Activists Say Barney Frank Needs to Get Gayer
Representative Barney Frank, D-MA is truly one of the nations legislative treasures. The first openly gay member of Congress, Frank is generally considered to be one of the most liberal members of the House of Representatives and has been actively promoting his immoral and subversive gay agenda since he took office in 1972. He founded the National Stonewall Democrats, a Democratic GLBT organization. Hes also widely known for being an outspoken critic of institutional homophobia and heteronormative hypocrisy. In short, Barney Frank is probably the gayest member of the U.S. Federal Government. Yes, even gayer than Larry Craig.
Unfortunately for Frank, it might not be quite gay enough.
Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat, is as closely tied to the issue of gay rights as Barney Rubble is to Fred Flintstone. But recently, Mr. Frank has been under siege by gay rights groups.
They are angry because Mr. Frank has removed specific language about sexual identity from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would protect gay men and lesbians in the workplace and that gay rights advocates say would now leave transsexuals and transgender individuals vulnerable.
There is almost no chance that President Bush would ever sign the bill. But the bitter tug of war between gay groups and one of their best friends on Capitol Hill is the latest example of how Democrats in Congress, since regaining majority control this year, have been torn between making compromises needed to pass legislation and satisfying the unrelenting demands of the partys liberal base.
Indeed, that liberal base includes even the National Stonewall Democrats themselves, who are urging Congress to re-insert protections for transgendered people back into the ENDA.
National Stonewall Democrats are united in our support for the original ENDA which includes protections for both sexual orientation and gender identity, said Jon Hoadley, Executive Director of National Stonewall Democrats. "We recognized early that this week would quickly become a tipping point in how our movement organizes and how Democrats interact with our community. We have helped launch United ENDA in order to capitalize on that momentum and ensure that our party is pushed towards a winning strategy to end employment discrimination for working Americans."
The NSDs position is completely understandable. They are an organization that attempts to fight for the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals, so for a piece of legislation to specifically exclude one of those groups is going to be galling. And not just to them, but to thousands of others as well.
That said, it does present a quandary for legislators attempting to both do right by their constituents and work to promote achievable goals at the same time.
Mr. Frank, in an hourlong news conference on Thursday, defended himself and said he would press ahead with the bill knowing that by not including the transgender language he could attract enough votes to get it approved. But he also expressed frustration that the Democrats were hampering themselves.
There is a tendency in American politics for the people who feel most passionately about an issue, particularly ones that focus on a single issue, to be unrealistic in what a democratic political system can deliver, Mr. Frank said, and that can be self-defeating.
This is a moment of truth for responsible liberals in the Democratic Party, he added.
The tension that Frank describes is one of the things that our intentionally inefficient legislative system was based on, and its also the thing that causes the most frustration amongst the electorate. Its an age-old problem, and one that will never go away. But is Frank right to call on responsible Democrats to side with him on this issue? After all, if Bush is never going to sign the damn thing anyway, whats the difference if it gets defeated in Congress or it gets struck down by Bushs pen? Why not just stick the trannies back in the bill and roll the dice?
The Democrats' answers to those questions arent very sexy.
Democratic leaders insisted they don't have the votes to pass the discrimination bill if it covers transgender people. They are also worried about hostile amendments specifically targeted at any transgender provisions, which could either force the whole bill to fail or end up removing gender identity anyway. The agreement they reached with gay groups is to delay a committee vote until later this month, giving time for activists to round up votes.
Whether you believe the Dems reasons is immaterial. Really, they are concerned with something quite larger than potential hostile amendments. As my Media and Politics professor used to say, Politics is perception. If Frank and Nancy Pelosi (another supporter of the altered bill who is taking heat from her political base) were to pass this bill through both houses of Congress, it would force Bush to come out against such protections for gay folks via a veto. In doing so, theyll be sending a message to middle-of-the-road voters and leftists alike that the GOP is the party of discrimination and homophobia (and, of course, conversely that the only way to work against that is to vote Democratic.) If they cant even get the bill through the House the message is diluted and their leadership appears ineffective. Neither option actually achieves anything legislatively, but the former at least lets the Democrats win the perception battle.
Is it pretty? Absolutely not. Is it satisfying? No, its the legislative equivalent of blue balls. But thats politics, and these are fights that the Democrats desperately need to win. Our system is designed to encourage compromise and foster gridlock. Unfortunately, some will always hold the existence of that exact compromise and gridlock as evidence of the ineffectiveness of the ruling party. Thats OK, and theres some value and generally truth in that belief. But there is also value in practicality. There is also value in realism. Sometimes, leadership is taking the safer road rather than the one youd prefer to travel by.
Whether the Democrats choose realistic or idealistic goals for the ENDA bill will remain to be seen. A vote to decide the issue in committee has been delayed until later this month.
