Saturday, February 01, 2014

Utah SB100 - Cross-dressing Wolf in Sheep's Clothing



Utah Senator Steven Urquhart, the sponsor of this proposed legislation.

As for myself, this Mormon opposes the proposed Utah Housing and Employment Opportunity Act.  The "opportunity" is a promise of future legal action against any who offend the "gayness" of a "gay".  It is only calculated to "build bridges" to future contentious litigation by minority interests and homosexual advocates.

Choose you this day whom you will serve...

The politically-correct invention of problems related to "gender identity" has no merit, and does not belong in the body of Utah law. If Utah citizens were properly informed about the specific nature of SB100 proposed law, instead of attempting to disguise it as somehow relating to some vague "discrimination" hand-waving, I am confident that most of them would see little purpose for wasting any more time on the consideration of such legislation.

The Deseret News article that examines this bill contains a helpful link to the proposed legislation. I believe even a cursory examination of the actual proposal will reveal what is really intended.

What moves this particular Utah Senator to promote such interests is not for me to say.  But what is being sold to Utah citizens as "anti-discrimination" is really only intended to create new legal grounds for special interest litigation.

Excerpt from the bill SB100 that has repeatedly been proposed in the Utah Congress, deceptively being touted as an "anti-discrimination" statute...


        83          (k) "Gender identity" means an individual's internal sense of gender, without regard to
             84      the individual's designated sex at birth. Evidence of gender identity may include an
             85      individual's self-identification, as well as the individual's gender-related appearance,
             86      mannerisms, and other gender-related characteristics.
     

Near as I can judge, this is a solution in search of a problem.  It is the worst kind of politically-correct psycho-babble gibberish, as coined by post-modernist progressives, who view moral values as simply another "social construct".

The idea buried in this seemingly innocent bill is insidious.  Homosexual advocates wish to create some imaginary legal "rights" that give permission for them to play whatever sexual role they fancy that day.  I don't mind humoring occasional mental instability, but this is nothing short of insanity.

What that has to do with any actual discrimination problem is difficult to tell, but it is likely that any of the Utah Congress who dared to vote against it would instantly be smeared as a suspected "bigot" or a "homophobe".  Who could possibly vote for in favor of "discrimination"?  It has become one of the nastiest charges in our society.



I'm still trying to wrap my mind around why the law would presume to mandate that I concern myself about possibly offending whatever "an individual's internal sense of gender" might happen be at any particular time of day.

It calls to mind a particular scene from the popular film "Ghostbusters".

Peter Venkman: Is there any history of mental illness in your family?
Librarian: I had an uncle who thought he was Saint Jerome. 
Peter Venkman: I'd take that as a yes.

We might tend to think this is a rather arbitrary bizarre aberration, but the very question has been made the issue of a number of high-profile lawsuits, being pressed by homosexual advocates - and won - in state courts throughout this country.

Utah advocates of true principles of fairness are accurately represented at "FairToAll".  I support their efforts to promote equality and fight against discrimination.   As opposed to the shameful duplicitous attempts at misrepresentation of the proponents of SB100, this group represents an honest effort that the majority of Utah residents can stand up for, and be proud of.

In contrast to the overreach of SB100, my impression of HB87, making revision to existing statutory regulations to modernize outdated language, is a fair and sensible legislative approach to implement reasonable accommodations.  

A fair summary of related issues appears in the Daily Herald, the Utah Valley newspaper




Near as I can tell, currently in the State of California, everything is either illegal, heavily regulated by the government, or the focus of some lunatic fringe interest group demonstrating on the streets in protest.  I have no interest in transforming Utah into a similar asylum of common and perennial discontentment.


Let us continue to govern ourselves, promote freedom in all prudence and wisdom, with discussion on the merits of all issues in the public square, in true democratic fashion.

7 comments:

Azalea Adamson said...

Let me give you another perspective. I am a woman, I am married to a gay man. He is a, renewed last week, Temple Recommend holding Mormon man. We were sealed in the Temple and we have children. He has never acted on his natural inclinations. Yes, they are natural inclinations. My husband was never abused and he knew from a young age he was different. He tried to bury that part of him for decades. It was not good! As he has come to figure out his "gayness" he has learned that God does have a plan for him and though, yes, it is challenging, him being gay allows him to learn the things he needs to learn in this life. It also allows him to be an example to others that aren't so lucky to have the core strength and understanding and big picture of life that he has.

Last year we felt it very important to stand up for who we were and to help others in his and our situation. We came out as a gay man and his wife. It was really scary and one of our worries is that he could be fired. Thankfully for us, that wasn't a real issue, he is good at his job and we serious doubted it would be an issue and it wasn't. Not every one is that lucky. I am conservative, very, but didn't see anything from what you wrote that says that this is a bad bill. What I read was that you haven't been discriminated against and you don't see a problem. Have you looked at any statistics? Have you researched if there is problem? By my few minutes of research I got the impression there was. The fact that I was concerned for my husband's job, I would say there is!
Did you know, from what I understand, is that SLC has an anti discrimination bill similar and that the church supported it?

Now, I will be honest, I actually found your blog because I was trying to find information on this bill. I was trying to study it out for myself. I do hope that you take the time to figure this out and really understand rather than just assuming everyone has a hidden agenda. Quite frankly from what I have seen, yes, a few have very big agendas, but most people have only the agenda to live their life; a place to live, a job to work at, and to have people around them that they love and that love them back!

Jim Cobabe said...

Azalea, thanks for the note. Always nice to hear that there are other people who "think differently." I'm have no doubts that your heart is in it.

I too have long seen myself as "different". Not just a feeling. I never had any choices about my internal constitution, any more than I chose to have a nose on my face.

I too have interest in having people around me that I love and that return my love in ways that seem appropriate. But I seldom accuse anyone of being discriminatory for disappointing my expectations. And it seems to have nothing specific to do with sexuality.

Someone once told me that they would love me forever, then decided to change their mind. It was a crushing disappointment to my expectation, and I nearly destroyed myself in my grief.

Since that day I have chosen to be by myself, rather than ever again face such a risk of personal betrayal. I consider myself to be under the same obligations that other Church members accept, even though my personal circumstances are much different.

People still treat me differently. I encounter many handicaps that challenge my personal ambition. Does that not make me a unique group of one? My specific personal needs do not seem to warrant special legislative consideration. There are existing laws which are probably sufficient. In any case, I am not looking to adjudication to satisfy my concerns. Being compelled to appear in court has always been someone else's idea of how to find happiness.

I have no idea which laws have been passed by the people of Salt Lake City, but doubt that any legislation which singles out a special interest is "supported by the Church" any more than Senator Urquhart's bill is. But if it pleases you to believe that, I have no reason to be disagreeable about it.

If it helps, I will provide links to official policy statements of the Church regarding such matters, or you might find it more satisfying to consult with your bishop. I do not presume to act as spokesman for the Church. What I write always reflects my personal views.

Thanks for sharing your opinions.

Jim Cobabe said...

Perhaps I should add, at times I am "gay" also. Is this what constitutes "outing" myself? It seems like a rather popular trend.

But I use this term to characterize my personal disposition, without reference to any sexual inclination. I feel no need to identify with what is popularly considered to be my "sexuality" category as others might perceive. That categorization seems to have little to do with my own existential values.

As a participating Mormon, I would also happily add that "sexual preference" is not listed in the ward directory where I attend. Perhaps yours is more comprehensive.

Miri said...

Here ya go....

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705343621/Mormon-church-supports-Salt-Lake-Citys-protections-for-gay-rights.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705343561/Text-from-LDS-church-regarding-Salt-Lake-Citys-non-discrimination-ordinance.html?pg=all

Jim Cobabe said...

Thanks for the pointers. I too read the paper from time to time. What exactly are you expecting me to see in these articles that I have not read before?

As I said earlier, I believe the expression of support from the Church is consistent with opposition to unfair discrimination, which I believe all good citizens of Utah can support. I do not agree that such support constitutes blanket approval for this legislation and everything it implies, either then or now.

I continue to trust my own judgement over that of a Deseret News report or any other such media source.

Jim Cobabe said...

Regardless of what some readers of this blog might choose to believe, I am not interested in attacking or denigrating GLBT or anyone who "thinks differently". I don't feel compelled to denigrate other views or beliefs to validate my own thinking.

But to me, the proposed laws appear to be attempting to force my acceptance of certain beliefs and behaviors of which I cannot accept or approve, through government regulation and enforcement. I will never accept that approach as representing "freedom" or "equality" or anything like it.

I find it instructive to note that the vociferous opposition to Califonia's Proposition 8 campaign were not ambiguous in maligning the Church for backing the political campaign. But with regard to the Salt Lake City law that appears to give strength to their special pleading, the Church deserves accolades. It is as if they regard the Church as yet another "social construct" with the quality of plasticity that can change its beliefs on a whim to cater to popular opinion. Like a circus bear, it can be taught to perform on demand, when properly trained.

If the Church should ever issue an independent statement saying that I should support Utah SB100, I will try to get behind it. Until then, I reserve the right to make my own informed decisions.

I continue to insist that sexuality is not the defining characteristic or the sum total of my existence, and those GLBT advocates who choose to make this their obsession are choosing to diminish the scope of their own vision.

Jim Cobabe said...

A "transgender" ten-year-old in Maine was deprived of her "gender identity" rights when she/he/it was prohibited from using the preferred public toilet. This violated the Maine Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on "gender identity". So ruled the courts, wisely adjudicating a high-profile lawsuit.

The Maine law sounds suspiciously similar to the proposed Utah "anti-discrimination" legislation.