GLBT rights groups got assurances -- what HRC even termed a "promise" -- that the Frank version of ENDA would see a floor vote soon.
All advocacy groups but the Human Rights Coalition have shouted down the truncated protections, even to the point of implying that Barney Frank (D-MA) has betrayed the movement.
In the Gay City News article, Matt Foreman, head of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) is quoted from a written statement:
"We completely disagree with this proposed strategy - it simply makes no sense. If the goal is moving an ENDA that protects all of us, passing a flawed, gay-only bill utterly undermines that objective. The notion that the House of Representatives will be willing to revisit a different ENDA before the end of the calendar year - when it has been unwilling or unable to take up a single pro-gay matter over the last 34 years - is more than implausible. We will do everything possible to convince members to end this misguided course of action."
Mr. Foreman, have you considered that the House hasn't taken up a single pro-gay matter -- until Frank's version of ENDA -- in 34 years? That this is a breakthough, and a compromise, but damning the compromise and denying the breakthrough serves exactly no one. Not a gay, lesbian, bi or transgendered person. Not the education of your constituency into the nature of political truth.
Is Pelosi the villain here, by blocking the inclusive bill and giving Barney Frank the opportunity to present a limited bill? Or are Pelosi and Frank dealing with the art of the possible? We learned in the civil rights movement of the 60's that a step forward that does not acknowledge perfect justice is still a step forward, and should be honored.
In building consensus, if you see something essentially doing good that you can not support as a whole, the proper thing to do is to "stand aside" -- to not block consensus, but neither to join it. This is the position of the HRC, and I applaud them for their pragmatism and courage in taking a stance which has already outraged many of their supporters.
Let's not see another 34 years if this opportunity is squandered.
--
Shava Nerad, News and Opinion Correspondent:
Shava’s column, Iconoclasm, published about once a week to Gather Essentials: News, is an examination of the provocative ideas emerging in media and world culture behind the news.
Shava Nerad has been working on the Internet for twenty-five years, at the boundaries of Internet and social issues. She is CEO of Indigenis, a consulting group working at the intersection of virtual worlds, social networking, and gaming communities, and development director of The Tor Project.
She lives in Somerville, MA with her teenage son, her fiance (a professional magician and fundraising coach), and a corgi/dachshund mutt named George.
Opinions here have nothing to do with Tor or Indigenis.
You can find all of Shava's Iconoclasm columns at http://Iconoclasm.gather.com
Keep up with Shava’s other postings and Gather activity by joining her Gather network -- just click here and select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page (colleage connections only please, unless you know me on the street!)
You’ll find Shava and other News Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other News experts at News.gather.com
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 5
If gay and lesbian rights are protected, then we make a strong statement for building a cultural consensus that will include transgendered persons (she takes a moment to grumble that gather's spell check doesn't recognize transgender as a word...).
But if we don't work within the political system which is *built* on compromise, then we are cutting ourselves off. It's really rare that anything truly important in the political system is done in one step. Not for racial civil rights. Not for women's rights. Not for people with disabilities.
Listen, should we say that this bill is flawed because it doesn't include marriage equity, and that was left out? Or because it doesn't include rules to assure equal rights to adopt?
The swath of right that most straight people take for granted are a lot wider than workplace protections. Whether or not this bill includes transgendered folks, it is still only one step in a larger strategy, a greater movement.
But to disrespect limited progress seems honestly politically naive to me, as an organizer. And to turn this to infighting and bashing the HRC for standing aside, or calling Barney Frank names, that seems way out of line.
Frank can't say, "Look friends, Pelosi is telling me, take this or be damned. So let's take this." He can't afford to alienate the Speaker of the House. That Pelosi is willing to put her political capital behind a compromise bill is staggering. It's great!
Here's what I see. Frank's version passes the house and senate. Bush vetoes it in an election year. This not only gives a strong test vote for who is with human rights and who is not, but gives a strong question for us to ask the candidates for the presidency -- when this vote comes back next season, what will you do?
As a strategy to get equality into the discourse of the election season, this bill -- either bill -- would be a great strategic political asset even if it gets vetoed (which I suspect it will).
And myself, I'd like to see Bush veto it, and take that to the Log Cabin folks and say, "OK, he's not for you. He's not a fiscal conservative. What principles are keeping you supporting this party, anyway?"
I agree with what you've said about the importance of compromise and that this may be an important test case for many. I know that it will likely get vetoed and that by including transgendered folks, it will not likely even get to the president's desk. And while on an intellectual level I can totally back what you are saying, on a moral level it just doesn't sit right.
I think the glbT community can do better. I think we can say that we are not going to be like those other groups, that we have learned from the pain it caused members of those groups who were excluded by them when it became convenient. We can chose to take a different approach. And I think we should.
Parenthetically, I'm guessing some of the complaints about the HRC are historical; they have claimed the "T" in their literature for a while, but have not had a very great or supportive relationship with the trans community until recently. I'm sure for many that were involved in this struggle it looks like a step backward in their dealings with that organization. Especially given the conversations of the organization up until a few days ago:
"Last night, the Human Rights Campaign's Board of Directors voted to reaffirm the 2004 policy supporting a fully inclusive version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Therefore, HRC will not support the newly introduced sexual orientation only bill." 10/02/07 http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2007/10/human-rights-ca.html
"We've taken a lot of heat in the blogosphere and in the community on ENDA, but HRC's strategy was and still is to pass a transinclusive bill." 10/03/07 http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2007/10/chairman-of-sub.html
"I won't leave anyone wondering about where HRC stands: we do not support the incomplete bill recently introduced in Congress, and we only support a complete ENDA. Period." 10/05/07 http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2007/10/message-from-jo.html
Also as a tangent, I believe to suggest that failure for ENDA to include adoption or marriage issues is similar to the failure to include employment non-discrimination for transgender folks is a cannard.
The House did recently pass the Matthew Shepard Bill which included sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation, so they are dealing with these issues more, as of late. So while it is the first time in a while (ever) that these issues are being addressed, it is now in the air, I think. And while appeals to historical precedent are a good rhetorical device, they do not allow for the evolution of consciousness. We like to talk a lot about the glbT _community_, and this bill is a test of that community's strength. I'd hate to see us sacrifice some members (especially those that likely suffer the most discrimination) in order to benefit others.