I mean seriously people it has come down to this. Each post and comment he makes on Americablog about the issue of Transgender Inclusive makes him look insane on the subject. I mean look at this.
http://www.americablog.com/...
Dana,
Your argument boils down to the assertion that America really does accept transgendered people far more than I'm willing to realize and therefore we'd have no problem passing a trans-inclusive ENDA. Great. I'm game. Show me the votes. Show me that you have the votes to pass a trans-inclusive ENDA, that the bill won't go down in flames, that Democrats won't be forced en masse to vote in favor of some hideously anti-trans amendment lest they lose their jobs next election, and I'm there for you. You think this is some easy game, that we actually have the votes, but some of us simply don't like you and find you icky and that's why we're concerned. Fine, then I'll call your bluff.
Did he say the same thing about Gay Marriage? He is starting to make the same excuses that were used against Gays only now he is targeting Transgender folks.
His comments get even worst.
http://www.haloscan.com/...
NOTE FROM JOHN: Judy, Bush hasn't threatened a veto, while he has a threatened a veto for hate crimes - that's interesting that he hasn't for ENDA. Second, even if he does veto, we can add ENDA on to another must-pass bill that he can't veto, this is where hate crimes is, it's not a free standing bill, it's on another bill that he is going to have a hard time vetoing. We are quite seriously looking at the possibility of passing ENDA this year.
Edited By Siteowner
John has ignored it when people pointed out that.
http://www.bellaonline.com/...
However, even in light of the "light at the end of the tunnel" so to say, the light may be fading fast. It has been released that the White House, namely the PRESIDENT, has pledged to veto ENDA if it passes the senate after passing the House on the day it was introduced again.
From 2000 Election
http://www.afn.org/...
Bush has also opposed any recognition of same sex couples and has consistently opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
http://dir.salon.com/...
May 1999 to try to persuade Bush to support the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act, which would have increased punishment for criminals motivated by hatred of a victim's gender, religion, ethnic background or sexual orientation. "So I'm sure with that lack of interest, he didn't ask to see what was going on."
Then below
Bush's opposition to the bill reportedly revolved around the fact that it would cover gays and lesbians. The governor's office "contacted the family and asked if we would consider taking sexual orientation out of the bill," Harris says. "And our answer was no, because the bill is for everybody. Everybody should be protected by the law."
But in 1994, Bush pledged to veto any effort to repeal an anti-sodomy law, calling it "a symbolic gesture of traditional values." Protecting gays under a hate crimes law presumably wouldn't even be a thought he would entertain.
Is he denying the truth or is he so filled with hate against transgender people he doesn't understand his own words? He even tried to make this post. http://www.americablog.com/...
I have no insider information leading me to this conclusion, but, I think that gender identity was finally added to ENDA out of shame and fear. Neither the Congress nor the lead gay groups wanted to be seen as anti-trans, even though some of them clearly knew that adding trans was a death-blow to ENDA. So they did it anyway. Their calculus wasn't about including a vital, core member of the gay community (otherwise trans would never get dropped). And their calculus wasn't that we could win even with trans included (because in today's America, that's simply not true, and they know it). The calculus was one of fear and shame: I.e., If we don't add trans to the bill, we're going to get beaten up and labeled bigots. (Obviously other groups supported adding trans to ENDA because they accept the transgender revolution, but for the Congress and the lead groups, I don't think so.)
He has gone mad and is trying to rewrite the history of Transgender movement. He is trying to say we have failed? No sir what is failed is common sense and understanding. You have gone mad and now you seek to destory Transgender people from being part of the Gay community by rewriting the History we shared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Stonewall and Transgender people
Throughout the night the police singled out many transgender people and gender nonconformists, including butch women and effeminate men, among others, often beating them. On the first night alone 13 people were arrested and four police officers, as well as an undetermined number of protesters, were injured. It is known, however, that at least two rioters were severely beaten by the police (Duberman 201-202). Bottles and stones were thrown by protesters who chanted "Gay Power!" The crowd, estimated at over 2000, fought with over 400 police officers.
http://www.intraa.org/...
Before Stonewall: The Compton's Cafeteria Riot
Historic 1966 transgender riot remembered
"Forty years ago, female impersonation was illegal, and you could even be arrested for wearing buttons on the wrong side of your shirt," Chung said. "In many ways, we can attribute our success in the transgender civil rights movement and the larger LGBT movement to our courageous predecessors at Compton's Cafeteria."
More below.
Chung admitted that although there are many strong allies for the transgender community in San Francisco, most of the country lags far behind in the fight for equality.
"We're a historically marginalized group, and although we're seeing the inclusion of gender identity in the dialogue, fighting for equality is still very challenging," Chung said. "Just like gays and lesbians, we're one constitutional amendment away from having our rights removed."
Then this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
The Compton's Cafeteria Riot occurred in August 1966 in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco. This incident was the first recorded transgender riot in United States history, preceding the more famous 1969 Stonewall Riots in New York City by three years
Compton's Cafeteria was one of a chain of cafeterias, owned by Gene Compton, in San Francisco from the 1940s to the 1970s. The Compton's in the Tenderloin -- which was open from 1954 to 1972 -- was one of the few places where transgender people could congregate publicly in the city, because they were unwelcome in gay bars at that time. Because cross-dressing was illegal at the time, police could use the presence of transgender people in a bar as a pretext for making a raid and closing the bar down.
Many of the militant hustlers and street queens involved in the riot were members of Vanguard, the first known gay youth organization in the United States, which had been organized earlier that year with the help of radical ministers working with Glide Memorial Church, a center for progressive social activism in the Tenderloin for many years. A lesbian group of street people was also formed called the Street Orphans.
On the first night of the riot, the management of Compton's called the police when some transgendered customers became raucous. When a police officer accustomed to manhandling the Compton's clientele attempted to arrest one of the drag queens, she threw her coffee in his face. At that point the riot began, dishes and furniture were thrown, and the restaurant's plate-glass windows were smashed. Police called for reinforcements as the fighting spilled into the street, where a police car had all its windows broken out and a sidewalk newsstand was burned down.
The next night, more transgendered people, hustlers, Tenderloin street people, as well as other members of the LGBT community joined in a picket of the cafeteria, which would not allow transgendered people back in. The demonstration ended with the newly installed plate-glass windows being smashed again.
John is trying to rewrite history to explain why Transgender people should be excluded from ENDA. This is a insult to what has been going on. Not only are we being betrayed, but we have someone trying to rewrite the history in order to prove his own points. He is trying to make up excluses to say it is ok to hate transgenders. I am shocked at how low he is going in this. It is truly sad.