Seattle Democrats and state legislative leaders are howling because the anti-gay discrimination bill, HB 1515, failed yesterday by one vote in the Senate. Two key Democrats (Sens. Jim Hargrove-Hoquiam and Tim Sheldon-Shelton) crossed party lines to vote against it. The bill would have extended protection under the Washington Law Against Discrimination to gays, bisexuals, transsexuals AND to those whose sexual self-image or appearance differs from their biological gender.
The Senate Bill report on HB 1515 says:
The WLAD is amended to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is defined as heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity. Gender expression or identity is defined as having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth.
Race, gender, age, and need to use a service dog (all currently protected classes under WLAD) are facts of nature. In contrast, and whether gay rights advocates and "progressives" want to admit it, there remains considerable debate and doubt over whether gayness is biological, or chosen. To entertain such doubt, as many Washingtonians do, is far from "homophobic." In Hoquiam and Shelton, people don't read The Stranger.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at April 22, 2005 09:35 AM | Email ThisThere are two genders, genetically determined by the presence of XX or XY chromosomes. How rational can a person be who calls biological fact a "sex assigned... at birth"?
This bill would make it illegal for a gym or a doctor's office to tell a man he can't go into a women's locker, steamroom or restroom. Really look at the wording above: if the man's expressed "self-perception" is that he's a woman --it's irrelevant how he's dressed, drag or not--- if he claims he's really a woman, this bill would empower him to violate women's privacy.
There would be no way to prevent a gang of male teens dressed in women's clothes from acts of voyeurism in the girl's shower.
By loading those irrational and unscientific concepts of gender expression or identity in with the sexual orientation provisions, they created a political minefield: opposition to the one element of the bill is practical opposition to all, and thus the supporters of 1515 can accuse opponents of homophobia. This is manipulation at its worst.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on April 22, 2005 10:06 AMWe are already struggling with the cancer that legalized adultery is causing us, and we see its horrifying effects in the eyes of the children and spouses who have their homes and sanctuaries broken apart by its debilitating effects. We are already seeing the problems caused by lax punishment on sex offenders. We see it in the eyes of the children and women who have been raped and abused by them, and are continually raped and abused by them.
God forbid what will happen when we are required to treat homosexuality, transsexuality, and all other clearly deviant behavior as "normal". I can't imagine having a teacher who advocates this to their children, or an employer who is prosecuted for reprimanding their openly homosexual employees for impropriety on the job.
To be clear, I don't hate homosexuals and other deviants any more than I hate adulterers, liars, and thieves. I hate the crimes they commit against their neighbors and against humanity. They may call me a "homophobe", but I am not scared of them and I am certainly not advocating any crimes be committed against them. I only demand that our laws reflect the natural laws of morality, rather than trying to rewrite them. The audacity of a legislator who thinks they can overturn the natural order of things with the motion of a pen!
So, let's make sure that we support these conservative democrats, who stood up to far more pressure than their republican counterparts had to, and voted their conscience. I'll be upset if they don't get re-elected next term, even if they voted for the gas tax.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 22, 2005 10:09 AMStop trying to legislate how you want people to live, and focus on convincing people of the moral rightness of your cause. If you can't, then tough luck.
Posted by: the_radish on April 22, 2005 10:14 AMJim Hargrove 360-786-7646
Tim Sheldon - 360-786-7668
For those of you who were at the revote rally, Tim Sheldon is the same democrat who voted against his party in regards to the gubenatorial election. He needs to be commended for these actions.
And amen! to Brian and Jonathan's above posts.
Sure, in Hoquiam and Shelton, people may not read The Stranger, but what (if anything) do they read? Have you seen the newspapers out there???
There is finite time and resources in a legislative session. The message I see is
Gays = EXTREMELY IMPORTANT SPECIAL INTEREST
Children = Only used for raising general fund taxes.
Why do you want to punish everyone?
Posted by: headless lucy on April 22, 2005 11:06 AMThere are fewer people who would discriminate against gays than there are gays. Most of the consituents in Wa do not believe this to be a priority given that there is a finite amount of time in a leg session.
But somehow a bill that benefits 50% or more of kids GOT NO ATTENTION.
Get your priorities in order.
Posted by: Andy on April 22, 2005 11:12 AMScientists rightly determine that animals who practice homosexual behavior are mutations. They call it like it is...those 'homosexual' animals will not procreate with each other and therefore will be bred out. It's a scientific anomoly...do you want to start that conversation about human homosexuals? I don't. But bringing up animal homosexuality doesn't help the 'cause'.
I think businesses should be able to hire whoever the heck they want...if they don't want to hire a cross dresser, fine. I used to go to a great Mexican restaurant where a he/she worked and we loved their food. I wouldn't have hired him/her, but he/she made great food.
Posted by: megs on April 22, 2005 12:40 PMRecent case in New York: A 'transgendered' male, not on hormones, nor dressed in female clothing not considering sex change operation or treatment, is in court claiming the right to use women's restrooms because he 'feels like a woman on the inside'. So this guy, looks like a guy, dressed like a guy wants to be able to use womens restrooms, dressing rooms and locker rooms while you are in there? All any guy would have to claim is they 'feel like a woman' to obliterate your privacy. Is that what you want? If so, I'll be seeing you nude on the internet.
Posted by: Oregonia redneck on April 22, 2005 12:50 PMYo. I'm eating lunch here.
Posted by: jimg on April 22, 2005 01:21 PMPeople of morals, stand up and get this garbage in its rightful place.
Posted by: Hate Sin not the sinner on April 22, 2005 01:29 PMYour main point seems to be that this bill should have failed simply because it was a lower priority than other things. If that's the case, why shouldn't they just pass it and get it over with? This bill is going to come back in some form, so why waste more time?
I'm not sure where you get your numbers about who would or wouldn't discriminate against gays, etc but megs just admitted he/she wouldn't hire a cross dresser. Are you ok with that? If employers are truly allowed to hire "whoever they heck they want," should we stand by and let them pass over evangelical Christians simply because they don't like their belief system?
Posted by: ChrisW on April 22, 2005 01:45 PMI don't see how requesting a law to *prevent* a commonly practiced form of discrimination is pushing a lifestyle choice on anyone. In fact your sermonizing about right and wrong, and the work of evangelical groups to stop this legislation is promoting a lifestyle choice on others.
The civil rights issues you describe were specific to African Americans, but discrimination isn't. Mormons, Jews, etc. haven't had to sit at the back of busses or drink from different fountains, but they've experienced discrimination too.
Posted by: ChrisW on April 22, 2005 01:58 PMMy apologies. I'm EST zone, lunch is over. I hope you are not commenting on Headless Lucy's appearance. Wouldn't that be 'lookism'?
Posted by: Oregonia redneck on April 22, 2005 02:01 PMI believe strongly that high taxes are immoral, and that unrestrained spending is immoral as well. But on the grand scale of things, I would rather have adultery a crime than a few more dollars in my pocket. (I know that calling adultery a crime nowadays sounds quaint, and I don't know any politicians who advocate calling it a crime, but I believe strongly that it is a crime because it destroys other people's lives.)
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 22, 2005 04:03 PMIn three generations there would be no more Democrats!
There are people that have been homosexuals and are no longer homosexuals. Therefore it cannot be a biological truth. The person who is white cannot become black, the person who is blind cannot choose to see again. The homosexual can and does often choose not to be homosexual any longer.
Let them do as they wish, but don't tell me that I have to rent to them, have my children educated by them or employ them, or anyone else I choose not to associate with. I have a right to choices too and I will not have that freedom taken from me. Not in this lifetime!
Posted by: Hanna on April 22, 2005 08:55 PM“Relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along by every wind of teaching, looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards... We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one's own ego and one's own desires.”
What better place than Rome to state this. Is this not what ultimatly brought down the Roman Emipire?
The thing is, I don't think you need to or possibly can accept the "morality" of your neighbors in this society. I think adulterers are slimy, but there are plenty of them around.
It's silly to bring up besti@lity, rape, and child molestation to compare with homosexuality. For one thing, there's no consent there.
There also seems to be a bit of confusion about homosexuality and homosexual behavior. The behavior is a choice; homosexuality is likely not.
Posted by: ChrisW on April 23, 2005 04:24 AMMeg, your comment contains at least 3 fatal flaws:
1) What "scientist" "determined" that homosexual behavior is the result of a mutation?
2) Mutations aren't necessarily bred out. If they are (and if you're right on #1), then why hasn't homosexuality been bred out of the human population? Do you have any evidence that its prevalance is even declining?
3) Most of our traits are, in some sense, mutations. Without mutations, a species would rapidly become exitinct. So even if homosexuality is a mutation, what does that have to do with the morality of discriminating against it? If anything, it should make discrimination less acceptable.
Indeed, the anthropological and biological evidence would suggest that there's far more support for the 'naturalness' of homosexuality than there is for monogamous, life-long pair bonding in humans, wonderful thing that it is.
If you want to have a real debate about whether sexual orientation is a choice, would anyone like to explain what day it was that they decided consciously to be heterosexual? I don't remember what day I decided to be straight, and I can't imagine that anyone would consciously pick to be part of one of the last groups in our society that it's still alright to publicly insult.
Kris - It's a hateful thing to compare a consensual gay relationship to rape or pedophilia. This difference is something we recognize as a society by an 'age of consent' and defined by whether the relationship is between two equals of an age to enter into lawful contract with each other.
It's very clearly spelled out in the law already that violating consent is not to be tolerated. I'm prepared to tolerate a very great deal as long as I don't have to participate, don't have to watch, and am certain that no one else has been forced to watch or participate. Mainly, I think life goes better when we remember that the pursuit of happiness is written into our Constitution for everyone. Perhaps if you took a little more advantage of that, you wouldn't be so fussed about what other people do in the privacy of their own homes.
Posted by: natasha on April 25, 2005 01:24 AM... the bill was passed, and it should've been. there is no need to tear anyone to shreads.
Posted by: null on May 11, 2005 01:21 PM