The real politically smart thing to do, would for the Democratic party to throw the T's under the bus. And than, throw the B's, G's, the L's and any other letters you can think of.

I find it very ironic for a gay man to talk about political expediency, when so many straight Dem and Liberal supporters have been taking it on the chin in the last 2 presidential elections because of their support of gay rights. If we had your attitude Aravosis, there would be no gay rights movement. Hell, there would not have been a civil rights movement if everyone had the attitude of "I've got to get my rights, screw everyone else."

But I think the saddest thing about your viewpoint is that you are wrong about the politics here! Gay rights have been expanding despite what is going on in Washington, not because of it. You win acceptance with a united community. You can pass all the laws you want, they are meaningless unless you can change the mind of the people. Passing legislation won't change people's mind. The political winds could easily blow the opposite direction and you can have R's passing laws that enact opposite provisions in 10 years. But if you change people's minds that can last generations. And the only way you change people's minds is with a strong principled stand. Your piecemeal, butt-kissing, Clintonesque appeasement of people who would discriminate against innocent people, is the kind of wormy, unprincipled actions that led from 8 years of Clinton to 8 years of Bush.

Cowardice in the face of discrimination does not work. Neither does selfishness.

In all honesty, homosexual makes a lot more sense. I've been criticized for using this term, because right wingers use it, but I don't think it's the least bit derogatory and I really don't want to tailor my speech because some idiot thinks something perfectly normal is dirty. Homosexual people desire sex with people of their own gender. Heterosexual people desire sex with people of different genders. Asexual people don't want sex at all. Why on earth is it wrong to simply call people the proper term for their sexual preference.

I support gays rights and gay civil unions. I do wonder though how is a "hate crime" differnt for any other crime agansit a person? Yes I do understand, a crime may have been committed because a person was black, white, gay etc., but don't current laws provide for prosecution of crimes of assault and murder? Do you really think passing a law that states it was "hate" crime is going to change those who are already deeply prejudice in law enforcment. How do you distinguish between a "crime" and a "hate' crime? Isn't a crime a crime? Are we assuming every assault or murder aganist a LGBT is a "hate" crime? I think instead of passing these kinds of laws, already coverd under law, the the community should be putting ther energy into educating the pubic and making sure the current laws are prosecuted period.

It kind of remnds me of PETA which started out protecting animals being abused in sceintific experiments, then expanding their casue to include animals that exist because they are bred and raised for the specfic purpsoe to be killed and eaten. Don't get me wrong I don't mean to deminish the rights and dignity of LGBT by this compariosn. My compariosn is just an example of how a movemennt goes beyond the orginal purpose.

When I my first cover story for a national magazine was published, it triggered hundreds of positive letters. However, the one that the editors chose to publish belonged to the cancel-my-subscription-Ms.-Capote-is-a-poophead genre.

"Hmmm," I thought, "so that's the way it works."

And it does. Aravosis was given space by Salon's editors because he's divisive. He generates conflict. People like to watch hangings, attend fights, and read Aravosis because they like the consequent spittle and blood.

So, Aravosis brings out the worst and best in Salon's readers and when the two meet, it's bloody drama.

But t-folks are akin to the women and the children on a sinking ship.

They have the least strength, thus decent men say, "Man the lifeboats! Women and children first!"

In today's country, t-folks have the least strength, power, and privilege, by dint of numbers, perception, and bloodthirsty bigotry. Thus, they should be given the sanctuary of the lifeboats first, not last. Alas, Aravosis seems the sort of man who'd shove a child, woman, or t-woman aside to secure his place in a lifeboat.

Whether or not the bill that can be got should be passed is something I struggle with. But I do understand the strategy.

However, this article is remiss in not mentioning a huge loophole in ENDA. The article only vaguely mentions gender identity but from what I understand, the exclusion of protections concerning gender identity means that a male employee can be fired for being too "feminine" or a female employee for being too "masculine." This is descrimination based on gender expression i.e. gender identity and may have nothing to do with actually being transgendered or transexual and could effect a large swath of the gay community or even people who are not gay at all. Yet the article implies that only a much narrower segment of the LGBT community would be effected by these exclusions.

Many years ago a handsome actor friend of mine could no longer endure the conflict between his brain and his body. He had his cock and balls removed, took all the necessary hormones, followed all the prescribed transgender protocols, and emerged two years later as a ravishingly beautiful woman who went on to become a successful Hollywood actress; often seen on screen in the arms of many a leading man until she met the man of HER dreams and happily disappeared into the fabric of American society to become a loving wife and raise a family.

She was not gay, she was a woman who was dealt a man's body, and she did what she needed to do, re-invented herself, and asked nothing of society.

I, on the other hand am a gay man who has spent an entire life commanding and demanding the right to OPENLY pursue my sexual preferences in an often hostile culture. It's been almost 40 years since us Stonewall queers began to fight for our rights. I take great pleasure in watching younger generations of gay men and women having an easier time peering out of their closet doors, but the battle for sexual freedom is far from over! We gays are out, thriving and sexually determined. We will have our rights, and once we do, we will help our transgendered brothers and sisters who are sexually confused.

Drop the nit-picking politics, take the "T" out of the equation and pass the ENDA bill now!.