You mean you consider it discriminatory to punish someone for doing something illegal if it “fulfills their sexual needs”?

People who are discriminated against once couldn’t advance eventually? That’s a novel, and inaccurate, argument. Most people just move on. Having legal recourse against people who do that isn’t a bad thing, nor is a disincentive to continue to move forward

[q]The people who want ENDA are the ones like Barney Frank, who can’t seem to stop their sexual needs from entering the workplace[/q]

Yes, being discriminated against because you had to fulfill your sexual needs and have a life partner and then have the indecency to actually refer to them in public is just being confrontational. We can’t have such lewd activity in the workplace being supported by public law. It’s not like straight people talk about their spouses and home lives at work. Oh wait….

Really, Mr. Moderate; if Mary Cheney were being discriminated against, she wouldn’t HAVE the spectacular and stellar career that she has had. The people who want ENDA are the ones like Barney Frank, who can’t seem to stop their sexual needs from entering the workplace and who can’t manage to earn positions based on their merits; they need a law to give them extra credit points for being gay and to protect them from the fact that their sexual orientation prevents them from behaving normally or acting with any restraint whatsoever.

Meanwhile, laws banning discrimination based on religion and race have Constitutional amendments as their basis. But it wouldn’t bother me if we removed those laws as well.

ENDA has nothing to do with advancing a career. This isn’t affirmative action for gays. It is protection from discrimination in the workplace, housing and other areas. If you are arguing for the removal of these statutes in their entirety, then I’m with you. If you are arguing that gays should be the one class out of many already covered then I don’t see how that’s intellectually honest. There is still plenty of discrimination in this country and giving gay people the same tools that are given to those that are discriminated against based on religion (choice), race (genetics) or marital status (choice again) isn’t some big stretch.

Actually, no; Cheney has a smart, talented, hardworking daughter who hasn’t needed ENDA in the least to have a most praiseworthy career. If anything, ENDA would be an insult; it would indicate that she could not succeed based on her own merit and needed to be given special points based on her sexual orientation.

The only gays who seem to need ENDA are the ones like Barney Frank, who use their business role to shelter and run prostitution and drug rings, get special treatment for their sex partners, and whose primary qualifications center solely on their sexual orientation.

Hypocrisy? Gore supported ENDA but has no gay child, he just thinks it’s the right thing to do, and did back in the 1990′s as VP despite it not being anywhere near as popular as it is today. Cheney has a gay child that would directly be impacted by the passage of ENDA and that legislation is supported by the majority of the population. Does he come out in support of it? No. There is no hypocrisy in point that out. If you believe there is, please enlighten me.

Does Algore have a lesbian daughter? If so, why hasn’t he even mentioned it?

Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

Regards,
Peter H.

He supported ENDA while he was VP. Has Cheney done the same thing? I honestly don’t know. Google is silent on the issue so I’m guessing not. Doing so what at least put him on par with Gore, which you’d think would be easy since he has a lesbian daughter that is directly impacted by such legislation.

If he said something to the effect of, “Leave it to the states, but personally I support it,” then he’d have testicular fortitude. His wife certainly did. He just left it at the cop-out level of not supporting FMA while not voicing support for such unions in general. It was also very warming of him to have his whole family up on the stage during the convention minus his lesbian daughter and her counterpart. That’s the sort of inclusiveness I like to see in a pro-gay VP with a lesbian child.

Dick Cheney has the testicular fortitude to pick a path and stay with it. The fact that you don’t like his choice ‘leave it to the states’ (I don’t, but that’s because the courts won’t let us) doesn’t make it less true.

I have always admired Mary.

She’s hot. They’re jealous. That’s why.

She’s also low-key, articulate, and classy. But she’s still hot.

Second, other than the FMA, Bush has really been pretty respectful toward gay people, and even had some policies that should be considered positive by conventional standards, like Bush’s massive expansion of AIDS spending. Even when pushing the FMA/MPA, Bush has kept a respectful tone and emphasized that respect. The gay activist types won’t ever admit that, of course. I heard that Bush always has been personally respectful to gays, even without Cheney. Yet I can’t help thinking that Cheney has been a plus on that front as well. It’s clear in Mary Cheney’s book that her parents have long been “out of the closet” and actively supportive about their lesbian daughter.

She is the lawyer who filed the suit that led to the CA supreme court decision in May. But she never even contributed one cent to the no on 8 campaign.