Somehow, seeing this, the "it'll never happen" argument loses some force. Those are all the states that have civil rights protections for gays and lesbians. You'll note that they all also have those protections for transgendered persons.
Here's a post from Pam Spaulding on the issue. I have a lot of problems with it, as might be expected, particularly when she gets into rhetoric like this:
Those who would throw our T brothers and sisters out like yesterday's trash to get any kind of weakened ENDA passed, even if it faced a presidential veto, fail to realize the serious flaws in other modifications in the bill.
Slanted, just a bit, wouldn't you say?
And suddenly there are all sorts of flaws in the bill. How did that happen? Or was it just that no one noticed until their PC sensors got tickled?
Let's get a few things sorted out here, before I get more angry comments: I support the full-dress ENDA, with the full alphabet soup included. That's not the question. The question is, if we can only get a partial bill through Congress now -- and, let me point out, for the first time in history that such a bill stands a ghost of a chance of passage -- shouldn't we do it? Opponents of this idea are working from the not-always-subtextual meme that once a sexual-orientation-only ENDA is passed, we'll all just pack up and go home and forget about it. That's bullshit. Anyone with any brains knows that's not the case, if for no other reason than that this fight -- for full legal equality -- is not going to be over anytime soon. Bush will veto ENDA no matter what its content. When it does finally become law, there will be radical fringe groups mounting campaigns for repeal. There will be a slew of nuisance cases in the courts argued by the Thomas More Law Center and Liberty Council on spurious First Amendment grounds. There will be state cases that have to be fought and won.
That's what's going to happen.
And taking your ball and going home isn't going to help anyone. Ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment