Blue state laws enshrine gender confusion

A new trend in blue states seems to be the notion that gender is less a biological reality than a choice that can be made by each individual. The most recent example of this came on Tuesday when California governor Jerry Brown announced that he had signed a law which will allow transgender students to choose which bathroom and locker room to use based on their self-perception and regardless of their biological gender. According to the Casa Grande Dispatch, the new law will even give transgender students the right to participate in either boys or girls sports and other “sex-segregated programs, activities and facilities.” Karen England, executive director of the Capitol Resource Institute, noted that the law does not require any proof of a gender-identity issue. Instead school administrator must rely on the student’s opinion of their gender identity.

California is only the most recent state to enact laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. Employment law firm Jackson Lewis notes that New Jersey added “gender identity and expression” as a protected category to its employment and housing discrimination law in 2006. National Law Review pointed out that Connecticut has prohibited employers of three or more people from discriminating based on “a person’s gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person’s physiology or assigned sex at birth” since 2011.

Georgia does not have a gender identity discrimination law, but some Georgia cities do. The GA Voice reported that a number of cities and counties in Georgia have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination against the gender confused. These include Atlanta, Athens, and Savannah.

Earlier this year, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education issued guidelines to schools after the legislature a gender identity law in 2011. According to Masslive.com, the guidelines state that transgender students can choose to use restrooms, locker rooms and changing facilities for gender that they currently identify themselves with. “While some transgender students will want that arrangement, others will not be comfortable with it,” the guidelines note and then continue, “Transgender students who are uncomfortable using a sex-segregated restroom should be provided with a safe and adequate alternative such as a single, unisex restroom or the nurse’s restroom.”

There are many potential problems with laws that seek to allow men to choose to live as women and vice versa. The privacy issue of mixing transgender boys and girls with the opposite sex in restrooms and locker rooms is only the most obvious. For example, some teenage boys might pretend to be transgendered in order to get into the girls’ locker room and watch girls change clothes. Mediocre male athletes might be tempted to identify as women to get more playing time and be stars on female teams.

Gender identity laws are already causing problems for children as young as six. In June 2013, CNN reported that a Colorado court decided that a first grade boy who identifies as a girl will be allowed to use the girl’s restroom at his school. This is in spite of the fact that the boy is still anatomically a male.

The next month, the U.S. Department of Education forced a California school district to allow a middle school girl to use the boy’s restroom. The complaint also noted that the school district refused to allow the girl to stay in a cabin with boys on an overnight trip according to the Daily Caller. The Education Department lawyers apparently had no problem with the mixed biological genders spending the night together as long as the girl considered herself a boy.

In yet another case, Olympia, Washington’s KOMO reported last year on Colleen Francis, a 45-year-old man who identifies himself as a woman. Francis is a student at Evergreen College in Washington State. Francis was accused of exposing himself in the girl’s locker room at the school’s pool and in the sauna. The locker room is shared by college students with members of a children’s swim academy and a high school swim club. Police were called when a 17-year-old girl told her mother that Francis was naked and “displaying male genitalia” in the locker room. Another report by a visiting swim coach said that Francis was seen with his legs spread and genitalia showing in the sauna with girls between the ages of six and 18 in view.

In spite of the fact that a man who did not claim to be a woman would be arrested for such behavior, Jason Wettstein, a spokesman for Evergreen, said, “The college cannot discriminate based on the basis of gender identity. Gender identity is one of the protected things in discrimination law in this state.” In 2006, Washington added gender identity to its nondiscrimination law according to the Washington State Human Rights Commission.

Gabrielle Ludwig, a 51-year-old man who identifies as a woman, decided to play basketball at California’s Mission College. The six-foot six-inch, 220 pound transsexual became the star of the Mission College girls’ basketball team according to the N.Y. Daily News. A 51-year-old playing college basketball is unusual, but a 51-year-old man playing on a girls’ basketball team is unique… at least so far.

Critics of gender identity laws point to many problems for the straight majority. Children are susceptible to possible abuse and may be exposed to the genitalia of strangers of the opposite sex. It is unreasonable to assume that sexual predators would not exploit gender identity laws. Parents have no recourse or right to complain about the violations of their children’s right to privacy. Employers may be forced to hire or be unable to fire obvious cross-dressers who hurt their business. Religious believers are forced to accept and even subsidize behavior that they find morally objectionable.

It is too early to tell whether the trend of gender identity as a protected class will continue, but, with the recent success of the same-sex marriage movement, more pushes toward normalization of sexual subcultures is likely. As with same-sex marriage, such movements are more likely to find acceptance in states that are predominantly Democratic.

Gender identity antidiscrimination laws essentially force the public to participate in a lie. As in the fairy tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” forcing public acceptance does not alter reality. Choosing to identify as a different gender does not change the biological and anatomical facts of a person’s body. (Even sex-change recipients require continuous use of hormones to simulate the body chemistry of the opposite sex.) Forcing the public at large to humor people in their delusion can only do harm to both society and the gender confused.

Originally published on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Marriage evolution may cost Obama votes

President Obama’s evolution on marriage in which he returned to his previously stated position of supporting a right for same-sex couples to marry may hurt the president with black and independent voters in November. The president, who was widely believed to be a closeted supporter of same-sex marriage, removed all doubt in a statement last week in which he said that he personally believed that “it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married” according to ABC News.

The president did say that the issue belonged to the states, but his administration is not defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The act, passed with broad bipartisan support in 1996 prevents states from being required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and defines marriage as between a man and woman for the purposes of federal law.

Obama’s decision to endorse same-sex marriage is widely believed to have a positive effect on his re-election campaign. Gay marriage supporters typically point to polls that show that gay marriage has gained acceptance in the past decade. Some recent polls even show that gay marriage support outstripping opposition by small margins.

The vote on a definition of marriage amendment to North Carolina’s constitution should serve as a warning to those who believe that same-sex marriage is a winning issue for the president. Before the election, polling in North Carolina had indicated that voters in the Tar Heel State were poised to reject the amendment. In a Public Policy poll from September 2011 North Carolina voters opposed the amendment by a margin of 55-30 percent. Fifty-four percent of respondents favored legalizing gay marriage or civil unions. The results cut across party lines.

More recently, in April 2012, another Public Policy poll found that 53 percent of North Carolina voters supported either gay marriage or civil unions, while 54 percent of voters supported the marriage amendment. In the final analysis, the North Carolina marriage amendment passed by a margin of 61-39 percent according to CBS News, an even larger margin that polling had predicted especially given that the trend was in the direction of rejecting the amendment.

The potential problem for President Obama is that polls on same-sex marriage seem to consistently overstate its support in the electorate. Even though same-sex marriage has gained approval in opinion polls, it has never won at the ballot box. When Georgians voted on marriage in 2004, 76 percent favored traditional marriage according to results from the Secretary of State. Even in the bluest of the blue states, traditional marriage always wins out when the voters have a chance to decide. The logical conclusion is that polling about same-sex marriage errs on the side of gay marriage advocates.

The question is whether opposition to gay marriage will translate into opposition to President Obama now that he has publicly and irrevocably identified himself with the issue. Even a small number of voters who desert the president because of his stance on marriage may be enough to sway the election. In the swing states, the defection of voters over the marriage issue could prove decisive.

Just before the president’s announcement, Politico recently analyzed polls about same-sex marriage from several of the battleground states. In addition to North Carolina, a plurality of voters in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa oppose same-sex marriage. The results from Pennsylvania were mixed. Since almost all of the swing states clearly support traditional marriage by large margins, President Obama runs the risk of alienating independent voters with his newfound support of gay marriage.

Black voters in particular represent a vulnerable constituency for the president. President Obama won 95 percent of black voters in 2008 according to the Roper Center. Yet according to a Pew poll, only 36 percent of black voters approve of same-sex marriage. Compounding the problem for Obama is that his economic policies have not been kind to blacks. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the unemployment rate for blacks is at 13 percent, significantly above the national average. The question for 2012 is whether black voters will put ethnicity ahead of their social values and economic interests.

Until Election Day there is no way to know for certain the impact of President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage. Early indications are that there are a wide range of reactions in the black community ranging from condemnation to cautious support. Often there seemed to be support and admiration for the president in spite of opposition to his stance. An Atlanta pastor, Rev. Tim McDonald, told CBS Atlanta, “You can say I'm opposed to it (same-sex marriage), but that doesn't mean I'm against the president.”

Precedent for this perception can be found in California in 2008 when Californians voted against same-sex marriage and for the Democratic Party, the pro-same-sex marriage party, at the same time. CBS Atlanta notes that 70 percent of blacks voted to preserve traditional marriage while 94 percent voted for then-Senator Obama. The difference is that, at the time, Obama supported traditional marriage as well even though many in his party did not.

In the final analysis, it is likely that President Obama’s position on same-sex will cost him votes, the question is how many. Even a relatively small percentage of defections from black and independent voters could radically alter the outcome of the election.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-s-evolution-on-marriage-could-cost-votes-from-blacks-independents

Transgender children

Over the past few weeks and years, “transgendered” people have become a fashionable cause. One of the first well known transgenders was Chaz Bono, the only daughter of Sonny and Cher. Chaz, born Chastity Bono, went through a “gender-change” operation and legally changed his name and gender – in California, of course – in 2010.

Even before Chazz, there was Thomas Beatie who was billed as the world’s first pregnant man. Beatie, who had a sex-change in 2002, still has female reproductive organs. This allowed him to give birth to three children. Beatie was granted male legal status by Hawaii.

It may be surprising for many people to learn that a person can legally have their gender changed, but many states, even Georgia, allow it. According to the Mega Family Project, Georgia law allows “all transpeople” to change their names, but will only reissue birth certificates or change the sex listed on a driver’s license if the person can supply a notarized affidavit from a surgeon that they “are undergoing or have undergone gender-reassignment surgery.” Mega Family would like to eliminate the surgery requirement.

It is damaging enough to society when adults suffer from gender confusion, but it is even worse when the problem spreads to children. In the past month, there have been a number of cases in which transgender children made the news.

In the first story, an eleven-year-old California boy is being allowed by his two lesbian parents to have hormone therapy to block male puberty. In another story, a seven-year-old Denver boy was allowed to join Girl Scouts. Greatschools.org also featured a story about a young boy who, from age four, wanted to live as a girl. The boy’s mother is regional director of Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).

The debate can be framed by comments taken from the Girl Scout story. Fox News reports that the troop leader initially refused the boy’s request to join because “It doesn’t matter how he looks. He has boy parts, and he can’t be in Girl Scouts.” In reversing the troop leader’s decision, a Girl Scout statement said, “If a child identifies as a girl and the child's family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout.”

On one side of the issue are people who say that gender is a fact that can’t be changed. If a child is born as a boy or girl, then that child remains a boy or girl because they have the appropriate parts. If their genitals are mutilated by surgery and their body is distorted by hormones, it does not change the fundamental fact that they are the same person that they were when they were born.

On the other side are people who feel that physical characteristics are not as important as how a person feels. If a person identifies with members of the opposite sex more than their own, then it must mean that they really are a member of the opposite sex. Rather than learning to be happy in their own skin, these people believe that gender-confused people should have hormone therapy and surgery to make their body match their feelings.

The adults who encourage these children to live out their transgender fantasies do real damage to the kids. Any parent knows that kids can say and do some outlandish things. It is the responsibility of the parent to guide their children along the right path and get them appropriate help when needed. It is difficult to imagine that it would be appropriate to help a child embark upon a lifelong journey of running from their true identity to pursue a transgender dream. It would probably be more helpful to the child to learn to accept and be happy in their own skin.

Focus on the Family notes that most children who are gender-confused “grow out of it” by their teens or early adulthood. The group recommends that parents lovingly direct their children toward appropriate gender roles: “For boys, the mother should be the one to ‘push’ the child from feminine behavior, and the father should ‘pull’ the boy toward more masculine play and interests.” The group also notes that one of the worst courses of action is to shame boys for “girl-like” behavior.

Some parents probably believe that by indulging their children in their gender disorientation in ways from allowing them to dress and style their hair in the fashion of the opposite sex, to calling themselves by a opposite sex name, to allowing hormone therapy and surgery, they are helping to alleviate their child’s anxiety. In the short term this may be true. In the long term, they are likely causing severe damage to their child, however. Such damage to children may ultimately prove to be one of the strongest arguments against same-sex marriage.

There are numerous studies that indicate transgender people are at a substantially increased risk for other forms of mental illness as well. MSNBC reports that nearly half of transgender people have attempted to commit suicide due to higher rates of depression. They face other health risks as well, including an HIV infection rate of over four times that of the general population.

For the LGBT community, the answer to these problems seems to be to change the rest of the world rather than to cure the illness of Gender Identity Disorder. In effect, this is asking society to honor the fantasy that gender can be changed even though when hormone therapy is stopped the transgendered person’s body starts to revert to its natural state.

Many readers will probably view this as hate or homophobia, but is it really hate to point out the truth that virtually everyone knows and yet is hesitant to say? It is arguably more disrespectful to pretend that a man can change himself into a woman (or vice versa) and more loving to help them become the people that they were born to be.

Read this article on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/the-tragedy-of-transgender-children

Support for same-sex marriage may be overstated

(Wing/Wikimedia Commons)

Over the past year, defenders of traditional marriage have suffered a series of setbacks.  In August 2010, a federal judge struck down California’s definition of marriage amendment as had happened in a handful of other states.  Just before Christmas, Congress voted to repeal the “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” policy and allow gays to serve openly in the military.  In February 2011, Attorney General Holder announced that the Obama Administration would not defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act against challenges in federal court.  King and Spalding, the Atlanta law firm selected by Congress to defend the law, withdrew from the case in April under pressure from gay rights activist groups.

The trend led Jim Daly, the head of Focus on the Family, to tell “World Magazine” in early June that “We're losing on that one [gay marriage], especially among the 20- and 30-somethings….”  Daly went on to say, “We've probably lost that. I don't want to be extremist here, but I think we need to start calculating where we are in the culture.”

Daly’s words were prescient.  A few weeks later, New York became the third state to enact gay marriage legislatively, rather than by judicial fiat (after Vermont and New Hampshire).  The law was primarily supported by Democrats although four Republicans crossed the aisle to allow it to pass.

The trend was seemingly supported by a Gallup poll in May 2011 that indicated that, for the first time, a majority of Americans supported gay marriage.  The Gallup poll asked the question, “Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?”  By a margin of 53-45 percent, respondents said that they believed that same-sex marriages should be recognized.  In the previous poll taken in May 2010, respondents opposed recognizing same-sex marriage by 53-44 percent.

In June 2011, however, a new survey was released that contrasted sharply with Gallup’s findings.  The new poll asked respondents to agree or disagree with the following statement:  “I believe marriage should be defined ONLY as a union between one man and one woman.”  Sixty-two percent of respondents agreed with the statement, including 53 percent who strongly agreed.  Only thirty-five percent disagreed.

The new survey was commissioned by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, and carried out by Public Opinion Strategies.  The ADF-POS poll has a larger sample size (1,500 vs. 1,018 for Gallup) and a smaller margin of error (2.53 percent vs. four percent for Gallup) than May’s Gallup poll.  The question in the ADF-POS poll is also arguably much more simple and straightforward than Gallup’s question.

In a press release, ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum said, “Americans recognize that marriage provides a strong foundation for a thriving society.  The union between husband and wife benefits society--especially children--in unique ways that cannot be duplicated by any other relationship. Throughout history, diverse cultures and faiths have recognized this universally defined ideal as the best way to promote healthy, natural families for the good of future generations.”

Gene Ulm, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies and director of the survey, noted, “These numbers are not surprising.  More than 63 million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on constitutional marriage amendments. Forty million Americans in all—63 percent of total voters--have voted to affirm marriage as a union between a man and a woman.”

Ironically, the 63 percent margin in the poll is almost exactly the same as the percentage of Americans who have cast ballots in favor of traditional marriage over the years.  It also represents an almost two-to-one preference for traditional marriage.  When Georgia voters considered a defense of marriage amendment in 2004, it passed with 76 percent voting in favor.

At present, only six states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York) and the District of Columbia issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.  California’s defense of marriage amendment was overturned, but same-sex marriage is not legal pending the appeal.  Additionally, Rhode Island and Maryland recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois and New Jersey allow same-sex civil unions.  Most of the remaining states either have laws or constitutional amendments that define marriage as between a man and a woman.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/public-support-for-gay-marriage-may-be-overstated"> 

Chick-fil-a accused of anti-gay bias

J. Reed

Chick-fil-a probably did not expect that a donation of food to a marriage seminar would land the company in hot water with gay activists.  What could be offensive about the Georgia-based restaurant chain’s delicious chicken sandwiches?  Nevertheless, when a Silver Spring Township, Pennsylvania Chick-fil-a restaurant agreed to donate sandwiches and brownies for one hundred people attending a seminar titled “The Art of Marriage, Getting to the Heart of God’s Design” it caused quite a stir. 

The seminar is billed as an “event where couples have the opportunity to look at their relationship in a whole new way.”  It is a video series featuring “instruction from respected pastors and Bible teachers together with compelling stories, humorous vignettes, man-on-the street interviews and more.”  The seminars purpose is to strengthen existing marriages.

The seminar was not a political meeting, but a two-day event aimed at strengthening marriages.  Cathy does say, “While my family and I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, we love and respect anyone who disagrees.”  Chick-fil-a does not have a political agenda according to Cathy.  Cathy says, “We're not anti-anybody.  Our mission is to create raving fans.”

Apparently, as gay rights activists see it, Chick-fil-a’s sin was not in making a donation to the marriage seminar, but in associating with the seminar’s sponsor, Pennsylvania Family Institute.  The Pennsylvania Family Institute is affiliated with Focus on the Family.  Both groups have worked to oppose the push to legalize homosexual marriage.  Currently Pennsylvania law defines marriage as “between a man and a woman.”  There have been attempts both to place a definition of marriage into the state’s constitution as well as to extend marriage to same-sex couples.  It seems that promoting marriage is, in their view, homophobic unless same-sex marriage is affirmed as well.

On one flyer for the seminar, Chick-fil-a was listed as a cosponsor of the event.  PFI President Michael Geer and Chick-fil-a President Dan Cathy both say that Chick-fil-a’s role was limited to a donation of food, and that claims that Chick-fil-a sponsored the event are in error.

Chick-fil-a is a company that is run on Christian principles, but Dan Cathy says it “is not a Christian company.”  The company is known for the fact that all of its restaurants are closed on Sunday.  It is also well known for donations and assistance to both local and national charities.  Our local Chick-fil-a in Villa Rica, Georgia often aids local churches, schools, and even hosts regular blood drives. 

Gay activists are encouraging their supporters to avoid patronizing the Atlanta-based company.  Chick-fil-a, which has stores in 39 states, is concentrated in the south, but has a number of restaurants in blue states as well.  Even though public opinion generally runs against gay marriage, many states are closely divided and a boycott could cost Chick-fil-a a lot of business.  For example, in Maryland where the state senate is preparing to vote on a gay marriage bill, a recent poll shows that 54% of the public supports keeping marriage between one man and one woman.  In contrast, Georgia’s marriage amendment passed with 76% in favor in 2004.

Marriage is by definition a contract between a man and a woman.  Boycotts and referendums will never be able to change that immutable fact of life.  It isn’t a question of fairness or equality; it is a basic recognition of the fact that men and women are different and that they each have different but important roles to play in society and the family.  Two fathers or two mothers are not and never will be equal to one father and one mother.  That is not meant to be hurtful or hateful.  It is simply a statement of reality.

The Chick-fil-a controversy seems to be part of a wider pattern of attempts to silence opponents of gay marriage, particularly if those people happen to be religious.  Last year, Apple withdrew an iTunes app created by the Manhattan Declaration, a document that explains Christian positions on marriage, religious liberty, and the sanctity of life, on the grounds that it was offensive.  In Georgia, a counseling student was forced into re-education because she believed that homosexuality was immoral.  After California voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman in 2008, backers of the amendment faced a campaign of intimidation by gay rights activists.

Most Americans will likely resist the calls to boycott Chick-fil-a, a company known for its great food and service.  Chick-fil-a is a true asset to the community, a corporation that believes in giving back.  Hopefully, gay rights activists will realize that opposition to same-sex marriage is not equivalent to hate and that they should have tolerance for other viewpoints, just as they expect others to have tolerance for their lifestyle.  Sadly, all too often tolerance to leftists means that others must not only accept their views, but affirm them as well.  If they come to realize that tolerance is a two way street, perhaps we can all sit back and enjoy a Chick-fil-a and waffle fries together.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/chick-fil-a-accused-of-anti-gay-bias#ixzz1EJhPVWjF">