Though Donna Rose resigned as the first and only transgender member of the Human Rights Campaign’s Board of Directors on Wednesday, she has no hard feelings toward the organization.
“I really believe that the board feels as though they have the best interest of the LGBT community in mind even though the end result doesn’t appear that way,” she told The Advocate, adding that work she has done with HRC has provided some of her “proudest” moments.
But on Monday, HRC’s Board met for four “very emotional” hours, according to Rose, and issued a statement saying it would not advocate for passage of an Employment Nondiscrimination Act that lacked protections for both sexual orientation and gender identity. The original, trans-inclusive ENDA was split into two separate bills last week by Rep. Barney Frank, an out member of the House of Representatives, because he feared the inclusive bill lacked the votes for passage.
The HRC board’s statement posted Monday read, “HRC will not support the newly introduced sexual orientation only bill.” But the real controversy erupted around what wasn’t said -- HRC’s statement never indicated that it would oppose passing the “sexual orientation” only bill.
“I could not fulfill my obligations as a board member to support that tepid stance,” said Rose.
Most insiders believe the creation of two bills will lead to passing the non-inclusive ENDA through both chambers of Congress perhaps this year (though President Bush may very well veto it), while leaving the “gender identity” bill to languish for an untold number of years. A non-inclusive ENDA was passed in New York, for instance, in 2002, while five years later, its gender counterpart (GENDA) still has an uncertain future.
Ever since Rep. Frank split the bill last Thursday, LGBT activists have been moving at warp speed to reverse the course of Congress, which was scheduled to markup the substitute ENDA in committee this week on Tuesday. By Monday about 90 organizations had signed on to a letter urging House leadership to delay action on the substitute bill.
Meanwhile communication from HRC had fallen into somewhat of a time warp relative to other LGBT organizations. The community’s most influential lobbying group remained conspicuously absent from the aforementioned list as it was originally posted on The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s Web site Monday morning.
And Rose said she felt “stranded” last week by the non-communication even as others in the trans community looked to her for answers.
Rose first became aware that the original bill was in jeopardy last Wednesday upon receiving a phone call from a trusted beltway insider. Later that evening, she spoke to HRC president Joe Solmonese.
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.