Kakki asked: > Do you know which Republicans have held this up, > which states are they from > and what has been their objection?
House Leadership through those years, who are the ones who control what comes up for a vote: Gingrich, Armey, and most of all Delay. First is GA, latter two are TX. Their arguments deem such legislation to be creating "special rights for homosexuals." > Will this be and > amendment to the > existing Federal law or a separate enactment? Amends the Civil Rights Act. > The original sponsor of the > bill is Christopher Shays, a Republican from > Connecticut, and there are a > number of other Republican co-sponsors to the bill. Of course there are. That's why I said "national Republican party" and not "Republicans." Chris Shays is an incredibly decent man with lots of positions contrary to party doctrine--and who, incidentally, was and is often in hot water with party leadership. The only reason they let him get away with so much is that he has to be that far left to win in his district. He is also a frequent target for party switching. The lead (former) Republican on this bill for many years in the Senate is Jeffords of VT. He, of course, is a Republican no more. The decision to have Shays be the *lead* sponsor is a tactical one made in concert with the Human Rights Campaign, lead lobby organization on this bill, for two reasons: a) it's unexpected, so enables "breadth of support" spin, and b) Republicans control the House. And the number of Republican sponsors has increased dramatically over those years as it has become less of a hot button issue. There used to be less than twenty. It's all fine and good to look at issues like this from an objective assessment of arguments on both sides perspective, but the reality of getting a law passed always depends on far colder political considerations. i.e., various Members may support the bill on principle, but are afraid that a vote for it would lead to a distorted :30 attack ad in their next campaign that would sink them. That's the *real* reason Republican leadership has prevented a vote: to prevent their Members from swing districts from having to go on record over a potentially explosive issue. That's also why so many Republicans were reluctant to sign on as a sponsor for so long. The issue is less and less explosive now, however, and that opens the door to let the actual arguments dictate the bill's success or failure. FWIW, the reason votes happened in the Senate under a Republican leadership is that the rules in that chamber are different, and under many circumstances any Senator can propose on the Senate floor to amend any bill with anything else. Kennedy proposed attaching ENDA to an unrelated bill back in 1996 and forced a floor vote. It failed by one vote. That proves my point--if forced to go on record there is support for this bill, but Republican leadership will do what it can to prevent such actions for purposes of protecting individual members and maintaining macro party relationships with important supporters/voting blocs. --Michael NP: Alicia "Yawn" Keys, "A Woman's Worth" (on the radio) ===== ____________________________________________________ "I'm just a little bit heiress, a little bit Irish, A little bit Tower of Pisa whenever I see ya, So please be kind if I'm a mess." --Rufus Wainwright, "Cigarettes and Chocolate Milk" Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com
