By Alan Caruba
There was a time when civil rights were understood to mean those enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Now, at least in the State of Massachusetts, they mean the right of homosexuals and transgender people to flaunt their lifestyle anywhere, any time. If you don’t like it and say so, the police can arrest you.
I have always been a live-and-let-live kind of person. I consider a person’s sexual preferences to be their own business. No longer. The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender crowd is determined to impose their sexual “orientations” on everyone, starting in, but not limited to schools.
On November 16, the Massachusetts legislature pushed through a controversial “Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes” bill. The whole process was so unethical as to be breathtaking. In two hours, the bill went from committee release to re-write, to a late-night House vote and early-morning Senate final passage. The Senate, unlike the House, passed it by voice vote to avoid a roll call to identify who supported it.
Wham, bam, thank you Maam.
Apparently, in Massachusetts the proper review, discussion, and passage of legislation only applies to those laws not favored by its homosexual lobby.
As MassResistance, a pro-family group, noted, “Its passage appears to be timed to coincide with ‘Transgender Awareness Week’ in Massachusetts.” Since when did that State or any other get to the point of having such absurd events? Since when have we reached a point where any spoken objection to Gay Pride parades or similar events can be deemed a crime? It’s not a crime. It’s free speech.
MassResistance noted that Governor Deval Patrick “a strong supporter of homosexual and transgender movements will sign the bill within days. The only Republican in the state legislature to vote for the bill was Rep. Dan Winslow who just happens to have been former Gov. Romney’s chief legal counsel and is credited with facilitating gay marriages in Massachusetts.
Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is the union of a man with a woman. To redefine this institution, central to all societies, is to shred the bonds and standards on which society is based. What we have learned, however, is that homosexuals are not content with being granted civil unions with rights comparable to marriage.
The arrogance this represents is appalling, but the implications of the homosexual and transgender lobby’s efforts have far greater implications for everyone, but especially for families who do not want their children exposed to “choices” they are too young to understand and which their parent’s faith or beliefs disapprove. These matters do not belong in a school curriculum.
Making homosexuality “mainstream” and doing so by force of law runs counter to common community values that Americans have held since the nation’s founding. Exercising tolerance is one thing, but facing jail for any act of disapproval is quite another.
Who defines a “hate crime” and when did America begin to criminalize thought, as opposed to action? The answer is that hate crime legislation is the invention of the gay lobby.
Now, for your edification, here is the actual text of Section 7 of chapter 4 as amended by the following clause:
“Fifty-ninth, "Gender identity" shall mean 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. Gender-related identity may be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held, as part of a person's core identity; provided however, gender-related identity shall not be asserted for any improper purpose.”
So, are we to assume that anyone can claim “gender identify” any time someone objects to the way they dress or behave in school, at work, or in any public place? This opens the door to a lot of cross-dressing and other folks who want to pursue their lifestyle no matter what affect it has on others.
|These are not women. They are cross-dressing men|
who got together at Capone's Restaurant, Peabody, MA
A case in point. In 2010, Capone’s Restaurant in Peabody, Massachusetts tossed out a group of men dressed as women who were upsetting its customers and even using the woman’s restrooms. When the new law goes into effect, the restaurant will be subject to fines, as would be its customers if found guilty of trying to “intimidate” them with their reaction to their presence.
This isn’t about gender. It isn’t about intolerance. It isn’t about civil rights. It is about the all-out assault on the rights of the majority heterosexual society to assert commonly held values regarding sexually-related behavior as it affects society as a whole..
© Alan Caruba, 2011
...And yet the socialists who get this nonsense written into law have allied themselves with the Islamists who hang homosexuals...
I don't know what Muslims do to transsexuals...
I don't want to know!
I too have always been a "live and let live" type of guy, but unfortunately, the people who support this gay/lesbian/transgender rights nonsense don't share my tolerance. They aren't going to be happy with simple acceptance. They insist on having their lifestyles normalized.
They want our entire society to turn a blind eye to the obvious, ignore the laws of nature and common sense, and accept something that we know is unnatural, just so THEY don't have to face the reality that they are abnormal.
There is an epidemic sweeping through America and the rest of world today ... and it's characterized by the inability to face reality. It can only be classified as a mental illness, and it seems to strike liberal types disproportionately. It's a symptom of a very sick society, and it cannot be ignored without consequences. If we continue to cater to these people, and allow their disjointed view of reality to become our reality, nothing good can possibly come of it.
I admire your ability to speak the truth in this matter. In Alameda, CA we had such a proposition in our elementary and middle schools and it was handled with the same results as you described for MA. Our city was proudly patriotic and traditional up until our naval air station facility was closed in the 90's. Criticism now is greeted with eye-rolling, but not arrest.
Interestingly enough, Iran does as many sex-change operations as Thailand (http://www.salon.com/2005/07/28/iran_transsexuals/).
You are way over-reacting here. No society is being ripped to shreds by gay people or transgendered individuals. Look to the divorce rate of heterosexual marriages first, before condemning people of whom you know little to nothing.
That being said, who said all of us are mentally ill? Those of us who change our sex and move on with our lives outside of the LGBT world do just fine, thanks very much.
@Sara. For the record, my commentary makes no reference to people being mentally ill. It does say I practice tolerance, but that does not include tolerating special interest laws passed in the dead of night.
Sara was probably referring to my comment, and I stand by it. When a person's mental state results in harm to themselves, or those around them, it can only be classified as a mental illness. The chronic inability to face reality that so many people are afflicted with today fits that definition, and as such, must be viewed as a mental illness in my opinion.
@Guy. I don't regard homosexuality any more of a mental illness than being left-handed or having red hair. That's part of their DNA, with gays and lesbians from birth. Those that trans-gender do so for their own peace of mind.
My arguement is against laws that favor a particular element of society that are discriminatory to others, usually the majority.
Alan, I think perhaps you both misunderstood my point. I wasn't inferring that homosexuality, in and of itself, is a mental illness ... it is an aberration that occurs naturally in many species of animals. Being gay doesn't mean you're irresponsible, mentally ill, or unable to face reality.
My point is that the endemic problem we're seeing in liberals, the refusal to accept reality, IS a mental illness. Stepping in front of a car because you think it SHOULD stop for you in a cross walk, or ignoring the police officer who's threatening to crack your skull just because you have a "right" to protest, is not just foolish, it's a sign of a serious mental illness. Normal, mentally healthy people don't do things that they know are going to cause them harm. It's that simple ...
The insistence on "normalizing" homosexuality, and trying to make everyone believe that the world would be just fine if everyone was gay, has become common in the liberal segment of our society. That mentality requires quite a departure from reality, and in my opinion, it's symptomatic of a mild, but very serious mental illness. A society that refuses to face reality is destined to fail ...
@Guy ... yes I was referring to your comment. I believe that you are being a little broad with your mental illness definition. If it was the case that any person's mental state which causes harm to another is a mental illness then every crime is a mental illness ... but we don't approach the prosecution of criminals that way. Thankfully so.
@Alan, are you then saying that laws that protect religious practice are discriminatory? If the practice of Islam is discriminatory toward Christians (a majority) should all freedom of religion laws be done away with? It seems that is the logical conclusion one comes to when considering your statement?
And how does a free (and just) society guarantee the rights of minorities? How do you protect vulnerable people from persecution if you don't "hurt the majority".
For the record, though I changed my sex some years ago, I would not avail myself of any laws that protect "gender identity" or "gender expression". I believe in individual perseverance to make my way in the world. And I have done so. But others aren't as fortunate as me nor are they as capable. What do we do?
Thanks for the conversation and civility found on your blog Alan.
@Sara: It would be easier dealing with you if you read what was ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the commentary (which makes no mention of religion) than inventing interpretations that have nothing to do with it.
You're right Alan ... Sara either can't, or doesn't want, to read and comprehend. Just as you said nothing about religion, I said nothing about a person's mental state causing harm to ANOTHER. I said it's a sign of mental illness when your inability to face reality results in harm to YOURSELF. There are dozens of reasons why people do harm to other people ... greed, jealousy, anger, stupidity, carelessness, to name just a few ... and although I don't consider any of them to be good reasons, very few of them would qualify as a sign of mental illness.
I think it's pretty obvious that we hit a nerve with "Sara". As is usually the case with people who have identity or self-esteem issues, she's simply projecting her own feelings of anger and confusion on to us. It's undeserved, but certainly not unexpected.
Seriously Guy? "When a person's mental state results in harm to themselves, or those around them, it can only be classified as a mental illness."
Now doesnt "those around them" mean others? And the scary quotes? Really? It's undeserved, but certainly not unexpected. You have no idea of who I am or how I live my life. And believe me, I have absolutely no self-esteem or identity issues. Ask the men I date. What are you, a psychologist?
None of this crap was the point of my comments. The essay and some of the comments are over-reaching hyperbole by fanatical conservatives who never leave the ivory-covered towers of their flag-draped domiciles.
And as far as Alan comments are concerned, I picked a special-interest law that penalizes the majority, i.e., religious freedom. because of it, you all cannot shut down mosques that you find reprehensible due to 9/11.
Please stick to the facts both of you.
Well Sara, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. If you want to spend your time defending the people in this country who live their lives in denial, feel free. Personally, I think I'll remain firmly rooted in reality, and endeavor to help others do the same. Nearly every problem we face as Americans today can be traced back to some sort of departure from reality, and in my opinion, you're either part of that problem or part of the solution to it.
Post a Comment