The Huffington Post
Valerie Keefe
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-keefe/enda_b_1256174.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-keefe/enda_b_1256174.html)
It was a curious thing to see, last week, a Republican offering an avenue for progress on a rights issue: Governor Christie proposing a referendum on removing the legal sexes of a couple as a criterion for the granting of marriages, which, considering New Jersey has outlawed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or presentation, could legitimately be called marriage equality. The passage of marriage equality would end the current "separate-but-equal" system of civil partnerships that, by New Jersey law, must enjoy the same rights as marriage in every instance, a foolish and childish distinction made the last time the legislature visited this issue.
Makes sense, especially if it is impossible to find a definition of man or woman that doesn't have contradictory exceptions.
A good example of trying to build a political consensus. by Gov. Christie.
For those of us who've stood by in abject frustration as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act was blocked, time and again, sometimes, through apparent Republican disinterest, the bill is withdrawn. Sometimes the bill is rendered unpassable through poison pills introduced by the House's point man on the issue, Rep. Barney Frank, such as requiring surgery for safe access to public accommodations, and requiring "consistent gender presentation" in 2009, or stripping gender identity and presentation out of an already doomed bill in 2007.
From 2009 to 2011, the Democrats could have passed, and Mr. Obama could have signed, any sort of legislation without a single Republican vote. It wasn't "Republican disinterest" that doomed ENDA - leftist propaganda not withstanding. Obama did not politic for it, and the Democrats did not support it.