Reply #51: I do not argue to remove them, they have been removed... Read what I said. [View All]

[Ioo]

I am going to ask that you read what I post and not put words in my mouth.

I have not argued at all that they SHOULD be removed... you are just making that up. I stated that they have been removed, and when added back WOULD BE supporters of Gay rights LEAVE and the bill fails...

I went on to state that your solution of adding the word "transgender" to the bill, but FAIL to address the unique issues that need to be addressed for that group of people DOES IN FACT HARM THEM MORE. Go read your argument on Civil Unions above, the same thing applies...

My point is, I would rather NOT ADDRESS the issue at all and get a bill passed, than to half ass address the issue and put the transgender community in legal limbo, or threaten the bill that was passed to be struck down by a court because of the conundrum it would present if we went with your desire to add them and not address the needs (YOUR WORDS NOT MINE), that assumes we can get the bill passed, which history (the last week or so) has shown us WOULD FAIL. I would instead argue that we get a bill passed even if it is not ideal for ALL of us because we now fight from a position of higher ground. One step forward is better than no step at all... and a bill that does not address the transgender thing our-right would still be a help to ALL OF US, because at the end of the day, no matter how you express your gender, you are gay or straight (you sleep with the same sex or not)... and one is protected (M/F) and another not (M/M F/F)... under the bill passed right now (not including protection for transgender), it would take ONE reason away from the person who wants to fire you... THAT IS A STEP FORWARD.

I argue that the WHILE I WOULD LOVE FOR US ALL TO MOVE AHEAD IN LOCKSTEP, the political reality is that is not going to happen. That to many politicians "transgender" is a poison pill. Is it right, NO, is it the truth, YES. I think it is a absolutely backwards stance to take that it is all or nothing... LOOK AT HISTORY...

Civil Rights Act of 1964
Executive Order 11246
Civil Rights Act of 1968
Civil Rights Act of 1991

Had our African American brothers and sisters taken your stance, who knows where history would have the Civil Rights Moment.

Again and again we have seen that it is easier to get from the 0 to 2 to 5 to 8 to 10 than 0 to 10, you need look no further than history.

SO, I will end this because I do not think that you are even reading my posts, if you are, you are grossly mischaracterizing my comments. I will not apologies for being political realist, and not an ideolog. The Political reality sucks, but it is what we are working in.