We understand your concern and anger at the situation; HRC acknowledges that the ENDA bill that passed in the House is an important first step to fight workplace discrimination and we are not in anyway celebratory of the fact that our transgender brothers and sisters were not included in this bill. We want you to know that we will not stop fighting for the inclusion of gender identity in ENDA.

Although we decided to support this version of ENDA in the final hour, throughout the entire process our goal was to have a fully inclusive bill go to the floor. The disagreement on strategies by advocates for equality should not make us question each other’s commitment to the common goal of getting protection for all members of our community. The truth is our real enemies will stop at nothing to prevent equality from moving forward for GLBT people. That the extreme right wing is doing all they can to lobby for the defeat of ENDA, but it has nothing to do with whether or not it includes gender identity. Their goal is to simply have our movement fail and for ENDA to die in Congress, which would severely hinder any chance of protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans.

While the bill Congress passed this week was not the bill we wanted, the Human Rights Campaign decided to stay at the table with Congress to ensure that millions of Americans receive the protections they deserve, and because passage of this bill is a first and absolutely necessary step toward preventing discrimination based on gender identity. Very soon, HRC will launch a new initiative to ramp up efforts on educating Congress on the importance of including gender identity in ENDA and protecting the entire gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. HRC continues to break down barriers in the corporate world through our Workplace Project. This year a record 195 major U.S. businesses earned the top rating of 100 percent on our Corporate Equality Index, and for the first time, a majority of rated firms — 58 percent — provide employment protections on the basis of gender identity.

The bottom line: The commitment of HRC’s Board of Directors for a fully inclusive bill has not changed. Because HRC stayed at the table, something we will continue to do, we were able to secure an unprecedented commitment from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Without a doubt, the only path to achieving a bill protecting our whole community was by securing passage on this historic vote.

After twelve years of hostile leadership, we have come so far and changed so many hearts and minds. Only a year ago, it never seemed possible that we could pass any GLBT legislation. For the first time in history, both houses of Congress passed a hate crimes bill, and for the first time ever a workplace antidiscrimination law passed in the House. Even a year ago, we could not imagine this coming to fruition. Our fight will not be won overnight; it will be won one step at a time.

Whether or not you stand with HRC, we hope that you will continue to take action in the fight for equality for the entire GLBT community.

In addition, this email is to serve as a confirmation that your removal request has been received and updated in our records. You have been removed from all of HRC’s mailing & email lists.

Please understand that if we have already processed and sent other mailings to you prior to making this change, you may still receive one or two mailings. This does not mean that your removal has not taken place, but simply that your information was updated after we had already processed that piece of mail.

Respectfully,

Then, later...

A person’s a person, no matter how small!
And you very small persons will not have to die
If you make yourselves heard! So come on, now, and TRY!”

I don’t like the duplicitous nature of the HRC over the past two months. Dealing with them on any level feels like a Charlie Brown nightmare. But an honest assessment of the facts shows that HRC is the largest GLBT political machine there is. Do we create or elevate another organization to that level in a years time? I don’t think that could be done in ten years time, much less one. The HRC owns the keys to access our politicians. How do we fight for an inclusive ENDA in 2009 and fight the HRC at the same time?

According to a new poll, 70% of LGBT Americans prefer passing an Employment Non-discrimination Act that does not include transgender people over not passing the bill at all. The poll, commissioned by the Human Rights Campaign and conducted on October 26, surveyed 500 members of the LGBT community across the country.

Poll: 70% of LGBT Community Supports Passing Non-inclusive ENDA  - Advocate.com, Nov. 6, 2007

More Details Obtained About ENDA Poll Commissioned by Human Rights Campaign  - Advocate.com, Nov. 9, 2007

Earlier Tuesday, HRC trumpeted a poll it commissioned that showed 70 percent of the 500 self-identified LGBT folks surveyed were okay with the non-trans ENDA. We immediately asked who these people were – HRC members or subscribers of the Advocate? (The magazine was first out of the box to post the story about the survey, leaving some to wonder if the two were joined at the hip on this one.) Minutes later, we received a call from spokesman Brad Luna, who assured us that the 500 folks were "randomly" selected "from across the country" and were "not HRC members and not Advocate readers." He declined to name the polling company that conducted the survey, which he said was done by telephone.

It's no surprise that HRC President Joe Solmonese wanted a poll – anything, really – to buttress his claim that fighting incrementally for equal rights is the way to go. Now, suddenly, the day before the House is scheduled to vote on the sexual orientation-only ENDA, poll results are released; this, after a concerted effort by some 300 LGBT organizations across the country to stand firmly behind an inclusive ENDA that would cover all members of the LGBT community.

[Later, it continues....]

We feel duped. When Solmonese was hired to lead HRC, one of the first questions we asked him was whether the group would continue its policy of supporting a trans inclusive ENDA. We were told it would. Now, that is not the case.

HRC has adopted the incremental approach, and attempts to justify its stance by drawing comparisons with the piecemeal struggle for equality during the civil rights movement, when there were "agonizing tradeoffs," to quote the letter endorsing ENDA from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, which includes HRC.

Given the fact that President Bush isn't likely even to sign ENDA – assuming it passes the House and Senate – we believe that HRC has needlessly expended a lot of political capital and goodwill at the expense of the trans community, which once again has been sacrificed.

Read the entire article here: HRC's  'back story'  The Bay Area Reporter - Nov. 8, 2007

• HRC's strategy was actually to prevent the compromise ENDA from ever coming up for a vote on the House floor. Once it passed out of Rules Committee, HRC reversed itself. It's unclear why HRC would publicly commit itself to a strategy that depended on ENDA never making it to the House floor, something that was inevitable after Nancy Pelosi gave a green light.
• HRC will score the ENDA vote on its congressional report card, which is pretty remarkable considering the many public pronouncements by Solmonese that HRC opposed (and then was neutral) on the compromise bill. At the same time, HRC will indicate somehow those members (it turned out to be seven Dems) who voted against ENDA on trans-inclusion grounds.
• Amusingly, Signorile complains the internal ENDA debate "got really ugly," including "nasty comments about transgender people" online. No doubt that happened and shouldn't have, but thus far I've only seen nasty comments by transgender people (and their allies), not about them.
• Signorile took Solmonese to task for acting like a Beltway lobbyist and not a civil rights leader. All I can say is, "Welcome to the party, Mike." I've said many times that Joe is no doubt a talented tactician, although his ENDA flip-flops raise some doubts there as well. But he never should have been named to lead the nation's largest gay rights group. He would have been much better suited to be political director, working for a someone who gets "the vision thing" and can inspire unity and progress in the movement.
• Solmonese now claims he "misspoke" at a Sept. 14 meeting with transgender activists in Atlanta for the Southern Comfort conference. "We do not support and in fact absolutely oppose any legislation that is not absolutely inclusive," Solmonese said then. Believe it or not, Solmonese now claims HRC's position is still to oppose ENDA if it is not trans-inclusive, but only if it passes Congress in that form and is up for the president's signature.
• Solmonese's take-away from the whole ENDA debacle is that HRC should be entrusted with more, not less, leeway to decide what's best for us. "In retrospect," he said, "perhaps the policy of HRC should be that we're going to evaluate each circumstance as it presents itself and do what we think is in the best interest of the community." Yes, he really said that.

Read the entire article here: The Debate Before the Debate  CitizenCrain.com - Nov. 8, 2007

For me, it's personal -- I'm not a petite blond in a bikini. I get called sir on a daily basis. I had a job where I was asked to wear a skirt for client meetings. I interviewed at another and refused because at this small start up software company in the early 90s, women were not allowed to wear pants. I love getting dressed up but please don't ask me to wear a dress. It makes me miserable. If you ask me to wear make-up, I'm going to look like a clown.

It's personal because one of my kids struggles with gender identity. I watch his pain and know there is a very real chance he is transgender. Threaten my children's rights and I am no longer sane... throw him under the bus and I'll go out and pick that damn bus up and throw it off the road.

And it's personal because it is a statement about my community. What we are willing to do, and how we are willing to walk in the world.

It is a devastating loss. In 1987, Massachusetts passed a gay and lesbian civil rights bill. Twenty years later, we still have no gender identity protections. The only state in the country with legally recognized gay marriage and no protections for gender expression.

As a community, we need to reframe where we are. It's not about making chicken salad out of chicken shit, which implies making due with what we have. It's about creating a calculated, thoughtful strategy for moving forward, building on what we have. It's about making stone soup. I believe that's what Congresswoman Baldwin was trying to do. Regardless, I am going to support her because I am unwilling to throw anyone under the bus.

Read the entire article here: ENDA Rift: Throw Tammy Baldwin Under the Bus?'  The Huffington Post - Nov. 8, 2007

BUT, not including our transgender brothers and sisters is a real shame. We’ve really gotten to a point where protections for gays and lesbians is appreciated and necessary (including in South Carolina), but transgender people are the ones who need protection the most. And considering how long it took to get these rights for gays and lesbians, I have my doubts that we’ll ever see the law expanded again.

The fight continues.

 the House on gender identity.

ENDA Win In House, Minus Trans Protection - Charleston (SC) City Paper, Nov. 8 2007

ENDA: The Day After - Qweerty.com

Many in Bay Area call anti-bias measure an act of betrayal - San Francisco Chronicle - Nov. 8, 2007

This was originally going to be a column defending the Human Rights Campaign. I had grown tired of people taking cheap potshots at them over inclusion (or not) of transgender Americans in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The gratuitous, invective-laced attacks appeared vicious, personal, counterproductive and designed to damage the organization – and hence the overall interests of GLBT people.

Further aggravating me were churlish remarks on Internet chat rooms where supposedly professional activists would say things like, "HRC has no right to speak for me and does not represent the gay community." Well, the truth is, they do speak for you, by virtue of the fact they are the largest membership organization and have a $30 million dollar budget. This affords them a unique platform and by claiming their voice is irrelevant, it only hurts the status of the entire GLBT cause on Capitol Hill.

Whether you like it or not, HRC has built the best – or at least most financially viable - mousetrap. America is a free country, and if HRC detractors think they can do better – there is nothing stopping them from marching up to Capitol Hill and making it happen.

Now that I have taken a swipe at the irrational HRC haters, the organization has earned some legitimate criticism on their handling of the ENDA debate. They have made an absolute mess of the situation and damaged their reputation and credibility as an honest powerbroker.

For starters, Executive Director Joe Solmonese told a packed room of transgender people at the Southern Comfort Conference in September that HRC would oppose any version of ENDA that doesn't include protection for transgender people. This was followed by an Oct. 2, 2007 press release – posted on the blog Pam's House Blend:

"Since 2004, HRC has had in place a policy that supports only a fully inclusive version of ENDA and the Board of Directors voted to reaffirm that position," wrote Solmonese. "Therefore, we are not able to support, nor will we encourage Members of Congress to vote against, the newly introduced sexual orientation only bill."

Yet – today we come to find that HRC circulated a letter on Capitol Hill – along with other civil rights groups – asking members of Congress to support a non-trans inclusive bill. The letter said, "we urge you to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and to oppose any floor amendments or motions that would undermine its protections."

Reasonable people can disagree on whether HRC should take this incremental approach or wait for a more inclusive bill. I sided with a more inclusive bill for three reasons:

1) We owe transgender Americans much for their activism and it is the right thing to do

2) The transgender community is too small and does not have the money or votes to gain protections on their own.

3) Bush is going to veto ENDA anyway, so we should use this as an opportunity to educate America on transgender Americans.

The other side, led by Rep. Barney Frank, believes that we should seize the moment and pass a bill that has been stymied for 30 years. This, of course, is a difficult debate, and Frank's position is not without merit.

What is unacceptable, is for HRC to tell a packed house of transgender people that they will stand up for them – and then pull the rug out when the going gets tough. The promise of inclusion should never have been made unless HRC intended to keep its word.

In full spin mode, HRC is claiming that they are simply adjusting their position to new facts on the ground – meaning they polled Congress and they won't pass a trans-inclusive bill. This explanation is alarming, in that one would think HRC would have taken a "whip" count on their signature piece of legislation before they ended up getting whipped. Had they no idea of where Congress stood before making such flowery promises at the Southern Comfort conference? And, if they were aware of the vote count, why did they offer promises they did not intend on delivering?

It was sad to listen to Solmonese dissemble on Mike Signorile's Sirius satellite radio show about how he was for a trans-inclusive bill before he was against it - and unable to answer the simple question: "Why should we believe any of your future grandiose statements about equality?"

HRC needs to learn to take a position and stick to it – or they can expect chronic detractors to stick it to HRC. A little honesty will go a long way in defusing battles that damage the entire community and divide our collective energies. There are those – like myself – who appreciate HRC as our voice in Washington. However, the organization is at its best when this voice is not coming from both sides of its mouth.

See the article here

HRC did nominally support the amendment put forward by the other openly gay member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), which would have restored gender identity to the stripped-down version of the bill (HR 3685). But the House leadership offered Baldwin only ten minutes on the floor of the House before forcing her to withdraw the amendment. In doing so, the Speaker and the leadership broke their promise to the members of the House Education & Labor Committee that they would have the opportunity to vote on the Baldwin amendment on the floor of the House if they voted in favor of the non-inclusive version of the bill in committee.

My sources tell me that there were at least four Democrats who agreed to vote in favor of ENDA in committee only after being assured that they would have the opportunity to vote in favor of Tammy Baldwin’s gender identity amendment on the floor. Had those four Democrats voted against H.R. 3685 in committee, the bill would have never come to the floor. But having gotten the votes they needed to get the non-inclusive version of the bill through committee, Frank and the House leadership then betrayed their promise — to members of their own party — to offer a vote on the floor of the House on gender identity.

ENDA Passes the House - Trannies Thrown Overboard - Visible Vote 08, Nov. 7 2007

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) is expected to introduce ENDA in the Senate at any time. His office has not revealed whether it will contain a transgender provision. Let’s hope it does not. This is not the time for grandstanding; nor is it the time for well-intentioned members of the United ENDA coalition to actively oppose ENDA in the Senate. The debate over trans inclusion was had and it’s finished. Supporters of that approach didn’t have the votes so we must all go back to local districts and do the hard work of educating lawmakers on gender identity issues.

The House Makes History - Washington Blade, Nov. 7 2007

The bill that is up for a vote is H.R. 3685-it is the one that excludes protections for people based on gender identity. We do not know how many votes it will receive. Apparently yesterday, it was in trouble so HRC, along with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) wrote a letter to Congress with seven other non-LGBT organizations, strongly supporting the divisive bill. They also warned Congresspeople that their votes would be criteria for their scorecards which means that even members of Congress who have had perfect civil rights scores for years will be penalized if they make a principled vote NO in protest of gender identity being removed from the bill. Because HRC, for now, has the only national scorecard and national Political Action Committee, their scorecard is a huge consideration for members of Congress and they are understandably concerned that HRC is threatening them with a significant blemish for voting with transgender people and our allies. That official abandonment of transgender people by these organizations yesterday may have therefore changed the vote count but we do not know. Some members of Congress will still make a principled NO vote and LGBT people should rush to support them.

If the bill passes the House of Representatives today, that is probably the end of the road for it until 2009 since there are insufficient votes in the Senate and the President is certain to veto it.

The tragedy of all this of course is that everyone in Washington agrees that there were sufficient votes in the House for the unified ENDA in September. The concern that Congressman Frank and others had was whether gender identity could survive a hypothetical Republican Motion to Recommit (see below).

The Baldwin Amendment

The most important thing to know about the Baldwin Amendment is that Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) has worked incredibly hard to get gender identity back into ENDA. Her amendment was an attempt to do just that, but for a variety of reasons including undercutting by HRC and others, the votes are just not there to pass it. Thus, rather than have a failed vote, the amendment is likely to be withdrawn after ten minutes of debate led by Ms. Baldwin.

Weeks after LGBT-rights groups lobbied Congress to avoid passing a non-inclusive version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that excluded transgender workers, some organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), are changing their position and urging Congress to pass the bill with or without protections for gender identity. On Tuesday, LGBT-rights groups encouraged Congress to proceed with its plan to vote on the bill as is, reports 365Gay.com. According to a recent HRC poll, 70 percent of LGBT people prefer passing a non-inclusive bill versus not passing a bill at all. Congress will vote on the bill on Thursday.
 

On Protecting Gay Americans from Workplace Discrimination Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) vote tests our values

An incrementalist law is a blunder

...the recent history of the LGBT movement suggests that incremental approaches sometimes prove effective, still American history is rife with counter-examples where the increments won were far too modest and actually slowed progress and where the sacrifices made were unconscionable by most any measure.

With ENDA, Frank is again leading the charge to pass a fatally compromised bill. While most incrementalist approaches to civil rights have sought to protect an entire group or "class" of people, and gradually expand protections, Frank's ENDA compromise divides the LGBT community by protecting some members while betraying others. The scaled-back version of the bill would protect many lesbians and gays, true, but it leaves all transgender people unprotected from employment discrimination. According to several studies, unemployment among transgender people is believed to exceed 70 percent.

As a result, no national LGBT organization supports the Frank compromise, and hundreds of organizations around the country have risen up to oppose Frank's efforts. Even worse, President Bush already has pledged to veto ENDA under any circumstances. So if the Congress is to vote on principle, one can't help but ask: What principle?

Read the entire article here - Nov. 7, 2007

That's not leading; that's called following.

Welcome back to the Movement, HRC - Nov. 6, 2007

It is with great sadness and disillusionment that I'm forced to send the following note. All of us entered into a discussion recently with HRC, in what we thought was good faith. They assured us that they did not support a non-inclusive ENDA & that none of their actions should be construed as in any way leading to passage of such a bill.

HRC has secretly signed letter supporting the non-inclusive ENDA in violation of the recent HRC Board Vote & assurances made to the community.

It's time to call for Joe Solmonese and David Smith to resign. They outright lied to us in the Philadelphia community just 3 weeks ago on this very subject. It's time to stop supporting organizations that lie to our faces. All of you were on the conference call, all of you received Joe's email assurances that HRC was firm in their policy.

This was not the only instance over the past few weeks of HRC acting at variance with the position they assured us they were following. It should be the last time we allow them to lie to us without consequence.

This is Joe in his email to leaders in the Philadelphia LGBT community when we questioned HRC's stance on ENDA:

"It seems that the most controversial issue here is our board's position on H.R. 3685, the stripped-down bill that Rep. Frank introduced last week. We will neither support the bill nor ask members to vote against it. Let me be clear: this does not amount to approving of a non-inclusive bill; it does not set up a situation where a non-inclusive bill will pass without gender identity, and it most certainly does not give Congress a "pass." I will explain in detail below.

First, we do not "support" the non-inclusive bill. HRC is not lobbying in favor of H.R. 3685. We have not mobilized our members in support of it, nor expended resources to secure a vote on it. HRC cannot throw our resources behind it, because it leaves transgender people behind. Plain and simple."

HRC's disdain for its constituents is more than evident.

Sincerely,

Kathy Padilla
 

Breaking its month-long posture of nuanced neutrality, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) today endorsed the revised version of the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act that provides protections for gay and lesbian Americans but does not include language barring bias based on gender identity and expression.

At the same time, as it has done since out gay Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank pulled transgender protections out of the bill - citing vote counts showing they would doom ENDA's chances - HRC also pressed the House to add the gender identification language back in by supporting, on the floor, an amendment from out lesbian Wisconsin Democrat Tammy Baldwin.

In a mid-day interview with Gay City News, Joe Solmonese, HRC's executive director, said the group shifted its position in the wake of action Monday evening by the House Rules Committee to move the measure forward for a floor vote, now scheduled for Wednesday.

Previously, the group had withheld support for the revised bill, pushing for the more inclusive original version, but critically also saying it would not oppose any version the leadership brought forward. The group has effectively moved from a passive "won't block" posture to one of affirmative support.

HRC Shifts, Actively Pushing Barney Frank's ENDA - GayCity News, Nov. 6, 2007

According to a new poll, 70% of LGBT Americans prefer passing an Employment Non-discrimination Act that does not include transgender people over not passing the bill at all. The poll, commissioned by the Human Rights Campaign and conducted on October 26, surveyed 500 members of the LGBT community across the country.

Poll: 70% of LGBT Community Supports Passing Non-inclusive ENDA  - Advocate.com, Nov. 6, 2007

The signatories in addition to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Human Rights Campaign are: The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Education Association, National Employment Lawyers Association, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; and the American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees.

ENDA to hit House floor tomorrow without Baldwin Amendment Vote - PageOnQ, Nov. 6, 2007

As passed by the committee, each side will have 30 minutes to debate ENDA and three amendments will be offered. "

Such an amendment, by forcing members of Congress to record a vote specifically on that issue, threatened to point up the weakness of support for transgender rights - and if done by using a particular parliamentary maneuver could have killed the entire bill for this session.

Given the risk that Baldwin's amendment might fall well short of a majority, the assumption among activists is that she will withdraw it if a decent show of votes cannot be achieved. A well-placed Democratic congressional aide told Gay City News last week that the amendment would be debated on the floor, but then withdrawn by Baldwin prior to a vote.

ENDA Heading to the Floor this week - GayCity News, Nov. 5, 2007

“Passing ENDA without gender identity and expression is like passing a copyright law that covers books and television shows but doesn’t cover digital music or videos,” Jacques wrote in an opinion piece for the Blade (Please see Page 29). “That’s why we’re supporting a modernized and comprehensive bill that gives full protection to all of our community.”

Now the aligned groups must figure out what the shift will mean to ENDA’s future in Congress. HRC acknowledged this week some lingering concern over how the addition of gender identity may delay ENDA’s passage.

[HRC Legislative Director, Chris Labonte] indicated that if past supporters in Congress decide to go it alone without the recommended changes, HRC has considered approaching others, such as Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), to create a revised bill inclusive of protections based on gender identity and expression. Baldwin signaled her support for a transgender-friendly ENDA earlier this week — and her openness to working on the bill.

“Some believe that a new ENDA containing transgender-inclusive language will be more difficult to pass, however, that must not deter us from seeking full civil rights for all,” Baldwin said.

HRC vows no ENDA if no trans protection - Washington Blade, Aug. 13, 2004

Democratic leaders were scrambling to reconcile competing concerns by moderate to conservative Democratic House members, who do not want to vote on an amendment to add transgender protections to the bill, and liberal Democrats, who have threatened to vote against ENDA if it does not include trans protections, according to Capitol Hill sources."

ENDA Vote Postponed Again - Washington Blade Nov 2, 2007

We know that the unified and inclusive bill (H.R. 2015) is off the table for this year, so passing that is very much not an option at this point. The Baldwin Amendment is apparently off the table. But even if the Amendment were still open for discussion, some LGBT supporters in Congress and our community have done such a thorough job of undermining the work that we all have been doing that it has become barely a long shot to pass it.

If the bill is pulled for now so that we can work together on a unified bill, that too is hardly a victory. Relationships have been strained tremendously, resources and political capital have been expended needlessly and we all go back to square one minus several. However, this is still the best option. Our goal has to be moving the ball forward to pass a bill that will protect all of us and until the divisive bill has been pulled from consideration, we cannot begin again working together to pass such a unified bill.
 

Your voices have helped us both in the short-term and the long term as we educate the GLBT and ally community - as well as our federal legislators - on the critical importance of fully trans-inclusive legislation. You can see the results of these efforts in several articles that have appeared in the past few weeks.

The future of ENDA and the Baldwin Amendment remains uncertain. Some reports suggest that the bill will not move forward, while others suggest that it will move ahead but the Baldwin Amendment will not. The truth is that no definitive decision has been made on the fate of ENDA this year.