More On ENDA forwarded by New England LGBT Veterans
Fwd: Statement of Congressman Barney Frank in Response to a Recent
Press Release by Lambda Legal Raising Questions About ENDA
Forwarded As A Courtesy By Cliff Arnesen
Bisexual Vice-President
New England Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Veterans, Inc.
John F. Kennedy Station
P. O. Box 6599
Boston, MA 02114
http://www.newengland-glbt-vets.com/
Wednesday, 3 October 2007
Dear Members of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender
Communities:
Please know that this morning I personally called the office of
Congressman Barney Frank, whom I have known and worked with on a
myriad of issues over the past 16 years.
While I was unable to speak to Congressman Frank, personally, I did
speak with a member of his staff, and told him that I and the New
England GLBT Veterans, Inc., respectfully opposed
any deletion of protection for Transgender people in ENDA.
In response, the staff member informed me that to his knowledge the
proposed Bill would move forward, and that it would take
"incremental" changes in the future as regards to protection and
language
for Transgender people. At that, I asked the staff member to please
relay to Congressman Frank my personal and respectful "opposition" to
any exclusion of Transgender people in ENDA, as to do so would be a
grave injustice.
This said, I wish all to know that Congressman Frank has fought many
battles for the "Gay Community," for which I give him my thanks, as
he has been a powerful spokesman in helping to secure human and civil
rights for the larger Gay Community. But in regard to the
"incremental" inclusion of Transgender people in ENDA, I respectfully
beg to differ.
Just as I and my fellow GLBT military veterans differed with
Congressman Frank to broker a compromise on the U. S. Military's
inhumane "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, as former President Bill
Clinton should have signed the Executive Order permitting GLB people
to serve openly in the U.S. Military. All it would have taken
President Clinton was a stroke of his pen to release US from the
"bondage" of sanctioned discrimination and suffering by the United
States Government. Thus, President Clinton should have remembered
the heroic and historic efforts of President Harry Truman who signed
an Executive Order which integrated African Americans within the U.S.
Armed Forces. President Truman had the "guts" to tell his generals
that if they did not like his Executive Order, then he wanted their
resignation on his desk within 24 hours.
But I digress.
Upon returning home, I received this E mail from Congressman Frank's
office, which is in reply to Lambda Legal's Analysis of Stripped Down
Version of ENDA: Gender Identity Protections Gone and Inadequate
Protections for Lesbians, Gay Men and Bisexuals, whose www link can
be copied into your browser.
In ending, I remind all of the following quote by Martin Niemoeller,
who lived thru Nazi Germany who said:
"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because
I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was
a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Martin Niemoeller, German Lutheran Pastor (1892-1984)
May God Bless America and Her GLBT people.
Sincerely & Bisexually Yours,
Cliff
617-387-2658
http://www.newengland-glbt-vets.com/
Please cut & paste into your Browser to read Lamda Legal's Analysis
http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/lambda-legals-analysis-enda.html
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Statement of Congressman Barney Frank in Response to a Recent
Press Release by Lambda Legal Raising Questions About ENDA
Date: 10/03/2007 04:58:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Marisa.Greenwald@...
Sent from the Internet (Details)
News release from Barney Frank
_________________________________________________________
Congressman, 4th District, Massachusetts
2252 Rayburn Building · Washington, D.C. 20515 · (202) 225-5931
October 3, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Steven Adamske
202-225-7141
Statement of Congressman Barney Frank in Response to a Recent Press
Release by Lambda Legal Raising Questions About ENDA:
Washington, DC-Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) released
the following statement in response to Lambda Legal's recent press
release about H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act:
"Lambda Legal's analysis of the bill I have reintroduced to outlaw
sexual orientation discrimination contains one essential error, and
two misunderstandings of where we are in the legislative process.
"First, Lambda asserts:
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.
"The `also' in this phrase is wrong. The second bill does omit
reference to people who are transgender, but it makes no other change
in the wording on this point. It neither adds nor deletes any
reference to how employer's rights to fire people based on how they
appear.
"The sexual orientation language in H.R. 3685 is the same language
that has been in every version of ENDA since its first introduction
in 1994. There is nothing in case law or in ENDA's history to
indicate that absent gender identity coverage, the bill would
inadequately protect gay, lesbian and bisexual people from
discrimination. In addition, there are eight states with laws
covering sexual orientation but not gender identity, and I am not
aware of any instances where anti-gay discrimination, even based to
some degree on gender non-conformity, was not covered.
"Asserting that this allows gay men and lesbians to be fired because
they are too effeminate or masculine is an invitation to bigots to
try to get around the law. Fortunately, as Felix Frankfurter once
said, the Constitution outlaws sophisticated as well as simple-minded
forms of discrimination, and so do statutes specifically banning
sexual orientation. Lambda Legal itself would easily defeat such an
attempted end-run around the sexual orientation language.
"Second, Lambda notes that in the reintroduced bill, the provision
that would override federal law preventing states from passing laws
involving employee benefits has been dropped. That is true. In the
bill that I had introduced earlier this year, I noted that the
drafters had included for the first time in the history of ENDA a
provision that would have amended the ERISA law. ERISA law preempts
all state efforts to mandate employee benefits and this preemption is
a deeply held principle for all of the employer organizations in
America. It was a mistake to try to slip that into ENDA. We have in
fact insisted all along that ENDA was only about job discrimination
in the sense of firing, hiring, promotion etc., and was not an effort
to get domestic partner benefits, civil unions etc. This provision
contradicted that assurance and guaranteed that we would have the
vigorous opposition of the Chamber of Commerce, the National
Federation of Independent Business, and a large number of other
business organizations. Once again this would have guaranteed the
defeat of the bill. But it is not the case that it was dropped out
quietly as I reintroduced the bill. I'm enclosing a copy of a letter
I wrote long before the bad news on the transgender issue came to us
in which I advised Members of the Committee to drop this provision.
The decision to drop out the domestic partnership benefits provision
was based on a political calculation wholly apart from the
transgender issue, and my decision to do it, as I was strongly urged
by Members of the Committee who will be voting on this bill, was
taken in early August. The new bill simply reflects that decision.
"Similar facts apply with regard to the religious exemption. The
fairly broad religious exemption that is in the new bill I recently
introduced is essentially the same broad exemption that we had to
give religious groups in previous years. We did make an effort to
narrow it in the first ENDA bill this year, and a very good job of
rewriting this was done with my strong support. But once again we
found that this would simply engender a degree of opposition from
religious groups that would keep the bill from going forward. In
both cases - the employee benefits piece and the religious exemption
piece - we had letters of opposition from some of the most
politically influential organization in the United States. We
therefore in both of these cases decided outside completely of the
transgender issue that we had to go back to the earlier ENDA form.
"To summarize, the one change that is made substantively from the old
bill to the new one that I reintroduced is to drop gender identity.
No words have been added or subtracted that make it easier to fire a
gay man because of some effort to transform homophobia into dislike
of effeminacy and I believe the law continues to be a strong bulwark
against that. Beyond that, in the cases of employee benefits and
religious exemption, the efforts we made to try to increase our scope
ran into insuperable opposition and the changes I made in the bill
that was reintroduced simply reflect changes that would have been
made in the original bill in the Committee markup. I should note
that in both cases, all of those involved in the drafting of the bill
were aware that we were going to have to make those changes and I am
not aware of anyone who raised any objection because the case for
doing so was so overwhelming. What we have now is exactly what we
introduced in past years that had widespread support."
# # #
Press Release by Lambda Legal Raising Questions About ENDA
Forwarded As A Courtesy By Cliff Arnesen
Bisexual Vice-President
New England Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Veterans, Inc.
John F. Kennedy Station
P. O. Box 6599
Boston, MA 02114
http://www.newengland-glbt-vets.com/
Wednesday, 3 October 2007
Dear Members of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender
Communities:
Please know that this morning I personally called the office of
Congressman Barney Frank, whom I have known and worked with on a
myriad of issues over the past 16 years.
While I was unable to speak to Congressman Frank, personally, I did
speak with a member of his staff, and told him that I and the New
England GLBT Veterans, Inc., respectfully opposed
any deletion of protection for Transgender people in ENDA.
In response, the staff member informed me that to his knowledge the
proposed Bill would move forward, and that it would take
"incremental" changes in the future as regards to protection and
language
for Transgender people. At that, I asked the staff member to please
relay to Congressman Frank my personal and respectful "opposition" to
any exclusion of Transgender people in ENDA, as to do so would be a
grave injustice.
This said, I wish all to know that Congressman Frank has fought many
battles for the "Gay Community," for which I give him my thanks, as
he has been a powerful spokesman in helping to secure human and civil
rights for the larger Gay Community. But in regard to the
"incremental" inclusion of Transgender people in ENDA, I respectfully
beg to differ.
Just as I and my fellow GLBT military veterans differed with
Congressman Frank to broker a compromise on the U. S. Military's
inhumane "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, as former President Bill
Clinton should have signed the Executive Order permitting GLB people
to serve openly in the U.S. Military. All it would have taken
President Clinton was a stroke of his pen to release US from the
"bondage" of sanctioned discrimination and suffering by the United
States Government. Thus, President Clinton should have remembered
the heroic and historic efforts of President Harry Truman who signed
an Executive Order which integrated African Americans within the U.S.
Armed Forces. President Truman had the "guts" to tell his generals
that if they did not like his Executive Order, then he wanted their
resignation on his desk within 24 hours.
But I digress.
Upon returning home, I received this E mail from Congressman Frank's
office, which is in reply to Lambda Legal's Analysis of Stripped Down
Version of ENDA: Gender Identity Protections Gone and Inadequate
Protections for Lesbians, Gay Men and Bisexuals, whose www link can
be copied into your browser.
In ending, I remind all of the following quote by Martin Niemoeller,
who lived thru Nazi Germany who said:
"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because
I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was
a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Martin Niemoeller, German Lutheran Pastor (1892-1984)
May God Bless America and Her GLBT people.
Sincerely & Bisexually Yours,
Cliff
617-387-2658
http://www.newengland-glbt-vets.com/
Please cut & paste into your Browser to read Lamda Legal's Analysis
http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/lambda-legals-analysis-enda.html
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Statement of Congressman Barney Frank in Response to a Recent
Press Release by Lambda Legal Raising Questions About ENDA
Date: 10/03/2007 04:58:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Marisa.Greenwald@...
Sent from the Internet (Details)
News release from Barney Frank
_________________________________________________________
Congressman, 4th District, Massachusetts
2252 Rayburn Building · Washington, D.C. 20515 · (202) 225-5931
October 3, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Steven Adamske
202-225-7141
Statement of Congressman Barney Frank in Response to a Recent Press
Release by Lambda Legal Raising Questions About ENDA:
Washington, DC-Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) released
the following statement in response to Lambda Legal's recent press
release about H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act:
"Lambda Legal's analysis of the bill I have reintroduced to outlaw
sexual orientation discrimination contains one essential error, and
two misunderstandings of where we are in the legislative process.
"First, Lambda asserts:
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.
"The `also' in this phrase is wrong. The second bill does omit
reference to people who are transgender, but it makes no other change
in the wording on this point. It neither adds nor deletes any
reference to how employer's rights to fire people based on how they
appear.
"The sexual orientation language in H.R. 3685 is the same language
that has been in every version of ENDA since its first introduction
in 1994. There is nothing in case law or in ENDA's history to
indicate that absent gender identity coverage, the bill would
inadequately protect gay, lesbian and bisexual people from
discrimination. In addition, there are eight states with laws
covering sexual orientation but not gender identity, and I am not
aware of any instances where anti-gay discrimination, even based to
some degree on gender non-conformity, was not covered.
"Asserting that this allows gay men and lesbians to be fired because
they are too effeminate or masculine is an invitation to bigots to
try to get around the law. Fortunately, as Felix Frankfurter once
said, the Constitution outlaws sophisticated as well as simple-minded
forms of discrimination, and so do statutes specifically banning
sexual orientation. Lambda Legal itself would easily defeat such an
attempted end-run around the sexual orientation language.
"Second, Lambda notes that in the reintroduced bill, the provision
that would override federal law preventing states from passing laws
involving employee benefits has been dropped. That is true. In the
bill that I had introduced earlier this year, I noted that the
drafters had included for the first time in the history of ENDA a
provision that would have amended the ERISA law. ERISA law preempts
all state efforts to mandate employee benefits and this preemption is
a deeply held principle for all of the employer organizations in
America. It was a mistake to try to slip that into ENDA. We have in
fact insisted all along that ENDA was only about job discrimination
in the sense of firing, hiring, promotion etc., and was not an effort
to get domestic partner benefits, civil unions etc. This provision
contradicted that assurance and guaranteed that we would have the
vigorous opposition of the Chamber of Commerce, the National
Federation of Independent Business, and a large number of other
business organizations. Once again this would have guaranteed the
defeat of the bill. But it is not the case that it was dropped out
quietly as I reintroduced the bill. I'm enclosing a copy of a letter
I wrote long before the bad news on the transgender issue came to us
in which I advised Members of the Committee to drop this provision.
The decision to drop out the domestic partnership benefits provision
was based on a political calculation wholly apart from the
transgender issue, and my decision to do it, as I was strongly urged
by Members of the Committee who will be voting on this bill, was
taken in early August. The new bill simply reflects that decision.
"Similar facts apply with regard to the religious exemption. The
fairly broad religious exemption that is in the new bill I recently
introduced is essentially the same broad exemption that we had to
give religious groups in previous years. We did make an effort to
narrow it in the first ENDA bill this year, and a very good job of
rewriting this was done with my strong support. But once again we
found that this would simply engender a degree of opposition from
religious groups that would keep the bill from going forward. In
both cases - the employee benefits piece and the religious exemption
piece - we had letters of opposition from some of the most
politically influential organization in the United States. We
therefore in both of these cases decided outside completely of the
transgender issue that we had to go back to the earlier ENDA form.
"To summarize, the one change that is made substantively from the old
bill to the new one that I reintroduced is to drop gender identity.
No words have been added or subtracted that make it easier to fire a
gay man because of some effort to transform homophobia into dislike
of effeminacy and I believe the law continues to be a strong bulwark
against that. Beyond that, in the cases of employee benefits and
religious exemption, the efforts we made to try to increase our scope
ran into insuperable opposition and the changes I made in the bill
that was reintroduced simply reflect changes that would have been
made in the original bill in the Committee markup. I should note
that in both cases, all of those involved in the drafting of the bill
were aware that we were going to have to make those changes and I am
not aware of anyone who raised any objection because the case for
doing so was so overwhelming. What we have now is exactly what we
introduced in past years that had widespread support."
# # #