US Rep. Barney Frank: Pragmatism Over PurityWill Advance Gay & Lesbian Rights
I have written before that while I disagree vehemently with many if not all of his policy positions (and personal choices), I find US Rep. Barney Frank one of the most intelligent, honest and sincere Members of Congress — and probably the only one with a “D” by his name.
For those of you following the battle over passage of a employment non-discrimination bill, you know that there is a severe split within the GLBT community over whether to include “transgendered” in the legislation. The Human Rights Campaign has made their choice — purity over progress — and announced it in a strangely worded (nearly in code) email last week. Of which I tried to savage with my endless wit and intellect.
Our co-blogger, Average Gay Joe, has chaired a very vigorous debate on the subject in his post from Tuesday, “About That ‘T’ in GLBT“.
The point is this: At no time in our history has an issue of gay rights had more support from the American public than it does now.
Nearly two-thirds of all American adults (64%) believe it is unfair that federal law currently allows for an employer to fire someone because they are gay or lesbian. A similar majority (60%) of heterosexual adults were not even aware that federal law does not provide protections for employees on the basis of sexual orientation. An overwhelming majority (79%) of heterosexuals also feel that how an employee does his or her job, and not their sexual orientation, should be the standard for judging an employee.
But as is typical of the Democrat Party as a whole, one small faction of the GLBT community and of the liberal collective is set to doom decades of progress for the majority of us. The time is now to put up or shut up and our gay leaders are choosing defeat on the backs of working gays and lesbians across the USA.
I commend everyone to read this entire speech that US Rep. Barney Frank gave earlier this week on the floor of the US House of Representatives.
I talk a lot to gay people, gay men and lesbians. I find the view that we should not do anything until we can do everything very much in the minority. I understand the passion of those who are in organizational positions. But, you know, we talk about politics here. There are politics in organizations too. There are people who I have privately discussed this with who have said, yes, we wish you would go ahead, but I can’t say that. I can’t stand up against this organizational consensus.
Well, idealism by itself is going to be pretty fruitless, and idealism that is empowered by pragmatism is the way in which we make progress, and that is what we are called upon to do here. And so I am asking my colleagues, Democratic and Republican because there is bipartisan support for this, please do not be dissuaded by those who say do nothing until you can do everything. Look at the history of civil rights. Look at the fact that we helped one group here, we dealt with a certain form of discrimination there.
I do not believe that the majority of gay men and lesbians in this country want to take the position that nothing shall be done to enhance legal protection against the prejudice from which they suffer until we can do the job perfectly. I also believe that from the standpoint of including people who are transgender, for which I have and will continue to work, we will not accomplish that nearly as quickly. Maybe in 50 years it will all get done. I’ll be dead; so tell me anything. I won’t be able to argue with you. But in the interim, we will get there much more quickly if we continue to follow the sensible strategy of working with allies, of accepting support that is overwhelming but not complete, of understanding political reality, of moving forward, of alleviating some fears by taking some partial steps. We are a lot likelier to get there. So we have two choices today: we can say until we are able to do everything, we are going to abandon this effort; and I believe the consequences of that will be profoundly negative for any effort to revive this. Or, we can take one of the biggest steps forward in the anti-discrimination march, in the march to make the American Constitution’s wonderful principles fully applicable with everybody, we can take a major step forward on that issue. And having done that, we will be, in my judgment, better able to take the next step. That is the choice. And I hope, both for the substance, and for giving people a lesson in responsible governance in defense and in advancement of our values, my colleagues, especially on this side, but in the whole House, will opt for sensible and real progress that serves the interests of the majority and rejects the counsel of those who say that, absent perfection, we should leave everything as it was.
Rep. Frank truly “gets it” and his vision and pragmatism would be good gifts for our gay rights leaders to receive as they begin to lick their wounds after yet another lost fight — this one: ENDA. Come to think of it has there even been an actual gay rights victory since 1969?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
38 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Even more in the minority: the view that we should just not do anything, and indeed should repeal all of the Orwellian collective-identity laws that have already been passed. (sigh) News at 11.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 11, 2007 @ 1:26 pm - October 11, 2007
Lawrence v. Texas, I believe 2004. (Decriminalizing private sodomy, which government ought never to have criminalized.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 11, 2007 @ 1:31 pm - October 11, 2007
Thanks, ILC. I suppose I was thinking “legislative” victories. But we will count L vs. T as one victory in 40 years.
Comment by GayPatriot — October 11, 2007 @ 1:54 pm - October 11, 2007
See what happens when you leave the kids alone?
By the way, don’t Robert’s Rules provide that if “the chair” is going to take one side in a debate he ought to pass the gavel?
The fact is that this is not a new controversy; the last big push for ENDA was back duing the Clinton administration, it excluded TSes, and went nowhere.
*After* it went nowhere, I suppose HRC decided they might as well look principled if they couldn’t look successful. I’m not sure I’m in favor of ENDA in *any* form at this point, but the misinformation that was splattered all over that other thread was just appalling.
Comment by MaggieLeber — October 11, 2007 @ 2:01 pm - October 11, 2007
I think you could argue that both the NJ Domestic Partnership registry and the Vermont Civil Unions bills were gay rights victories, since both gave gay couples certain state-administered rights without requiring paperwork from lawyers (i.e., medical powers of attorney). That’s probably the closest legislative victories we might identify.
Comment by Mike — October 11, 2007 @ 2:46 pm - October 11, 2007
I just think it’s just scathingly ironic to watch the ENDA supporters opt for throwing the trannies to the wolves ***again*** because passage seems to be in reach just as the Democratic Party threw gay folks to the wolves the last time they were in power and told them they should be satisfied with DADT.
I guess there is karma after all. The Dems were willing to abandon 1 in 10 who are gay just as the gays are willing to abandon the 1 in 500 who are transgendered. And then offer “there aren’t any real transsexuals, it’s just a new fad” or “we have nothing in common with transsexuals” or “they’re just crazy anyway” or “go away and stop squicking people and making us look bad” as the excuse.
The take-home lesson is: identity politics and $3 will get you a cup of coffee when the chips are down.
Comment by MaggieLeber — October 11, 2007 @ 2:47 pm - October 11, 2007
After all this time. After all this work and struggle it is not fair to be asked to sacrifice full protection under the law because we can’t get protection for an even smaller group. I’m sorry the country and the Congress isn’t there yet but they just aren’t. It’s selfish to ask us to sacrifice this when doing so gains absolutely nothing for anyone but our enemies.
Comment by Houndentenor — October 11, 2007 @ 3:03 pm - October 11, 2007
If an employer wants to fire or not hire someone for no other reason than their sexual orientation, he/she ought to be able to do so. This is what is meant by freedom of association, per our constitution. Employment is not a right nor is it permanent once gained and only an employer (the owner of the employment position) is logically suited to make decisions as to what is best for his/her business. An employer must have the right to make bad choices.
So you’re really against hate crimes legislation? Didn’t think so.
Comment by HardHobbit — October 11, 2007 @ 3:04 pm - October 11, 2007
“Nearly two-thirds of all American adults (64%) believe it is unfair that federal law currently allows for an employer to fire someone because they are gay or lesbian.”
Wave bye bye to property rights…
Comment by Crow — October 11, 2007 @ 3:10 pm - October 11, 2007
Crow & HH, I agree 100%.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 11, 2007 @ 3:25 pm - October 11, 2007
Barney maybe honest but Traitor Carter just told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that he knows the U.S. tortures prisoners and insinuated that GW is a liar.
Comment by Roberto — October 11, 2007 @ 3:36 pm - October 11, 2007
Actually, I’m against hate crimes laws…and in favor of the Second Amendment as an individual right. Let me defend myself, and if a basher survives the attempt, he can just do the time for AgAssault….no need to try to prosecute a thoughtcrime based on his state of mind any more complicated than “criminal intent”. The additional time will just get plea-bargained away anyway.
Comment by MaggieLeber — October 11, 2007 @ 3:37 pm - October 11, 2007
So…Frank says he’s in favor of “serving the interests of the majority”.
I guess that would actually mean the majority of a minority…
Comment by MaggieLeber — October 11, 2007 @ 3:47 pm - October 11, 2007
For a party that is said to be in favor of our strong federalist division, you’re sure quick to forget (and discredit) our myriad of victories on the state level over the past 40 years.
Question: If a business can choose to discriminate in who they hire, can they discriminate in who they serve, as well?
Comment by Chase — October 11, 2007 @ 4:36 pm - October 11, 2007
While I don’t often agree with Rep. Frank’s policy poisitions, the man does understand politics and how the levers and gears of legislative government work; and he’s correct in that where politics is concerned you have to make (uncomfortable) compromises to achieve some further good.
Otherwise, go home, drink the Gay-Left’s cool-aid, and patiently wait for the evil GOP Sturmabteilung’s knock on your door in the middle of the night.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 11, 2007 @ 5:02 pm - October 11, 2007
Hear, hear!
I support neither ENDA nor the SCOTUS decision in Lawrence v Texas. ENDA, like all anti-discrimination laws, is a violation of liberty, property rights, an unconstitutional intrusion of the federal government, and a furtherance of positive “rights” which in order to be exercised always trample on the rights of others.
Lawrence v Texas was no victory. No extension of the federal government is a victory, not in the long run. Whether Texas should or should not have passed a sodomy law in the first place is irrelevant, as is this opinion poll nonsense. If two-thirds of the populace believes that people with brown eyes should have their houses confiscated, would you tout that too? My business is my business. It’s private property. You have no right to be a patron or employee. I can exclude anyone I like, even if doing so is a stupid business decision. That’s what liberty is all about, not opinion polls or how anybody “feels” about it.
Comment by rightwingprof — October 11, 2007 @ 5:22 pm - October 11, 2007
Wrong.
The federal government is granted plenary power to regulate interstate commerce under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. This position was upheld in the unanimous 1824 Supreme Court ruling (Gibbons v. Ogden) written by Chief Justice John Marshall:
“It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution.”
You are arguing against nearly 200 years of judicial precedent in your determination that business regulations are outside the purvey of the US Congress.
Silly rabbit.
Comment by Chase — October 11, 2007 @ 8:14 pm - October 11, 2007
Chase: Might have missed it, but the original intent of regulating interstate commerce was to make it regular, i.e. ensure one State didn’t start boycotting or slapping tariffs on another State’s imports. You don’t really think the Founders would have, in contrast to the entire remainder of the document, slip something in that would have given the government plenary power over nearly every conceivable aspect of our lives, do you?
Comment by Crow — October 11, 2007 @ 8:22 pm - October 11, 2007
Chase, would you hold that a business in just one state should be exempt from ENDA then? No interstate there.
The Commerce clause has been abused more than Michael Jackson’s child. I agree with rightwingprof on his points.
Also, Lefties were persecuted for years. My father’s being a ‘broken’ leftie likely saved his life. We’ve done just fine w/o any hate crimes legislation. Sinister means “of the left” after all
Comment by The Livewire — October 11, 2007 @ 8:34 pm - October 11, 2007
What’s not mentioned in this post is the virtual certainty that enactment of ENDA will be thwarted by Bush and his Congressional minions. Now going forward with even a weak ENDA might be a risk worth taking if anyone seriously believed that Repubs were going to not only regain control of Congress but also retain the Presidency in next year’s elections. But that’s not liable to happen – indeed, we are likely to see not only fewer Repubs in Congress but also fewer homohating Dems. And, of course, a Democratic President is almost ceratin to be elected. So there is no need to rush an anemic ENDA through when there is a good chance of getting a far superior one within a little over a year. I say wait.
I also will state that I don’t know anyone personally who is transgendered and, with the exception of my becoming a gay Republican, I can’t imagine anything stranger than wanting to change my sex. That said, I believe the struggle for transgendered rights is intertwined with the struggle for GLB rights and we should all fight that battle together.
Comment by Ian S — October 11, 2007 @ 10:16 pm - October 11, 2007
I disagree with Hard Hobbit in No 8. If I apply for a job and the employer tells me what the job description is and I agree to do that job for the salary offered then that is a contract. It may not be signed or technically legal or any other claptrap, but it is an agreement, yes a contract. If that employer then finds out about something in my life that they find unacceptable, unless they stated that out front at the beginning of the association, then to fire me or bring any other disciplinary action against me is a violation of that contract.
Furthermore, if firing someone had a minimal impact on that employee’s life that would be one thing. But people’s very survival is wrapped up in that weekly paycheck. I think it is proper for us as a collective social entity to make sure that there are constraints laid upon business owners to make sure that they are fair in their dealing with their employees. And this must work in the reverse as well. The balancing act is the task we are all faced with.
Business owners need employees just as much as the employee needs the job or else they (the owners) wouldn’t be putting out the salary if they didn’t need to.
And I say this as a (very small) business owner who has worked in both clerical and managerial positions in my day.
Comment by JimG — October 11, 2007 @ 10:35 pm - October 11, 2007
And if an employer is that big of a dick, why the hell would you demand that the government force him to hire you? Why have anything to do with him? Alternatively, would you want the government to force you to work for him?
Thing is, like the Marxist smoking bans, the folks who don’t have brown eyes wouldn’t care because it doesn’t effect them.
Consensus is the absence of leadership. – Margaret Thatcher
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 11, 2007 @ 10:52 pm - October 11, 2007
Sooooo……I guess the people aren’t tired of corruption after all.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 11, 2007 @ 10:56 pm - October 11, 2007
Need I remind you that when that case was decided in 1824, a large number of the founders were still living? This group would include John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Indeed, the man who wrote the opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall, was a delegate in the Virginia convention responsible for ratifying the Constitution. Marshall worked closely with Madison to get it ratified in Virginia. Marshall was also nominated by President Washington to be Attorney General in 1795.
So the notion that John Marshall might have misinterpreted the founders “intent” is more than a bit silly.
It would be very hard to have a business who’s activities are confined to a single state. If you order materials from out of state that are for the business, such as salt for a restaurant, your business is engaging in interstate commerace. If you make a business call to another state, your business is engaging in interstate commerace. If you just have customers that buy your products and then carry them over state lines, your business is engaging in interstate commerace.
Perhaps if you were selling organic vegetables you grew in your back yard to your neighbors, then you could argue that you not engaging in interstate commerce.
Comment by Chase — October 12, 2007 @ 2:17 am - October 12, 2007
Discrimination has absolutely no relevance to the commerce clause, unless you’re a jurist who believes he can read anything he likes into the text.
You have no right to patronize any business. That job is not yours, it’s your employer’s.
Comment by rightwingprof — October 12, 2007 @ 10:32 am - October 12, 2007
#20: Hey JimG, if a contract is not technically legal, it won’t stand up in court. A contract must be signed to be legal & binding (I’m not a whiz on contract law-but an unsigned contract just doesn’t appear to hold water). As far as employers needing good employees, well duh!. A good employer doesn’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The problem takes care of itself. Businesses in this day & age who actively fire gays are thin on the ground. If you’re fired because of who you sleep with, just get another job. It’s not worth it to work for a loser like that.
Comment by Jimbo — October 12, 2007 @ 12:13 pm - October 12, 2007
If I apply for a job and the employer tells me what the job description is and I agree to do that job for the salary offered then that is a contract. It may not be signed or technically legal or any other claptrap, but it is an agreement, yes a contract.
Technically, no.
US employment law is governed by a common-law concept known as “at will”, which states two things:
a) An employer has the right to hire, terminate, promote, demote, or whatnot at any time
b) An employee has the right to accept, reject, or leave at any time.
In order for something to qualify as a contract, there is a binding requirement on both the employer AND the employee. And the problem is that the gay leftists and assorted groups want to bind employers, but not employees.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 12, 2007 @ 12:41 pm - October 12, 2007
To both #26 & #27 regarding the legality of a “contract” you are both technically correct. The question that was raised was whether an employer SHOULD be able to discharge anyone for, (in this case we are talking about, sexual orientation) any reason at their whim). See #8. And I say NO.
If I spit in my palm and you do also, and then we shake hands, I hold you to that agreement (contract) as much as I hold myself. No matter what a lawyer or some court might say. It is a higher standard that we need to hold each other and ourselves to.
It is the principle that I am addressing here.
Comment by JimG — October 12, 2007 @ 10:11 pm - October 12, 2007
8: So, can it be asserted from your statement, then employers should be able to fire anyone for any reason? If someone can be fired for something that has absolutely nothing to do with their job performance, then why just limit it to sexual orientation? Get rid of someone because of the color of their skin? Because they belong to a religion you don’t like? There are some nice backwards move to society. Don’t forget that absolute authoritarian rule in other parts of the world has ideology like this at their base.
Comment by Kevin — October 13, 2007 @ 5:38 am - October 13, 2007
16: “Lawrence v Texas was no victory. No extension of the federal government is a victory, not in the long run.”
Huh? The Lawrence v Texas decision removed a fraction of the extension of federal government by ruling that the government had no interest whatsoever in the private sexual goings on of 2 consenting adults. Furthermore, it helped to erode the idea that the government has the position to legislate morality. Seems to me that is very much in line with your idea to get the government out of people’s lives, or does that only apply to laws about how you run business?
Comment by Kevin — October 13, 2007 @ 6:01 am - October 13, 2007
8: So, can it be asserted from your statement, then employers should be able to fire anyone for any reason? If someone can be fired for something that has absolutely nothing to do with their job performance, then why just limit it to sexual orientation? Get rid of someone because of the color of their skin? Because they belong to a religion you don’t like?
Absolutely; it shouldn’t be limited to sexual orientation; if the employer is racist, absolutely; if I chose to do so, absolutely. The right to hire includes the rights to fire and not hire; an employer should be free to extend and revoke employment to anyone for any reason at any time.
Comment by HardHobbit — October 13, 2007 @ 9:35 am - October 13, 2007
30, Um no. Whether you agree or not, Lawrence overturned a state law, not a federal one. So it can’t have “removed a fraction of the extension of federal government.”
Comment by The Livewire — October 13, 2007 @ 2:34 pm - October 13, 2007
Get rid of someone because of the color of their skin? Because they belong to a religion you don’t like?
Works for me.
After all, as a white male, I have none of those protections in the first place, and discrimination against Christians is openly supported by people like yourself, Kevin, who want the government to refuse to hire anyone who went to Regents University and to fire anyone who has who is already working there because of their religious beliefs.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 13, 2007 @ 2:54 pm - October 13, 2007
NDT in # 33 you are right in that these days the white male is the one who is being trounced on. Totally correct and I know because I am one myself and I work in a lefty pc company and experience this first hand. But you yourself state a good case as to why there SHOULD be protections. Why should a good law abiding Christian person, who does their job and is loyal to the company, have to fear for their job if the atheistic boss finds out that they are a person of faith? They shouldn’t and I believe we are probably in agreement of this.
But just because the scales are no heavily tipped these days in one direction doesn’t mean that it cannot be corrected and that the principal itself is not a good one.
Comment by JimG — October 13, 2007 @ 9:01 pm - October 13, 2007
The answer is simply this, JimG; them’s the breaks.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 14, 2007 @ 1:52 am - October 14, 2007
Sorry NDT. I don’t give up so easily.
Comment by JimG — October 14, 2007 @ 10:52 pm - October 14, 2007
Good. Then put your efforts into making yourself a better and more indispensable employee.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 14, 2007 @ 11:52 pm - October 14, 2007
I had an long and interesting phonecon over the weekend with a close activist friend who’s been deeply involved in the current ENDA kurfluffle that included some stories about Barney Frank …I’d love to get a confirmation or a refutation on these.
First, that when Frank originally became active in politics in Boston, back when he was closeted, one thing that he gained early notoriety for was championing the closing of a local drag club…this was offered as evidence of his longstanding attitudes towards transgendered folks.
A second story was that when Tammy Baldwin was building her whip list of who would or would not support the original bill, her staffers also asked if Frank had polled them on support for the original bill, and nobody said they’d been contacted by him….suggesting that when he withdrew support for his own bill, it wasn’t because he’d found out it wouldn’t pass, but because inclusive language he didn’t like but had expected would be stripped in committee had somehow survived.
Anybody hear anything related to these?
Comment by MaggieLeber — October 15, 2007 @ 5:03 pm - October 15, 2007