On Wednesday night (November 7), the House of Representatives approved a measure that would ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The bill would provide the same protections for homosexuals that currently exist for women and minorities. But the historic vote was close, 235-184, and proved that Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts and author of the legislation, had done his political math correctly.

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about a Frank press conference in which he laid out his reasons for removing protection for transgender people from the bill. He said that such a provision would sink the bill.

It turns out he was right. For proof, look at the vote taken just before the final vote. Republicans put forward a “motion to recommit,” which would have sent the bill back to the House Education and Labor Committee, potentially killing it.

The motion ostensibly would ensure that nothing in the bill could be construed as limiting a state’s definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Substantively, the action would have been meaningless because there was no language in the bill about marriage.

But politically, such a move forces Democrats in tough—and conservative—districts to vote on marriage. The Democratic majority held together on the motion to recommit, defeating it 222-198.

But you can see by the narrow victory that a broader discrimination bill including transgender protection would have been vulnerable to defeat. Instead, a separate amendment was offered by Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, on gender identity.

Baldwin’s insistence on putting the amendment forward caused more political machinations and delayed House action on the sexual orientation bill by two weeks.

But Baldwin’s measure was pulled before a vote occurred because its defeat could have caused negative repercussions for the underlying bill. Still, many homosexual advocacy groups are incensed that the final bill didn’t include gender identity.

Frank knew he wasn’t going to please everyone, even among his own constituency. But he was determined to get as much he could this time around—protection for the vast majority of homosexuals—and come back later for more.

Just before the vote on the motion to recommit, Frank, who is openly gay, made a passionate plea to the House to vote against Republican maneuvers to kill the bill. He said that he was fortunate to get to where he is in life without being held back by discrimination against homosexuals.

But he said he hurts for the worker “who is afraid of losing his job because of who he loves” and for the kid who “dreads going to school” because of who he is.

With his voice breaking, Frank said, “Please don’t turn your back on them.”

As with most employment law bills, it’s difficult to predict what will happen in the Senate. In addition, a veto threat looms over the bill. The Bush administration raised concerns about the measure causing burdensome litigation and curtailing people’s religious freedom at work.

But with major business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce remaining neutral and many major corporations having supported the broader bill that included gender identity, it’s not a certainty that the bill will die.