For those who didn't watch the ENDA debate on C-SPAN, the Congressional Record, the official tab of the Congress, is now out with the debate (links below - retry them if they don't load, I've had some problems. Update: for HTML, skip down to item #38, from here).
The real question, then, is this: Are gay people generally victims in employment? Have we historically been systematically barred from jobs in the same way that, say, women, Blacks, and the disabled have? And is a remedy therefore necessary? My own view is that, while there are some particular cases of discrimination against homosexuals, for the most part getting and keeping jobs is hardly the most pressing issue we face.
-Andrew Sullivan, now in the Congressional Record
-Andrew Sullivan, now in the Congressional Record
"Clueless" is the word that comes to my mind, but more:
National gay rights groups love it because they are part of the lobbyist-lawyer nexus that will gain from it and because their polls tell them it's the least objectionable of our aims.
-Andrew Sullivan, now in the Congressional Record
-Andrew Sullivan, now in the Congressional Record
How can you really believe that shit AND that transpeople are "holding everyone else hostage", without a positive animus to exclude transpeople?
Gross. Just gross.
ENDA debate start:
Jerry Nadler:
Rush Holt and the letters for inclusion, from Johnson&Johnson and the dissenting Congressman.
Souder, strongly opposed, inserts two letters in opposition: Andrew Sullivan {The Advocate, 1998} alongside a Jewish Orthodox writer {page H13234}
Text of the Bill
Miller-Stupak amendment
Souder amendment
Baldwin amendment {withdrawn}
Amendment votes
Mr. Forbes, distinguishing himself with the Republican Motion to Recommit, on the basis that employment should also be about marital status, somehow {bill survives, just 222-198, roll call 1056}
Roll call 1057 bill passes, 235-184
