 |
 |
Pro-family activism that makes a difference! | ||||
Massachusetts Legislature suddenly passes radical "transgender rights and hate crimes" bill. Senate uses voice vote to avoid roll call. Modified from original version but still outrageous.See below:
POSTED: Nov 17, 2011
|
In one of the sleaziest and underhanded moves imaginable the Massachusetts Legislature bowed to the demands of the homosexual/transgender lobby and raced through the passage of the radical and extremely controversial "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes" bill just before their two-month recess. In mere hours the bill went from committee release to re-write, to late-night House and early-morning Senate final passage. It passed the House 95-58. In a particularly cowardly fashion the Senate passed it by a voice vote, to avoid a roll call. |
|
The new bill is technically a subset of the original bill (H502) but still has the extremely radical elements which will seriously affect schools, the workplace, and society in general. And it's certain that subsequent "incremental" bills will appear to fill out the rest.
Its passage appears to be timed to coincide with "Transgender Awareness Week" this week. It was also conveniently timed right before the Wednesday night deadline when the Legislature closes for a two-month break until next year, to avoid immediate repercussions.
The bill updates numerous sections of Massachusetts Law (see below) to add the absurd concept of: "Gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth." It will ultimate affect just about all of society.
Passed lightning fast by putting aside normal legislative rules
Because of the controversial nature of this, the legislature passed it with as much non-transparency as possible. The process for its passage at the last minute was obviously meticulously well-planned to be under the radar and very fast -- bypassing just about all the normal legislative rules and without any substantial debate.
On Tuesday morning the bill was quietly released from the Judiciary Committee with an "ought to pass" rating. (In fact, late that day when we called the committee, the Senate Chairman's office told us it had not been released.) Usually, there will be a formal, public executive session for such a move. But according to State House News, the committee instead informally polled its members individually during the day on Monday. Thus, the actual decision was likely made by the committee chairmen, who were strong supporters of the bill.
The bill was re-written (also out of view of the public) to make it seem more palatable when it got to the full legislature, by removing the "public accommodation" language and "sex-segregated facilities" as well as the language regarding the Mass. Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth, and some other sections. It was re-submitted as H3810.
Late Tuesday night the House took up the bill. They immediately voted to suspend the normal rules of procedure. The leadership limited debate to approximately one hour and only allowed one amendment out of dozens offered. Just before 11:00 pm they quickly passed it 95-58. See the House roll call vote HERE.
Then early Wednesday morning the Senate met, similarly suspended the normal rules of procedure, and passed it by a cowardly voice vote to avoid recording their votes. The fix was in.
Democrat leaders in Legislature did work of homosexual lobby
Despite widespread objections across the state to further radicalizing our laws, the left-wing Democrat leadership of the Legislature, working closely with the homosexual/transgender lobby, made the decision to force it through. And their rank and file fell into line.
As the homosexual press gleefully reported:
"It's a good day," MassEquality Executive Director Kara Suffredini told Bay Windows on Wednesday, enumerating the allies in the House and Senate whose support was critical to the bill's passage.
Suffredini listed Reps. Carl Sciortino (D - Medford) and Byron Rushing (D - Boston); Sens. Sonia Chang-Diaz (D - Jamaica Plain) and Ben Downing (D - Pittsfield); House Speaker Robert DeLeo (D - Winthrop); Senate President Therese Murray (D - Plymouth); and House Chair of Judiciary Committee Eugene O'Flaherty (D - Chelsea) and Senate Chair of Judiciary Committee Cynthia Stone Creem (D - Newton).
Rep. Dan Winslow (R-Wrentham) was the only Republican voting for it. Winslow was Gov. Romney's Chief Legal Counsel who in 2004 facilitated "gay marriages" and was subsequently endorsed by the homosexual/transgender lobby when he ran for state representative.
 |
Angry transgender advocate. Sen. Cynthia Creem (D-Newton), the Senate Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, told a State House rally in 2010 that pro-family citizens who are uncomfortable with the Transgender Bill are ignorant haters, and need to "get over it." See our report and video of that event here. |
Not surprisingly, the passage was immediately cheered by the homosexual lobby and the general liberal media as a great leap for "civil rights" -- despite the "bigoted" efforts of the pro-family movement to stop it. (Even the conservative "Talk1200 Boston" radio news headlines referred to it as a "civil rights" bill.)
It's expected that the Governor -- a strong supporter of the homosexual and transgender movements -- will sign the bill within days. As this is being written the Legislature has not added an "emergency" clause to cause it to take effect immediately (instead of July 1, 2012).
The homosexual lobby's lightning-fast ability to get this bill out of committee and passed brings back the awful memory of their repeal of the "1913 Law" back in 2009. It also revealed the sleaziest imaginable behavior by the Massachusetts Legislature which the homosexuals knew how to play like a fiddle. Our movement must find a way to stop this in the future.
These men lobbied hard at the State House to get the Transgender Bill passed. |
|
|
Text & analysis of bill -- what it does and how it will effect us.
Here is the text of Bill 3810, just passed, and our analysis (in brackets):
An Act relative to gender identity. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
[Legal definition of 'gender identity.' This is an absurd, contorted definition, obviously created by activists, which defies biology and actual medical facts. It is also so broad that activists could easily manipulate it. The obvious problem is that "gender identity," objectively speaking, is science fiction. Also, the term "improper purpose" is not defined, making it virtually meaningless.] SECTION 2. Section 32 of chapter 22C of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word "gender", in line 12, the following words:- , gender identity. [Hate crimes. Adds "gender identity" to the state's hate crime statutes. Instructs police crime reporting units to include it, and gives the state broad powers to fine and imprison people who attempt to interfere with, or attempt to intimidate, people expressing their transgenderism.] SECTION 3. Section 89 of chapter 71 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word "sex", in lines 91 and 320, the following words:- , gender identity. [Charter schools. Forces charter schools to allow cross-dressing and other transgender behavior by students, and to include that in their published non-discrimination statement.] SECTION 4. Section 5 of chapter 76 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word "sex", in line 10, the following words:- , gender identity. [Public schools. Prohibits public schools from excluding or withholding any "advantages, privileges, and courses of study" to cross-dressing students. (This will likely be the basis for a flood of activism and/or lawsuits by homosexual/transgender groups if schools react negatively to these behaviors or programs promoting them.) Watch for GLSEN curriculum materials being forced on schools: i.e., "courses of study" and assigned reading on transgenderism.] SECTION 5. Section 12B of said chapter 76, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word "sex", in line 185, the following words:- , gender identity. [Public schools. When accepting non-resident students, public schools are prohibited from discriminating against cross-dressers, etc. (This will also likely be used by the homosexual/transgender lobby to their advantage, for example, encouraging a cross-dressing student to go to a neighboring district.)] SECTION 6. Section 3 of chapter 151B of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word "sex", in lines 17 and 61, the following words:- , gender identity . [Mass. Commission against Discrimination (MCAD). This adds transgenderism and cross-dressing to MCAD's required subjects of investigation and action. MCAD is a politically-correct tribunal that enforces (often in a draconian manner) the state's anti-discrimination laws on businesses, organizations, and individuals. It has the legal authority to investigate, subpoena, hold hearings, and impose fines and punishments, but without usual court procedures. MCAD has a troubling history of severely punishing businesses which react adversely to staged situations on their premises by activists meant to provoke them, such as homosexual "kiss-ins" in restaurants.] SECTION 7. Section 4 of said chapter 151B, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting in each instance after the word "sex", in lines 3, 69, 82, 87, 96, 103, 136, 163, 169, 179, 226, 233, 243, 339, 349, 353, 359, 485, 495, 505, 535, 661 and 670 the following words:- , gender identity. [Employment, commerce, government, etc. This adds "gender identity" to broad anti-discrimination statutes covering all businesses, non-profits, and labor unions, and also commercial transactions and advertisements regarding insurance and bonding, mortgage loans, real estate listings, renting, condominiums, apartments, commercial space, and much more. SECTION 8. Section 39 of chapter 265 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the words "sexual orientation", in line 4, the following words:- , gender identity. [Hate crimes - additional punishments regarding assaults. If an assault or battery of a person, or damages to real or personal property, is committed with the "intent" determined to intimidate because of "gender identity," there are stated fines (up to $5000) and/or jail time (2 ½ years). In addition, a conviction requires completion of a "diversity awareness program." SECTION 9. This act shall take effect on July 1, 2012 |
As you can see, the bill text itself merely lists sections of the law to be updated with a few phrases. That approach is often done purposely. Very few legislators, if any, actually take the time to look them up and think through what effect it will have.
What kinds of things will we be seeing? Is it still a "bathroom bill"?
We were never thrilled about the term "bathroom bill" because it was just a small part of the entire radical package. And thus, the bill's proponents were able to deflect it at the last minute by simply pulling out that explicit language. But it's still a very radical bill.
The homosexual/transgender lobby is publicly lamenting the removal of the "public accommodations" sections from the final bill. The final bill also removed the language regarding "lawfully sex-segregated facilities." However, this "victory" is illusionary, not to be taken seriously.
For the purposes of the homosexual activists, there was a lot of redundancy in the original bill. A careful reading of the statutes cited in the original bill reveal that more than one of them could ultimately be used to do the same thing. For example, although the public accomodation statutes were taken out, there was almost a complete overlap with the statutes left in the bill. For example, by including the scope of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) all businesses, public accommodations, locker rooms, and rest rooms are clearly affected -- probably even to a greater extent than under the public accommodation laws. And in our opinion, the specific "lawfully sex-segregated facility" language was already covered in other statutes, and listing that separately was probably a tactical error by the original bill's authors.
In addition, their strategy has always been to get a foot in the door and then work incrementally. So for anything they find out they missed, look for attempts of more tweaking and broadening of the law over time.
Remember the Peabody restaurant battle -- which we won?
In fact, we predict that the first thing you will see is the transgender activists coming into bars and restaurants and using their facilities -- including bathrooms -- to brashly flaunt their behavior, and challenging the management or other guests to react negatively in any way.
In 2010, Capone's Restaurant in Peabody tossed out a group of men dressed as women who were coming in, upsetting the customers, and using the women's restrooms. The transgender lobby tried to get the city to fine them for discrimination. But MassResistance organized a large public outcry and the city backed down, angering the transgender lobby. See our report here.
 |
This group of men converged on a the Capone's family restaurant to make their point. Now, the law will be on their side. |
When this law goes into effect all they have to do is call MCAD, and the restaurant could be liable for hundreds of dollars in fines and lawsuits, with additional punishments for patrons who "intimidate" them with their reactions.
Where do we go from here?
This is a terrible setback for the pro-family movement -- and civilized society. However, this forced change on our lives must continue to be fought and confronted.
In his famous "Letter from the Birmingham Jail" Martin Luther King wrote:
How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.
Forcing this bizarre and destructive behavior on everyone is universally unacceptable. We will continue to fight and confront this -- in the schools, in businesses, in government, and in the public forum. We cannot give up.
But also, we think this catastrophe could have been avoided. The pro-family movement did a terrible job attempting to stop this. Changes must be made. We'll discuss that further in an upcoming posting.
| Top |