Susan's Place Transgender Resources

http://now.msn.com/arizona-bathroom-bill-could-require-birth-certificate (http://now.msn.com/arizona-bathroom-bill-could-require-birth-certificate)


A new "Bathroom Bill" in Arizona, coming up for debate on Wednesday, could conceivably have users of public bathrooms carrying their birth certificates — to prove that they have the right to use one. The new law would require someone to use the public restroom designated for the sex on their birth certificate — or face a misdemeanor charge. It's clearly aimed at undoing a recent Phoenix law making it illegal to discriminate against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people — including in public bathrooms. And of course, it's not the first time Arizonans have taken a close interest in a birth certificate. [Source]

<lights, siren>    Ma'am, do you have any idea what restroom you were going in back there? I'm going to need to see your license, registration, and piss pass.

For some reason I have a difficult time reconciling my base feelings about Arizona (benign) with some of it's actions.

I always think of them as Southern Canadians.

This just made the local news here in California, the stations Facebook page posted the article, you can just imagine the comments I'm reading!! The narrow minds of some people disgust me for sure, but there are also some very positive understanding folks as well.

  The whole thing reminds me of when black folk couldn't use white facilities.....sad

So, which would you pick?

1. Go into the mens' room and risk, well, things that are not good?

2. Go into the ladies' room and risk arrest?

3. Squat somewhere outdoors and hope no one happens by?

Quote from: suzifrommd on March 20, 2013, 10:56:28 AM
So, which would you pick?

1. Go into the mens' room and risk, well, things that are not good?

2. Go into the ladies' room and risk arrest?

3. Squat somewhere outdoors and hope no one happens by?

4. Pee before leaving your house and than hold it till you get home again.

Probably the safest option, if this bill actually passes.

Thankfully a lot of businesses are following the "family restroom" trend around here.

I'd take my chances in the womens room....

But that bill is downright ridiculous. The spirit of the bill is only there to humiliate us or put is in danger. It's already illegal for pedophiles to expose themselves to kids, and this law wouldn't do anything to prevent them from going in the womens room and doing it... dressed as female or not. His excuse for it is the most obnoxious and ignorant thing I've heard in a long time. I have trouble remembering the last time I've seen something suspicious in the womens room. Maybe because it's never happened :O

ANOTHER KIND GIFT FROMM THE EVER-LOVING REPUBLICANS

QuoteThe proposal is scheduled for debate Wednesday in the House Committee on Appropriations and would make it a Class 1 misdemeanor for someone to enter a public restroom that is designated for the opposite sex.

It would be punishable by up to six months in jail and a $2,500 fine. In a hotly debated move last month, the Phoenix City Council voted to give legal protections to transgender people under the city's anti-discrimination law.

A divided council approved a proposal (5-3), which added gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people from being discriminated against in city contracts, housing, employment, and public restaurants.

Opponents named it the "Bathroom Bill" because they claimed it would let transgender people use bathrooms for the opposite sex. Opponents, such as the conservative Center for Arizona Policy, opposed it because they feared it could be abused.

Officials with CAP were not immediately available for an interview. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Nancy Barto, a Republican from Phoenix,
http://www.azfamily.com/news/Bathroom-battle-heads-to-the-state-Capitol-198883601.html (http://www.azfamily.com/news/Bathroom-battle-heads-to-the-state-Capitol-198883601.html)

Please remember this^^^ when you vote for President in 2016...I hope Ms. Michelle Obama runs for Office!

Disgusting POS!


When asked why the bill targeted trans people, Kavanagh explained that it's because he thinks "they're weird."

Quote from: Michelle G on March 24, 2013, 06:20:37 PM
Disgusting POS!


When asked why the bill targeted trans people, Kavanagh explained that it's because he thinks "they're weird."

I bet Hitler thought the Jews were weird...

Quote from: peky on March 24, 2013, 03:55:56 PM
ANOTHER KIND GIFT FROMM THE EVER-LOVING REPUBLICANS

Please remember this^^^ when you vote for President in 2016...I hope Ms. Michelle Obama runs for Office!

"Arizona lawmakers delayed a scheduled debate over equal access rights after dozens of transgender people flooded the Arizona House of Representatives Wednesday to fight a proposed law that would have made it illegal for them to use the bathroom of their preferred gender. Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills, Ariz.) said he would delay his bill that seeks to make it a misdemeanor for anyone to use a public facility not associated with their birth gender. Kavanagh's announcement came during the beginning of a House committee meeting filled with dozens of transgender advocates."

This is how the deliberative system is supposed to work.

Quote from: Michelle G on March 24, 2013, 06:20:37 PM
Disgusting POS!

When asked why the bill targeted trans people, Kavanagh explained that it's because he thinks "they're weird."

Here is the problem with unsourced quotations.  They can be taken out of context.

Let's read what Rep. Kavanagh actually said:

KAVANAGH: The city of Phoenix has crafted a bill that allows people to define their sex by what they think in their head. If you're a male, you don't go into a female shower or locker room, or vice versa. It also raises the specter of people who want to go into those opposite sex facilities not because they're transgender, but because they're weird.

Quote from: Alainaluvsu on March 24, 2013, 08:05:39 PM
I bet Hitler thought the Jews were weird...

Reductio ad Hitlerum  We are better than that.

Quote from: Jamie D on March 24, 2013, 09:21:20 PM
Reductio ad Hitlerum  We are better than that.

You might be chatty, but I am catty ;)

Actually, text of the bill stated that one must use a restroom according to what's listed on one's birth certificate.

Quote
A PERSON COMMITS DISORDERLY CONDUCT IF THE PERSON INTENTIONALLY ENTERS A PUBLIC RESTROOM, BATHROOM, SHOWER, BATH, DRESSING ROOM OR LOCKER ROOM AND A SIGN INDICATES THAT THE ROOM IS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF PERSONS OF ONE SEX AND THE PERSON IS NOT LEGALLY CLASSIFIED ON THE PERSON'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS A MEMBER OF THAT SEX.

Source: http://www.azcentral.com/insiders/brahm1700/2013/03/18/show-me-your-papers-before-you-pee/ (http://www.azcentral.com/insiders/brahm1700/2013/03/18/show-me-your-papers-before-you-pee/)

The article also states that Mr. Kavanagh wrote this bill by himself. If this is true, how can the language of the bill requiring the birth certificate as proof be reconciled with his statement about self-identification?

Connie, I believe the intention of the bill is to prevent voyeurs from claiming to be transgendered.  I don't see it as being enforceable in any case.  It is clear to me that the concepts of sex and gender are being conflated within the mind of the author.  That is not unusual for those who are unfamiliar with our particular situation.

All the more reason for an active outreach program.  When transgender activists  "flooded the Arizona House of Representatives Wednesday to fight a proposed law that would have made it illegal for them to use the bathroom of their preferred gender."  This is what representative democracy should be about.

It's enforceable by making it mandatory for employers to enforce it or face civil and / or criminal penalties.

Quote from: Alainaluvsu on March 25, 2013, 01:45:03 AM
It's enforceable by making it mandatory for employers to enforce it or face civil and / or criminal penalties.

You cannot cede governmental police powers to private interests.  You can make them post signs or regulations.  That's about it.

Quote from: Jamie D on March 25, 2013, 01:48:34 AM
You cannot cede governmental police powers to private interests.  You can make them post signs or regulations.  That's about it.

Is that a comment along the lines of: 'if you understand the structure of a snowflake then you need not fear an avalanche'?

Never mind God Bless America, God Help America!  Arizona is off my list of places to visit.

Quote from: Jamie D on March 25, 2013, 01:38:45 AM
When transgender activists  "flooded the Arizona House of Representatives Wednesday to fight a proposed law that would have made it illegal for them to use the bathroom of their preferred gender."  This is what representative democracy should be about.

Jamie, I don't agree. Democracies recognize there are some basic rights that a legislature cannot take away. Example: Congress can make no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press. Minorities should not need to depend on their ability to "flood" a legislative body to keep their rights.

And if the right to relieve oneself safely is not a basic human right, I don't know what is.

So, it requires representative democracy to prevent, to borrow your phrase Jamie, "outrageous bigotry?" Because that's what this bill was about. It was written, proposed, and supported by outrageous bigotry that suggests the concepts of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are alienable rights.

I fail to see how anyone who actually believes in the documentation upon which this country was founded can propose and support such legislation, or even defend those who do.

Quote from: Jamie D on March 25, 2013, 01:48:34 AM
You cannot cede governmental police powers to private interests.  You can make them post signs or regulations.  That's about it.

However, if some random employee has a problem with the company not following the law... they can sue the company for breaking it, or possibly even call the police for knowingly aiding in breaking it.

Quote from: Constance on March 25, 2013, 09:44:38 AM
So, it requires representative democracy to prevent, to borrow your phrase Jamie, "outrageous bigotry?" Because that's what this bill was about. It was written, proposed, and supported by outrageous bigotry that suggests the concepts of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are alienable rights.

I fail to see how anyone who actually believes in the documentation upon which this country was founded can propose and support such legislation, or even defend those who do.

Quote from: suzifrommd on March 25, 2013, 06:54:21 AM
Jamie, I don't agree. Democracies recognize there are some basic rights that a legislature cannot take away. Example: Congress can make no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press. Minorities should not need to depend on their ability to "flood" a legislative body to keep their rights.

And if the right to relieve oneself safely is not a basic human right, I don't know what is.

I am replying to these to posts together, because the cover much of the same ground.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are examples of "Natural Rights," as Jefferson, et al, understood them.  Natural rights, sometimes called "human rights," are imbued by one's humanity.  Natural rights can not be taken away without consent, and are, in theory, beyond the reach of any just government.

Similarly, some legal rights are considered so vital, that they have receive special protection within a Constitution.  Some of these protected right are derivative of natural rights, such as infringements of conscience.  Natural and constitutional rights serve to establish relationships within a society, and to limit the power of government.

With that said, there exists no "natural right" to use a bathroom.  Bathrooms do not exist within a state of nature.  That society has established by statutory law and regulation, the construction of restrooms for the hygiene and convenience its members, it follows that those regulations should be debatable within the context of lawmaking.  One of the earliest stumbling block in the founding of the country, and the creation of a government, was the issue of majority rule versus minority rights.  The trick was to balance the two, and the method was informed, open debate as part of deliberative democracy.

I respect the process.  I do not always agree with the result.  And it is incumbent on me to become involved in the process, or accept the results as a bystander.

Some don`t have a birthcertificate :( For some its state ALIEN mm  problem.
But for the girls its easy wear long skirts ! Go to cityhall and pee.Practice as it can be messy  >:-)
For the boys its tree or a alley :)
You can get a ticket but no sex asked  ::)

Jamie I find your description to be extremely odd at the very least. You might respect the process, but I find your support for persons such as ourselves to be lacking tremendously.

It might not be a natural right to use a bathroom, but it's considered illegal in a great many places to relieve oneself anywhere but in a bathroom. Such "logic" creates a perfect situation in which we cannot be respected or supported as full members of society.

Which, in my opinion, is the intention of conservative activists.

{Edited for clarity. - CAM}

I'm gong to follow this. My trans brothers and sisters in Arizona, it's time to get busy and veto this piece of legislation. Hold the creator of it to task.

As I posted in a different thread, it's back.  SB 1045 now, a different bill the Republican Gentleman decided to gut and fill with his hate.  This one basically nullifies city ordinances that provide equal access and give businesses the right to discriminate.  It's up for a hearing tomorrow (Wed) afternoon.

Quote from: Constance on March 26, 2013, 10:02:38 AM
Jamie I find your description to be extremely odd at the very least. You might respect the process, but I find your support for persons such as ourselves to be lacking tremendously.

Ditto that.

What's further distressing is this happening in one of the many states with absolute single party control.  If it gets legs, there will be no stopping it.

Quote from: Constance on March 26, 2013, 10:02:38 AM
Jamie I find your description to be extremely odd at the very least. You might respect the process, but I find your support for persons such as ourselves to be lacking tremendously.

It might not be a natural right to use a bathroom, but it's considered illegal in a great many places to relieve oneself anywhere but in a bathroom. Such "logic" creates a perfect situation in which we cannot be respected or supported as full members of society.

Which, in my opinion, is the intention of conservative activists.

{Edited for clarity. - CAM}

I think this proposed legislation will fail on its (de)merits.  I also believe the "all men (mankind) is created equal" and deserve "equal protection under the law."

I see no better way to to secure rights equal with our station than to have an open and honest debate.  Have you written a letter or email, expressing your opinion on the bill, to any Arizona legislator, the Governor, or one of the major publications?  I have.

Yes, I have written to Governor Brewer and Mr. Kavanagh.

Jamie, you have frequently and on various issues indicated that the trampled minorities should just accept the decisions made for us by the majority, except of course when you say the opposite. I have not really seen you take a real stand for the trans* communities, or the queer communities either but that might be beyond the scope of this site.

So long as rights are dependent on geographical location, I don't think this country can truly be called the United States of America. My rights as a queer and trans* person vary wildly depending on local laws, and the anti-federal government proponents seem to want it to be that way. It seems to me that this country will be United only when all persons in the country have the same rights and privileges regardless of which town, city, county or state they're currently in.

Only recently was Don't Ask, Don't Tell undone.  All the ongoing and current kerfuffle over Gay Marriage.

Sanctioned and codified discrimination is alive and, maybe, not-so-well in the United States of America.  But it is still alive.  We need not breathe new life into it by saying, in law, that a transman isn't man enough to use the men's room and a transwoman isn't woman enough to use the women's.

Though there is something absurd about this.  The US once said blacks and whites couldn't share the same water fountain.  Hopefully we really are starting to end the discrimination of letting two people who love each other, but happen to be the same sex, marry.  So now this guy really wants to move on to saying where trans people can and can't pee?  At what point does the goal of the discrimination against a minority become so absurd that most realize it ain't worth it, and instead adopt a stance of "live and let live" because they finally realize none of the aforementioned things should have been put forth as discussion material anyway?

This bill is gonna bite them all in the butt if it passes.
The only thing this ahole and his buddies think about are trans women.
''Omg, we can't have 'men' going in the womens bathroom..omg''

lol He didn't think about all the bearded trans man that piss standing up.
Now that's gonna be one heck of a scene.

Quote from: Constance on March 26, 2013, 09:45:35 PM
Yes, I have written to Governor Brewer and Mr. Kavanagh.

And for the record, I did indeed out myself as a transwoman in my letters.

Quote from: Slanan on March 26, 2013, 05:56:50 PM
As I posted in a different thread, it's back.  SB 1045 now, a different bill the Republican Gentleman decided to gut and fill with his hate.  This one basically nullifies city ordinances that provide equal access and give businesses the right to discriminate.  It's up for a hearing tomorrow (Wed) afternoon.

I believe this is what I got an email about from the site that was opposing him called All Out, they said essentially this new proposed law he snuck in(their words) would make it illegal for cities to protect transpeople from discrimination.

Quote from: Constance on March 26, 2013, 09:45:35 PM
Yes, I have written to Governor Brewer and Mr. Kavanagh.

Jamie, you have frequently and on various issues indicated that the trampled minorities should just accept the decisions made for us by the majority, except of course when you say the opposite. I have not really seen you take a real stand for the trans* communities, or the queer communities either but that might be beyond the scope of this site.

So long as rights are dependent on geographical location, I don't think this country can truly be called the United States of America. My rights as a queer and trans* person vary wildly depending on local laws, and the anti-federal government proponents seem to want it to be that way. It seems to me that this country will be United only when all persons in the country have the same rights and privileges regardless of which town, city, county or state they're currently in.

I believe that lasting gains are achieved through the building of a consensus.  That often takes time.

Quote from: Jamie D on March 27, 2013, 12:44:40 PM
I believe that lasting gains are achieved through the building of a consensus.  That often takes time.

Bolded emphasis mine.

The Loyalists probably thought the same thing. The Revolutionaries, the ones who built this country, had adopted a seemingly different mindset.

Quote from: Jamie D on March 27, 2013, 12:44:40 PM
I believe that lasting gains are achieved through the building of a consensus.  That often takes time.

I'd disagree again (though I really respect your analysis, Jamie. Hearing your viewpoint is always enlightening and interesting.)

I think lasting gains come from LEADERSHIP.

Most people are accustomed to their leaders helping them make up their minds. The tide really turned on gay marriage, for example, when Obama came out in favor. Societal opinions on civil rights did most of its changing after 1964, when the government took its most significant action.

I have a lot of Catholic friends who excuse their opposition to same-sex marriage by deferring to their religion. When a pope finally decides that children raised by same-sex couples also deserve to have married parents, it will have another tidal wave of support.

Leadership need not take time. Leaders can change their minds very quickly.

Quote from: EmeraldPerpugilliam on March 27, 2013, 12:10:25 PM
I believe this is what I got an email about from the site that was opposing him called All Out, they said essentially this new proposed law he snuck in(their words) would make it illegal for cities to protect transpeople from discrimination.

This is exactly the issue now. We would not be punished for peeing in the right place here in the desert (where I have been banished), however, any establishment would be within their rights to deny us access to ANY bathroom...heck, they could deny anyone access to their restrooms based on nothing more than a personal bias against some element of their presentation, such as long hair on a man or a butch lesbian, that displeases them.

Yes, living here in AZ requires constant vigilance against our homegrown fascism.

N.J.

On a party line vote, the Arizona Committee of Appropriations voted to allow trans and intersex individuals to be discriminated against. Per Zoe Brain (on FB):

QuoteIt was obvious those who testified were wasting their time. Nothing they could have done or said would have made the slightest difference to the party-line vote.

All those who voted against spoke at length, with reason. All those who voted for just said "Yes" like good little robots, with no attempt at justification, because the bill was unjustifiable.

Oh yes, it's also explicitly against Federal Law, the Price-Waterhouse decision regarding the Civil Rights Act 1964. So all it will do is cost the Arizona taxpayers, including those discriminated against, more millions in legal costs to defend the indefencible.

So it goes...

N.J.

I just wish there was a way to shame the places that'd take advantage of this law (Edit: Just noticed I called it a law already.  But single party control, who am I kidding?).  I keep thinking of an on-line registry of places in AZ where trans people have been discriminated against could be reported but, that isn't visible enough. 

But maybe, probably, that isn't the right way to go either.  Maybe we should accentuate the positive.  Places that let us pee in peace could be lauded.  Put a sign in the window with a counter saying, "X many days with transgender people using our bathrooms without incident!"

The subject of Federal pre-emption via the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution is going to bite them big time.  A TG trucker going through the state cannot be required to carry an out of state Birth Certificate, and the first one arrested will be in fat city on violation of Federal law.  Interstate commerce issues apply to anything almost.  Its a fun topic to think about from that point of view. 

Sorry for asking being that I am useless when it comes to understanding politics(For which I am mostly grateful) but what does party line vote mean?

A "Party line vote" happens when the representatives of one political party vote a certain way, and the members of the other political party(s) vote the opposite way.

Without in anyway provoking argument, but what is the stated purpose, or reason for the statute/law/proposal. Presumably the person who has drafted the proposal has a statement in why he/she thinks it is needed, so what is that reason? Is it to protect people from cross dressed paedophiles? Is it to prevent 'men in dresses' from leaving the seat up in the ladies loo? And when does it finish? If a person has had surgery (MtF) is she allowed to pee in the ladies or is she in the gents?

I'll leave the issue of FtM peeing to my brothers on the forum - although I'm interested in the reasons to prevent them from having a pee in the gents loo - surely it is not for affecting the delicate nature of other patrons of the gents?!

I speak as a foreigner who sometimes finds the USA a somewhat amusing play pen of dysfunctional political and religious people who often seem to have intense problems with the utterly unimportant matters in life. 

Quote from: suzifrommd on March 27, 2013, 01:00:26 PM
I'd disagree again (though I really respect your analysis, Jamie. Hearing your viewpoint is always enlightening and interesting.)

I think lasting gains come from LEADERSHIP.

Most people are accustomed to their leaders helping them make up their minds. The tide really turned on gay marriage, for example, when Obama came out in favor. Societal opinions on civil rights did most of its changing after 1964, when the government took its most significant action.

I have a lot of Catholic friends who excuse their opposition to same-sex marriage by deferring to their religion. When a pope finally decides that children raised by same-sex couples also deserve to have married parents, it will have another tidal wave of support.

Leadership need not take time. Leaders can change their minds very quickly.

I can not argue with the issue of leadership. Your point is well-taken.

Great leaders take the people where they need to be, but don't necessarily want to go.  When I think of truly great, transformational leaders, I think of the likes of Jefferson, or Lincoln, or Churchill.  Unfortunately, I don't any of that caliber around.

Arizona House panel OKs softened transgender bill

By BOB CHRISTIE Associated Press
Posted:   03/27/2013 05:09:18 PM EDT

PHOENIX—An Arizona House panel late Wednesday approved a measure targeting transgendered people who want to use bathrooms of the gender they identify with, voting along party lines to advance a bill that protects business owners who bar the practice.
The 7-4 vote concluded an hours-long parade of transgendered and straight people who tried to persuade the panel to oppose Appropriations Committee chairman Rep. John Kavanagh's bill. The crowd broke out in chants of "shame, shame, shame" as the vote on the bill sponsored by the conservative Republican passed.


http://www.eveningsun.com/nationworldnews/ci_22884156/ariz-lawmakers-consider-softened-transgender-bill (http://www.eveningsun.com/nationworldnews/ci_22884156/ariz-lawmakers-consider-softened-transgender-bill)

Quote from: peky on March 28, 2013, 03:01:08 PM
I guess congratulations are in order for the "Conservative Transgender,"
...and condolences for any TG/TS that does not "pass well in Arizona.....as you dahrling may have to piss you knickers...
so much for "Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

I wonder how they are going to prove what someones birth gender was? My drivers license says female, so without looking between my legs how will they know?

Quote from: Brooke777 on March 28, 2013, 03:07:28 PM
I wonder how they are going to prove what someones birth gender was? My drivers license says female, so without looking between my legs how will they know?

Well, at least 1 bill indicated that the birth certificate was proof of gender. Can I see a show of hands for all those out there who actually carry their birth certificates with them as part of the ID they carry?

I don't know of anyone transgendered or cisgendered that carries their birth certificate around with them, far too risky what if it gets lost? Seriously do politicians ever think with their brains and not their asses?

I don't see any anti-trans or other anti-anyone bill becoming law for several reasons:

1. Federal Interstate Commerce Laws

2. EEOC / Equal Access Laws / other related formal laws, and case law.

3. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws and due process. The state had due process afforded it when a trans person changes their name and gender markers after a court of law grants such motion. To violate the due process and equal protection of laws to someone simply because of an imagined fear about something that "could possibly happen" is not something that holds the weight of legal justification. If it did, everyone in society would become a criminal suspect at all times, and would be subject to living in a midevil totalitarian police regime sort of state. 

4. Cruel and Unusual Punishment at the state and federal levels would also be violated in that telling someone that they have to hold their bodily functions due to the way they look is not only facially unsound in the legal sense, it is something that would place real people in real medical danger. Holding your human waste functions for an unacceptable period of time DOES result in real medical peril!

BTW, FWIW, there IS a recall effort underway to unseat this klown!

Unseat I think he should be disbarred he is seriously fast becoming the jack thompson(lawyer) of LGBT world.

I believe it was the 14th amendment that the supreme court judges brought up when the marriage equality argument was brought to them and they basically said "why are we wasting our time on this?"

Quote from: Dawn Heart on March 28, 2013, 04:33:47 PM
3. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws and due process.

And yet, an argument I hear from anti-LGBTQ persons is that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to us because what we are is "unnatural."

Quote from: Constance on March 28, 2013, 05:13:55 PM
And yet, an argument I hear from anti-LGBTQ persons is that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to us because what we are is "unnatural."

Don't listen to the nutcases Connie.  Let's look at the text of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution:

14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 14th Amendment (adopted in 1868, as a "Reconstruction Amendment) served to apply due process protections to the States.  Prior to that time, the due process protect only applied to federal actions.

The purpose of the Section in the Amendment was to prevent the reconstructed southern states from passing laws, as they had done previously, denying ex-slave and other people of color rights.  Hence the phrasing, "any person ..." rather than "any citizen," or "any white person," or "any male," or "anyone over the age of 21." etc.  "Any Person."

I believe that you, me, and every other poster here are "persons."

Quote from: Constance on March 28, 2013, 03:35:02 PM
Well, at least 1 bill indicated that the birth certificate was proof of gender. Can I see a show of hands for all those out there who actually carry their birth certificates with them as part of the ID they carry?

The article posted by Brooke, above, contained these paragraphs:

The original bill would have made it a crime for a transgendered person to use a bathroom other than his or her birth sex. The new bill instead seeks to shield businesses from civil or criminal liability if they ban people from restrooms that don't match their birth sex....

Kavanagh began the hearing by telling the crowd his original bill went too far, and that he had completely re-written it after hearing criticism, including some from his own caucus in the House.

It seems to me that the deliberative process worked to make needed changes in the proposal.  There is no birth certificate requirement, and no criminal liability in the proposed bill coming out of committee.  Before it becomes law, it would need to be passed by both houses of the Arizona legislation and signed by the Governor.  Still time to voice your concerns.

"We're doing it to protect the businesses here! I'm a pro-business kinda guy!  :icon_pelvic_thrust: "

"PS Vote for me and I will bring you NEW ICONS!"

Would the bill really needed to be passed by both houses, since it already passed the Senate and this is just an amendment?  I don't know how AZ's process works, but might it end up just being a conference committee to reconcile the different "versions" of the bill?

Quote from: Slanan on March 29, 2013, 03:56:14 PM
Would the bill really needed to be passed by both houses, since it already passed the Senate and this is just an amendment?  I don't know how AZ's process works, but might it end up just being a conference committee to reconcile the different "versions" of the bill?

It has yet to pass the Senate. It passed the committee in which the bill was created. It will move onto the House floor soon for a vote there.

Quote from: Slanan on March 29, 2013, 03:56:14 PM
Would the bill really needed to be passed by both houses, since it already passed the Senate and this is just an amendment?  I don't know how AZ's process works, but might it end up just being a conference committee to reconcile the different "versions" of the bill?

Both Houses must pass the identical version of the bill.

Speaking of bathrooms, this guy was elected by a margin of 10,000: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/jul/25/richard-floyd-deserves-reelection/ (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/jul/25/richard-floyd-deserves-reelection/)

IMO, it appears this is becoming a national issue. Not just some Arizona thing.

EDIT: In the primary, his opponent received 782 votes to his 7,862. Ironically, Brandon Teena's dream was to get to Nashville, where apparently stomping a trans person for using the bathroom gets you alot of votes. Stomping is his word not mine. He said it. he did receive some backlash but I consider 7,000 to 700 a landslide and huge endorsement for his views. For the record, he doesn't consider stomping a trans person to be violent and he is the victim of trans people.