So, what do we make of HRC's strategic position? And given that the bill is going to be vetoed anyway (would you gamble otherwise?) does HRCs strategic position make sense? I read this, attributed to Barney Frank, in the NYT the other day:

“On the other hand,” he continued, “an announcement that this new Democratic Congress led by a woman who has been as committed to full rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in every aspect of her career, that she had to kill a gay rights bill and couldn’t do anything at all would, I think, be the most negative message we could send.”

Clearly getting the bill out of the conference committee was the most important thing on their minds. Getting a fair bill out of the committee was not. Given that getting a bill out that would be signed by the president was impossible, what should the committee have done? I certainly would not have sold out an important part of the community for a symbolic gesture.