BTB: The Nuts Are Losing Everywhere
Box Turtle Bulletin had a post yesterday that seemed so cheerful that I just had to reproduce the whole thing here for this sunny Friday morning.
In Montgomery County we are awaiting a court ruling to see if they lose here, too. It would be ironic if this progressive county was one that put a referendum on the ballot to take away rights for transgender citizens that were passed into law unanimously by the County Council.
As far as the court proceedings I have seen, it appears that there is not much of a question that there are lots of bad signatures on the petitions gathered by the Citizens for Responsible Whatever, and the Board of Elections is mainly just saying it isn't their job to check them. They say they're only supposed to see if the names correspond to registered voters, not whether they were signed by the actual person.
It seems to me that it would be a little weird if the judge ruled that the Board was off the hook because they really aren't expected to check whether signatures met the legal requirements. It might come down to an interpretation of the word "verify." Maybe "verify" just means look up the name and see if there is a voter registered with that name. Maybe verify means to make sure that laws were followed in collecting the signatures. I would not presume to guess what the court is going to decide, this fancy legal stuff is too much for me.
Well, BTB is showing a trend across the country. Our local MoCo anti-gay nuts lost the battle over the sex-ed curriculum, and now they're trying to re-legalize discrimination against transgender people, and I hope they lose here, too, like they are everywhere else.
Anti-Gay Activists Surrender From Coast to Coast
Anti-gay activists in Maine and Oregon have abandoned efforts to repeal nondiscrimination laws.
First in Maine, where an effort to repeal that state's anti-discrimination laws have floundered:An initiative campaign to repeal Maine's gay rights law and put in place roadblocks to gay marriages and adoptions is being abandoned, leaders of the campaign said Thursday.
"We're pulling the plug," said Michael Heath, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine. Heath said the evangelical group failed to attract voter, volunteer and financial support it needed to continue its campaign.
This is yet another indication that the tide may be turning. As we reported on Monday, Oregon anti-gay activists abandoned their efforts to repeal two state laws. One initiative targeted a state law banning discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations. The other initiative sought to repeal that state's domestic partnership law. Now they've conceded that they can't collect enough signatures in time:Organizers conceded Monday that their initiatives to repeal two Oregon gay rights laws will not make the November ballot.
The fact that the initiatives are stalled offers more evidence that opponents are losing support, say gay rights activists, who were also celebrating the legalization of same-sex marriages in California on Monday.
But conservatives and church groups that are pushing the Oregon initiatives say their support is growing. "We're just getting stronger," said Marylin Shannon of Brooks, a former Republican state senator and chief petitioner in the initiative drives. "The network is growing daily."
Marylin's bluster is so precious, isn't it?
In Montgomery County we are awaiting a court ruling to see if they lose here, too. It would be ironic if this progressive county was one that put a referendum on the ballot to take away rights for transgender citizens that were passed into law unanimously by the County Council.
As far as the court proceedings I have seen, it appears that there is not much of a question that there are lots of bad signatures on the petitions gathered by the Citizens for Responsible Whatever, and the Board of Elections is mainly just saying it isn't their job to check them. They say they're only supposed to see if the names correspond to registered voters, not whether they were signed by the actual person.
It seems to me that it would be a little weird if the judge ruled that the Board was off the hook because they really aren't expected to check whether signatures met the legal requirements. It might come down to an interpretation of the word "verify." Maybe "verify" just means look up the name and see if there is a voter registered with that name. Maybe verify means to make sure that laws were followed in collecting the signatures. I would not presume to guess what the court is going to decide, this fancy legal stuff is too much for me.
Well, BTB is showing a trend across the country. Our local MoCo anti-gay nuts lost the battle over the sex-ed curriculum, and now they're trying to re-legalize discrimination against transgender people, and I hope they lose here, too, like they are everywhere else.
posted by JimK at 7:51 AM
59 Comments:
Jim,
Not many people live in Maine. It's not exactly on everyone's route.
I like the place. I'd especially recommend The Birches resort at Lake Moosehead. Still, not where I'd look to pick up on national trends.
About one of every eight Americans, however, live in California where they will vote on a constitutional amendment this fall to roll back the redefinition of marriage by judicial perverts.
...to pick up on national trends
(CBS) Most Americans continue to think there should be some legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples, and 30 percent say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry - the highest number since CBS News began asking this question in 2004.
Twenty-eight percent think same-sex couples should be permitted to form civil unions, but more than a third - 36 percent - say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.
Last month, the California Supreme Court struck down that state’s ban on same-sex marriage, paving the way for gay and lesbian couples to marry there.
Americans’ views on this issue have changed since 2004, although opinion has not changed substantially in the last two years. In November of 2004 (soon after the presidential election) just 21 percent of Americans supported the idea of same-sex couples being allowed to marry.
Majorities of both men and women support some form of legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples, but more women (36 percent) than men (24 percent) back the idea of same-sex marriage...
The CBS poll
Wow!
70 percent of Americans don't believe marriage should be redefined to encompass counterparts in same gender sexual relationships and you feel encouraged?
Oh, yeah. The nuts are losing everywhere. Except, of course, in courtrooms where lunatic judges keep finding a constitutional right to have the government endorse perverted sexual relationships because not doing so would bias the government in favor of normal healthy families.
Imagine that: the government encouraging a stable society.
Well, Jim's right the nuts are losing everywhere. To date, whenever the electorate gets a say, like California will in November, they have rejected the redefinition of marriage and incorporated it into their state constitutions.
The only exception is Arizona in 2006, a land of strange desert rats who have stumbled into too many saguaros in their drunken and naked "burning man" festivals in the desert.
Anonymous said:
“About one of every eight Americans, however, live in California where they will vote on a constitutional amendment this fall to roll back the redefinition of marriage by judicial perverts.”
And if that indeed happens, do you really think all the pro gay marriage advocates are just going to throw up there arms, say “oh darn, we lost that one,” go home and be quiet?
Peace,
Cynthia
You didn't pay attention in math class, did you? Let's review the math.
30% support same-sex marriage
28% support same-sex civil unions
That's 58% who support some form of legalized union for same-sex couples.
It is simply the ever shrinking 36% of the GOP core that does not support any legal union for same-sex couples or protection for their kids.
In 2008, support for same-sex unions has grown to 58% for vs. 36% against, and the trend continues to move toward the realization that LGBT people are American citizens who deserve to pursue their happiness just like everyone else does, by sharing a legally recognized relationship with the person they love.
And in case you are the same Anon who thinks race relations are so good here in the States that anti-discrimination laws on the basis of race are no longer necessary, you might want to read up on the latest findings in today's Washington Post.
Thirty percent (a similar number to those who are against same-sex marriage) "acknowledge feelings of racial prejudice". Be sure to note that the 82% who thought things in this country...have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track in May has increased to 84% in June.
And then when you're done with the article on the front page, you might want to dig into the article called "Hate Groups' Latest Target" on Page A6 and learn that "Neo-Nazi, skinhead and segregationist groups have reported gains in numbers of visitors to their Web sites and in membership since the senator from Illinois secured the Democratic nomination June 3. His success has aroused a community of racists, experts said"
You are right Jim.
Nuts including Canadian Baptist ministers who dare to declare their faith in the public square. That homosexuality is immoral.
$7000 fine by the HRC. (The HRC is the same orgnanization that will enforce our gender identity law here, and levy up to 500,000 fines on any health club that choses not to let Maryann (who stills retains male equipment) into the ladies changing area). Freedom of religon directly in conflict with gay lesbian advocacy movement.
And the GLBT movement is winning. Which means "all churches who don't agree with us doors will be closed".
Does this make you happy ?
n June of 2008, he was fined $7000 and ordered to keep quiet and not publicly express his Baptist views that homosexuality is immoral.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060902.html
Did the hate speech statue pass here in Congress as well ?
There you go again. Citing a Canadian incident. They have different laws in Canada regarding speech. While I may not totally agree with them, they are applicable across the board. And I might point out that a while back, a gay group was penalized for saying something negative about Christianity.
And the HRC you cited stands for the Human Rights Commission (Alberta). NOT the Human Rights Campaign, the gay organization which is present in the United States. The Human Rights Campaign had nothing to do with the pastor's case.
See what happens when you cite anti-gay industry sources instead of using the brain that God gave you? You get embarrassed.
Yes, and the British have even more stringent codes than the Canadians, and the Germans more so than the British. And rightly so, I might add, given their not-too-distant history. We just don't do it that way here.
But Anon, are you a prude, too? What do you mean by "male equipment"? A camcorder? Set of golf clubs? Maybe a toolbox? At least Theresa recognizes a touch of science by using the word "biological" as a descriptor.
A little closer to home, here's some typical GOP advice. In this video, Iowa GOP Representative John King suggests that rather than Scott McClellan telling the truth about what he learned working in the Bush White House, he could have "taken some of this to the grave with you and done this country a favor."
John King thinks Scott McClellan should have taken the truth to the grave with him to do this country a favor! He thinks lies and omissions are helpful!! Well, that is the GOP way isn't it, repeat the lie until enough people believe it. ENOUGH!
John King should do the country and state of Iowa a favor and keep his asinine opinions to himself.
My bad, that's Steve King of Iowa.
Theresa said…
"You are right Jim.
Nuts including Canadian Baptist ministers who dare to declare their faith in the public square. That homosexuality is immoral.
$7000 fine by the HRC. (The HRC is the same orgnanization that will enforce our gender identity law here […]) Freedom of religon directly in conflict with gay lesbian advocacy movement."
--
I see you also mention this story on the notmyshower site under "Religious Liberty At Stake."
Let's take a closer look, shall we?
Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission. AKA, the “HRC.”
About the Commission:
"In Alberta, the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (HRCM Act) protects Albertans from discrimination in certain areas and on certain grounds. The purpose of the HRCM Act is to ensure that all Albertans are offered an equal opportunity to earn a living, find a place to live and enjoy services customarily available to the public without discrimination."
Those protected citizens include:
From the Preamble on the HUMAN RIGHTS, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURALISM ACT page:
"WHEREAS it is recognized in Alberta as a fundamental principle and as a matter of public policy that all persons are equal in: dignity, rights and responsibilities without regard to race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status;"
[...]
Discrimination re publications, notices:
"No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or (b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt"
--
Clearly, Theresa, this Canadian code is NOT the result of the GLBT equal rights advocacy movement, as you would have us all believe.
As far as the Canadian pastor who was fined $7000 for 'daring to declare his faith in public that homosexuality is immoral,' you've brought him up before, and I posted extensive excerpts of his letter at that time.
If you're so concerned about the suppression of free speech, why not print his (Rev Stephen Boissoin's now illegal) letter to the editor, so that we can all get a glimpse of just what it is, and whom you're actually defending?
Allow me:
Homosexual Agenda Wicked
From the Jun 17, 2002 issue of the Red Deer Advocate:
"The following is not intended for those who are suffering from an unwanted sexual identity crisis. For you, I have understanding, care, compassion and tolerance. I sympathize with you and offer you my love and fellowship. I prayerfully beseech you to seek help, and I assure you that your present enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied. Many outspoken, former homosexuals are free today.
Instead, this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage.
My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume. With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date - God and the "Moral Majority." Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage that you have caused. Modern society has become dispassionate to the cause of righteousness. Many people are so apathetic and desensitized today that they cannot even accurately define the term "morality."
The masses have dug in and continue to excuse their failure to stand against horrendous atrocities such as the aggressive propagation of homo- and bisexuality. Inexcusable justifications such as, "I'm just not sure where the truth lies," or "If they don't affect me then I don't care what they do," abound from the lips of the quantifiable majority.
Face the facts, it is affecting you. Like it or not, every professing heterosexual is have their future aggressively chopped at the roots.
Edmund Burke's observation that, "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," has been confirmed time and time again. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.
Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps. Think about it, children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.
Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate.
Your teenagers are being instructed on how to perform so-called safe same gender oral and anal sex and at the same time being told that it is normal, natural and even productive. Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive?
Come on people, wake up! It's time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.
Regardless of what you hear, the militant homosexual agenda isn't rooted in protecting homosexuals from "gay bashing." The agenda is clearly about homosexual activists that include, teachers, politicians, lawyers, Supreme Court judges, and God forbid, even so-called ministers, who are all determined to gain complete equality in our nation and even worse, our world.
Don't allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.
The homosexual agenda is not gaining ground because it is morally backed. It is gaining ground simply because you, Mr. and Mrs. Heterosexual, do nothing to stop it. It is only a matter of time before some of these morally bankrupt individuals such as those involved with NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association, will achieve their goal to have sexual relations with children and assert that it is a matter of free choice and claim that we are intolerant bigots not to accept it.
If you are reading this and think that this is alarmist, then I simply ask you this: how bad do things have to become before you will get involved? It's time to start taking back what the enemy has taken from you. The safety and future of our children is at stake.
Rev Stephen Boissoin"
--
"Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles"
And there you have the "morality" of Rev. Stephen Boissoin - adult gay relationships, and anyone who supports them, are exactly the same as child rapists.
Now, despite the fact that you defend this definition of "morality," Ms. Rickman, you use the above example to say that "Freedom of religon directly in conflict with gay lesbian avocacy movement," and that "the GLBT movement is winning. Which means "all churches who don't agree with us doors will be closed"."
What you neglect to mention is that Egale Canada ((Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) a national organization that advances equality and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-identified people and their families across Canada) refused to take up the case against Reverend Boissoin. Meaning that one of, if not the leading gay rights organization in Canada actually STANDS WITH YOU in supporting Rev. Boissoin's right to public hate speech.
Personally, and for the record, I concur with their position:
"We think the best course is to expose his misguided views to public strutiny. We believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant."
But who do you choose to blame? Not the individual, Darren Lund, who brought the complaint, but the ENTIRE GLBT equal rights movement.
And who do you choose to defend in all of this? Paul Cameron supporter Stephen Boissoin.
Paul Cameron, fan of Nazi war criminal Rudolf Höss, believes gays should be imprisoned for "sodomy," and is an open advocate of genocide for anyone living with HIV.
Boissoin also uses the "Dutch Study" to depict gay relationships as inherently non-monogamous. A study which EXCLUDED MONOGAMOUS COUPLES!
--
This is obviously NOT about "religious" freedom for you, it's about the "freedom" to impose your "religion" on others.
And for whatever reason, it seems that you are either unable or unwilling to admit this. Yet despite this, you have the temerity to complain that you, and those like you, are the ones who are truly being persecuted.
This also isn't about "free speech" for you. It's about the protection of "hate speech."
You have literally come here in expectation of sympathy for your defense of hate speech, and you wish for us to feel sorry for you.
Could we have a show of hands of how many people actually read emslob's post?
For the record, I didn't.
Try to get to the point in less than, say, a hundred words.
This is a blog, buddy!
"In 2008, support for same-sex unions has grown to 58% for vs. 36% against, and the trend continues to move toward the realization that LGBT people are American citizens who deserve to pursue their happiness just like everyone else does, by sharing a legally recognized relationship with the person they love."
That's not enough for the androgynuts. Their goal is the elimination of the idea of gender and the idea of marriage. In California, they were indulged by being granted same sex unions with all the rights of marriage but it wasn't enough. They still pushed to destroy marriage by redefining it. Oh well, their loss. They pushed it and now may lose their gains. Just like here in MC.
"And in case you are the same Anon who thinks race relations are so good here in the States that anti-discrimination laws on the basis of race are no longer necessary, you might want to read up on the latest findings in today's Washington Post."
What I think is that, now that a black man has been nominated for President by a major political party, it's time to say that, perhaps, racial minorities don't face insurmountable odds in pursuit of their aspirations and that they no longer require any more governmental intervention than people who suffer other types of bias.
oh look, a black man is nominated as president, that means we overcame.
oh brother. your silly assertions are laughable. especially the one that infers that gays are trying to "redefine" marriage. apparently we all sequester ourselves in an underground chamber where a leader with a scar on his face barks orders to us while stroking the fur of a white Persian cat.
"oh look, a black man is nominated as president, that means we overcame"
It doesn't mean anyone "overcame". It might mean government doesn't need to intervene in social nad business interaction to allow minorities a shot at their dreams. They're now empowered.
"oh brother. your silly assertions are laughable. especially the one that infers that gays are trying to "redefine" marriage."
Of course they are. Where have you been? A lot has happened since you got lost in the forest!
"apparently we all sequester ourselves in an underground chamber where a leader with a scar on his face barks orders to us while stroking the fur of a white Persian cat"
Save your fantasies for next year's gay pride parade.
For the record, I didn't.
Well of course you didn't read it, Anon. No one would expect you read an opposing argument and engage in rational discussion about it. We all know you'd much rather blindly cling to your faith and lurk in the shadows dropping IEDs, Idiotic, Empty Delusions, on this blog.
Should I stoop to your level and ask for a show of hands of who's impressed the troll stuck its head in the sand, as usual? I think not.
Have fun lurking!
*************
Thanks, Emproph, for your thoughtful anaylsis of Boissoin's letter to the editor. The quote that said it all for me was this one:
The agenda is clearly about homosexual activists that include, teachers, politicians, lawyers, Supreme Court judges, and God forbid, even so-called ministers, who are all determined to gain complete equality in our nation and even worse, our world.
He rightfully points out that LGBT people are in all professions, all walks of life. His fear is palpable. He's scared that LGBT people seek complete equality, just like everybody else. I don't know about Canada, but the USA has tried several experiments with inequality, and inequality is not what America is about. America IS about freedom. We may not always get it right in the beginning but we usually get it right in the end. That's why we eventually freed our slaves, gave women the right to vote, enacted the Civil Rights Acts of 1963 and 1964, etc. Each and every American is free to believe whatever we choose to believe, with complete equality.
Oh yes, and thank you Emproph for showing us why CRG hawks Boissoin's case on their website.
Meanwhile, Concerned Christians Canada Inc. is raising money around this issue, and has received support from the U.S. group Alliance Defense Fund. A fundraising dinner is being held tonight in a Calgary hotel and is expected to attract many leaders of the religious right...
CRG is helping ADF raise money with this free advertising so they can both work to make sure complete equality is never realized.
"now they're trying to re-legalize discrimination against transgender people,"
Here's a little tidbit that needs correcting. Discriminating against transgenders is legal now and likely to remain so after the referendum in November.
It might have been close in such an irrationally liberal county except for three fatal errors made by those that authored the bill. This bill is distinctive from those in other parts of the country because:
(1)no reasonable exemptions were included for religious institutions
(2)facilities with a general expectation of privacy are not excluded
(3)rather than defining trangenders in a biological sense, the bill broadens the definition to include anyone who expresses themselves as an unrealistic gender role
Because of these errors, new rights for transgenders will be voted on and they will be rejected.
Thank Duchy and Dana. The rest of us are.
You seem to be jumping the gun, Anon. The judge hasn't ruled yet. Until he does, there's no way to know if this measure will be on the November ballot or will be reinstated into law.
But don't let that pesky little reality encumber your Idiotic, Empty Delusion about it.
Keep dreaming!
"You seem to be jumping the gun, Anon."
Obviously, I'm not a fortune teller. Didn't mean to suggest I was. Still, fact is, as of now, it's not law and your favorite lunatic, Jim Kennedy, thinks it is. That's the guy that doesn't know reality.
"Keep dreaming!"
I will, Dana.
You keep fantasizing!
Anon, the bill was voted unanimously into law by the County Council and signed by the County Executive. It was suspended when the Board of Elections verified the requisite number of signatures, apparently without checking whether they met legal standards. The matter is currently before the court, and it could turn out that the BOE is correct, it's not their job to check whether the signatures are forged. We have to wait for a judge to rule, before we know whether the law will remain suspended.
Before the law was passed, discrimination on the basis of gender identity was legal, and the law made it illegal. The shower-nuts want to repeal the law with a referendum, re-legalizing discrimination.
While I do enjoy the pleasure of being the favorite lunatic, I think this situation is straightforward enough that I must humbly turn down the honor. I am only saying what is obvious.
JimK
Jim
The law never took effect. There is a waiting period between passage by the Council and the deadline for a petition calling for a referendum. The law isn't official until the citizens of the county decide whether they want to consider vetoing it. The required 5% called for this consideration, extending this period, and, thus, the law has not cleared the hoops to become official.
There was never any period of time when the law was in effect.
Your presumption that enough of the signatures are bad to invalidate the petition are baseless. As we have seen, the lawyers for the androgynuts have dubiously claimed if one signature collected by a certain petitioner was bad then all the rest collected by that petitioner are bad. Few lawyers not being paid to take such a postiton would do so. To do so would basically eliminate participatory democracy and who, other than lunatic fringe gay groups, would want that?
On the other hand, as we have seen, lunatic fringe gay groups feel, even in liberal MC, that nullifying participatory democracy is their only hope.
CRG, on the other hand, has another great hope: that Duchy and Dana remain the face of this nutty effort to redefine gender.
redefine gender? come on with the talking points, anonymous.
this law was to prevent discrimination. Now it is YOUR side who brought the bathroom issue into it. It was YOUR side who told lies about men walking into women's bathrooms and lockersrooms declaring that they "feel like a woman." And it was YOUR side who faked that incident in the health club. No matter how you try to sound innocent, we all know what the deal is.
You scared enough people to get signatures on the petition (or so it seems). But I am confident that right will eventually prevail. You can only tell so many lies.
Alvin,
The bill makes a lie the official position of the government: that gender is just whatever you "express". Even the most warped of you don't believe that.
There is no motive here to alleviate any suffering caused by discrimination. Discrimination against people who dress up as another gender isn't really widespread here.
No one cares what you do.
The bill is feasible in its present state. No one on TFF's side sat down and looked it over to find a loophole.
Be honest.
This is about keeping a bill off the books that will help gays. It's not about bathrooms and the like.
Alvin
"Helping gays" is not the purpose of government. Gays don't need any more help than anyone else.
BTW, do you think gay and transgender are synonymous?
There is already a sexual orientation discrimination law.
The bathroom issue is but one aspect of the PROPOSED bill. CRG legitimately uses it to rally support from the greatest number. Why shouldn't they?
Duchy and Dana could have prevented this but chose to overplay their hand instead of allowing reasonable exemptions. They are stupid.
Why shouldn't they?
Because as Montgomery County Council President Mike Knapp pointed out to them on primary election day, it's a lie:
"The amount of misinformation out there is troubling," Council President Mike Knapp said. "I even got into a dispute at a polling location on Tuesday. The reality is this bill did nothing to change the existing law that pertains to restrooms or locker rooms. They're (The CRG) getting permission to be places based on misinformation."
The misinformation Knapp referred to is a key disagreement in the debate. The bill contains no language relating to public restrooms or locker rooms, but the CRG says the bill doesn't specifically deny access to these places.
"The preexisting law never applied to public bathrooms and locker rooms," Knapp said. "It's still up to the person who runs the facility to decide who is allowed in what bathroom."
Let's not make this issue about two people whom you seem to want to attack. Government is here to help everyone, including gays.
The bathroom issue was nonexistent until CRG brought it up. It was a cynical ploy, not a legitimate issue. It appealed to people's uncomfortability and fear.
"Because as Montgomery County Council President Mike Knapp pointed out to them on primary election day, it's a lie"
"The preexisting law never applied to public bathrooms and locker rooms," Knapp said. "It's still up to the person who runs the facility to decide who is allowed in what bathroom."
Knapp is not exactly an objective observer and he is lying here. Pre-existing discrimination laws do indeed cover restrooms. You can't deny someone access to a public restroom based on their race and religion. If the voters approve this law (which they won't) you won't be able to tell a guy dressed like a girl that he can't use the girls' room.
"Let's not make this issue about two people whom you seem to want to attack. Government is here to help everyone, including gays."
You the one who said there should be a law to "help gays".
"The bathroom issue was nonexistent until CRG brought it up. It was a cynical ploy, not a legitimate issue. It appealed to people's uncomfortability and fear."
This is inaccurate. CRG wasn't the first to bring it up. The bathroom issue was written into the original version of the proposed law by Duchy and Dana. The specific language was deleted because of negative public reaction but it is clear what the intent of the authors was and that the proposed law as written can be interpretted this way.
Nonexistent as in not a problem. and please do not forget about the phony incident in the health club. Come on guy. Admit that this is about finding a loophole and exploiting it.
D and D brought it up and it became a problem immediately.
This couple was seperated from reality long ago.
If the voters approve this law (which they won't) you won't be able to tell a guy dressed like a girl that he can't use the girls' room.
So what law currently on the books prevents a guy dressed in any way from using the girls' room? Come on, Anon. Admit it. There is no such law.
Never said there was and your remark is, at this point, a deception. What prevents guys dressed like girls from using the girls' room now is that business owners are free to make and enforce their own policies without governmental interference.
Anon, the business owner can still decide which bathroom somebody should go into, they just can't refuse to let them use the bathroom.
Merle
That's not true. If business owners treat guys who express themselves as girls in any different way than they do real girls, they'll be in violation of the law.
Anon, that's ridiculous. The law says you can't discriminate on the basis of gender identity, it doesn't say what bathroom anybody "has to" go into.
Aunt Bea said...
"If the voters approve this law (which they won't) you won't be able to tell a guy dressed like a girl that he can't use the girls' room."
So what law currently on the books prevents a guy dressed in any way from using the girls' room? Come on, Anon. Admit it. There is no such law.
June 24, 2008 3:59 PM
Anonymous said...
Never said there was and your remark is, at this point, a deception.
If my remark is a deception then show us the current MoCo statute that requires gender segregation in bathrooms.
Mike Knapp said, "It's still up to the person who runs the facility to decide who is allowed in what bathroom."
If you think our County Council President is lying then show us the part of Bill #23-07 that says business owners may no longer decide who is allowed in which bathroom in their own establishment.
"Anon, that's ridiculous. The law says you can't discriminate on the basis of gender identity, it doesn't say what bathroom anybody "has to" go into."
Merle
Seriously, if you say a biological female can use the ladies' room and an "expressing" female can't, aren't you discriminating based on gender identity? They might say, and have said here, that making them go in the men's room unfairly exposes them to danger. After all, the original version of the proposed bill explicitly explained this.
You may think is as it should be and you're entitled to your opinion but you can't really say CRG is making this up.
Let's have an honest public discussion.
You have to let them use the bathroom, that's all. It's not discrimination to tell them which one they ought to go into, as long as they get to pee. That doesn't seem like such a hard concept -- you're right that the wrong decision might put someone in danger, but the law doesn't make that decision, the business owner does.
Merle
You have a public facility called a "ladies' room". If you deny use of it based on gender identity, you would be in violation if this law is approved by the decision-makers in our county, the majority of citizens.
If you have a "ladies room" and a "mens room" and you don't let a customer use either one, then you'd have a problem under this law. The law doesn't say that anyone can go into any bathroom they want -- of course, there is no law that says they can't, either. If someone insisted on using a particular bathroom and the business owner judged it inappropriate, they are within their rights to throw the person out of their establishment. If they refuse to let the person use either bathroom, they will have a problem.
Turns out, transgender people need to pee, just like the rest of us. It is a bit of a stretch to imagine how your morally superior religious view considers it "right" to refuse to let them use the bathroom.
"Turns out, transgender people need to pee, just like the rest of us. It is a bit of a stretch to imagine how your morally superior religious view considers it "right" to refuse to let them use the bathroom."
Merle, I don't think your legal interpretation is correct but if it is then there is no reason for such a law. Transgenders aren't being excluded from any public facilities.
Of course they are. If a woman who used to be a man is not allowed by the business owner to use the ladies room (as the CRG insists is right) or the mens room (since she is not a man), she is being discriminated against.
doesn't happen, Merle
you're buying into their propaganda
Transgenders in MC aren't a deprived and beleagured lot
they're fat and sassy!
this place is a dream within a dream for them
First of all, Anon, the ones I know are all very slender. Seriously, if you're paying attention here you know that a lot of them lose their jobs when they transition, and have a hard time finding a new one.
You've backed yourself into a corner here. If you think business owners should be able to decide who uses what bathroom, then you win -- the new law allows that. It does not allow a business owner to deny access to a public facility on the basis of gender identity -- they may insist, for instance, that a masculine woman use the men's room, but they can't tell her she can't use either bathroom.
The only thing that changes under the new law, regarding bathrooms, is that people of ambiguous gender are guaranteed the right to pee, just like the rest of us.
You can bitch and whine about it all you want, trivialize the situation of the transgender citizen, whatever justifies your sad existence, but you are running short of facts and evidence here.
facts and evidence?
you're the one here creating your own interpretation of a fairly clear law
here's a fact: the authors of this have defended letting "expressing" genders use th bathroom of their choice
That's not in the law. The law simply says you can't discriminate on the basis on gender identity. It doesn't say everybody gets to do what they want. If you don't let somebody use your facilities because you don't like or understand their gender expression, you're breaking the law. If you own a business you have the right to keep order in your workplace, the law doesn't take that away. If you want masculine women to use the mens room, you can insist on that, just like you can now. But you have to let them use one or the other.
Here's the relevant fact, no matter what commenters on this blog say or support:
The Gazette reported
After a vigorous e-mail campaign attacking the public accommodations section of a bill designed to protect transgender people from discrimination, a Montgomery County Council committee has decided to remove that portion of the bill.
Critics have inundated the council and local news media for weeks over their concerns that women and girls would have be confronted by male nakedness in locker rooms and bathrooms if the bill is passed. They argue that the bill would put girls and women at risk.
The committee’s decision came late Thursday evening and was not announced publicly. The Gazette learned of the change on Friday.
The bill as amended would prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, cable television service and taxi service.
A vote on the bill, which is expected to pass, is set for Tuesday.
‘‘The committee decided it was simpler not to include the public accommodations part. At this point, the purpose is to provide equal rights for transgender individuals,” said Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg, who proposed the bill in September and wrote it with the help of an aide who is a transgender woman. ‘‘I think it’s unfortunate that a small group of individuals sought to create a campaign of fear about the legislation.”
Trachtenberg’s original proposal did not include public accommodations, but was added after the bill was discussed at a public hearing in October.
‘‘We decided to go back to the bill as introduced,” said Councilman George L. Leventhal (D-At large) of Takoma Park, chairman of the committee that threw out the public accommodations provision on Thursday night.
Leventhal said the staff packet discussed by the committee included items that had come up for clarification.
‘‘In an effort to clarify, I think we caused greater confusion and uncertainty,” he said. ‘‘If there is an issue of alleged discrimination occurring in a public facility, it will be up to the Office of Human Rights to rule on the case. We will not provide guidance, and I don’t think people need guidance on how to use the bathroom.”
Asked about the committee’s decision to remove the controversial portion of the legislation, Ruth Jacobs, one of the most outspoken opponents of the bill, said, ‘‘I think that it is good that they are removing that. I think one thing this has shown is that it really was a stealth bill and not well thought out.”
Jacobs, an infectious disease specialist in Rockville, joined about 35 other critics in a protest Saturday in Germantown. The critics waged an intense e-mail campaign. Council staffers reported receiving more than 1,100 pieces of correspondence on the legislation since September, including more than 600 pieces on Friday alone. Two hundred phone calls were received over three days this week.
Debate over the legislation reached a fever pitch on Friday, reaching all the way to CNN, where Trachtenberg (D-At large) of North Bethesda and Jacobs debated the bill.
Trachtenberg maintained that the bill was meant only to protect human rights, while Jacobs reiterated her position that it endangers women and girls. She cited a comment Leventhal made to a concerned parent.
In a letter the parent, Leventhal wrote that he could not ‘‘absolutely put to rest your concern that girls might find themselves in a locker room or dressing room in the presence of a person who expresses or asserts herself as a woman but who still has male genitals, but based on my own sense of the prevalence of that condition in the population, I think the likelihood of that occurring is remote.”
Even with the removal of the public accommodation portion of the bill, Jacobs said a statement should be added to the legislation protecting the privacy of women and girls.
‘‘I think we will continue to protest the incompleteness of this bill, including the weak definition of gender identity and the effect of gender identity on children,” she said. ‘‘I think we still have concerns about it. The county is stepping into the middle of a psychological debate.”
‘‘The bottom line is I am not going to stoop to their level,” Trachtenberg said. ‘‘I’m sorry they are uncomfortable with the [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] community. This bill speaks to the fundamental principals of law. Hopefully, things will work out positively on this.”
Got it? The part of the bill that dealt with "public accommodations" was pulled from the bill, that is, it is not part of the bill that was unanimously approved by the County Council and signed into law by the County Executive. Even after saying it's "good that they are removing that," Ruth Jacobs still repeats the lie that the bill puts women and girls in danger. A law that will "prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, cable television service and taxi service" does not in any way endanger anyone.
Stop repeating the lie that bill 23-07 is about showers because it isn't.
"Leventhal said the staff packet discussed by the committee included items that had come up for clarification.
‘‘In an effort to clarify, I think we caused greater confusion and uncertainty,” he said. ‘‘If there is an issue of alleged discrimination occurring in a public facility, it will be up to the Office of Human Rights to rule on the case. We will not provide guidance, and I don’t think people need guidance on how to use the bathroom.”"
The bill still includes public facilities. That's what Leventhal refers to here. The Council members left it vague because they knew the Office of Human Rights would be inclined to interpret it that way once it became law.
If they didn't want it to be applied to restrooms and locker rooms, they'd have specifically exempted them. But Duchy refused:
"‘‘The bottom line is I am not going to stoop to their level,” Trachtenberg said. ‘‘I’m sorry they are uncomfortable with the [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] community."
If Duchy believes she is on a higher level than her constituents, maybe its time to update her resume.
The Council's response to the public dissent was to try an end-around.
They tried to fool the public and it didn't work.
Better luck next time.
This does seem clear enough: people do not need guidance on how to use the bathroom, they don't need the government to tell them where to go or how to do it. If a business owner provides public restrooms, it will be up to him or her to decide how they will be used, as long as they do not deny access on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other things that are named in the existing law.
If the CRG gets their way and laws are passed regulating access to bathrooms, there will be a lot of unhappy ladies lined up down the hall needing to pee while the mens room is empty.
I don't know why anybody thinks we need more government interference in our private lives, but the CRG is adamant about this one -- they want government regulation of bathrooms.
Merle
I've indulged you up to this point, assuming you'd been confused by the propaganda of the lunatiuc fringe groups.
Now, you're just lying. CRG has never suggested for one second that the government regulate the bathrooms. Indeed, they are urging people to not approve a dubious proposed law that would do just that.
Anon, nice try. The CRG is demanding government regulation of bathrooms. That was their whole argument in persuading people to sign petitions, that's the reason their web site is called "Not My Shower." There is currently no law about who can go in a bathroom or shower. The new law contains nothing that says who can go in a bathroom or shower. The CRG's Big Point is that they want the government to control that. They want that wording added to the bill, there is no question about that. As it stands, people regulate themselves, business owners keep order in their place of business.
All this law says is that you can't discriminate. If somebody has to pee and you run a business with public restrooms and you don't approve of the way they express their gender, you still have to let them pee. You can tell them to go into the ladies room, the mens room, whatever, you can't tell them they can't pee.
"Anon, nice try. The CRG is demanding government regulation of bathrooms. That was their whole argument in persuading people to sign petitions, that's the reason their web site is called "Not My Shower." There is currently no law about who can go in a bathroom or shower."
You're a liar, Merle. CRG wants to keep things just as they are. TTF wants to change things. The purpose of CRG's petition is to notify the government that the required 96% of voters don't approve creating a new law. When the referendum passes, no new law will be approved by the citizens and the situation will be just as it is now. No new law requiring business owners to accomodate the fantasies of those who want to express a gender they're not. People will be allowed freedom of conscience.
Anon, you are certainly persistent. The CRG is trying to change the law that was passed by our elected representatives. They are trying to force the government to regulate who goes into what bathroom. You can't deny that, they say it all the time -- the problem with this new law is that it allows people to do something the CRG doesn't think should be allowed.
Current law does not regulate bathroom access, and the new law doesn't mention it, except to say that you can't discriminate in the use of public facilities on the basis of gender identity. If you have public restrooms you'll have to let transgender people use them, as well as other people whose gender expression you don't like. The law doesn't say which door they should go into, the business owner sets that policy, just as he or she does now. The only thing changed is that they have to let them use one or the other, they can't deny them access to public facilities.
You can deny reality as persistently as you wish, Anon, anybody can see the CRG's whole case is built on the argument that the law will permit people to use public restrooms even if they do not meet someone's expectations of appropriate gender behavior.
"The CRG is trying to change the law that was passed by our elected representatives."
There is no new law, Merle. There is a proposed one. It will only become law if the voters approve it in November. CRG recommends that voters not approve the new law.
Your idea that someone who opposes an additional law is trying to regulate people's lives is Orwellianism taken to a whole new level. Laws are regulations, you idiot. The attack on the English language is old tradition among apologists for the gay lunatic fringe.
"They are trying to force the government to regulate who goes into what bathroom."
That's a lie.
"You can't deny that, they say it all the time"
Really? Show us an example.
"-- the problem with this new law is that it allows people to do something the CRG doesn't think should be allowed."
Proposed law. We haven't approved it yet.
The problem with the new law is that it represents the government making rules for privately owned bathrooms.
"Current law does not regulate bathroom access,"
And that the way CRG wants to keep it?
"and the new law doesn't mention it,"
If there is a "new" law, it would be the "current" law. You're tripping over your lies. The law you call "new" is not official and won't be until approved by the majority of our citizens.
"except to say that you can't discriminate in the use of public facilities on the basis of gender identity."
Which you would be doing if you let real girls use the ladies' room and didn't let "expressing" ones do so.
"If you have public restrooms you'll have to let transgender people use them, as well as other people whose gender expression you don't like."
No one is forbidding transgenders from using any restroom now.
"The law doesn't say which door they should go into,"
Except that you can't discriminate based on "gender expression" like letting real girls use a certain room and not letting "expressing" girls do so.
It's not the law, btw. It's the proposed law.
"the business owner sets that policy, just as he or she does now. The only thing changed is that they have to let them use one or the other, they can't deny them access to public facilities."
Wrong, Merle.
"You can deny reality as persistently as you wish, Anon, anybody can see the CRG's whole case is built on the argument that the law will permit people to use public restrooms even if they do not meet someone's expectations of appropriate gender behavior."
Deny reality as you will, Merle. A law, by definition, decreases what someone is permitted to do. In this case, owners of bathrooms.
Wow, Anon, catch your breath there, big fella.
This was good: "A law, by definition, decreases what someone is permitted to do. In this case, owners of bathrooms." Anon, the Bill of Rights is a set of laws expanding what people are permitted to do -- the easy exception to your bizarre statement.
It is a really fun thing that the CRG wants to pretend that the law passed unanimously by the County Council and signed by the County Executive is not a law, like it doesn't exist. It is law, it is simply suspended until either the court rules against the board of elections or there is a referendum.
But at least your sense of satire is alive and well.
The nondiscrimination law only says you can't discriminate. It doesn't say anybody uses whatever bathroom they want -- in fact, no law in this state or county addresses that question at all. It is assumed that business owners will keep order in their establishments. This law means that they cannot refuse access to public facilities on the basis of gender identity.
This is the CRG's big complaint, that people are legally free to pee where they feel most comfortable. This is what they want to change. There is no way you can deny that without looking like the most ignorant moron ever.
You can huff and puff yourself blue in the face here, Anon, but the new law simply says nothing about what bathroom a person uses. If a business owner wants transgender people to use the shower-room of the sex they were assigned at birth, he or she can do that, as long as they let them shower. Of course they will be responsible for the consequences of that, but those consequences will mainly simply be lost business when word gets out that they're forcing women to use the men's room and women to use the men's room. But if they choose to run a business that way, they can under the new law.
"Wow, Anon, catch your breath there, big fella."
Keep your gay fantasies to yourself, you creep.
"This was good: "A law, by definition, decreases what someone is permitted to do. In this case, owners of bathrooms." Anon, the Bill of Rights is a set of laws expanding what people are permitted to do -- the easy exception to your bizarre statement."
Well, you have a small point, Pearl. There are two types of laws:
those that limit what citizens are permitted to do and those that limit what the government can do. The Bill of Rights is the latter. The proposed law, that hasn't and won't be approved by the citizens of MC, is the former. Actually, the latter are generally found in foundational documents not passed thoughtlessly by a deviant local council.
"It is a really fun thing that the CRG wants to pretend that the law passed unanimously by the County Council and signed by the County Executive is not a law, like it doesn't exist. It is law, it is simply suspended until either the court rules against the board of elections or there is a referendum."
It is not the law in any sense, Pearl. It is a specific provision of our County constitution that no law is official until the voters have a chance to veto it. The date for petition deadline and enactment of a law is exactly the same. That's why these bills passed by the Council aren't enforceable until that time. They aren't law. Sorry you've misunderstood and it is funny to think you were entertained by your own ignorance.
"The nondiscrimination law only says you can't discriminate. It doesn't say anybody uses whatever bathroom they want --"
No being allowed to use a bathroom with others who "express" the same genderas you would be gender identity discrimination under thuis proposed law.
"This law means that they cannot refuse access to public facilities on the basis of gender identity."
Exactly.
"This is the CRG's big complaint, that people are legally free to pee where they feel most comfortable."
Nope. Their complaint is that business owners can't discriminate between those "express" a certain gender in the granting of restroom privileges.
"This is what they want to change. There is no way you can deny that"
They don't want to change anything. They want the law to stay as it is.
Try to save your drinking for the evening hours, Pearl.
Why it sounds like some hearty man is hitting the Jack Daniels again.
Post a Comment
<< Home