Susan's Place Logo

News:

Visit our Discord server  and Wiki

Main Menu

Transgender vote may draw crowd

Started by Shana A, November 18, 2009, 08:57:17 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shana A

Transgender vote may draw crowd

By CHRISTIAN M. WADE
The Tampa Tribune

Published: November 18, 2009

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/nov/18/na-transgender-vote-may-draw-crowd/

TAMPA - The city council's decision two weeks ago to extend Tampa's anti-discrimination laws to include transgender individuals was a move long overdue, its supporters say.

To the leaders of evangelical Christian groups, the proposed inclusion of "gender identity and expression" as a protected class under the city's human rights ordinance is an assault on their religious values that they fear will sanction sexually deviant behavior.

"This ordinance will give lawful protection to cross dressing males to patronize women's restrooms," the Florida Family Association said in a statement. "And men dressed as women or women who perceive themselves as men can also use men's restrooms."
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." Oscar Wilde


  •  

Virginia87106

The final vote is tomorrow, Thursday, 11-19.
  •  

tekla

And men dressed as women or women who perceive themselves as men can also use men's restrooms.

As opposed to women at concerts and such who just use the men's room because the line at the woman's room is just too long.
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

Julie Marie

Quote from: tekla on November 18, 2009, 11:35:26 AM
As opposed to women at concerts and such who just use the men's room because the line at the woman's room is just too long.

Yeah, well, they aren't carrying a loaded weapon, AKA: The Penis  ::)
When you judge others, you do not define them, you define yourself.
  •  

SusanKC

An argument sure to ensue:

This is why politically active churches need to pay taxes, in order to support the society they keep trying to control with their mouths espousing their "religous values" of depriving others of their human rights and demeaning their values.

- Constitution of the United States of America - Amendment I -
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof;"

Paying taxes to support the country does not constitute a prohibition.

SusanKG
  •  

tekla

Paying taxes to support the country does not constitute a prohibition.

In fact the courts would beg to differ.  In one of the first major Supreme Court cases the court found that 'the power to tax is the power to destroy.' (McCulloch v. Maryland - 1819)

In his decision, Chief Justice Marshall said: "That the power of taxing it [the bank, but a church would work the same way] by the States may be exercised so as to destroy it, is too obvious to be denied" (p. 427), and "That the power to tax involves the power to destroy ... [is] not to be denied" (p. 431).
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

SusanKC

Quote from: tekla on November 18, 2009, 01:49:19 PM
Paying taxes to support the country does not constitute a prohibition.

[quoteIn fact the courts would beg to differ.  In one of the first major Supreme Court cases the court found that 'the power to tax is the power to destroy.' (McCulloch v. Maryland - 1819)]

Written two hundred years ago, way before an era of mega-churches and the instant and mass communications of today, and in a time where "The" church no longer exists.  The opposite of Taxation without representation, is representation without taxation.  If any person, business or orgazation is taxed, all should be, so as to be equal.  Churches today are often even more for political lobbying, social engineering, and society - coffee shops, daycare, non-religious meeting places - all tax free.  They are established, and frankly, not in any danger from oppression by having to pay their fair share of the general society they exist in and benefit from.

SusanKG
  •  

tekla

Well, the SC opinion was written at the time about banks, it just holds true about most everything.  That why 'sin taxes' are set so high, its a way of discouraging people from buying those things.  Given the property that a lot of churches have, even a property tax might well prove deadly (what's the value of a cathedral?  The land it's on?), and that's a tax before I take 25% of their donations and contributions.  Hey, Render unto Caesar and all.

But, we do have some laws in this regard, and it would be nice to see them enforced with respect to outright political activities - which would at least limit the outright use for Republican campaigning.  Several court cases have found that the political restrictions on religious/not-for-profit groups does NOT extend though to things like ballot issues (gay marriage) which is not a strictly political or partisan deal.

What little enforcement there is of the laws however does prevent them from going whole hog, and I'm not sure that the very churches you dislike the most - the megachurches/the RCC/the LDS which are rich enough to pay taxes would not go out and form their own PACs (which they could then do, and that money is tax-free) and flat out endorse candidates with massive public ad campaigns.  And, to be sure the RCC/LDS are very sophisticated at modern uses of propaganda and advertising and would prove to be a very powerful opposition.  Hell, they are hard to beat now, just imagine if they could do more.

What we need to do, and have had a hard time doing (at least the TG community - and I use that word loosely - as opposed to the L/G community) is getting an equal number of people out there to publicly counter the church groups.

Which is why so many L/G persons have no trouble as some would say, throwing the T faction under the bus, because really, its not offending anyone who is really there.  While the gay movement had to get out, get in people's faces, do that 'We're here, we're queer' thing, had to get all sorts of people to 'come out' (watch Milk, and one of the first things he does when the Brigg's campaign starts is to tell everyone at the meeting they have to come out publicly - they have to BE OUT for this to work)  the TG community seems perfectly at home with the notion that it's best and brightest can in essence hide under the notion of stealth and someone else can go out and do the heavy lifting.

It's very hard to sell anything politically if one side is all big, public and obnoxious and the other side isn't even there.

FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

SusanKC

I think I agree with most or all of what you say, Tekla.  (Scared yet?)  Maybe what I am really getting at is the equlvocal treatment of groups - corporations, lobbiests, churches, political parties - with individuals, with people.  I do not think that was the original intent, to allow groups to have more power, more access, more say, in how this country runs.  That is why we had votes and elected representatives.  And I certainly know that the intent was to have the power structure run things so that the ordinary citizen needn't be bothered, in fact wasn't competent to make decisions.  Of course we are supposed to be a Representative democracy.  But it is a democracy.  The way it runs now is the golden rule: He who has the gold, rules.  Former New York Governor Alfred E Smith said:  "The cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy."  That works for me.
Thanks for your thoughts Tekla.

SusanKG
  •