ENDA: Bad Choices Require Good Decisions

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) originated as the Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights Act more than 35 years ago. I have worked for this legislation for 25 years and tomorrow, the moment I have been dreaming of, it is finally being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time. Unfortunately, this historic moment has become somewhat joyless.

Several years ago it became clear that protections were needed in the workplace not just for gays and lesbians but also for transgendered people, so additional language was added last year to do just that. And that language has the added benefit of solidifying protection for gays and lesbians who faced discrimination because they looked like a sissy or a bull dyke even if an employer did not know their sexual orientation.

By now, most interested people know that the House Leadership anticipated a lack of support for the gender identity provisions and stripped them from the Bill that moved out of the Ed and Labor Committee last week. Rep. Tammy Baldwin will offer an amendment to put that provision back in the bill. It's chances of passage are slim even tough many good people are working to push it through.

Here's the rub. Much of the leadership of the LGBT community (except the Human Rights Campaign) is of the view that if the Baldwin Amendment doesn't pass, then good and fair-minded legislators should vote against final passage of the bill. Though polling in the LGBT community shows much more ambivalence about that strategy, you wouldn't know it from the way the community group executive directors have been acting.

We will never know if we could have passed an inclusive bill this month because the fact is, that too many leaders in the House didn't want to try. My friends on the Hill might be mad at that characterization but it's true. People didn't want to force a "hard" vote that might hurt their election chances. I think that fear was wrongly analyzed. Ever since I've been working on these issues, the attacks from the other side on fair-minded politicians have always been about the most outrageous of our community. If not transgendered people then definitely transexuals. Do we think the attack ads would look much different if gender identity were included? A Republican looking to attack a local Democratic congressman in a conservative district on this issue isn't going to create an ad with a picture of two well-dressed gay guys going to work in a suit and being fired. Of course not, because the country doesn't want to see that happen. They are going to create the most outrageous picture possible and include some large dildos and men in feathers and dresses. Since it is obvious that they will be attacked the same either way, the leadership should have stuck to the guns and pushed the inclusive ENDA. They get nothing for those vulnerable members and they harmed the process in the interim.

But that isn't what we have now. And no, it isn't quite fair.

But that is how the legislative process works.

So, if the Baldwin amendment fails, I will be as disappointed as everyone else but I don't see the point of cutting off our nose to spite our face. Let the Family Research Council be the ones to try and kill the bill. Why would we stand beside them?

The LGBT community has pushed Congress for years to move legislation. We weathered 12 years of a Republican-controlled Congress that blocked forward movement at every turn..

The legislative process cannot be controlled from the outside. But it can be nudged. Even if we lose the Baldwin Amendment, this bill is a long way to presidential signature. We still have a chance to get an inclusive bill out of Congress and onto the president's desk. Which president, I don't know. But let's save the slaughter of a critical piece of legislation for the time when it may really deserve it. Now is not that time.

When good and fair-minded members of Congress support final passage because they didn't have a chance to vote on a whole bill, they must be appreciated for their efforts, not made to feel as though they have just sunken LGBT civilization. Why would we want Tammy Baldwin and our countless other friends in Congress to have to vote WITH Rep. John Boehner to kill a gay rights bill? How could we in good conscience ask her to do that?

After all these years, there is little satisfaction in the prospect of moving legislation that leaves behind the very people who may need it the most. A group of people who may not ever see protection in the foreseeable future without all of our help.

But killing ENDA before it gets out of the House is no way to help. When we are strong, we can help the most. If ENDA fails on final passage because of ambivalence and anger, the only message it sends to the right wing and our real foes is weakness, not strength. Signaling weakness at a time when we most need to show strength is not a good decision. We might not like the hand we've been dealt but walking away from the table is not an option in my book.

Comments

[NABNYC]

Whenever I hear about some big political splash about gay or related issues, I always think Rove is behind is.

Would it make any sense to stop and ask how many transgender people there are in the country? Have we brought one part of the Congress to a halt fighting over the rights of - what? 3000 people? Does it make any sense? Not really.

And if you need a law to prohibit discrimination against someone who "looks" like a sissy or looks butch, whatever that means, then don't you need a law for that? In other words, a law that says you can't discriminate against a straight male who somebody might think is effeminate? Isn't this ridiculous?

I have a better idea. Let's pass laws that make it illegal to create a hostile work environment for any worker. Let's change the law to make it illegal for anyone to refuse to hire a person other than based upon legitimate bonafide occupational requirements. I'll bet there are more fat people who are denied employment because they're fat than there are transgenders in the entire world. What about the fat people? What about the short people, how many of them have problems getting work?

This is a ridiculous waste of energy, causes absurd intra-group attacks among progressives arguing about nonsense. Instead of more narrowly defining the rights so that a transgender is protected against improper treatment but 99% of the population isn't, why not make the laws expansive and inclusive.

And while you're at it, if you really wanted to help American workers, all of them, pass laws eliminating the concept of employment "at-will," require employers to show good cause to terminate, pass laws mandating a minimum wage of $15/hour for all workers over the age of 18, providing a minimum of 3 months' pay for each year of employment for anyone who is terminated. I could go on.

But instead of debating these narrow divisive issues, let's get back to crafting big legislation. In other words do something real, instead of this symbolic nonsense.

[Political Voyeur]

You write, "We will never know if we could have passed an inclusive bill this month because the fact is, that too many leaders in the House didn't want to try."

But that isn't true. Won't you know that a full inclusion bill wouldn't pass when the part of the bill that did make it through doesn't pass? Won't that confirm that America wasn't ready for gays and lesbians, and therefore would have in no way been ready for equality for transexuals?

And isn't that what America is? A ridiculous history of unending compromises that don't make sense, yet do eventuate in social progress? Like giving black land owners 3/5 of a vote, eventually leading to a full vote? And giving black men rights, while telling black female suffragettes to be patient, and eventually leading to equality for women?

What is it that liberal purists don't get about the dirty game of politics and the irrational behavior of "the people?"

[AristophanesJones]

The only way transgender people (who, I'm sorry, need this legislation far more than gays and lesbians) are going to get the employment non-discrimination rights they need before first quarter of this century is through is by riding on the coattails of LGB rights, period. As a gay man, I am quite willing to patiently hold out on the expansion of my own rights for that end.