John Aravosis, no conservative he, takes on what he terms the transgender fiasco:
Anyone who says that transgendered people have always been accepted as part of the gay community is simply wrong.... I think that the transgender community was added to ENDA the same way the T got added on to the LGB. By force, and attrition, rather than by popular demand....[W]hen I speak to friends and colleagues privately, senior members of the gay political/journalistic establishment, and just plain old gay friends around the country (and our own readers), the message I hear is far different from what I'm hearing from the groups. I'm clearly hearing three things. Well, four: 1. I feel empathy for transgendered people, and support their struggle for civil rights. 2. I want ENDA to pass this year even if we can't include transgendered people. 3. I don't understand when transgendered people became part of the gay community? And then there's always #4: Please don't tell anyone I told you this.....
What I'm hearing is a message far different from what you hear from NGLTF and some of the louder activist claiming to speak for the enlightened masses. I think that a lot of gay people never truly accepted the transgender revolution that was thrust upon them. They simply sat back and shut up about their questions and concerns and doubts out of a sense of shame that it was somehow impolite to even question what was happening, and fear that if they did ask questions they'd be marked as bigots. And now, that paper-thin transgender revolution is coming home to roost.
He warns, ominously:
There is a climate of fear and confusion and doubt about the transgender issue in the gay community. And no one wants to talk about it. And when you don't talk about your small concerns, when you're afraid to talk about them, when it's not considered PC for you to talk about them, one day those small concerns turn into big problems and the revolution comes tumbling down.
From experience, I know that many leftwing "progressive" LGBT activists (and their allied academic-indoctrinators) live in a world where status among their peers is predicated on being ever-more ideologically pure and cutting-edge. And they don't care what the unenlightened gay masses think; they're confident that since they're the only game in town, the money spigot is going to stay on. I hope they're wrong.
32 Comments for ““The Transgender Fiasco””
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As Robbie also noted on The Malcontent, it is more than amusing that John Aravosis is suddenly bothered by gay people using fear, intimidation, threats, and public insults to enforce conformity of ideology and quash dissent.
posted by ETJB on
Given that transgender people have historically played an important role in LGBT-human rights, it would be incredible fraudulent and mean to exclude them from the community now.
Transgender-phobia is certainly a problem in the gay and straight community, as this article points out. It is one thing to argue that amending the federal civil right code may have to be done gradually, but this recent attack on transgender people, especially from those who oppose civil right laws in general is just wrong.
nyone who says that transgendered people have always been accepted as part of the gay community is simply wrong…. I think that the transgender community was added to ENDA the same way the T got added on to the LGB. By force, and attrition, rather than by popular demand….[W]hen I speak to friends and colleagues privately, senior members of the gay political/journalistic establishment, and just plain old gay friends around the country (and our own readers), the message I hear is far different from what I’m hearing from the groups. I’m clearly hearing three things. Well, four: 1. I feel empathy for transgendered people, and support their struggle for civil rights. 2. I want ENDA to pass this year even if we can’t include transgendered people. 3. I don’t understand when transgendered people became part of the gay community? And then there’s always #4: Please don’t tell anyone I told you this…..
What I’m hearing is a message far different from what you hear from NGLTF and some of the louder activist claiming to speak for the enlightened masses. I think that a lot of gay people never truly accepted the transgender revolution that was thrust upon them. They simply sat back and shut up about their questions and concerns and doubts out of a sense of shame that it was somehow impolite to even question what was happening, and fear that if they did ask questions they’d be marked as bigots. And now, that paper-thin transgender revolution is coming home to roost.
He warns, ominously:
There is a climate of fear and confusion and doubt about the transgender issue in the gay community. And no one wants to talk about it. And when you don’t talk about your small concerns, when you’re afraid to talk about them, when it’s not considered PC for you to talk about them, one day those small concerns turn into big problems and the revolution comes tumbling down.
From experience, I know that many leftwing “progressive” LGBT activists (and their allied academic-indoctrinators) live in a world where status among their peers is predicated on being ever-more ideologically pure and cutting-edge. And they don’t care what the unenlightened gay masses think; they’re confident that since they’re the only game in town, the money spigot is going to stay on. I hope
posted by Jordan on
I know a few Transgendered people, and I like them well enough. Nonetheless, I have also been confused about how the transgender “revolution” got attached to the GLB movement.
I want to see ENDA go through, regardless of whether the “T” is on the bill or not. I am not opposed to GLB+T when it suits both parties, but I think that it is unfortunate that GLB equality is sometimes hampered by the complex gender issues surrounding transgendered people — which inherently do not have anything to do with homosexuality.
posted by kennor on
We should be fighting against all types of discrimination which are non-normative. There is really is/was no difference between gay people, jewish people black people, catholic people intergenerational couples, interracial couples and transgenders. We all fighting for fairness against a, yes I’m going to say it, socially constructed idea of NORMAL.
Second, Gay males don’t like drag queens because there is women hatred in homophobic slurs and to gay men it reinforces sterotypes that gay men just want to be women.
Look up the word “intersex” and maybe you;ll change your mind
posted by Boo on
Jordan- Like it or not, T people have always been in the trenches with LGBs. The large majority of transsexuals spend at least some portion of our lives in the gay community, either before transition or after it (or even both before and after). Those gays and lesbians most likely to face discrimination directed specifically at them are the ones who are most gender non-normative. Strip the gender protections out of ENDA, and you’re only protected so long as you can maintain a str8-acting facade at work. The second you slip up and let loose your inner mary or inner butch, you could be fired without recourse to ENDA. In fact, it doesn’t even have to be at work:
http://www.genderadvocates.org/Miranda%20Writes/M0209Crossdressers.html
Under the new ENDA, sure you could be gay, you just can’t act gay. LGB and T may not be exactly the same thing, but like it or not, for political purposes they may as well be.
posted by ETJB on
Not only have Transgender people been in the “trenches” with LGB people, but one of the major early founders of gay rights was gay and transgender.
Yes, sex, gender and sexual orientation are NOT the same thing. Just like race, religion and disability are NOT the same thing.
If the ENDA can only pass without the T, then it should be passed, submit both bills, and then if the T does not get passed then push for it to be included. It is one thing to deal with the reality reality — civil rights are often gradual — but to show blind hate, fear and contempt for transgender peple and their role in the human right movement is low.
posted by John on
I’ve never understood why the T needed to be included anyway. the T part is just the prefix for the main point – transGENDER. It is already illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender. How does that not already cover the transGENDERed?
posted by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) on
I for one don’t consider the transgendered as part of the G/L community since it an issue of gender identity, not sexuality. Plus, if someone’s “transgender and gay”…does that mean they are now straight? Or, they were straight? And the ubiquitous drag-queens of Stonewall-fame weren’t transgender, they’re were transvestites….which is a third entirely different issue.
Frankly even the “bisexual”-label is disingenuous since depeneding on their relationship or sexual-partner they are “being” straight or gay. And when it comes to guys, it usually means “closeted” and/or “still-married to a woman” anyway.
posted by Amicus on
It’s interesting to me that when Paul brought up this issue here, that very few batted an eye. Now, when under the gun, people are looking for someone to throw overboard to lighten the load.
Why should “we” include “B”? What does that have to do with gay and lesbian? Does anyone here at “Independents-R-Us” have a politics for them?
Now that you mention it, why do we have to include “L”? What does any gay man have in common with lesbians? Two girls kissing – fine, but don’t say it has anything to do with me. Even the Nazi’s didn’t persecute them quite the same way, so historically they don’t belong in the group.
And then, there are some of these so-called “gay” people who don’t … dance. I mean, c’mon. If you can’t dance, why should you be in the group? F-ing mugbloods, I say.
Come to think of it, we should throw everyone overboard except me. It would be effective. (Isn’t that what you are thinking?)
And besides, like Jordan says (above), I know some gay people and they are my friends (“I like them well enough”).
posted by Bobby on
Wow, I used to hate Aravosis, he is a liberal, but I guess even a broken clock can be right twice a day. And he is right.
It was drag queens who were part of the stonewall revolution, not transgendered people.
In fact, a lot of transgenders are highly secretive, which is the opposite of coming out, specially male to female transexuals that go to straight bars, pick up straight men, and then complain when they get beat up.
But our so called gay leadership is always embracing everyone and everything.
“Frankly even the “bisexual”-label is disingenuous since depeneding on their relationship or sexual-partner they are “being” straight or gay”
—Well, there I disagree. What matters is the sexual orientation, not the behavior. If I sleep with a woman that doesn’t make me straight, I’m only straight if I find women attractive. Even if I can get an erection wtih a woman, it means nothing, porn stars fuck people they don’t like all the time.
Bisexuals however are not trustworthy unless they’re dating other bisexuals who can fully understand them. Ask any poor lesbian who’s been dumped by some bisexual bitch for a man. I specially love those that become born again christian and take the children away. Bisexuals are nothing more than a pain in the ass, and I don’t mean it sexually speaking.
posted by Lori Heine on
Why not just move to the basic, simple concept of “the same rights for everybody because we’re all human” and leave it at that?
The whole concept of picking out certain special groups and bestowing a particular protected status upon them is proving unworkable. If we’re all special because we’re all people, what’s so wrong with that?
The bandwagon to special-aggrievement-land is just getting more and more overloaded all the time.
This — and this alone — would shut up all the fundies and other reactionaries who prattle about “special rights.”
posted by Boo on
Bobby- don’t hold back like that, let us know how you really feel.
So you hate the bis and trannies, and want to break off drag queens from “the transgendered.” Um.. good luck with all that. See, “transgendered” doesn’t have an exact clinical definition. Drag queens are very much transgendered in that they transgress normative gender boundaries, as does every gay and lesbian person who isn’t 100% str8 acting. (And even then, sleeping with someone of the same sex is inherently transgressive of normativ egender boundaries, sorry, it just is.) Under the current version of ENDA, any gay person who does drag can be fired, even if they only do it on weekends. Without the gender protections, the bill essentially has no teeth.
But I suppose when you’ve been the target of hatred and discrimination one easy way to try and deal with it is turn around and find some other group to beat up on, so screw them bis and trannies, eh? I mean sure, “some of my best friends” and all, bu f–k em, ya know?
posted by Boo on
“I’ve never understood why the T needed to be included anyway. the T part is just the prefix for the main point – transGENDER. It is already illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender. How does that not already cover the transGENDERed?”
You’d think it would, but there are conflicting court precedents on that, as in the link I provided above. With this bill tho, it can be argued that Congress specifically chose not to protect on the basis of gender identity and expression, and then we’re SOL.
posted by Bobby on
“Drag queens are very much transgendered in that they transgress normative gender boundaries,”
—Not really, every man who dresses as a woman on Halloween is transgressing that.
Most drag queens aren’t in drag full time. And unless you’re talking about the ones who take hormones and grow tits, they’re called pre-operative transexuals.
“any gay person who does drag can be fired,”
—Like tuesday’s episode on Boston Legal? Well, the truth is outside behavior can impact a job. Getting arrested for drunk driving can also get you fired. Not going to a party your boss wants you to attend can also get you fired. Most states are at-will employment, they don’t have to give you an explanation or even probation to fire you. They can fire you just because they feel like it.
Forgive me for being so cynical, but at my ad agency I’ve seen people get fired for not coming to work on a saturday. And if you leave at 6:00 p.m., sometimes people give you dirty looks.
So the libertarian approach works the best. If you’re gay, work in professions that like gays. If you want a family friendly environment, work there, if you’re transgendered or a goth, work for VERY open minded people.
You know, I’ve seen ad agencies saying they want politically progressive copywriters. Or that they need more women. Isn’t that discrimination? I thought you couldn’t discriminate on the basis of beliefs and gender, but I guess the rules don’t apply to liberals.
posted by Randy on
Look, I’m a gay man, but if the only type of ENDA that could get passed into law would be one that protected only lesbians, I’d be all for it. Why? Because sometimes rights come in measured steps. I’d rather take half a loaf than no loaf. Demanding a full loaf is just ridiculous if you aren’t going to get it.
This is one of those bills that everyone can get on their high horse and be morally pure. No civil rights unless it gives us EVERYTHING we want! But the real world doesn’t work that way.
If we get ENDA without the T, then it will be much easier and simpler to get the T added in a few years. Adding a small group such as that will be able to slip by without much debate. However, trying to swallow the entire bill with LBGT included gives too many people too many excuses to vote against it.
Here’s the facts: T’s are NOT going to get employment protection regardless of tactics. Either it will kill ENDA or they will be left out. That’s the reality. I don’t like it, I don’t approve of it, and I wish it were different.
People say it’s selfish to go forward with ENDA with the T. I say it’s selfish to keep LBG’s at employment risk for several more years just to include Ts.
posted by Avee on
I wonder if the “No ENDA Without Ts” crowd will cheer as Bush vetos the T-less ENDA (the only kind with any chance of reaching his desk). Politics makes strange bedfellows!
posted by John Ferguson on
I guess if “straight acting, straight looking” white gay men want to get their ENDA they can get it by staying in the closet and “passing” like they always do when they need to. Men and women whose style does not conform to dominant straight culture have it a little harder, whether a “feminine” gay man, or a drag queen who has forgotten how to express “normally” or the once grandson now granddaughter of a friend of mine who has just started presenting who she is in middle school, or the five year old we heard of last week at PFLAG who is starting kindergarten and can’t get in because the lawyers said she must present as a boy to match his genitalia. I do not want to get by because I can pass. I do not want to always make my gender expression conform to heterosexist norms. I would like to be able to learn to express a little broader gender style and feeling, and I would like to stand proudly with my friends. And that is not politically correct, that is integrity and passion.
Besides didn?t any of you see Lambda Legal?s opinion about the non-inclusive bill not even protecting gay men because of loopholes to drive a truck through? If they fire you, they will say it was your gender expression that was not adequate, they couldn?t care less about who you sleep with as long as you don?t talk about it at work.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I do not want to get by because I can pass. I do not want to always make my gender expression conform to heterosexist norms. I would like to be able to learn to express a little broader gender style and feeling, and I would like to stand proudly with my friends. And that is not politically correct, that is integrity and passion.
So you’re going to make yourself act more feminine so that you can be accepted by your friends and so that you can consider yourself a “proud” gay — because anything less is, of course, “heterosexist” and is awful and evil.
Personally, I’d suggest that you act how you want to act; if your friends truly are your friends, they’ll accept you regardless of how “heterosexist” your behavior is and how “narrow” your gender expression is.
posted by Christopher Hubble on
It is tragic that Mr. Aravosis has so brazenly misrepresented the history of the LGBT civil rights movement. Either he is woefully ignorant or he is willfully revising that history to serve a cynical political agenda: through the “T”‘s under the bus in order to obtain a dubious political gain.
For those genuinely interested in the FACTS about Stonewall and the birth of the modern LGBT civil rights movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Rivera
http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/rivera_s.html
http://www.srlp.org/
http://nyblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=3763
http://hubblebooks.com/index.php?s=swain&submit=Search
posted by Alex on
I believe trans people should be part of the gay community. We are all part of the gender non conformist crowd. Thats right I said it even if you are the most masculine gay guy you still do it with a guy and are therefor not conforming to your gender role.
On enda it is very likely to be vetoed no matter what. So if your going to get vetoed why not go all out this time. Then you can go back and say we tried it your way now lets do it our way and we do not insult a large group.
On the moral question of excluding them it is absolutely wrong. The women’s suffrage movement had a choice when getting their constitutional amendment passed (which is much harder then any mere bill) to include all women or take the easy road and only give white women the vote. They decided not to abandon black women. We should not exclude our lesser accepted brothers and sister for political expediency. Gays and Lesbians are far more accepted and less likely to loose their jobs then trans people. This bill could help them more then us. Also on a selfish note some have said the watered down bill would allow a boss to fire someone for acting like the gay stereotype. That is such a broad concept we all could act in some way that could be a gay stereotype. This makes the watered down law meaningless and why spend so much money on a meaningless bill. If all it does is makes gays feel good and trans hate us then its been a really crappy win. So thats my to cents.
posted by Brian Miller on
Oh, please.
The spin from the urban white guys who engineered the “throw the transfolk under the bus” thing is hilarious.
They don’t like T folks and never will. Thus, this was their little effort to show their power and “prove” to the transfolks that they could take their money and their votes — and then stab them in the back ala Bill Clinton.
It also shows that for left-wing doyennes like Aravosis, and right-wing sorts like Crain alike, the agenda isn’t “equality” — it’s getting special rights from themselves. . . nice big government bennies ala ENDA along with preserving their own access to black-tie dinners and their “relevance” within the old-party system.
Trans folks represent a threat to that effort to maintain political power, so they get tossed over the side of the boat — using rhetoric borrowed from the right wing about gay people. In fact, all the rhetoric being used about how transfolk aren’t “part of our community” is exactly the same as anti-gay rhetoric used by the Anita Bryants and Zell Millers of decades past.
If all it does is makes gays feel good and trans hate us then its been a really crappy win.
But that’s all it was EVER about. ENDA is practically meaningless, since most gay people are already covered by “nondiscrimination” quota laws that don’t work — at a state or local level. This new law just creates a federal law that doesn’t work (and is unconstitutional) on a federal level.
No marriage equality comes of it. Nor adoption equality, equal military service, equal tax treatment, equal immigration equality, nor anything else. That’s because ENDA is about bolstering the Washington establishment, not equality.
The Aravosises, Crains, et al of the world were never about equality in the first place. Nor were their heroes like Barney Frank or the “moderate” Republican du jour. Real equality requires real fighting, and is a lot more difficult than just dissing the “freaky tranny people” to win points with Howard Dean — and invitations to his latest $100 a plate fundraiser dinner to rub shoulders with Hillary (and get photographed with her).
I’m afraid a lot of LGBTQ people are learning, rather late, what some of us always knew — the “gay leadership” is not all that gay, nor all that into leading.
Please remember this moment the next time some rich white urban liberal starts lecturing you about “diversity.” This whole sorry saga was manufactured, after all, by ruch white urban liberals.
posted by Jorge on
I think there are some things to say about solidarity between transgenders and GLB, but I don’t see any great tragedy when we can’t work together.
I think most people would say hispanics and blacks have more or less the same struggle, and we do say nice things about each other, but how often have you ever seen us work together? Despite this, both blacks and hispanics have mobilized widespread coalitions to support their own activist causes in recent months.
I think being joined at the hip may hurt both gay rights and transgender rights causes. The mainstream associates negative gay stereotypes with transgendered people. And it associates negative transgendered stereotypes with gay people. It’s a distraction.
Now EDNA isn’t THE issue I’d say this the most about, but all this fighting over which groups to specifically state deserve anti-discrimination protection is something that is directly hurting the very people who need protection. Forget this ridiculous “gender identity” pandering. Just add a few lines saying “all people have the right to” blah, blah, blah, and “no person shall be fired solely for reasons unrelated to his employment” and so on. Pride and liberal guilt is no excuse for failing to pass a law that will protect people from discrimination.
posted by Amicus on
…, but I don’t see any great tragedy when we can’t work together.
I read these things and I just feel saddened. Like those of old who wandered in the desert for 40 years, perhaps it is also true today that people aren’t worthy of the very goals they seek for themselves.
…practically meaningless, since most gay people are already covered by “nondiscrimination” quota laws that don’t work — at a state or local level.
I’m not sure what ‘quota’ laws you mean, but here is the current map of non-discrimination statues from NGLTF. 13 States have them, quite a few with gender identity included. But still, seven of them with laws or modifications only in the last two years.
posted by mademark on
All this talk about the T and narry a word about the B. Where are all these bisexuals anyway, and why isn’t there more doubt that bisexuals belong in the ‘LGBT’ acronym in the first place? I’ve gotten fairly good at identifying trans men and women, and those who’d be offended at being called either, but I’ll be damned if I can spot a bisexual in an elevator. It has been far more politically correct to include the B under the gay umbrella than it has been to include the T. If we’re going to start speaking as if transgendered people don’t belong, then let’s get honest and ask why in the world we’ve been including bisexuals now for some time. Find me the bisexual contingent in a pride parade, the bisexual who has been fired from his job for being bisexual, and so on. Bisexuals have gotten a free ride for a long time now – having to do pretty much nothing to be included. What, pray tell, is the great bisexual struggle? As we have have gone from gay, to gay and lesbian, to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered, we have carved ourselves up into ever more expansive acronyms. It is a problem we have brought on ourselves. To repeat myself, it bothers me to hear a lot of discussion about the inclusion of transgenered people and not one word about how ludicrous is has been to include bisexuals. Once upon a time we were gay, and it worked pretty well. We’ve shot ourselves in the foot with all this labelling.
posted by Bobby on
Please don’t include the “Q” (Questioning) in LGBT. If you’re too stupid to know what you are, if you tell people “I’m not sure if I’m gay or not,” then you’re not a member of this community.
Christians don’t have “questioning.” Either you become a Christian, or you’re not a Christian. There is no in between.
“I think most people would say hispanics and blacks have more or less the same struggle”
—No they don’t. Blacks didn’t come to this country because they wanted to, they were brought here by force.
Hispanics have more in common with the Irish because they’re immigrants by choice. Besides, while all blacks have one race, hispanics come in all different races, including “chinese-cubans” if you can believe it.
Besides, hispanics who learn English don’t struggle. It’s people with hard to understand accents and weird cultures that struggle. And it’s not society that has to adapt to them, it’s them that have to adapt to us.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“[The urban white guys] don’t like T folks and never will.”
And do you think they like lesbians? If you think about it, the various components of the GLBTQ… community have not much in common. What has kept them together, united under the same all-encompassing umbrella, is a common enemy: the religious right. Now that the old boogeyman is dying, it will be much more difficult to remain united.
posted by Jordan on
“Please don’t include the “Q” (Questioning) in LGBT. If you’re too stupid to know what you are, if you tell people “I’m not sure if I’m gay or not,” then you’re not a member of this community.”
I think the Q refers to “Queer” or “Questioning”?
posted by Jorge on
Bobby: You’re touching on some of the reasons Hispanics and blacks are not united (and why we ourselves are not united). Certainly you can’t say that all Hispanics experience racism in a personal way like many people say with blacks (I haven’t). There are also issues like reparations and illegal immigration that neither group can do much to gain support across racial/ethnic lines.
There are a lot of surface similarities between Hispanics and many other white ethnic groups (culturally I’d cite Italians). There is also one really big difference: R-A-C-E.
Darker-skinned Hispanics have benefited greatly from the black civil rights movement, and there is still an experience of profiling and a perception of racism among them. Lighter-skinned Hispanics have an experience of “getting by” because they are perceived as more white. I notice that you’re not crediting the fact that blacks continue to perceive racism on both an institutional and personal level today.
Just a few days ago some people a few miles from where I live were complaining about being raided by the INS and held for many hours for no other reason than their skin color.
So when you say Hispanics who learn English are not struggling, I say that’s true among most Hispanics (I do understand it’s true among Mexicans), but you also have racism and urban segregated neighborhoods.
posted by ETJB on
ENDA is not meaningless if you actually have to work for a living, and cannot move into some upper-end ‘gay ghetto’.
The elitist class notions are shocking. Many poor, working clss or lower middle clas LGBT people live in a different world then many LGBT urban professionals.
ENDA is NOT unconstitutional. Congress does have the power to regulate a private business. Nor are such laws the same thing as ‘quotas’ or AA.
posted by ETJB on
Transgender status is NOT protected under Federal sex discriminatiion laws or disability-discrimination laws.
Racism or xenophobia is NOT the same thing as homphobia or vice versa. Yes, their are similiar issues with all forms of oppression, but lets not stating messing with history.
African Americans were brought over by force, and the American Indians were basically exterminated. Neither had substantive citizenship/civil rights until after the Second World War.
Hispanic is a broad term. Some Hispanics were forced to the USA during our military expansion into Mexico and Latin America, and were generally denied citizenship.
This ‘English Only’ game is a gimmick. A second or third generation American who goes through K12 education (watch tv)
will learn American-English.
The only people who ever struggle are first generation Americans, especially if they are elderly. It rarely matters what nation they come from, first generation Americans have almost always been seen as ‘weird’.
None of these groups of people belong to ‘races’, because their is only one real race; human. Race is something that was socially constructed to justify and perpetuate racism.
Their really is no ‘white race’, ‘black race’, ‘hispanic race’.
But their is racism because individauls and institutions believe in the hiearchy of race.
posted by Brian Miller on
ENDA is not meaningless if you actually have to work for a living, and cannot move into some upper-end ‘gay ghetto’.
The insulting attitudes of the left here are utterly shocking.
I don’t know what’s worse — the left’s belief that gay people are so incompetent that without government mandates, we wouldn’t be able to keep jobs. . . or the left’s insistence that the rest of the world is so horrendously bigoted that the only thing keeping competent gay employees from being fired is Big Daddy Government.
In either case, they’re doing a lot of insultin’, as usual!
posted by Brian Miller on
ENDA is NOT unconstitutional.
ENDA (and the Civil Rights Act) violates the First Amendment right to freedom of association.
Congress does have the power to regulate a private business.
Congress shouldn’t have the power to do so unconstitutionally — however, Republicrats have already made an absolute tatter of our Constitution in order to get what they want.
Whether it’s wars without a declaration, suspension of habeus corpus, or rescinding of the right to freedom of association, we can count on them to come up with all sorts of excuses as to why our constitutional rights must give way to their Brave New Centrally Planned World.