25 DEMS just voted AGAINST the NonDiscrimination Employment Act!!

GRowllllllll

:mad:

Barrow (GA)
Berry (AR)
Boren (OK)
Carney (PA)
Cramer (AL)
Lincoln Davis (I think TN)
Donnelly (IN)
Ellsworth (IN)
Gordon
Hill (IN)
McIntyre (NC)
Melancon (LA)
Peterson (MN)
Ross (AR)
Shuler (NC)
Tanner (TN)
Taylor (MS)


And these two are just guesses --

Lampson (TX)
Mahoney (FL)

McIntyre is just awful and Shuler is close to as bad.

total bush dog. :puke:

:shrug:

Rahm intends to have many more bush dogs in 2008 all over the country. The DLC machine is just getting started.

How did Rahm vote on this issue?

He's a pro-corporate (except he diverges a tad on health care), but liberal on social issues Democrat.

I can't. If he is on the ballot in the general, I will leave it blank.

He will never change. :mad:

:wtf:

At least not about ENDA. He voted for it today. That list was preliminary before I had a confirmed vote tally from the Thomas page. When I looked at it more closely, he was on the "Yea" side.

However, if you call him, you can grill him to find out if he'd vote for a trans-inclusive ENDA, and tell him that he should vote for the hate crimes bill if Bush vetoes it and comes up for a vote next session, unlike last time, when he voted against it.

much to my embarrassment. I heard him in Nashville prior to his election and he stated, "They can't out god me, out gay me or out gun me." He's said much worse things on Chattanooga's local talk radio, (102.3 for anyone who might want to contact them).

I'm still composing an angry letter to Barrow about his vote to table Kucinich's resolution yesterday. Now I'll have to revise it again to add my outrage over his vote on this. It's one thing being a red-state voter, it's quite another thing to watch a guy who won by a mere 864 votes - one of them, your own - proceed to crap all over his constituents. Arrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhh!

I know him. I have no clue what he is doing. I called his office about H.Res. 333 and his staff was by far the nicest about it, but they still gave me the runaround. I am so disappointed in him. Looks like I'll be writing a letter too, and he's not even my rep, hee. There's no point in writing my rep, sigh...

Barrow's voting record is a study in the bizarre to date. He's on the correct side of a number of issues, to the point of being fairly progressive (SCHIP, etc.), but he has a tin ear a lot of the time on issues vital to those of us committed enough to have put him into office by a margin of 864 votes. I'm some pissed off with him this week, and I'm going to write him to tell him so.

NT

not transgendered.

The "T" must be included.

I want the names of these assholes who voted against this.

sadly the leadership felt it wouldn't pass with it in there. As to the ones who voted against the bill as a whole I am waiting to find out.

with 2 not voting. Donnelly, Marshall, Lampson, Hill, Taylor, Tanner, McIntyre, Lincoln Davis, Boyd, Barrow, Boren, Ross, Shuler

... it was 25. They just put up the list.

Some of them actually voted against the bill because they didn't want to support a bill that did not include transgendered protection, so that explains why the number is higher than the number of Dems that voted against the hate crimes bill (which did include transgendered people).

I will come back with a list of both categories in a bit when I can get some analysis done.

roll count vote page showed it at 13, now when I look again it was updated to show 25 with 8 not voting. BTW, now they are showing two of the names I had as not voting someone really messed up the first post on their vote summery page.

they had 35 Republics that voted for it.

... once they added transgender provisions. I predict 20 or less, assuming some of them are still in Congress, considering the trans-inclusive version of the bill probably won't come up for a vote until after next year's election.

There are some Dem names I was surprised to see, and I'm hoping that's why they voted against the final version.

Edit: this is what I get for posting too hastily. I saw your later post. Thanks for the info, even if it was bad news. Ouch, I'm annoyed with some people right now.

account of the Florida Democratic party. There are infiltrators.

I'd love to read it. Where is it? Thanks again.

:hi:

to the House Vote page. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1057.xml

The members user name is madfloridian. And :hi:

...burning the house down on this one. A vast majority of the GLBT politically active groups did not support this bill and implored our representatives to not support this bill because it was NOT inclusive of T provisions. Unfortunately divide and conquer tacticts were used here so the pattern of voting behavior is much more reliable than how an individual rep voted on this specific issue.

The 18 Dems that voted against HR 3685 Because they (or their districts) are too conservative:

Barrow (GA)
Berry (AR)
Cramer (AL)
Lincoln Davis (TN)
Davis (AL)
Edwards (TX)
Gordon (TN)
Lampson (TX)
Lipinski (IL)
Marshall (GA)
McIntyre (NC)
Melancon (LA)
Rahall (WV)
Ross (AR)
Shuler (NC)
Skelton (MO)
Tanner (TN)
Taylor (MS)



The 7 Dems that voted against HR 3685 because they didn't want to support a bill that did not include transgendered protection:

Clarke (NY)
Holt (NJ)
Michaud (ME)
Nadler (NY)
Towns (NY)
Velázquez (NY)
Weiner (NY)

How do we know those 18 Dems voted against HR 3685 because they (or their districts) are too conservative? I'm interested in this because I've been arguing for a while that voting for someone just because they have a 'D' after their name is hurting the party. This would seem to be another example if the reasoning behind their nay votes is true.

... and they have all had a history of voting against previous gay rights bills or making statments saying that it's OK to fire gay people (Lipinski is especially notorious for this) or co-sponsoring anti-gay legislation (Skelton)

If you compare the list, with a few notable exceptions (like the two cited in this reply) with the list of Dem "nay" votes for the hate crimes bill passed earlier this year, the list is virtually identical.

As for this particular case, I would not use this vote alone to say most of those 18 deserve to be ousted or have support from registered Democrats withheld (except Lipinski, in particular, who represents a district that is far more progressive than he is, and has a great primary challenger in Mark Pera), but I would add it to augment arguments in cases where we do not manage to get a majority for some Congressional initiative even though we've got a majority in the Congress. That wasn't the case for this vote, but it has been for quite a few others.

Thanks for the informative reply, and welcome!

... but haven't posted here in months.

I only wish more people had noticed my list, which would have made my "welcome back" a bit happier, but perhaps I could have used to label it better.

and welcome

... but I'd rather have feedback on my rushed yet painstakingly constructed list. ;-)

Since you're not really new then you know that someone is BOUND to jump on you for one thing or another when you post here. It happens to all of us. Ignore it and let me welcome you back properly: Welcome back! :hi:

::: Blows a kiss your way :::

Hope you aren't too freaked out by that if you happen to be a straight male...

Barrow, Berry, Chabot, Clarke, Cramer, Davis (AL), Lincoln Davis, Edwards, Holt, Lampson, Lipinski, Marshall, McIntyre, Melancon, Michaud, Nadler, Rahall, Ross, Shuler, Skelton, Tanner, Towns, Velázquez, and Weiner.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1057.xml


My fascist Rep (Knollenberg) voted 'Yea' ... miracle of miracles. :wow:

Perhaps even more strangely, BOTH L. Diaz-Balart AND M. Diaz-Balart voted 'Yea.' :crazy:

:thumbsdown:

He's usually very rational and progressive. Hell, he's a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus!!

Why do you think he voted against it?

Good grief! How many times do VOTERS have to hold their noses and how many times does the House pass crap that they call "compromise"?

Puzzling.

That's one compromise worth doing. Transgender is a choice, so it doesn't fit with the rest.

And it very much belongs with GLB.

Maybe sometimes people are born with the desire to change sexes, but not always. Sometimes it comes for psychological reasons.

... that's what they were once (and haven't completely stopped, especially depending on where you are) saying about gay people. That it's a choice, that it's a psychological illness, etc., etc., etc. Looks like transgendered is the new gay.

There are rare cases where there is a mix of male and female, called hermathrodites. That isn't a choice.

wow.

We just disagree. You can find links all over the internet where it's a desire to change.

Do some research. Please.

:eyes:

Really legitimate. :crazy:

I know a RW site when I see one.

Case in point...

I went to court in 2002 seeking an uncontested divorce. On that particular day, there were numerous other cases before the judge. Annulments, name changes and divorces.

One in particular stood out. A person who'd had a sex change operation and was seeking a name change. I saw the eyes rolling from those awaiting their cases. At the time, my only thought was..... who gives a fuck? That person only wanted to be the person they had become and why would anyone else there feel they had a right to dare to question it.

I'll always remember that day, not only because I did receive my divorce but because of what that person had to go through in a court of law.

"transgender is a choice"??

Explain, please...

than being gay or bi to me.

some trans people do not do, there is no choice in having a trans identity. It is who they are, just like GLB people. They are born a physical gender that is different than their inherent gender. Just b/c they can choose to have the surgery doesn't make being trans a choice. Seriously, walk a mile in their shoes before you make such a judgment, please.

...if it were not a deeply necessary procedure for them? Hell no it is not a choice to those people.

It is not always necessary for living.

Being transgender is not a choice. It is not a decision you make one
morning while sipping your morning cup of coffee. It is not a choice you make by flipping a coin and
assigning heads or tails. People do not decide to become a girl or boy any more than we decide how we
wanted to look ("Hmmm, I think I'd like to be tall.").

Being transgender has been linked to genetics through studies of DNA. Doctors, scientists and researchers in the Netherlands and Europe, along with some institutions in America and Canada, have found evidence that shows certain gender markers in the brain which transmit one gender identity while the body develops a different one. The technical term most used by schools of medicine and psychology is Gender Dysmorphia. Much can be learned about this “condition” on the internet, in books and by talking with trans people and their partners. As this is a very personal issue, please be respectful of boundaries and approach transgender individuals with respect and care. Do not ever ask someone transgender when they "chose" to become a boy or girl. Think of it this way: When did you "choose" your gender?

To prepare: own your lack of understanding – it is ok to not understand and request clarification.
Always approach any person with appropriate boundaries and respect, in the same way you would
wish to be approached when asked about a very personal issue in your life.
Own your discomforts – become aware of what makes you uncomfortable and understand that it is
yours, not theirs, to own.
Keep Reading!

http://www.ppmcc.org/transgender.html

Sorry, but it is not a one-sided thing.

I'm sticking with my opinion, as I have seen nothing to sway me.

OK, I'll grant you that many people from childhood think they are the other sex. But it is not all cases. Some do it for attention and some do it because of other problems.

http://health.discovery.com/centers/teen/transgender/expertqa_03.html

This basically says how I feel. There is some choice involved in making the change, but genetics do play a role in transgender. Transgender is a different term than transsexual. So while I still think I'm right in a way about transsexuals, I should have clarified more.

As usual, conservatives are wrong when they say the transgendered can help their feelings.

:puke:

And I believe you are overreacting. The decision to have the change is a choice. Now those people might not have any control over if they want the change or not. I'll believe the American Psychiatric Association or the World Health Organization, who takes the position that some people just feel like the other sex.

Many would rather die than remain trapped in a body their brain tells them is wrong for them.

It is not a choice, but a necessity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2231175&mesg_id=2232081

:crazy:

This kind of attention?

Transgender Teens Killed On D.C. Street

17-year-old Indianapolis Youth Killed Because He Was Transgendered

Anti-transgender violence hits D.C. again

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-69155179.html

NEWARK, Calif. -- Approximately a dozen University of California-Berkeley students joined a sea of nearly 1,000 somber faces Friday for the funeral of Eddie "Gwen" Araujo, a 17-year-old transgenderist killed earlier this month.

http://www.jenellerose.com/htmlpostings/Transgendered%20Rememberance.htm

Thrown off rooftops, burned alive....they needed a lot of attention.

I guess that's why they "chose" to be transgendered. :eyes:

And I hate the fact that some people refuse have compassion for those they don't understand.

I'm just trying to have a balanced opinion on the matter. There is technically a choice going on even with the majority. Now people also seem born with artistic talent, but they have to choose to use it. Gays and lesbians never make a decision to become gay.

That's all I'll say for now. Interesting subject.

Fair and balanced??

You have an unmovable opinion about something you apparently know nothing about. That is unenlightened and incurious on your part.

It is NOT a choice to be transgender.

Others have shown you are wrong.

Lose your bigotry.

You do seem to be part way there in understanding that being gay is not a choice. So you could likely understand the outrage if someone said "It is OK the bill was vetoed because being gay is a choice. It is sometimes chosen to get attention or because there is some other problem...it isn't like being black or something. I believe this because I read it somewhere."

And now as you identify with the wrongness of the above point imagine if you are wrong when it comes down to gender identity... if you were misled because you read something misleading or because your experience has not been balanced enough to this point to provide you with the correct information. That is unfortunate.

Please trust that you are ill-informed at least enough to expand your sources of information. You can hear it from me...you can hear it from the large number of posters outpouring of dissent....and you can choose to explore this "interesting topic" by researching it yourself. The VAST majority of information out there will direct you in the opposite direction of your current position. Learning something new can be empowering.

I could have chosen either to live my life as a woman --or put a shotgun in my mouth.

:grouphug: Lots and lots and lots of love to you.

Thank you, and many :hug: for you.

:hug:

Yes ... I'm a straight, white, male and have lived a life where S-E-X was sorta like what anyone might read and laugh about in Reader's Digest. It was the stereotypical, awkward, ignorant, Braille-method learning process with the stereotypical body consciousness and nightmares about getting caught naked.

But I never felt like an "alien" in my own body. I can't even begin to imagine the emotional adjustment difficulty of gender dysphoria or intersexuality. It's difficult enough for me to imagine being sexually attracted to another male - but thinking of myself as a male and having the anatomy of a female .... well, getting that "fixed" wouldn't be a 'choice' in my opinion. It'd be essential - like having an inflamed appendix removed, I'd guess, at least from a 'necessity' perspective.

But it's not a matter of whether I can imagine it or not ... it's a matter of generously respecting what folks have to say who actually have to LIVE that experience.


On edit: Ooops! Sorry ... I didn't mean to "pile on" here ... I was thinking and composing my reply as others posted, I guess.

Peace! :hi:

You are VERY uninformed here... We are talking gender identity here in regards to the T issues within ENDA. Gender identity is not a choice any more or less than sexual preference is. You are very ill-informed in believing so AND i suspect highly offensive to many in that supposition.

I suggest you expand your knowlege in this area and make a quick retreat before you are consumed by the flames.

WTF can you be thinking?

For fuck's sake, even HERE?

Why should a person's right to equality under the law depend on what characteristics of that person are biologically determined, and what characteristics are freely chosen?

The law does not allow for discrimination based on religious participation, and religious participation is a choice. Why should that choice be protected, and the choice to be actively gay or actively transgendered not be protected? Legally, a gay person can be discriminated against for being gay or appearing gay or for being thought to be gay. How can you oppose legalized discrimination against people who choose to be gay rather than be miserable, and defend legalized discrimination against people who choose gender transition or non-traditional gender presentation over being miserable?

How can you defend forcing a person to choose between legalized discrimination and personal pain?

you that transgender is most definitely not a choice. No one would choose the tormented lives that some transgendered people live before ending up in the body that they should have been with in the first place.

The 'choice' *might* be to have the surgery, but again, I cannot even remotely fathom the unhappiness of waking up everyday in the 'wrong' body. The reason I state that the surgery 'might' be a choice, is that for some, it's not a financial possibility and for others, their health status wouldn't allow it. So, I guess I'm contradicting myself. It's not a choice.

... are probably over Nadler's objections.

Nadler was the only man who appeared with women at the "March for Women's Lives" thing in DC.

He maybe the most effective progressive in the House

... about his vote today. There's nothing wrong with casting a protest vote against a bill that's not totally inclusive if it's not going to endanger the trans-less bill's chances of passing with a comfortable majority.

There are reasonable arguments for both sides. My disposition is to take whatever can be gotten and fight for the rest, but I understand your point of view

... is not about whether or not Nadler should have voted for this particular bill (and I'm sure a lot of trans folks are appreciative of his protest vote) or not, precisely because it passed by a comfortable majority even with his "Nay" vote (and that of 6 others who voted against it for the same reason he did) and it's no secret which way Nadler's vote would have gone had this bill included protections for the transgendered.

My point of view basically is reinforced by (and reinforces in turn) your statement that "Nadler has impeccable credentials as a progressive". I agree. That's all I'm saying.

He voted it down, because it's the wrong bill.

ENDA without trans-inclusion is a complete piece of bullshit.

I'd save my angry letter for barney Frank if I were you.


You'll find me waiting under the bus that Frank threw me and all other TG folks under.

Did they vote no because they didn't like the absence of trans-gendered people in the language? I ask because Barney Frank got his head kicked in a couple of weeks ago by a lot of GLBT groups, who were vocally pissed over that missing language.

In other words, are these 25 our most pro-gay officials, who refused to vote for what they saw as an inadequate bill?

Here's the list one more time. Guess I should have labeled it better above:



The 18 Dems that voted against HR 3685 Because they (or their districts) are too conservative:

Barrow (GA)
Berry (AR)
Cramer (AL)
Lincoln Davis (TN)
Davis (AL)
Edwards (TX)
Gordon (TN)
Lampson (TX)
Lipinski (IL)
Marshall (GA)
McIntyre (NC)
Melancon (LA)
Rahall (WV)
Ross (AR)
Shuler (NC)
Skelton (MO)
Tanner (TN)
Taylor (MS)


The 7 Dems that voted against HR 3685 because they didn't want to support a bill that did not include transgendered protection:

Clarke (NY)
Holt (NJ)
Michaud (ME)
Nadler (NY)
Towns (NY)
Velázquez (NY)
Weiner (NY)

Most of the time, Democrats from those 18 districts get used for target practice. Question: do you think they'd have voted this way if the margin was narrower and bill's passage had been on the line? This was a safe vote for them, because of the margin. What's your sense of what they'd have done if the numbers weren't so sure?

Per above comment, I'm leaping to the assumption that the IL Rep. is in southern IL and not an urban district, as southern IL is far more conservative than the Lakes region of the state.

Lipinski is a Chicago rep.

I'll have to look up his district. Many thanks for the correction.

... Lipinski is actually the exception.

His district is far more progressive than he is, and that's why he has an excellent progressive primary challenger, by the name of

... if we give him all the support we can muster.

Just look to Ned Lamont as our inspiration, and keep in mind it's easier to prevent the Lieberman bullshit that he pulled in one small congressional district with progressives who aren't fooled by pulling a 'moderate routine' around election time than in an entire state. I for one, am not going to let Lipinski pull a "Sore Loserman" run to save his seat as an independent should he lose his primary; that's for sure...

And one from Illinois.

I would have done the same thing.

Gays and lesbians have worked hard to pass ENDA or a form of it, but if it were me I would have voted against the bill as written. In my mind when you're fighting a battle you don't leave a quarter of your battalion, your people, in the war zone. The transgendered have been with us since the beginning and I don't see how throwing them under the wheels of a bus helps anyone's cause.

I agree that this bill is a gradual step in the right direction, but what message does it send to our brothers and sisters who are transgendered? They are the ones who need it the most. At a time when gays and lesbians can, as crass as it may sound, "hide" who they are to protect themselves, the Transgendered are the ones who are who they were meant to be on a daily basis.

It's a very seductive argument, help ourselves and forget about those who helped us get here, but it's also an argument that I cannot agree with. I don't know why 25 dems voted against this version of ENDA, but this would have been my reasoning for having done so.

Q3JR4.

The 18 Dems that voted against HR 3685 Because they (or their districts) are too conservative:

Barrow (GA)
Berry (AR)
Cramer (AL)
Lincoln Davis (TN)
Davis (AL)
Edwards (TX)
Gordon (TN)
Lampson (TX)
Lipinski (IL)
Marshall (GA)
McIntyre (NC)
Melancon (LA)
Rahall (WV)
Ross (AR)
Shuler (NC)
Skelton (MO)
Tanner (TN)
Taylor (MS)


The 7 Dems that voted against HR 3685 because they didn't want to support a bill that did not include transgendered protection:

Clarke (NY)
Holt (NJ)
Michaud (ME)
Nadler (NY)
Towns (NY)
Velázquez (NY)
Weiner (NY)

:thumbsup:

Thank you for your enlightening post! :hug:

... but not the other 18!

brought up again in our lifetimes

transgendered folks got left behind on this one without the solidarity of their GLB brothers and sisters it may be a very long time before they have the chance for protection

thanks to GayUSA-- check out their podcast if you don't get LinkTV or FSTV http://web.mac.com/depeche7/Site/Podcast/Podcast.html I know that the activists were furious that the "T" was removed by Barney Franks

... I really have to disagree with that statement, and no, I don't think there's that much difference between hate crimes and non-discrimination in employment, public accomodations, and housing, considering a non-discrimination bill including the transgendered passed in a state like New Mexico which isn't the bluest or most progressive state in the country.

Oh, and by my count, they already have 208 votes for a trans-inclusive ENDA. I think it shouldn't take them until we're all dead to close that gap from close to a majority to a straight out majority. We're talking a minimum of just 10 more votes. I could be wrong, but I'm confident I'm not.

:banghead:

Shit.

.... because they didn't want to vote for special rights for gays and lesbians..... Special rights? Since when is equality a "special right?" :wtf:
Heterosexism is so ingrained in the culture. It's pretty sad.

... from Congress Daily... I'm thinking that "CongressDaily" is a right-wing "media" paper/website/whatever.

He also kept calling them "transsexuals" instead of transgendered people.

I was considering calling them about that, but perhaps it would be a better idea to rout the calls of concern to C-SPAN instead and ask them to only consult with more neutral sources, in future.

I must report that my DINO (Marshall-GA) voted with the opposition, once again. All I can say is that a DINO who votes with my party 50% of the time is better than a Repuke that votes with my party 0% of the time.

:shrug:

-Laelth