Posted on 08/04/2003 6:29:34 PM PDT by hotpotato
California Gov. Gray Davis added fuel to his opponents' recall fire by signing a controversial bill that authorizes fines of up to $150,000 for companies or nonprofit groups, such as the Boy Scouts, that discriminate against cross-dressers, transsexuals or drag queens.
The governor signed the measure Saturday along with the $71.1 billion budget for fiscal year 2003-4. The move fell under the radar screens of most California media outlets.
The law, which will take effect Jan. 1, 2004, adds "gender identity or expression" to the characteristics protected under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act and specifically protects residents whose "perceived gender characteristics are different from those traditionally associated with the individual's sex at birth."
The Assembly approved the bill in April by a vote of 41 to 34, the minimum needed to pass. The state Senate, led by Democrats, followed suit earlier this month with a vote of 23 to 11.
The new law, which provides an exemption for religious groups, makes California the fourth state to bar discrimination on the basis of "perceived gender," behind New Mexico, Rhode Island and Minnesota.
Homosexual-rights advocates hail the law as a victory that's been a long time in coming.
"It's a very big issue for the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] community in California," Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told the Associated Press. "It's something we've been working on for three years."
The measure, titled AB 196, was one of a package proposed this year by the five-member Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus. Earlier this year, the state Assembly passed a bill that would award virtually all the rights of marriage to homosexual "domestic partners." The Senate is expected to take it up next month.
"Having a law that specifically states who's protected makes it clear to employers that the majority of people in California want transgender people to be able to work in a nondiscriminatory environment," said Chris Daley, co-director of the Transgender Law Center in San Francisco.
Arguing for its necessity, the bill's sponsor, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, cites a 1999 study by the San Francisco Department of Public Health indicating the city's transgender population had a 70 percent unemployment rate.
"We must do everything in our power to protect such fundamental human rights," he said.
Opponents call the move bad for business. Employer groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association warn the law's overly subjective definitions will spawn frivolous lawsuits. Just about any comment or action between workers could be grounds for a lawsuit, they contend.
Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy of Monrovia was one of several members who spoke about how the measure harms California businesses during debate in the Assembly.
"If I have a Christian bookstore, how could I possibly follow this law?" he asked. "How could I possibly have an employee that's here today in a dress, tomorrow may come in a suit, and then stay in a dress? How can I possibly employ this employee and still have the Christian bookstore and live by my faith?"
Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, a statewide family issues leadership organization, describes the law as "attacking persons of conscience."
"Average people think it's outrageous to force the sex-change lifestyle upon businesses and Boy Scouts. Gray Davis has apparently lost his senses," he said. "With his signature on AB 196, Davis has declared war on Californians who object to sex-change operations."
As WorldNetDaily reported, Davis' signature will likely motivate opponents to turn out in greater numbers for the Oct. 7 recall vote.
Less than a year into his second term, Davis is grappling with a staggering deficit projected at more than $38 billion and rock-bottom approval ratings. He becomes the first sitting governor in the history of California and only the second in U.S. history to face a recall election.
The governor derides the drive to oust him as "a hostile takeover by the right," and allies have said they expect to spend $15 million to $20 million to keep him in office.
With the Aug. 9 filing deadline looming, hundreds of people – from activists and filmmakers to a comedian and billboard queen – have filed to have their names added to the ballot. Self-described "smut peddler" Larry Flynt joined the dozens who have paid the $3,500 filing fee.
U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, who bankrolled the recall signature-gathering recall effort with $1.7 million of his own money – is the only declared Republican in the race. Failed gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon and state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks are expected to run. Others contemplating a run are state Sen. Bruce McPherson, R-Santa Cruz, actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and controversial, nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Savage.
Opponents of the "cross-dresser bill" plan to hold a news tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. at the State Treasurer's Building in Sacramento to highlight the law's detrimental effect on business. Speakers will include Thomasson and other pro-family leaders, including local ministers representing black, white and Latino voters.
"By supporting the transsexual agenda that hurts everyone else, Gray Davis has earned his recall," said Thomasson. "The in-your-face transsexual agenda makes voters very angry. ... Gray Davis tried to hide his actions by signing this radical sex-change bill under cover of the budget, but he won't get away with it."
And we just keep sliding... Ping.
| Homosexual Agenda Index |
| Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search |
| All FreeRepublic Bump Lists |
A simple freepmail is all it takes to subscribe or unsubscribe from my homosexual agenda ping list.
I don't think so, 'cause a Federal Magistrate just ruled that the Boy Scouts are a religious group (therefore exempt), though it means they're kicked out of Balboa Park. The Scouts, I mean..
Yup, there is a large segment of the population that is gullible, and will accept anything told to them, especially if it comes from doctors or therapists, even lawyers. Just look at some of the awards juries have handed out for what were otherwise frivolous lawsuits, like spilling coffee. It's easy to believe there will be those who buy into the argument transvestism is an uncontrollable condition and not a voluntary fetish, which is what it is.
Then there's the mind-numbing "you must be tolerant" mantra which has been spreading to include accepting an openly gay Episcopal bishop, going against centuries of tradition. So there is the wear down factor and the media attention where no one wants to appear intolerant. You combine that with those that are gullible and we get sick legislation like this because legislators realize people are afraid of openly opposing it for fear of being called names, or too dumb to recognize fraud.
I know conservatives will not give in and will continue fighting these perverted laws, but political correctness and stupidity are unfortunately winning.
Like hell it did!
Ann Coulter says it in the last (small) chapter of "Treason". Boils down to this - conservatives think man is made in the image of God, and liberals think they are God. Many of them buy into the new-age "I am Godism", or are regular atheists, and virtually all are some variety of secular-humanist, with total rejection of any absolute standards of morality or truth.
This is all based on envy of God, and due to envy, they want to destroy the natural order. The founders wrote about Nature and Nature's God, and the liberals hate that, so they want to destroy the natural order, as the order hints at the creator of that order. They also want "perfection" in the here and now, they are Utopians of one kind or another, and there is no hell on earth worse than an attempted Utopia
And being envious of God's Lordship and His natural order, they want to set themselves as the arbiters of right and wrong (Transgenderism=right, homophobia=wrong).
Add to this mix unending lust (for all manner of gratification) because the only enjoyment or happiness they know is the ephemeral flesh and mind based; they do not admit of the existence of the transcendent Godhead. Many liberals phonily claim to be religious (remember Clintoon and his big Bible) or they ostentatiously and shallowly "convert" to some eastern religion because they erroneously think that such religions are a do-it-yourself moral playground, not seeing that (for instance) Hinduism and Buddhism share the essential unchangeable moral codes as Christianity and Judaism.
They have a strong attraction for destruction; that explains their love for abortion, sterile destructive same sex acts, euthanasia, and so on..
Of course, some conservatives are atheist, but this generally holds true.
But aside from medical abnormalities, different people have different weaknesses, and the causes are too complicated to go into here. Some people are tempted to steal, or lie, or cheat on tests or spouses. Some are tempted to violence, or all kinds of anti-social or self-destructive behavior. Some people at one time or another feel compelled towards such behaviors. Those compulsions or tendencies in no way mandate that such tendencies be legitimized, that would only harm the individuals by preventing them from seeking help, or trying to overcome their vice, and society.
Suppose someone made an edict that all of our vices or weaknesses were now innate, immutable parts of our character, and we should never try to change, and if we did try, we never will succeed? Horrible.
What about it?
The male (XY) rat offspring did not exhibit male sexual behavior, they exhibited female sexual behavior.
This says nothing about the human desire to dress in clothing of the opposite sex or to carry that desire further and alter one's gender. This is not empirical data supporting a scientific hypothesis for transgenderism in humans. And neither does it explain the fetish of men who enjoy dressing up as and pretending to be little girls (not females of their equivalent age).
The drug could also, depending upon time of administration, cause a failure to masculinize the genital structures.
What does that have to do with normally developed males and females with normal XX or XY chromosomes who have convinced themselves that they are a different gender other than what testing indicates (or rather, convinced their family and friends).
Or, for that matter, what about the daughters of the pregnant women who were given DES (diethyl stilbestrol) In addition to genital abnormalities, the girls had a much higher incidence rate for lesbianism. There is strong evidence the DES was responsible.
According to what study? DES daughters may have abnormalities of the reproductive system with increased risk of cervical and vaginal cancer and infertility. What study indicates genital abnormalities? Here is some non-agenda driven information on DES daughters CDC - DES effects (http://www.cdc.gov/DES/consumers/about/effects_daughters.html) as well as DES Action (http://www.desaction.org)which works closely with the CDC and has no mention of the lesbian study to which you refer. Also, what does that have to do with gender identity confusion? Lesbianism is anpiy sexual preference, not a gender identity disorder.
There are chromosomal abnormalities which are *detectable.* There are also identifiable genital abnormalities, both of which are extremely rare and wouldn't begin to account for the number of transvestites and transsexuals appearing on the scene. Instead, these conditions would often disprove the argument you make (XY males or XX females whose genitals at birth are ambiguous - intersexed - and have been raised as the opposite gender but eventually reclaim their chromosomal gender identity).
Here's an article for you to ponder. You will note that these individuals use the same lingo as the transgendered when describing their situation and why they should not be in the body they have. Some doctors believe that to help these people, it would be better to give them what they want... surgery to remove perfectly good body parts. A New Way to Be Mad ( http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/12/elliott.htm )
Exactly. Pedophilia is another example of those vices or weaknesses - one which these individuals as well as mental health experts claim can never be "cured." Also, check out the article I mentioned in my last post "A New Way to Be Mad." A real eye-opener. We have become a society of over-indulgence and self-gratification at any expense with an internet full of cheerleaders ready to cheer us on for anything our heart desires. Just do it.
It is addictive behavior which often revolves around sexual arousal or gratification. Sometimes, simply attention. For some, the arousal is about feet, for some it's amputation, and there are those who are aroused by dead people. Andrew Luster (cosmetic heir) had a thing for comatose individuals, women he could "have his way with" who mentally were not there. I think it is a combination of a predisposition to addictive behavior and that individual's life experiences. I would assume the best way to treat an addiction is with addiction therapy and drug therapy but the success rate for addiction therapy is not particularly high.
The article, "A New Way to Be Mad" describes a "fad" if you will, during the 19th century (I believe it was then) where amnesia became popular. The "fad' eventually disappeared. Multiple personalities became popular for a while then that began to wane. I think that transgenderism will do the same. For many, it's a fad. Lesbianism was a fad during the roaring 20's. The fad is beginning to return for various reasons, some of it about attention, some of it about rebellion, and some of it about the "cool" factor. From what I've read, for some, the urge disappears because it no longer satisfies or something else takes its place or reality sets in on how the fetish may be destroying that individual's family or imposing unfair hardship on others. Some take the fetish further (such as with the amputation fetish where the individual may graduate from admirer to amputating a toe now, a leg later). This is a very rare fetish.
Much of this is perpetuated through the internet (lots of encouragement from anonymous cheerleaders) and provided an acceptance factor by the media and validated by laws passed such as what Gray Davis has done here.
Posted today. A good example of what I was referring to. You can be sure that this "study" will haunt conservatives from now on as those with an agenda will mark it, preach it, and proliferate it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.