News and Events => Political and Legal News => Topic started by: Butterfly on October 01, 2007, 09:24:52 PM Return to Full Version
Title: Revised ENDA Also Reduces Protections For Gays Legal Group Says
Post by: Butterfly on October 01, 2007, 09:24:52 PM
Post by: Butterfly on October 01, 2007, 09:24:52 PM
Revised ENDA Also Reduces Protections For Gays Legal Group Says
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/10/100107endup.htm
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
10/01/2007
"New York City) A preliminary assessment of the revised version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act shows the bill to be riddled with loopholes in addition to dropping protections for transgender people, Lambda Legal said Monday.
The newest version of the bill is not simply the old version with the transgender protections stripped out — but rather a totally reworked version in several additional and troubling ways Lambda said".
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/10/100107endup.htm
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
10/01/2007
"New York City) A preliminary assessment of the revised version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act shows the bill to be riddled with loopholes in addition to dropping protections for transgender people, Lambda Legal said Monday.
The newest version of the bill is not simply the old version with the transgender protections stripped out — but rather a totally reworked version in several additional and troubling ways Lambda said".
Title: Re: Revised ENDA Also Reduces Protections For Gays Legal Group Says
Post by: Hazumu on October 01, 2007, 10:18:51 PM
Post by: Hazumu on October 01, 2007, 10:18:51 PM
It just occurred to me after reading the article -- all that Barney Franks appears to care about is same-sex marriage, and he's jettisoning anything and everything he can to get some sort of thing on the books that will leverage a leap to same-sex marriage. So, were TG protections included in this bill for our value as jettisonable ballast?
We do have the power to hold him hostage. We (G, L, B and T, as well as gender-conforming heterosexuals who are sympathetic to our cause(s), can scuttle the one thing he seems to really want -- the 'right' to marry who you wish to without prohibition due to non-conformance to currently-enforced mores.
--But that would be rude and nasty and increase the divisiveness, wouldn't it?
Karen
We do have the power to hold him hostage. We (G, L, B and T, as well as gender-conforming heterosexuals who are sympathetic to our cause(s), can scuttle the one thing he seems to really want -- the 'right' to marry who you wish to without prohibition due to non-conformance to currently-enforced mores.
--But that would be rude and nasty and increase the divisiveness, wouldn't it?
Karen