Posting again, as this issue is about to be reopened, following the newly legalized fiction of "same-sex marriage" in Utah.
Utah Senator Steven Urquhart, the sponsor of this proposed legislation that pretends to be an "anti-discrimination" measure.
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.
Now the people of Utah can see where these kinds of legal instruments are taking them. Deeper into a world where moral depravity reigns, and those who respect righteousness are subjected to more and more government regulation.
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 "bigot," "homophobe," and "fanatic".
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.
Update on similar issues:
Houston Chronicle
Critics largely take issue with the rights extended to gay and
transgender residents under the ordinance banning discrimination among
businesses that serve the public, private employers, in housing and in
city employment and city contracting. Religious institutions are exempt.
Parker has agreed not to enforce the ordinance until the court issues a
decision in the lawsuit, likely sometime next year.
Sound familiar?
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 the 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 devoting 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.