One reason clichés become clichés is that there is an element of truth in them. That’s why they’re repeated so often.

I’ll use one in describing the machinations surrounding a bill that would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation: Politics makes strange bedfellows.

The measure, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, includes a provision that addresses gender identity. This has caused consternation among employment lawyers, who say that the bill is creating a new protected class, which could make companies vulnerable to new types of lawsuits.
 
Another group that is apparently concerned about the gender identity dimension of the bill, for a different reason, is conservative Democrats. Those who are in Republican-leaning districts don’t relish the idea of being attacked on the issue in 2008 campaigns by right-wing groups.

That must be why proponents of the bill have delayed action in the House. They say they need time to build support.

This means they don’t have enough Democrats on board. If they did, they could move forward fairly easily. House rules enable the majority to approve anything it wants.

So, I would guess that what is stalling the bill is a lukewarm, or negative, response from Democrats like those from my home state of Indiana. They have to maintain a fairly conservative voting record in Washington, or they could suffer in their districts.

In effect, they are aligned with employment lawyers, who don’t like the gender identity provision, either. On the other side are homosexual advocates, who have attacked Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts and the bill’s author, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for contemplating moving forward with a streamlined bill that would remove gender identity.

The homosexual community sees the new Democratic Congress as a fertile ground to achieve what it has waited so long for—a comprehensive discrimination bill that includes transgender policy.

About 46 large companies have endorsed the ENDA bill that includes gender identity. This is a reflection of the fact that most Fortune 500 companies have inclusive employment policies that are necessary to attract and retain the best talent.

So, what you have is the HR departments rallying for the bill while their counterparts in the legal office are waving a yellow caution flag. This split within the corporation also manifests itself in the lobbying community.

Everyone wants homosexuals to be treated fairly and to have the same rights on the job as anyone else. However, the legislative process is one that focuses heavily on details. In any bill, including ENDA, there can be complicated—and sometimes unintended—consequences.

That’s probably why groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are remaining neutral. They know that their constituents must hire and retain the best talent, regardless of race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. But there may be legalities in complex legislative language that could ultimately drag companies into court and cost them money.

Throw the vagaries of politics into the mix, and you have unusual alignments—legal counsels and conservative Democrats versus HR and the Fortune 500 C-suite.