An article in today's Washington Post, Quandary Over Gay Rights Bill: Is It Better to Protect Some or None?, begins:
There's a saying in Congress about passing legislation: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The problem with the article is that it presupposes that there is "good" to be had from this disaster of a bill that neither protects gay people due to the huge gender-identity loophole that unscrupulous business legal defense groups already train to, but it actually poses a danger to existing civil rights law through such things as the sweeping and unprecedented religious exemption in the bill as presented to the committee.
Now it's a ludicrous notion that Barney Frank, a Jew, would intentionally put forth a piece of anti-Semitic legislation or that Nancy Pelosi and the Human Rights Campaign would facilitate racist legislation, but in Barney & HRC's secretive, ethics-free haste, that's the de facto effect of what was cobbled together as a substitute for real ENDA.* (As Reagan/Bush judges slowly make mincemeat of existing civil rights law, it would be impossible to open it for needed legislative fixes when there are Damoclean sword precedents as big as this bill presents awaiting it.)