Comments on: The Gay . . . or, When Does Sixty Equal Thirty-Six? http://lawdork.net/2009/08/05/the-gay-or-when-does-sixty-equal-thirty-six/ Same dork, new year! Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:26:26 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 By: House Set for ENDA Mark-Up, Kaufman and Kirk Sign On http://lawdork.net/2009/08/05/the-gay-or-when-does-sixty-equal-thirty-six/#comment-5647 House Set for ENDA Mark-Up, Kaufman and Kirk Sign On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:32:05 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=3015#comment-5647 [...] two remaining targets for ENDA (S. 1584) co-sponsorship that I wrote about when the bill was introduced in the Senate and then again in mid-October are now on board.  That means that we have 43 sponsors [...] [...] two remaining targets for ENDA (S. 1584) co-sponsorship that I wrote about when the bill was introduced in the Senate and then again in mid-October are now on board.  That means that we have 43 sponsors [...]

]]> By: An ENDA Update: Three New Co-Sponsors http://lawdork.net/2009/08/05/the-gay-or-when-does-sixty-equal-thirty-six/#comment-5433 An ENDA Update: Three New Co-Sponsors Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:12:20 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=3015#comment-5433 [...] Stabenow (D-MI) have joined as co-sponsors of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act since it was introduced in early August.  I wrote earlier about the disappointing fact that 24 Democrats were not [...] [...] Stabenow (D-MI) have joined as co-sponsors of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act since it was introduced in early August.  I wrote earlier about the disappointing fact that 24 Democrats were not [...]

]]> By: Senate Shenanigans: From Florida to Maine http://lawdork.net/2009/08/05/the-gay-or-when-does-sixty-equal-thirty-six/#comment-1708 Senate Shenanigans: From Florida to Maine Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:22:01 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=3015#comment-1708 [...] issues leaves much to be desired — and this cop-out coming from one of the two Republican sponsors of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the [...] [...] issues leaves much to be desired — and this cop-out coming from one of the two Republican sponsors of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the [...]

]]> By: Mark http://lawdork.net/2009/08/05/the-gay-or-when-does-sixty-equal-thirty-six/#comment-1697 Mark Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:08:31 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=3015#comment-1697 "What does that signal for other, more controversial measures?" It signals that the chances for progress in Congress are next to impossible without leadership from the President. And even though candidate Obama repeatedly promised leadership on DADT, the record of Pres. Obama signals that we have no reason any longer to expect any leadership from the White House. So I agree with you that this signals "nothing good." “What does that signal for other, more controversial measures?”

It signals that the chances for progress in Congress are next to impossible without leadership from the President. And even though candidate Obama repeatedly promised leadership on DADT, the record of Pres. Obama signals that we have no reason any longer to expect any leadership from the White House. So I agree with you that this signals “nothing good.”

]]> By: Chris http://lawdork.net/2009/08/05/the-gay-or-when-does-sixty-equal-thirty-six/#comment-1690 Chris Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:34:43 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=3015#comment-1690 I think the odds are good that a lot of those who didn't sign up as co-sponsors still will vote for the bill. Regardless, this is about as basic of a protection that one can seek, and nearly half of the Democratic caucus isn't on board. What does that signal for other, more controvesial measures? I think nothing good. I think the odds are good that a lot of those who didn’t sign up as co-sponsors still will vote for the bill. Regardless, this is about as basic of a protection that one can seek, and nearly half of the Democratic caucus isn’t on board. What does that signal for other, more controvesial measures? I think nothing good.

]]> By: Komiza http://lawdork.net/2009/08/05/the-gay-or-when-does-sixty-equal-thirty-six/#comment-1687 Komiza Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:05:15 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=3015#comment-1687 I'd like to think though that the courageous four Senators who introduced the bill genuinely want it to pass and therefore truly believe that even if they don't have enough co-sponsors to ensure pasage they have enough people signed on to at least vote for it to make sure it passes, similar to Rep. Murphy's DODT bill in the House. I imagine if it does come for a vote and does not pass it may a long while until we see this bill in the Senate again... but it also would be nice for Obama to at least expend a little political capital to say what you just said, this is really basic legislation about basic fairness and protections. nothing radical. I’d like to think though that the courageous four Senators who introduced the bill genuinely want it to pass and therefore truly believe that even if they don’t have enough co-sponsors to ensure pasage they have enough people signed on to at least vote for it to make sure it passes, similar to Rep. Murphy’s DODT bill in the House. I imagine if it does come for a vote and does not pass it may a long while until we see this bill in the Senate again… but it also would be nice for Obama to at least expend a little political capital to say what you just said, this is really basic legislation about basic fairness and protections. nothing radical.

]]>