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.