It's not just the war or ENDA, it's the legacy of the past 14 years. Further, Congress doesn't represent the sentiments of the country, who are to the left of Congress - definitely on the war, and probably on trans rights as well. Y'all want to be leaders? Then lead - otherwise, you're fired.

In addition to the need for alternative and independent news media, this country needs alternative and independent political voices/parties. Frank, Pelosi, and Dems shouldn't speak for the LEFT. We can speak for ourselves. Thank you very much.

>We can speak for ourselves.

Ain't that the truth - they can kiss my brown...

Does this statement by Nancy Pelosi make anybody else see red?

=====Noting that anti-war demonstrators had been camped at her San Francisco home for months, Pelosi said, "They are advocates. We are leaders. We have a different responsibility."=====

No, indeed, Ms. Patronizing Pelosi, you don't have a "different responsibility". Your "responsibility" is to the American citizens who elected a Democratic majority when you promised to end the Iraq war, and who pay your salary. You've just crossed the line into insubordination. You have an attitude problem...

Barney Frank has got gall! How can these mealy-mouths talk about "governing responsibly" Was it responsible to vote in favor of this war? Is it responsible to give Bush every penny he wants year after year to keep wasting over there? Is it responsible to keep sending our people and theirs to their deaths? Is it responsible to fight this war, empty our treasury and hand our kids the bill in ten years? Was it responsible to vote for the Patriot Act without even reading it then re-authorize it? Was it responsible to pass a law just last summer giving Bush everything he wanted on warrantless wiretaps, a clear and unambiguous violation of the 4th amendment? Was it responsible to walk away and drop every investigation that ended with a Bush stonewall? And since the writer brings up the execrable Nancy Pelosi, was it responsible to "take impeachment off the table" in the face of dozens of high crimes and misdemeanors? Did anybody else read what she said about Code Pink protestors at her house? Asked by reporters about the Iraq War and unhappy base voters, she spat "If they were poor people, they would have been arrested for loitering, but since they have "Impeach Bush" across their chests it's the First Amendment". In today's SF Chronicle. The sheer arrogance and unbridled contempt packed into that sentence!! And what's her complaint? What and who does she openly revile more - Poor people, the first amendment, the impeach Bush movement, code Pink or protest in general? Or is it that Frank and Pelosi and other mouthpieces of the ruling elite simply have utter contempt for the entire American people, our legal structure, our history, our rights and everything else that once made this country worth fighting for. Jesus christ I need a drink! Make it a double...

"Does this statement by Nancy Pelosi make anybody else see red?..."

Yes, with regard to Frank and Pelosi, it had me muttering epithets.

If "responsibly" means invading other peoples homelands and mass-murdering them for the oil under their soil and for a corrupt, vile, murdering war machine, then you can take your "responsibly" and shove it so fucking far up yourv goddamn f-----, j-- ass that it kills you! Understand?

YES, I AM ANGRY! RIGHTEOUSLY ANGRY! IN THE NAME OF GOD, I WILL NOT LET THE BLOOD OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE ADHERE TO MY SOUL! i WILL NOT GO TO HELL WITH YOU AND THE BITCH PELOSI.

SO, YES, I AM ANGRY! RIGHTEOUSLY ANGRY! IN THE NAME OF GOD, I WILL NOT LET THE BLOOD OF THE IRAQI, AFGHAN, PALESTINIAN, AND PERSIAN PEOPLE STAIN MY SOUL! I WILL NOT GO TO HELL WITH YOU AND THE BITCH PELOSI!

Sorry Mr Frank, but it's not whether you can govern responsibly, it's whether you can govern at all. Capitulating to the demands of the Bush Administration and the other right-wing fanatics isn't being responsible, not in the least. The day is fast approaching when Democrats will not be able to continually accede to the right and expect the liberals to just go along with it - believing the left has no other choice. We will make another choice.

"What troubles me is this notion, and not just on this issue, it's people on the left who are insisting on impeachment, it's on people who say why haven't you stopped the war," Frank said.

Well gee, wouldn't it be nice for him and Pelosi if we'd all just shut up...

As a gay man I appreciate that Barney Frank is there and out.... But I won't have him or anyone else pontificating to me that I am a problem if I want impeachment for a president that even Pelosi herself has said has broken the law... I won't accept his criticism that we're the problem when it is he and the others that have taken an oath to defend the constitution - and they have failed to even attempt impeachment.

I won't stand for his criticism that we are creating bad strategy by being vocal on the left, when it was Pelosi who very stupidly stated 'impeachment is off the table' which only gave the green light to Bush and Cheney to continue with their illegal activities. What kind of strategy was that Barney?

And lastly, I used to hold the opinion that we should abandon the transgendered people to get gay rights passed more quickly. I'm an Air Force vet and don't understand transgenderism much. IT's not a part of being gay or straight, and people of all sexual orientations can be transgendered..... But Barney, something tells me deep down within that I just wouldn't feel right about it.. Especially after what I have suffered as a gay man.... I think most of us who are gay understand that, and most of us are probably willing to wait a bit to get us all through to equal treatment..

"It's not a part of being gay or straight, and people of all sexual orientations can be transgendered….. But Barney, something tells me deep down within that I just wouldn't feel right about it.. Especially after what I have suffered as a gay man…. I think most of us who are gay understand that, and most of us are probably willing to wait a bit to get us all through to equal treatment.."

Mr. Frank, this is what leaders do. Not capitulate, not waffle - instead, they listen to the core of a problem deeply enough to understand it, even if it's beyond their experience or if it's not deemed as prudent, then act accordingly. aquietman, if I was wearing a hat, it would go off to you.

Consider this, o straight denizens and straight-acting (aka passing) fellow travelers: while not everybody who is lesbian or gay is trans (and vica versa), there have always been trans people in lesbian and gay social circles. Furthermore, in the broadest practical sense of the term, what does transgendered mean? It means not adhering to the social norms of maleness or femaleness. By this definition, nelly queens and butch women - in other words, those of us in the lesgaybi part of the community who are the most frequent targets of attack - are, in effect, transgendered as well. Don't believe me? I bet you could set your watch to the first time some bigoted employer would have said "Well, we would keep you on - after all, lesbian and gay people are protected under federal law - but the way you dress..." and then guess would be out of a job? While Mr. Frank is anything but a monster, what he is proposing is nothing less so - he is in effect saying "Let's get the strong ones on the lifeboats, in the hopes that those left behind don't drown". If you keep this kind of Titanic mentality going Mr. Frank, I'm gonna demand that you belt out "My heart will go on" from a sinking ship of your choosing - 'cause at this rate, that is exactly what you are standing on.

"Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, was waiting outside Frank's press conference and said in her two decades of fighting against gay organizations, she had never seen such infighting and confusion.

"I have never seen them move on a bill and have the whole plan melt down," she said. "Barney Frank marches out there and finds there are no troops behind him.""

None of which means we're conveniently started marching behind your sorry butt, sister. The Traditional Values Coalition can gloat all they want, but they shouldn't think for one second that people don't know about their religious extremism. They may think that this is some kind of strategic opening for this hate-spawning agenda, but we all are neither stupid or forgetful. The TVC makes George Bush look like, well...George Bush.

Ugh-- it's almost as if Barney Frank reached up, grabbed his scalp, and pulled off the skin on his head, revealing a reptilian alien head. (Apologies to Kang and Kodos.)

He suddenly orates like a member of the Vichy government. Resistance is futile. One must, must go along to get along.

I read another comment by Frank somewhere in which he spat out the word "purity" as only defensive, accommodationist would-be pragmatists can. Lately the code words and catchphrases of this numerous and distinctive bloc just jumps out at me. As I wrote previously:

I know all of their rhetorical tropes by now, from the caustic pejorative of
"purity" to the Prime Directive of Not Letting the Perfect Be the Enemy of
the Good. The Lesser Evil Suite is a pretty limited repertoire: brittle
strategy, uncritical loyalty, rote ritual performances, leaden pragmatism
and obsession with process- and pride & satisfaction at being a team player
and embracing expediency and mediocrity.

I am saddened to hear Frank lowering to this level of technocratic analysis now that he's been beaten up for throwing the transgendered under the bus. I must say that I am bemused by the phenomenon of turning "purity" into a dirty word. Frank expresses the aggrieved pragmatist's blatant rancor towards critics who "don't understand how the world really works"-- not a Frank quote, just my sense of the essence of the complaint that critics are idealistic, unrealistic, and foolish.

I attribute such rancorous defensiveness to a painfully swollen conscience-- which, even if vanishingly small, still can irritate because it sits on a nerve. Such curious counter-righteousness arises from the painful itch of a withering soul.

What a... drag.

I am transgendered (MtoF) and find Franks opinion of the political threat of tran people to the "liberal cause" of the Democrat Party to be funny and sad at the same time. It's funny that an openly gay politician would want to alienate transgender people from his platform! It's sad to watch the leadership style of the Democrats slip further way from the people base towards a corporate based one like the Republicans have. Why do so many fake liberal politicians think that the majority of Democrats are not for the impeachment of the White House staff, for ending the Iraqi war now and would back them while they choose minorities to political ignore.

Frank is now in the Hilary camp. A camp that I am not welcomed in, want to be in or see as progressive. B. Frank is just one more sell out within the Democrat Party.

Pelosi is a coward, a criminal beneath contempt, and I support Sheehan. But I think Frank is right. We gay people have a lot going against us already to carry the fight for a group which has little to do with us. Sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with sexual identity and as a gay man I see them as dragging our civil rights struggle down. I do wish them well and I don't think our issue is more legitimate than theirs but let them fight their own fight without making gays' lives even more impossible in the process.

I do wish them well and I don't think our issue is more legitimate than theirs but let them fight their own fight without making gays' lives even more impossible in the process.
_______________________________________________________________________________

I guess we'll have to amend the oft-cited Niemoller quote: "And then they came for the transgendered, and I said-- screw 'em, let them have the transgendered. Nothing to do with me!"

And Benjamin Franklin's admonition to his colleagues-- "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."-- has been rendered quaint as the Geneva Conventions.

"Sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with sexual identity and as a gay man I see them as dragging our civil rights struggle down..."

This is news to me. In my community, among both gays and straights, we always refer to the "GLBT" community as representing a single cause.

But, little brother, the Vichy analogy is very apt! Form this point forward, we should always use "Vichy Democrat" in place of just "Democrat".

=="Sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with sexual identity and as a gay man I see them as dragging our civil rights struggle down…"==

Well, I think you're wrong. I was involved in the women's rights movement back in the 70s, and lesbians were joining left and right demanding that their lesbian concerns be taken up and dealt with. Black women eventually joined, too. Originally, the women's rights movement, which grew out of Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique", was primarily about the choices of straight white women, limited marriage and career.

The majority of women who came on board were straight and white, but the lesbians and black women didn't hurt a bit. Eventually we had a few transgendered women join us. At that time, they believed their transgendered status ought to remain private, though that wasn't always possible if they didn't leave their former environment and friends. But they identified more with women than "transgendered". On that basis, we all worked together on each others' issues because we were in the same boat -- discriminated against. We also believed that discrimination is global -- it exists against anyone who (at that time) was not WASP male. Though women have made some strides since then, they've also lost ground with the rise of the religious right in politics.

But back to the question of transgendered people. The discrimination problem occurs when the straight world "keeps" a transgendered person in a limbo of neither male nor female and easily lends itself to the thought that the person was originally gay, and the "remaking" into the opposite sex doesn't really change their gayness. That action separates transgendered people from a solid sexual identity in the minds of others, and so they are discriminated against separately but also connected with being gay, I believe.

I believe that if the world accepts gayness with full equal rights, it will surely accept transgendered people with full equal rights, too. They don't drag the gay movement down. They're in the same boat as you. You'll lose more of your humanity by leaving them out than you ever will by including them. And you'll win your rights as quickly with them included as leaving them out.

Just my opinion.

"Rep. Barney Frank Lashes Out"

Christopher Lasch 's 1994 book: The Revolt of the Elites: And the Betrayal of Democracy

How did I get in the party whose leaders openly admit they're homosexuals, and gives the criminal administration blank checks to do whatever they want.

>How did I get in the party whose leaders openly admit they're homosexuals

(sarcasm) Gosh, I don't know - I hear it's contagious. Perhaps you should join the GOP, I hear they have similar concerns.

lillulu, all due respect - first you act as if the Jena 6 made their own bed, and now this. What's up?

Maybe Rep. Frank is unfamiliar with Benjamin Franklin's "We must hang together or we will all hang separately."

What better tells us that Congress is a club to which the people have not been invited? The political consultants agree on what the REALITY is, and activists not privy to the intel are to stop complaining.

No one, Mr. Frank, expects Nancy Pelosi to "wave a magic wand", but we do expect her, and you, to do your constitutional duty of bringing articles of impeachment, even if you might fail, because if you do the right thing & are defeated in the House or Senate, that means that you will win more seats in the House & the Senate, regardless of what the political consultants you pay so handsomely tell you.

I was a young conservative when Mr. Frank came out of the closet, and America definitely "wasn't ready" to have openly gay national leaders, and had he been offered the counsel he now offers other, he would still be in the closet. It was through knowing openly gay people that I overcame the bigotry in which I & my co-evals had been immersed from childhood.

== I was involved in the women's rights movement back in the 70s, and lesbians were joining left and right demanding that their lesbian concerns be taken up and dealt with. ... The majority of women who came on board were straight and white, but the lesbians and black women didn't hurt a bit. Eventually we had a few transgendered women join us. ... we all worked together on each others' issues because we were in the same boat — discriminated against. ==

I'm sure it was beneficial in many ways. But tell me. With all that help from the lesbians and trannies, did women's rights organizations refuse to consider passage of female/gender anti-discrimination legislation unless lesbians and transgendered women were specifically given protections as well?

I thought not.

The truth of the matter is that, yes, transgendered people have helped the gay movement but the public is largely uneducated and even more squeamish about the transgendered than they are gays and lesbians.

ENDA has been being kicked around Congress in some form or another for 20? 25? years. But it was only this year that transgendered were added to it. And, whoops! Suddenly with that addition, support for the bill amongst Democrats changed.

So here's a couple of questions to ponder.

If ENDA was good enough adding protections for GLBs for 20-25 years, why is it NOT good enough now? I mean I didn't hear the trannies and their advocates screaming about the unfairness of ENDA until a "last minute" change of the legislation and political reality smacked the P.C. purists firmly upside the head.

Seriously. Were these acitivists just expecting to coast on all the education and lobbying that had been done for decades about GLBs and hoping to just sneak in their addition a few months before a vote when no one was looking? Pardon me, but the group known for pulling that kind of shit is conservative Republicans and their Religious Right allies. And the public HATES it when they do that.

Trannies face DISTINCTLY different issues when it comes to workplace discrimination. Appropriate dress, appropriate bathroom usage, the question of hiring them in positions dealing with children, etc. Sure, on the bad side there are MANY misconceptions about these issues running around, and on the good side some states and municipalities have been more progressive about trans issues. But the most important thing when it comes to federal legislation:

*** We haven't had ANY kind of national dialog on these concerns! ***

And yet activists expect the public's reps in Congress to just go along with it?

And yet HRC and 300 other gay organizations want to hold the rights of GLBs hostage because it's the morally correct thing to do?

Tell that to a gay man or lesbian or bisexual in a red state who loses their job. I'm sure they'll feel a lot better when their house goes into foreclosure if those advocacy groups get their way.

I believe if we pass the traditional ENDA now, it will be easier to get transgendered included later. If not, then ENDA's entire focus over the next 15-20 years will primarily be that it is a transgender issue and the larger group of beneficiaries will be utterly lost in the political drama surrounding it.

Pass the traditional ENDA now if its possible.

Aquietman says alot! Very thoughtful and honest, and in my opinion correct. Barney Frank is protecting his position rather than protecting his constituents. This is the norm in D.C. and has been for decades. Barney isn't the first to sell out. Nor will he be the last.
Hoa binh

Noonespecial,

--With all that help from the lesbians and trannies, did women's rights organizations refuse to consider passage of female/gender anti-discrimination legislation unless lesbians and transgendered women were specifically given protections as well?... I thought not.--

Well, think again, buddy. All the groups worked together in varying blends over time and accomplished the most urgent of their goals.

The State of New Jersey, where I lived at the time, DID include lesbians, gays, and transgendered people under their civil rights law pertaining to employment, housing, and public accommodations.

See this?

"The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) makes it unlawful to subject people to differential treatment based on race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, age, sex (including pregnancy), familial status, marital status, domestic partnership status, affectional or sexual orientation, atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait, genetic information, liability for military service, and mental or physical disability, perceived disability, and AIDS and HIV status." http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcr/law.html

And this?

"... nine states specifically protect transgendered people from discrimination: New Jersey, Minnesota, Rhode Island, New Mexico, California, Illinois, Maine, Hawaii, Washington. The District of Columbia also has a similar law." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299025,00.html

Don't be so quick to cast aside your brothers and sisters. It can be done.

"Trannies face DISTINCTLY different issues when it comes to workplace discrimination. Appropriate dress, appropriate bathroom usage, the question of hiring them in positions dealing with children, etc."

Should read

"Trannies and queerfolks who don't pass face different issues when it comes to workplace discrimination than those who do pass. Appropriate dress, appropriate bathroom usage, the question of hiring them in positions dealing with children, etc."

So let me get this straight: We're supposed to take whatever we can get? So if the Civil Rights Act had only banned discrimination against African-Americans but not against Latinos, Asians, and Native-Americans, it should have been supported?

What "reality" is Barney Frank living in? Even the watered-down bill will not pass in the Senate, and even if it did, Bush would veto it. The Democrats are an utter failure as a majority party. They seem to think that power is only useful if you don't wield it.

And if they really wanted to end the Iraq War, they would not vote against EVERY military-spending bill--including the Pentagon's annual budget--until Bush brings all the troops home. That's how you use a majority.

== Well, think again, buddy. All the groups worked together in varying blends over time and accomplished the most urgent of their goals. ==

EXACTLY!! The most urgent. And isn't the most urgent of goals getting as many people protected from discrimination when we have the opportunity to do so? What are we supposed to do now with places that have passed anti-discrimination laws for GLBs but not Ts? Call them a bunch of worthless, right-wing capitulating morons like some on the left are doing to Barney Frank? Or do you roll up your sleeves and do the WORK to get Ts included?

Did you also note that the list of states you posted are all blue or blue-leaning? If you bothered to read my post I acknowledged that some states and smaller entities have been much more progressive on transgendered issues. But ENDA will need votes from Congress Dems in red states to pass.

And once again, WHERE IS THE NATIONAL-LEVEL LOBBYING AND EDUCATION ON TRANS ISSUES?

Y'know we've learned hard lessons in Iraq about how you can force people into democracy at gunpoint, but the support for it was never really there and falls apart the moment you lower your weapon. Our movement PC Purists are doing something ideologically similar.

And yes, if the Civil Rights Act had only covered African-Americans and NOT other races, then it still should have been passed. It's success would have built a foundation from which it would have been incredibly difficult to argue against including other races even if they were added later. ENDA is the same thing. But we're still at square one if nobody has any federal level protection at all.

If you REALLY want to be a purist on these issues, I would suggest you start a movement for a Constitutional amendment that says all human beings will be treated EQUALLY in all matters. Period. That should cover all grounds and be as morally and politically correct as you can possibly get. As a side effort, you can put all other civil rights legislation on hold while you campaign for that cause.

What are you waiting for? Why not?

Gee Barney Frank! You mean to tell me the Democrats doing nothing to end the war in Iraq or not standing up to homophobes in Congress hasn't helped? Poor little Barney gets no respect. OK Barney, just so you don't think I am being ungreatful: Thank you -- for nothing you sanctimonious jerk!!

"EXACTLY!! The most urgent. And isn't the most urgent of goals getting as many people protected from discrimination when we have the opportunity to do so?"

If it means leaving part of our community in the lurch? No. That is what we are saying, and what we will continue to say.

Restive, hi, how's your day going? Gee, can I help it, I live in a regressive red Republican state. Maybe I'm being brainwashed like everyone else? I dunno. Anyway, whether a person is a homosexual or not, I really don't care, and I wish they wouldn't advertise it, especially if they're Democratic leaders. That just gives the right-wing Nazis something to harp about nonstop and use against the more liberal people.

Personally, I'm glad the Jena Six got almost $200,000 for legal defense fees. I just wish they'd not have chosen violence, that's all. I still don't think the one kid deserved to have six guys jump him.

== If it means leaving part of our community in the lurch? No. That is what we are saying, and what we will continue to say. ==

You know activists are a necessary part of civil reform. I thank God that we have them to push these issues. But they are positively insufferable when they confuse Utopian vision for strategic reality.

Let's re-cast this as a strategic question then.

Which would give us MORE leverage to get transgendered people protected throughout the nation?

1) A pathwork of blue state and local laws that protect GLBs from workplace discrimination and in some more progressive areas protect the transgender as well.

OR

2) The above #1 + GLB workplace protection in every corner of EVERY STATE IN THE NATION.

Now think long and hard on this. And if your answer is #1, please explain without the appeals to moral righteousness.

Not to be crass, but if the hard left activists were making these kinds of arguments back in the mid 1800's, they'd be telling President Lincoln to refrain from freeing the slaves until he could also guarantee them the right to vote, to go to whatever school they desire, and freedom to marry a spouse of any race.

NoOneSpecial

I really don't understand WHY you or Barney Frank would throw transgenders off the bus, when you say they've worked in the GLB community and have addressed their rights along with GLB rights. Why does the bus belong only to the GLBs on it? The 70s straight white feminists certainly didn't throw lesbians and black women off the bus -- it would have been unconscionable and despicable. It was THEIR bus, too.

But it sounds like what the Democrats have been doing about everything lately. They don't even fight unless they think they can win, so the illegal Bush agenda continues unchecked. Never mind that the principles they were elected to uphold are corrupted by negotiating with those whose intent is certainly not to do the right thing.

You HAVE to fight for the whole cake. You may not win it, and I doubt you'll win with just GLBs included, but to fight for less dishonors the transgenders in your midst who have made it their fight, too. You fight for what's right, not what's expedient, or you never win anything worth having.

NoOneSpecial,

This:

"The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) makes it unlawful to subject people to differential treatment based on race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, age, sex (including pregnancy), familial status, marital status, domestic partnership status, affectional or sexual orientation, atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait, genetic information, liability for military service, and mental or physical disability, perceived disability, and AIDS and HIV status." http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcr/law.html

And this?

"… nine states specifically protect transgendered people from discrimination: New Jersey, Minnesota, Rhode Island, New Mexico, California, Illinois, Maine, Hawaii, Washington. The District of Columbia also has a similar law."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299025,00.html

is Utopian?

Decency and solidarity...

is Utopian?

If you consider this Utopian, I'd hate to see what you consider to be dystopian.

Hi lillulu,

My day's going fine, thanks. :) And you?

"Anyway, whether a person is a homosexual or not, I really don't care, and I wish they wouldn't advertise it, especially if they're Democratic leaders."

The closet lessens us all, lillulu, straight and LGBT alike. Even though I'm less than thrilled with Mr. Frank right now, going back to the days where he needs to be in the closet in order to survive is not something I would even wish for.

"That just gives the right-wing Nazis something to harp about nonstop and use against the more liberal people."

Never, ever give fascists an inch of ground. They'll use it against you and others every time.

== I really don't understand WHY you or Barney Frank would throw transgenders off the bus, when you say they've worked in the GLB community and have addressed their rights along with GLB rights. Why does the bus belong only to the GLBs on it? The 70s straight white feminists certainly didn't throw lesbians and black women off the bus — it would have been unconscionable and despicable. It was THEIR bus, too. ==

I'll try to explain it, Anney.

First of all, this notion that any of us are being "thrown off the bus" is a load of horse shit. It comes from people who mistakenly take out their hurt feelings on those in our own camp who recognize that the world isn't always fair and politics almost never gets things right on the first try. It's the pragmatists versus the idealists -- and these "throwing so and so off the bus" accusations helps no one and solves nothing.

You quote the 70s feminists and their allies. Lesbians obviously benefited from the effort as WOMEN, but as lesbians? Perhaps they did in a more cultural context by building a lot more bridges of solidarity with their straight sisters. But where is the civil rights legislation of the 70s that specifically included lesbians or sexual orientation? I don't recall these 70s activists saying "no civil rights for women until our lesbian sisters' sexual orientation is protected too." I've also never heard lesbians accusing the 70s activists of "throwing lesbians under the bus" because lesbians weren't specifically named in any legislation that got passed.

So here's my reasoning:

We haven't had any real national education on transgender issues. And the American public is still squeamish and sorely in need of that education if any real progress is going to be made.

It's probably going to take somewhere in the range of 15-30 years before we could possibly get a trans-inclusive federal ENDA to pass because of that lack of education and all the right-wing flack that will come out of the woodwork to malign Democrats for supporting such a measure.

A GLB ENDA could pass in as little as 2-5 years. And if it does, it'll STILL be at least 15 years before we get the Ts covered by amending a federal ENDA. Why? Again... the education. BUT we'll have more success passing T inclusion at state and local levels once the federal ENDA has passed. That should help accelerate federal T protection and hopefully cut into that minimum 15 year wait.

The other way of going about it -- the one the activists are insisting on -- is a 15-30 period where GLBTs in red and middle-ground states get NOTHING. All for the aforementioned bogus accusation that Ts are being "thrown under the bus". Because their feelings are hurt, they are indirectly going to take it out on millions of unprotected GLBs in the form of lost jobs, lost homes, family hardship, relocation, frantic job hunts and in some cases bankruptcy.

That's NOT standing together in solidarity. Not unless you poll every GLB who currently has no protection and they tell you they'll gladly suffer those indignities and hardships for 15-30 years in the name of "the cause."

So far no one has offered to take that poll. It's just the HRC and other advocacy groups screaming at Frank, Pelosi, and everyone for not being an morally principled as they are. And you know what? It doesn't matter who is doing it -- no one likes a self-righteous prick standing on a pedestal proclaiming themselves better than you. Especially when you really are trying to help.

==You quote the 70s white feminists and their allies. Lesbians obviously benefited from the effort as WOMEN, but as lesbians? Perhaps they did in a more cultural context. *But where is the civil rights legislation of the 70s that specifically included lesbians or sexual orientation?*==

What the hell? I posted it -- the NJ statutes that we got passed. You didn't even look at it, did you?

Never mind then. You don't read posts, so I won't discuss it with you any more.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has a very disturbing history in regards equal rights for Transgender AND Gay people. I caught him and his staffer in a lie back in 2004 when I debated his staffer, Mr. McGlinchey, on a the Gay listserv - queerpolitics@lists.qrd.org.

In my first message, I purposely did not write the source of my information that Rep. Frank, Traitor to Gays, told the Democratic Caucus in Congress that it was alright for them to vote against DOMA. He told them in 1996 that Gays and Lesbians would understand. This vote was at the same time ENDA was being voted on prior to the presidential election that year. Rep. Frank was acting for the White House and not civil rights as he now enjoys telling everyone about his personal history.

His staffer then posted the following with Rep. Frank answering: "I have just seen the posting from someone named George DeCarlo relaying a story told to him by someone named Marc Loveless who is relaying a conversation that he had with Congressman Bobby Rush. Since this now is a third-hand report of what I was supposed to have said, I am not surprised that it is seriously inaccurate.
First, I never told the Democratic Caucus - nor any other group nor individual - that the Defense of Marriage Act "wasn't something that L & G really cared about." I made it clear throughout that discussion in 1996 that I and other gay and lesbian people strongly opposed the measure. I spoke frequently against it in Committee and on the floor, and, in fact, I offered an amendment to try to kill the most obnoxious part of it - the one that prevents couples in a same-sex marriage from getting federal benefits. That is the one that will be tested by people in federal court after Massachusetts goes forward with same-sex marriage. On that particular amendment, by the way, although we lost badly, I was successful in getting a small majority of the Democrats to vote with us. Unfortunately, we only got three Republican votes on that issue.
Some Democrats had asked me not to offer the amendment because they thought it would be a difficult one for them to vote on, precisely because it undercut the rationale that voting for DOMA was a way to protect states rights. But I thought it was important for our cause that the amendment be offered, and I disregarded these requests.
I did tell a small number of Democrats that I thought that members of the gay and lesbian community would support them electorally even if they voted for DOMA. That small group consisted of Democrats from politically marginal districts in which they faced strong Republican opponents, usually right-wingers, and where, despite this, the Democrats in question had strong
pro-gay records. In other words, I did tell a few Democrats who voted with us on gays in the military, cosponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, supported putting protection for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people into the Hate Crimes Act, supported the domestic partnership laws of the District of Columbia against Congressional efforts to undo them, etc., that I believed gay and lesbian voters would continue to support them against homophobic opponents if DOMA was the only issue on which they had voted against us. I note in this third-hand story that Congressman Bobby Rush is mentioned. Since Congressman Rush holds a very safe Chicago seat, he is not one of the people to whom I would have said that. I should note that things have evolved politically since then, and in the current situation, since the issue before the Congress is not directly same-sex marriage but whether or not a Constitutional amendment should be passed banning it, the political situation is very different. I am strongly urging all of my Democratic colleagues to vote against this particular Constitutional amendment because I do not think that the political situation is comparable to that of DOMA in 1996. There is of course one similarity - both of these are divisive, anti-gay issues brought up by the Republicans within a few months of a Presidential Election. REP. BARNEY FRANK"

This is the information from a friend in Chicago that they did not know I had.:

"From: Marc Loveless
Let me just share one story about Barney Frank. During the debate about DOMA I was lobbying Congressman Bobby Rush (D-IL, 1st District). He told me that Barney had stood up in the democratic Caucus and told them to vote for DOMA because it wasn't something that L&G really cared about and they could say that they were told to vote for it.
Just a little info to think about the Democrats."

Rep. Frank's staffer did not respond but since that time I have let all Gays and Lesbians know about the Congressman and some history he is hiding.

Thank you,
George DeCarlo
member Lavender Green (LGBTIQ) Caucus of the Green Party
908-342-1275 (cell)
geodecarlo@yahoo.com

NoOneSpecial,

You can twist what we say around all you want, but we're not afraid of you.

Signed,

The Majority

Seriously, has the Democrat-led Congress won any battles against the President, ZERO. It appears that the Demos are really in partnership with the White House and are ready and willing to destroy our Constitution in the process.

== *But where is the civil rights legislation of the 70s that specifically included lesbians or sexual orientation?* -- What the hell? I posted it — the NJ statutes that we got passed. You didn't even look at it, did you? ==

In fact I did. Here's what I found:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=S362

New Jersey AMENDED their Law Against Discrimination to included the transgender (or in the bill's language, gender identity or expression discrimation). In a law professor's blog he stated this about the bill:

"Previously, at least one other court had defined "sex" in Title VII to cover transgendered individuals, but this legislative action codifies this protected classification into the New Jersey anti-discrimination law, rather than making it a matter of interpretation for the courts."

The bill passed both houses of the NJ Legislature and signed into law on December 19, 2006.

My point?

Transgender was added after LGBs were already covered. Last year. The bill wasn't cut from whole cloth to include GLBs and Ts all in one swoop and passed that way in the 1970s.

So now that we've clarified that New Jersey took the incremental approach -- and damn those 70s activists for throwing their allies under the bus -- would care to address any of the other dozen or so points that I've brought up? Or are we still standing on pedestals?

And that includes you, too, "restive".

Correction, the link to NGLTF is: http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/prMF_101107

Oh, and another thing.

The very same New Jersey LAD was amended in 1992 to include sexual orientation. You can read about it here:

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/new_jersey/newjersey-a634

It appears those 70s feminists were a little late helping their lesbian sisters out.

Dear "NoOneSpecial",

Hi, this is "restive." I "believe" in "democracy". What "we" are telling "you" is that "we" don't "sell" each other "out". I have heard the same tune about ENDA for years now - we're not extreme, we've put up with this capricious bullshit about transfolks for the better part of forever. Further, we're right in step with where things are, contrary to Mr. Frank's view that people aren't ready to support transfolks.

It's your sorry-ass friends in Congress who keep capitulating to fascistic demagogues that are on the "pedestal", in case you haven't noticed. Every single major LGBT group in the US opposes you on this, save for HRC - and even there, it was a contentious decision, if I'm reading correctly. We're not on the sidelines - you are.

In any case, you have your opinion, and I have mine. I'm through. Go ahead and gloat about my extremism, whatever gets you through the night. But remember this: "Your silence will not save you."

The shameless "extremist" known as "restive"

==If all those activists who want an inclusive ENDA would actually bail on the Ts if ENDA passed in its traditional form, then they were never friends of the Ts to begin with — just merely using them for their own personal gain.==

They are acting like friends by protesting Frank's move vigorously and angrily.

And sorry, but Frank DID throw them off the bus. He literally threw them out of the proposed bill. If they'd never been included, then maybe the outcry wouldn't be so loud. But I doubt if United ENDA would have given Frank any support for the bill in the first place if he'd originally omitted TG people.

NoOneSpecial. Nobody in the women's rights movement had a legislator throw anybody off the bus to benefit themselves first. THAT's what you and your ilk are doing. Barney Frank had included transgendered people, and now they're twisting in the wind.

I think some gays are ashamed of the transgendered people in their midst. Other gays and lesbians think so, too.

If you think a federal law protecting homosexuals will pass any time soon, I think you're in for a big disappointment, though I hope I'm wrong. A better tactic is to work on it at state levels at the same time, including protective legislation for transgendered people. In Red States gays are no less scarey to Joe Blow than gays/lesbians. You have to keep on trucking. Then when the elements all work together you win.

The legal history of gays and transgendered people is closely and strangely entwined: http://members.aol.com/katrinacrose/legal_history/

That's mostly because of confusions caused by legal definitions and conflicting rulings based on differing arguments. So elements of an identified community work their way through the courts at different times. Usually state laws are changed only after court challenges win against an unspoken status quo. However, federal laws are usually amended to bring a few recalcitrant states into line.

Let's agree to disagree. I think it's inhuman to throw transgendered people off the bus the way Barney Frank and his supporters have done. You think it's fine and promise you'll work on getting transgendered people included later. I'll believe THAT when I see it.

Dear "restive",

I will thank you for your "extremism" because it is the fire in hearts of activists that gets so much hard work done in this country to help change things for the better.

But if you think the general populace is ready to support trans folks, however, I will challenge that you have a hell of a lot more work in front of you than you're willing to admit or realize.

As for gloating, I prefer to do that when some group like the Religious Right gets their holy halos knocked off their noggins. So that isn't my gloating your hearing, it's reality knocking on the door of your echo chamber where you appear to do nothing but pontificate rather than address any real world questions or concerns about the livelihoods of those you intend to sacrifice for the greater good.

==In Red States gays are no less scarey to Joe Blow than gays/lesbians.==

Sorry, that should read

In Red States *transgendered* people are no less scarey to Joe Blow than gays/lesbians.

Hi "NoOneSpecial,"

OK, I guess I'm not done after all. :)

Look, you're clearly trying to bully me into your position, and it isn't going to work. When you want to have a fair conversation about this, without accusing me of sacrificing others for the greater good or such (an interesting position coming from someone who is supporting the Frank version of ENDA, but whatever), then perhaps we'll talk. But until then? Feel free to fill your head with the soothing sounds of Vichy-like Democrats who appear to not have a spine.

== I think it's inhuman to throw transgendered people off the bus the way Barney Frank and his supporters have done. ==

Again that phrase, "throwing people off the bus". You're an idealist. I am too on a lot of things. But I'm not naive. For the same reason I won't insist that the S-CHIP program that provides medical insurance to kids be scrapped because it "throws the adults under the bus" by not mandating universal coverage for all. If adults have to come later, so be it. At least I'll know that some kid got life-saving treatment, rather than the scenario that both the kid and the adult died because the idealists were angry that one got coverage before the other.

== You think it's fine and promise you'll work on getting transgendered people included later. I'll believe THAT when I see it. ==

You've got 300+ screaming rights organizations trying to make a moral case for passing an inclusive ENDA. If you believe these are "fair-weather" allies who will forget about the transgendered if ENDA is passed without T protection, then I suggest you carefully examine your relationship with these allies NOW.

I, for one, think their commitment to the issue is sincere. I hope that my faith isn't misplaced, but it sounds like mine is lot stronger than yours. How's that for idealism?

>In Red States *transgendered* people are no less scarey to Joe Blow than gays/lesbians.

When that is is true (and it often is), it's because of being viewed as transgressing gender, as well as sexuality. That's part of why i think this is so ludicrious - in the eyes of the homophobe, we're all a bunch of gender-bending freaks. What Matthew Shepard's murder taught many of us, especially white gay men, is that playing the "we're just like you" card doesn't matter when you're dealing with people who want to kill you.

What I think this is really about is power democrats who think that democracy is all about the machinations of the beltway, even if that means compromising core principles.

None of us have any more freedom than those least esteemed among us. What they do to the transgendered community they will do to the rest of us when they have the opportunity.

Not that it should matter, but I am Caucasian, male, heterosexual, Christian and happily married for the last 28 years. I don't think that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, or transgendered people are a threat to me or anybody else except those who think it their mission in life to compel everybody else to conform to their expectations.