Barney Frank to hold ENDA presser on Wednesday
by: Pam Spaulding
Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 16:13:52 PM EDT
http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/11651/barney-frank-to-introduce-enda-on-wednesday (http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/11651/barney-frank-to-introduce-enda-on-wednesday)
FRANK TO HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE
ON THE EMPLOYEE NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT (ENDA)
WHERE: Room 2219, Rayburn House Office Building
WHEN: Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 1:00 PM
WHO: Rep. Barney Frank, joined by Rep. George Miller, Rep. John Conyers, Rep. Tammy Baldwin, Rep. Jared Polis, Rep. Rob Andrews, Rep. Mike Castle, Rep. Todd Platts, Rep. Leonard Lance, and others. Also participating will be representatives of the Human Rights Campaign, the AFL-CIO, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
BACKGROUND: This week, Congressman Barney Frank will introduce the Employee Non-Discrimination Act. The legislation would extend federal employment laws, which currently prevent job discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin, age, and disability, to also cover sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill covers both the public and private sectors.
Although some states have passed laws to prevent such discrimination, it is legal in 30 states to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and legal in 38 states to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. According to research by the Williams Institute, there is an ongoing pattern of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity nationwide.
Over 100 co-sponsors, including members of both parties, have signed on as co-sponsors of the bill.
/sarcasm
My heart is filled with joy and enthusiasm as we once again attempt to get ENDA written into law. I'm sure that representative Frank, it's over 100 co-sponsors and the political action committee that is HRC will embrace it with fervor. And even if the bill encounters problems in passing, they will hold fast to the wording of the bill and will refuse to change one tiddle or jot or the bill. They certainly would not even *think* of removing certain wording from the bill that would protect gender identity. NO! Please take that out of your fluffy little head darlin'! They would NEVER do that!!!
sarcasm/
I'll believe it when the ink is dry on the bill from the presidents many pens turning the bill into a law. Until then, call me just a shade skeptical.
"Half a loaf is better than none" as they say... Especially when the GLB community get's their half and the T's get none.
-Sandy
Should we just allow people being discriminated because of sexual orientation in case it is politically impossible to pass the full-version?
What exactly is the 'we' here? You are not a citizen of the U.S. And it's the orientation part that is more likely to pass then the gender section given past history.
I was just meaning that the gay-only version can pass but because of current climate it is very unlikely that gender identity can be part of the bill.
Post Merge: June 24, 2009, 09:39:04 AM
However I am against only gay-version of Matthew Sheppard Act. In case some senators decide so I hope that the law fails.
I'd give it fifty-fifty odds of passing as written. However, even if its passed, it might not change much very fast.
Quote from: DarkLady on June 24, 2009, 09:35:00 AM
However I am against only gay-version of Matthew Sheppard Act. In case some senators decide so I hope that the law fails.
I know you don't live here and your enthusiasm for our well being is appreciated, but, DL, please do try to get your facts somewhere in the same neighborhood, ok?
The Mathew Sheppard
BILL is the conventionally known as the "hate crimes" bill and was having problems in the legislature
BECAUSE of the sexual-orientation portion. There is no gay-only version of the bill.
The
Employment
Non-
Discrimination
Ammendment currently has verbiage that would protect employees from discrimination by employers on the basis, among other things, sexual orientation and gender identity. The last time ENDA went through the House, the gender identity verbiage was removed in order to get it passed even though everyone knew that there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of it getting signed into law.
Please follow along in your LGBT agenda memo's that have been sent out as we are accused of by the religious right.
-Sandy
Ooooh Barney Frank! Now there is certainly someone who is a great example of living up to one's promises.
NOT!
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
What exactly did he ever promise you? He's done very well for his constituents which is why he has been there so long.
Yea, the religious right speaks about ''paedophila protection act.'' But many people in right would feel better in case there would be only sexual orientation. And full-ENDA may even pass in the U.S. house very narrowly but probably would be fillibustered in the senate. There are five Republican members of co-sponsoring the bill.
And I do not have an opinion about Barney Frank but would it be better in case he would be replaced with Republican who is perhaps as Illinois rep. and potential future senator Peter Roskam.
You about as likely to get a republican elected in that district of Massachusetts as you would getting France to elect a German or English Prime Minister. With the possible exceptions of California's 8th and 9th districts its perhaps the most liberal congressional district in the US.
And he is doing what he said he was going to do, come back and reintroduce the entire bill again.
The religious right does not have much power these days, and despite the threats there has not been a filibuster yet, and they ain't going to pull it out for this.
If it gets through the house it will pass the senate, and BO will sign it.