Chairman Andrews on ENDA

Baloney!! (0.00 / 0)

I wish that Jay would have asked Cong. Andrews , why the big rush for this bill?

When I spoke with his aide Carlos Fenwick this spring and talked Andrews into co-sponsoring the original ENDA, he spoke about the congressman holding hearings in his subcommittee so folks would be on record to tell their stories of employment discrimination.

They would have transgender Americans such as Col Shroer, the counter-terrorism expert who was denied a job in the Library of Congress because she was trans.

The Rev. Dr. Nemeck who was fired as College Dean, Peter Oiler the 20 year loyal supermarket employee, married hetero truck driver fired because he was effeminate and trans. and many more...

They denied us the chance to educate in the House as promised! They were either scared of a perceived Republican threat or just full of baloney. Either way they look bad and tried to split the Democratic party's second most loyal consistency. Smart tactics!

For all Congressman Andrews talk of being a winner, it is disengenuous. The new ENDA, which has been called SPLENDA, not the real thing, in fact strips many gays and lesbians afforded protections in the original bill. It is a sham!

We expected better and stronger of you Rob Andrews!
You didn't tell the whole story! Significantly, Tammy Baldwin, one of the original lead sponsors of ENDA refused to sign on to this sham! This is a case of poor, misguided tactics.

Accept No Substitutes!
http://www.nosubstit...

Barbra Casbar Siperstein
President- NJ Stonewall Democrats

"Discrimination caused by ignorance and fear is a tax on human progress" - Barbra Casbar Siperstein

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 02:26:26 AM UTC

I couldn't agree more.. (0.00 / 0)

Jay dropped the ball on his interviewing for not pressuring Andrews to answer real questions, particularly about EDNA. This water-logged bill the Dems we put in power are trying to sell us is reprehensible. My sister is a lesbian and i don't want her or her partner to be subjected to potential discrimination in the workplace because Andrews and his colleagues didn't have the balls to stand up for whats right.

---

by: Reality Jax @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 23:31:31 PM UTC

Uh... (0.00 / 0)

First of all, I think you're the first person to say that Jay dropped the ball, so I don't know who you think you're agreeing with.

Secondly, you seem to be confused.  The bill the Democrats put forward would have protected your sister and her partner.  That's not at issue at all.  The only reason the bill wasn't stronger was that the Republicans in the House would have stripped transgender protection from the bill.

The problems here are not purely those of the Democratic leadership.  The real problem is hate and that hate comes from the right.  Could the Democrats have been stronger?  Yes.  But if the GOP wasn't so absurdly tied to its despicable, anti-equality agenda, this wouldn't even be an issue.

---

by: Scott Shields @ Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 23:54:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with the previous sentiment.. (0.00 / 0)

that the bill should be stronger AND I am being critical that Jay didn't press Rep. Andrews for why its being rushed (though the Human Rights Campaign is a big constituency..and candidates want gay money like yesterday). I'm not confused by the bill..and I know it protects my sister..but it does so at the expense of transgendered people. Its GLBT for a reason and this bill forgets that.

I think you may be a bit confused and in need of a civics lesson - the House minority (regardless of which party) has very limited ability to change legislation let alone strip a provision out. The EDNA bill hasn't moved due to conservative Democrats' objections, by and large. Those are the votes missing...which I think would be made up by moderate GOP votes like Chris Shays (CT), Milke Castle (DE) and even NJ's own LoBiondo.

And thats a pretty bold (and I think ignorant) statement to say that "hate comes from the right." There is hateful speech and hateful acts coming from all ideologues of the spectrum. Hate is not exclusive to one party or faction...but it should be a problem addressed by everyone.

---

by: Reality Jax @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:49:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe ... probably not (0.00 / 0)

The original ENDA HR 2015, would cover all LGBT people and straight people. The SPLENDA, watered down version covers only straight acting and looking gays and lesbians.

If your lesbian sister is in any way, "butch", good luck!

The key is in the definition of "Gender Identity" in the original bill.

I'll leave it to the Lambda Legal analysis of the new bill.

"Preliminary Analysis Summary:
As a point of clarity for the community: The recent version is not simply the old version with the transgender
protections stripped out-but rather has modified the old version in several additional and troubling ways.
- In addition to the missing vital protections for transgender people on the job, this new bill also leaves
out a key element to protect any employee, including lesbians and gay men who may not conform to
their employer's idea of how a man or woman should look and act. This is a huge loophole through
which employers sued for sexual orientation discrimination can claim that their conduct was actually
based on gender expression, a type of discrimination that the new bill does not prohibit.
- This version of ENDA states without qualification that refusal by employers to extend health insurance
benefits to the domestic partners of their employees that are provided only to married couples cannot
be considered sexual orientation discrimination. The old version at least provided that states and local
governments could require that employees be provided domestic partner health insurance when such
benefits are provided to spouses.
- In the previous version of ENDA the religious exemptions had some limitations. The new version has a
blanket exemption under which, for example, hospitals or universities run by faith-based groups can fire
or refuse to hire people they think might be gay or lesbian."

Barbra Casbar Siperstein

"Discrimination caused by ignorance and fear is a tax on human progress" - Barbra Casbar Siperstein

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 18:26:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

UNITED ENDA (0.00 / 0)

Congressman Andrews discriminates against Transgenders in his new Non-Discrimination bill of which he is 1/4 Cosponsors. The original bill has 171 Cosponsors. Now which do you think has a better chance of passing and drawing a veto this year.
Barney Frank, split the baby, HR2015, in two, not with the wisdom of Solomon, but Knute Rockne. He tried to make an "end run" for sexual orientation. He created HR 3685 for sexual orientation and HR 3686 for gender identity. HR 2015 has 171 Congressional sponsors and 3685 has 4 sponsors. Two bills worded exactly as the original with one major difference. HR 3685 would go forward and be marked up for presentation to the floor and HR 3686 would languish and die.
Thank goodness Rob Andrews is not a NJ Senator that represents all of NJ, the state that has a public accomodations Non-Discrimination bill for all. Lambda Legal has found its own problems with 3685. Transgender People have a Right to Work. Thanks for listening.
Cerise Richards, M.D.

---

by: CeriseRichards @ Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 17:39:14 PM UTC

GENDER EXPRESSION (0.00 / 0)

The obvious needs repeating:
This is a copy of the definition of Gender Identity from the original HR 2015, which was "removed" in the new HR 3685 of Rob Andrews. GENDER IDENTITY- The term `gender identity' means the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth.  If the GLB community supports the new bill without the broad definition above, which includes what we call gender expression, they are doing themselves a great disservice. Any expressed mannerisms that implies effeminate or butch behavior is not covered and could be a grounds for discrimination and dismissal. This has happened and adjudicated in favor of the employer. Transgenders think as male and female, they are neither and both. So we express both mannerisms at different times. Cerise Richards, M.D.

---

by: CeriseRichards @ Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 17:43:44 PM UTC

What we lose by passing SPLENDA (0.00 / 0)

Honestly I don't see it. I personally would wish to pass ENDA for everyone, but when we don't have the votes to do that, what harm will we do to pass an ENDA for sexual orientation only? I really don't see it. The only thing coming close is that it will delay the move to cover gender identity in employment discrimination, but I really need a rational basis for that, such as

1) The majority of the legislators are so eager to protect GLB people, so they'll do it by doing something they don't like that much, namely protecting trans.

2) They are simply stupid, that one day we can pretend we are passing a bill for LGB but it's actually for LGBT.

The above two reasons don't seem to make any sense to me. Maybe there is a third reason, which is
3) One day they will realize transgendered people are not that different from GLB folks.

If I'm right, the day described in 3) is the same day they can pass the bill for T only, then why bother to delay passing a bill for GLB?

---

by: cktung @ Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:34:36 AM UTC