Now, why would Bush allow this to become law? Well, for one thing, his Vice-President may well support it (with the gay daughter and all). And he may be thinking legacy given his screwed up foreign policy. And he is no longer on the ballot trolling for votes, and by all accounts is personally not offended by homosexuality.

I think one big reason why one might want to pass ENDA without the gender identity provision is to give Bush something he just might decide to sign.

Who is speaking for the Ts?

IIRC the modern post-war civil rights movement didn’t start with the the Civil Rights Act of 64 or the Voting Rights Act of 65. It started with many brave people making small stands, accepting that they couldn’t change the mind of every bigot overnight. It started with Jackie Robinson becoming a major league baseball player, Harry Truman integrating the Army, and people like Rosa Parks and others in the South saying, I want to be treated like a human being.

By the way, for everyone that says they wouldn’t know if the bill would have passed with the trans provisions, this isn’t like a regular election where you can’t get a truly accurate count before the election. There are only 435 people in the House, it’s pretty easy to talk to anyone who is a potential fence sitter and find out how they intend to vote. In fact there is a member of each party who has this exact job, they are called the Whip. If you don’t have the votes, you don’t have the votes. Unfortunately in this country, there are very few congressional districts where opposition to a gay rights bill will cause one to lose an election. Much more often it goes the other way. So trying to threaten a politician like it was possible with S-CHIP will not work for LGBT bill.

I don’t expect any person to be happy or grateful for anything less than full equality before the law. However, don’t get mad at people who say much of the country isn’t ready for X measure. Get mad at the people who are opposed to the measure on general principle.

But I think [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] clearly has more Constitutional grounding in the commerce clause than the legislation presently at issue (because the economic impact of Jim Crow laws was enormous, and the use of facilities on public highways was directly implicated by Jim Crow).

Cripes. Okay, you do know that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes a provision about employment discrimination, right? little thing called Title VII?

And that all federal employment discrimination statutes – Title VII, the ADEA, Title I of the ADA, Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Equal Pay Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act – come from commerce clause jurisprudence?

And that having employable people out of work has a direct and immense effect on interstate commerce?

@15: You won’t be waiting forever. On behalf of us, I promise.

You pwomise? Cwoss your heart and hope to die?

Nah, just another 50 years, by which time I’ll be 99 (literally) and finally be ready to jump for joy that you decided to come back for me.

Oh, wait, the nurses at the nursing home won’t let me jump for fear I’ll break something…

In the grand scheme of the forever, weren’t we JUST debating a woman’s right to VOTE?

You’re right, of course. Waiting a few decades is just like waiting one second. Selfish me, wanting myself, and my gender variant brothers and sisters, to be able to work without fear of getting fired, sometime before we die.

@23: Don’t ever feel as if you need to calm down or explain your rage.

“There, there, angry humorless trans woman / trans man / genderqueer person…I’ll pat you on the head even when you’re angry, cuz your so cute!”

Gee, thanks. I indeed won’t calm down as long as you advocate that trans / gender-variant folks be patient and wait a few seconds decades for your pragmatic incrementalism to catch up to us.

FYI, I can do without your patronizing attitude.

@26: And so you accept “nothing” as an option.

Sucks to be privileged, doesn’t it?

(The privilege that I’m referring to is your obvious cissexual privilege and your obvious gender-conformant / passing privilege.)

psssst!., D.N. – I’m not going away any time soon, and it’s just too bad that my presence and my anger is making you uncomfortable. “We gotta keep Teh Assimilationist / Straight Acting / Gender-Normative Peepulz comfortable and happy and shielded from Teh Transies!!!123!!!eleven!!!” is a lousy f**king excuse for incrementalism, especially when it is thrown in our faces by said Peepulz.

To my mind this answer merely pushes the inquiry back one step, or at least raises another question. I understand that some argue that Section 5 gives Congress powers to “overenforce” Constitutional norms, but apart from that, one can scarcely argue that private employers’ practices raise a civil rights question of 14th amendment dimensions, since the 14th amendment only targets state action. Even assuming the overenforcement thesis is correct you would face the further issue that the 14th amendment was clearly not intended to give a Constitutional right for homosexuals to marry and so Congress would have no section 5 power, though it may have power elsewhere (e.g. as I suggested earlier, in the taxing & spending clause).

Mnemosyne: “Oh, wait, you guys think that needs to be repealed, too. My bad.”

I am not sure whom you are referring to by “you guys,” but I am making no argument here against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But I think it clearly has more Constitutional grounding in the commerce clause than the legislation presently at issue (because the economic impact of Jim Crow laws was enormous, and the use of facilities on public highways was directly implicated by Jim Crow).

“Oh, looky, another two-percenter. It’s so sad when statistical victims show up here.”

I’m not sure what you mean by that.