HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A PROBLEM...some people thru no fault of their own are just born or made that way.the problem is SODOMY,which is not dependent on gender or sexual preference.it is like sticking one's finger in the septic cesspool of humanity and licking it clean !

from the article
"This is a moment of truth as far as I'm concerned for responsible liberals in the Democratic Party," Frank said.

"The question is: Can we govern responsibly? And governing responsibly means working with everybody, listening to and exchanging views with the people who care passionately … but then as you go forward with the goals, taking reality into account," Frank said. "People who then denounce those who take reality into account … make it impossible for us to govern."

we are faced with a fascist junta that proves itself in contempt of the rule of law and of every principle of constitutional limited government every single day. If the Democrats don't realize the historical moment we are in, and that opposition and resistance to everything the adminsitration tries to do is the ONLY responsible approach possible, then it is up to US to "make it impossible for them to govern". Of course, defense of our nation, and the defense of liberty has always been up to us.

GOING ALONG TO GET ALONG IS NOT BEING RESPONSIBLE. BUSINESS AS USUAL LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES IS NOT BEING RESPONSIBLE. Things these days are NOT business as usual. Mr. Frank is one of the best of a poor lot, but it's still a damn poor lot of misleaders we have in DC these days.

"The most encouraging sign I see however, is the galvanizing of the community and allies in a way I have never seen before, and feel a partial mending of previous schisms in search of our common liberation, and that, I believe, is a truly beautiful thing. My deepest gratitute to all those who are lending us a hand."

*hugs* I can't even begin to express how amazing our coming together is. Perhaps this will provide a model for other movements that are having their own difficulties with being heard by the powers-that-be (of which there are several - the anti-war movement, the immigrant rights movement, the transformative justice movement come to mind right off the bat) - and we can start to have a real movement in this country, based on trust, mutual respect and democratic action. ^_^

Well, as a transsexual woman, I find myself feeling both joy and sorrow reading this and other commentary about this developing saga. I am deeply touched that there has been so much support from my GLB bothers and sisters and allies who in some cases don't know any transpeople, yet at the same time I'm dismayed by the perpetuation of a number of myths about transpeople that are mostly left unchallenged.

It seems to me that Frank and Pelosi are missing this special opportunity to do some national level education about the precarious employment situation of transpeople. There are so many legal issues in going through transition, and managing your legal identity in a state that has increasing levels of computerization of identity records. Nobody here has even considered the fourth amendment issues that are involved when employers have access to these records, or for people who receive legal notices in their old name, and how this intensive security-oriented state has created a multitude of real-life employment-ending events for transpeople, not to mention a great deal of mental anguish and suffering.

As for NoOneSpecial's arguments, there were many good points. It is true that education to the general public about transpeople has been abysmal, and media portrayals are increasingly liberal fictions that have not even a remote resemblance to any part of my life experience as a transwoman. So there is a long way to go in my opinion. In opposition to the thrust of your argument though, I have some difficulty seeing how my sex life would ever need to intersect with my employment, whereas my transition was actually a completely public affair involving a psychologist, lawyers, courts, and medical doctors, it occured in the context of a large corporation, it included restrictions on bathroom usage, and was not in any way private. So I know first-hand what happens when a company finds out that you are a transperson: shorthand here - you are an instant pariah and life becomes more complex than you can possibly imagine. Instantly.

If you are lucky, some support you. Bathroom issues are often a problem. People often use the wrong pronouns when they learn you are a transperson, and this creates a pretty unbearable situation if one is to function as a coherent human being, period. So I think the employment issues are much more important to transpeople and would go so far as to say that I believe that if the full version of the bill passed (very unlikely), then the very first test-case of a full version of the bill would almost certainly involve a transperson, as our legal status as male/female is undefined in many respects at the federal level.

At the same time, I think passage of the trans-exclusionary version is equally very unlikely (Come on now, you know Bush is going to veto anything that even mentions the word sex unless it is followed by abstinence!) and so I see the dropping of transpeople by Frank and Pelosi as symbolically significant in that it primarily demonstrates the (low) level of Democratic support for transpeople in Congress. This is a tragedy, but Frank has made transphobic comments in the past, and I see no evidence he has changed his opinion. He has never fought for us, and I doubt he ever will, that is until he "has the votes," which he'll never get because he doesn't even bother trying.

The most encouraging sign I see however, is the galvanizing of the community and allies in a way I have never seen before, and feel a partial mending of previous schisms in search of our common liberation, and that, I believe, is a truly beautiful thing. My deepest gratitute to all those who are lending us a hand.

>Yes, that's EXACTLY the kind of glib non-answer to a serious question I'm talking about.

*sighs* Thanks for not listening to the rest of the post. This kind of condescending scolding is exactly what makes me want to give glib answers; simply put, I refuse to take anybody who twists my words around and treats me like a child that seriously - and if they are in a position of power, that is increased by at least a few orders of magnitude.

If you are Barney Frank, I hope you take the time to listen to what people are saying - you have a lot more power than us, and you owe it to the process to hear us out, instead of shutting us out constantly, LGBT and straight alike. If you aren't, god, please get off your flipping high horse.

NoOneSpecial..

I understand the points you are trying to make. You sound a little too much like Barney Frank, it makes me wonder if you are Barney Frank..

Regardless, there's another historical example. In the 19th century, the abolitionists and the womens suffrage movement were united as one cause. There was a debate about whether gaining equality for blacks would occur faster if they cut the women loose - which is what they did.. Thus women were denied the vote another 60 years. Historians generally believe that if the two camps had held together, equality for blacks may have been a few more years in coming, but the vote for women would have happened much sooner.

As someone else here has pointed out... We already know Bush is going to veto ENDA anyway. So why not do the principled thing and keep the transgendered wording. Then when there is a Democratic president in the White House (since all of the nominees have stated they support the ENDA bill before the transgendered portion was removed)... we could then get it passed with all of us. Leaving it in would get those legislators opposed to Transgendered rights used to the T's being included. Time changes attitudes. If you take them out, then it will be a fight with these people next round to put them in. If you leave them in now, it will expected that the bill will cover all..

You and Frank and Pelosi talk about this being strategy. Well, so is looking at how this action will affect the effort to get it passed in 3 or 4 years, because in reality that is what we will be doing. It will be vetoed now. So, cutting loose the Transgendered portion of our community in an attempt to get it passed now seems counterproductive to me.

Couple of points

New Jersey could have had civil unions in 2003 when Ryan Reyes and I encouraged then Green Party Assemblyman Matt Ahearn to introduce a civil union bill. We did not ask for a civil marriage bill due to the lawsuit in progress. The bill that was introduced was based upon the superior Vermont bill with two changes I made. One was to elminate the definition of civil marriage and the other was to allow opposite-sex couples civil union since I did not want to discriminate against them the way they discriminate against us. What did the Democrats in control of both houses and the governorship do with the bill? NOTHING. The Democratic and Republican parties do not support full equal rights. Only the Green and Libertarian parties in New Jersey support full equal rights. Also, the Green Party of New Jersey is the first party to have an openly Gay Chair. That chair is me.

As for Sen. Pryor, his son was on his 30s and we have jet aircraft. Clinton and Gore knew how the vote was going as most votes are known on such important and hot issues. They did not want Gore voting in a tie before the election. So their went their words saying they would be there for Gays as Gore stated to a friend of mine while in New Jersey in 1992. Clinton and Gore were disasters. Clinton also did not have to sign DOMA at that time but he did.

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

I'm going to make one last post on this and then I'm off to do fun stuff 'cause it's Saturday night.

Looking back over the posts, I have to say that I certainly don't dismiss the passion with which people hold their views on the ENDA subject. What irks me most is that I've posted dozens of questions and points that beg for answers as to HOW the opposition justifies their position. Maybe I won't agree with them, but at least I'll understand how they think. I've TRIED to write out how I've reasoned through my own position. In virtually every case, no one has addressed the questions and points I've brought up that have tried to prod others to reflect and EXPLAIN their viewpoint. Instead they've simply found a different way of saying, "My side is on the moral high ground."

It's sad. If we'd been arguing for gay rights this way, we'd still be living in a pre-Stonewall era. It reminds me in so many ways of debates I've participated in or read between opponents of the abortion issue.

Pro-choice advocates recognize abortion as a necessary evil and work a toward hopeful state in the future like "safe, legal, and RARE." They realize there are social steps between keeping it available and having it as a choice almost no one makes. And lo and behold most people understand this and support them.

The anti-choice crowd almost never listens to or responds to their points. Doesn't matter how many questions are asked about teenager girls made pregnant through incest, women getting back-alley services to fix the problem, or poor women being forced to have babies while the rich skip to another state or country where they can have it legally done. In their minds they are right. Anyone adversely affected by their decision are mostly treated as if they didn't exist or are derided as sinners who should be thankful their betters are stepping in to save them. And support? "Well WE have all these pro-life organizations that speak for millions of Americans. THEY only have Planned Parenthood and a bunch of feminists that everybody knows hates men."

Progressives and liberals are no strangers to how irritating that sanctimonious attitude can be, but its disheartening when our own visionaries use it on those of us trying to reach the same goals.

>Who represents those uncounted voices?

== Barney Frank, that's who! *winks* ==

Yes, that's EXACTLY the kind of glib non-answer to a serious question I'm talking about.

And that's my final post on this thread.

>Who represents those uncounted voices?

Barney Frank, that's who! *winks*

As many of us keep saying, we're not convinced that anybody is going to be fed by this strategy - if anything, what we see is more starvation, more wars, more erosion of civil liberties. Capitulation doesn't work, and the legacy of the Democratic Party since Clinton won office has proven that. We're not budging.

== So, the plan is that the groups who want to support transfolks now, should abandon them for support in an indeterminate point in the future, as part of proving their loyalty to the T part of LGBT? Hmmmmm. ==

First, your groups who support it are just that - activist groups. They claim to support so many people, but I've yet to see a poll saying their membership is all behind this. And even if they all 2 million members they claim monolithically agreed with them, that's 28 million more GLBs who haven't been polled on their views. (10% of current US population is 30.3 million people) Who represents those uncounted voices?

Second, you're still trying to moralize starving everyone when more than 3/4s could be fed. And you're doing it without consulting anything close to a majority of the people affected.

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

"Acting" like friends? Are you saying they really aren't sincere? If you are, THAT's truly cynical.

== He literally threw them out of the proposed bill. ==

Which they hadn't been included in until this year anyway. And when they polled the Reps they found it didn't have the votes to pass it in its expanded form.

You know ENDA came about in its *modern* form in 1994. In 1996 the Senate came within a one-vote margin of passing it. Activists even claimed that if Sen. David Pryor of Arkansas hadn't been absent because of his son's cancer surgery and had voted on it as promised, then Al Gore would have stepped in to cast the tie-breaking vote instead of suffering the 49-50 defeat.

Now in all that I never heard transgender activists claiming that ENDA should have been withdrawn because Ts weren't included. I never heard a claim that Senate Dems were "throwing Ts under the bus." In fact in the 11 years since transgender issues made some legal headway at state and local levels -- but not in every instance where GLBs got protected. Still, everyone seemed to agree that that was the political reality of the day.

WHY is the current state of events a betrayal then? Why are activists so certain that if ENDA is passed as-is then the Ts will be forgotten, neglected, or abandoned by their allies?

anney:

thanks for sharing your story - it's true, there's definitely a lot of fear and loathing of lesbians and gay men in rural areas. i suppose this means that we should be pushing for a trans-only ENDA in the south, no? After all, North Carolina isn't ready to accept sexual deviants such as myself. *winks*

NoOneSpecial,

Thanks for chilling your jets, much appreciated.

"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."

So, the plan is that the groups who want to support transfolks now, should abandon them for support in an indeterminate point in the future, as part of proving their loyalty to the T part of LGBT? Hmmmmm. :)

As I said before, this line of reasoning has been going on for years - it was in place back when ENDA had a snowball in hell's chance of passing. What has changed is that nearly 300 groups are saying that we can't fight intolerance by capitulating to the people who are destroying this country. This capitulating strategy is the same one that is behind not pushing for impeachment, that is dragging its feet on ending the war in Iraq and (to cite a particularly silly example) that argues that Whole Foods is beyond reproach because they sell organic endive to yuppies. It's not just fiery-hearted activists who are pissed off about this, it's most of the country. It's why Congress is polling low, and why non-inclusive ENDA "just doesn't have the votes" among the above-mentioned groups.

You want to have faith in something, have faith in *US*. We're called "the people," and last I checked, we're the ones who are supposed to be the bottom line in a democracy, not Congress or the White House. We're far from negative - to be sure, we're the ones who Naomi Wolf talks about when she wishes that so many of the people she talks with would stop crying, but we're crying because we believe in democracy, not because we're whiny, or shrill, or extremist, or any of the epithets that get hurled in the direction of anybody who seems to speak truth to power these days. We're sick and tired of having freedom stripped away from us by *both* parties. Consider this your official invitation to join us and ditch the fascists, as well as their Vichy-like loser friends. :-)

restive

I lived for about ten years in North Carolina, and one day a woman told me about going out to dinner the night before with her husband, his brother, and her sister-in-law. She said there were two guys sitting at a table nearby holding hands, and when "her" two guys realized they were gay, she and her sister-in-law had to literally hold them in their seats to keep them from getting up and beating the two guys to a pulp. She said she'd never seen her husband so angry. (I wondered if he might have unadmitted gay impulses himself, since that's often the case when people are that virulent.)

Anyway, THAT's how violent the anti-gay spirit is in some parts of the Red States. So I don't think gay rights legislation is something that's going to pass easily in such states. Adding transgendered people to the protections doesn't seem very risky to me at all, given this kind of homophobia. It won't make it worse, and in fact, in some parts of the South, almost every family has some variety of transgendered person. It's the homosexuality that's so threatening though, since many people believe homosexuality is chosen, maybe more threatening than men who never marry but act an awful lot like women, or women who never marry but act an awful lot like men. Once a community recognizes that these folks don't sneak around and find same sex lovers, they're just accepted as another kind of odd character the South is full of. They're just "sissies" or "tomboys" who never changed when they became adults. Very occasionally, these individuals might leave and never be seen again in their communities, probably in hopes of finding more freedom to be who they actually are elsewhere.

restive,

We're *both* proposing sacrifice. But you're proposing that everyone should bleed for a noble cause. There are some times when I fully agree with that approach, when the stakes are so crucial that we risk losing our humanity unless we close ranks. But this is not one of those times. Passing a GLB ENDA is within our grasp. Ts may have to wait a bit longer before we can convince Congress to include them too, but hey, that the route New Jersey took from 1992 to 2007. And it worked to the greater benefit of everyone as a whole because those intervening 15 years at least protected SOME people. In my book, no one has a moral right to insist everyone starve when at least 3/4s of the people could be given a piece bread. The proper action is to give out as much bread as you can and then work to find more.

As anney correctly points out, the GLBs and Ts have had a long history of working together. 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.

I don't think that's true. It certainly wasn't true in the case of New Jersey. Why is the idealist camp consumed by so much negativity in this regard?

Nearly 300 groups support *trans-inclusive* ENDA.

"The nearly 300 organizations comprising this effort — United ENDA — represent nearly 2 million total members and are the backbone, the breadth and the depth of our community coast to coast. These diverse organizations have come together to accomplish one thing — to ensure that no part of our community gets left behind."

Sources: http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/prMF_101107, http://www.unitedenda.org/

The groups are listed on the United ENDA page.

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.

>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.

== 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?

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.

==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.

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.

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.

==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.

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"

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.

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

== *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".

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.

NoOneSpecial,

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

Signed,

The Majority

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

==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.

== 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.

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.

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.

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.

== 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.

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.

"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.

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!!

== 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?

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.

"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."

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.

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

== 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.

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.

>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?

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.

"Rep. Barney Frank Lashes Out"

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

=="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.

"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".

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.

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 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.

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.

"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.

"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..

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.

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!

"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.

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?

=====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...

>We can speak for ourselves.

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

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.

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.