In the spirit of full disclosure, I will state up front that I vehemently disagree with the strategy of “incrementalism” and “pragmatism” that Frank, Pelosi and – at least tacitly – the HRC have put forward for gender identity coverage in ENDA. While I do recognize and appreciate the HRC's call for members to contact their representatives and express support for the inclusive ENDA, it is also clear that HRC is hedging its bets and preparing to focus once again on passing an exclusive ENDA. People who have closely read the rather tardy stream of statements from the HRC will notice that – while they support passage of an inclusive ENDA and oppose the removal of trans coverage from ENDA – they very clearly do not oppose passage of an orientation-only ENDA.
So here is my dilemma, and I would love to get a direct explanation from Joe Solmonese about this. As many people are aware (and as documented in video footage available online), Joe stated in his speech to the SCC last month that “we absolutely do not support – and in fact oppose – any legislation that is not absolutely inclusive.” Yet here we are, just a few weeks later, and HRC is steadfastly refusing to oppose legislation that is not absolutely inclusive.
So tell us, Joe… why should we trust you? You either intentionally misled us or are incapable of correctly expressing HRC policy. Either way, it calls every subsequent assertion you have made into question… including the claim that you will come back for us after passing an orientation-only ENDA.
Ignoring a fundamental disconnect between statement and reality is something I'm used to seeing from the White House, but didn't really expect from the HRC.