I'm not sure where I come down on the issue of compromise on ENDA at the federal level, since my general position is that federal policy is usually so institutionally compromised by filibusters, holding out for perfection is usually doomed. But I did want to note that E.J. significantly downplayed success at the state level where she said only 13 states had prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians.

In fact, 13 states ban discrimination against gays and lesbians AND ban discrimination based on gender identity/expression, while another seven states just ban discrimination against gays and lesbians. And many of these are our largest states, so over 43% of the American population live in states where discrimination against gays and lesbians is banned-- and 30% of the population live in states that ban discrimination based on gender identity.

Maybe this argues against any compromise at the federal level in favor of continual work at the state level, where progress is far more likely-- Colorado, Iowa and Oregon just this year passed laws banning gay and gender identity discrimination. Arguably, a neutered ENDA law would have weakened the political pressure for those state laws and made passing a law banning gender identity far harder.

On the other hand, you can argue that the 57% of the population living in states without any discrimination protection would gain that baseline civil rights-- and allow scarce energy in states to concentrate on the gender identity fight itself.

My main point is that any discussion of strategy at the federal level should focus tightly on how it will strengthen or weaken the usually more dynamic political movement at the state level. There's been tremendous progress on fighting gay and gender identity discrimination in the states in recent years-- so keeping that progress going should be the overwhelming focus of any federal discussion.