Pinch me, I must be dreaming!
Last night, the Connecticut State Senate passed the transgender anti-discrimination bill. Next the bill goes to the Governor; he promised that he would sign the bill, so it is a done deal and will take effect October 1.
The bill outlaws discrimination on the basis of gender identity in housing, employment and most public accommodations (including bathrooms). You can read all about it here: The Connecticut Mirror
I wish I could say I did my part to pass this bill. I lobbied my state representative and state senator, but they are tea baggers and voted against the bill. I will be sending them follow-up letters later today informing them that since they voted against me, I will be voting against them when they run for reelection.
Nevertheless, it is a great day to be transgender in the Constitution State!
My hearty congratulations to the people of Connecticut! Great news! Pray that New York State will follow suit soon.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to get someone elected/unelected, work a precinct by knocking on doors and talking to the residents, handing out flyers etc. It really works. Just voting for/against is only one vote. You might just be the spark to change someone's mind.
ReplyDeleteIf you feel comfortable, do it en femme.
It was a long six year battle, but we did it!!!!
ReplyDeleteI'm still coming down from all the emotions. I think I used up every adverb in the dictionary to describe my feelings.
Now what windmill can we tilt?
This is such wonderful news! Congrats to us all in CT......... and inspiration to everone else in the United States!!
ReplyDeletedeborah
Massachusetts next. You Ct. girls and boys did it right!
ReplyDeleteCongratulations,
Huggles,
Tanya
it does sort of bother me that you spew hate from your lips while writing about something so positive.
ReplyDelete"they are tea baggers"
I happen to agree with the Tea Party's message about being taxed too much but of course I disagree on all the religious overtones that are associated with it.
Anonymous --- I'll stop calling them "tea baggers" when they stop calling it "Obamacare."
ReplyDeleteAn interesting article with confusing quotes from the newspaper writer, the legislators and the commenters. It seems that there was significant Republican support for the general purpose of the bill but a good faith lack of understanding for the 'bathroom' issue.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that folks define the 'bathroom' issue in ways that suit their own agenda. If a man were to present in a cheap wig and dress and lousy makeup that did not hide his beard and lurked in a ladies room for purposes of committing an assault on a woman there are already statutues dealing with unlawful assault and this legislation would not excuse someone committing the crime of assault. I think this is clear. I tend to not like a lot of the 'hate crime' legislation for the discriminatory effect that such anti-discrimination legislation tends to have. If the penalty for assault or murder is not strong enough then that needs addressing rather than augmenting the crime if someone utters a perjorative during its commission.
Where things get muddy is a situation where if a mother and her young daughter were using a ladies room and I were to enter dressed as nicely as possible, presenting no threat whatsoever, would they be made to feel uncomfortable in my presense?
Does my right to dress as a woman or to use the ladies room even if dressed as a man intrude on their rights to privacy and the feeling of safety that they would otherwise have in a ladies room? I am not sure I know the answer.
I do not equate the Rachel Maddow sexual perjorative of "teabagger" with more reasonable political commentary such as Obamacare, Romneycare, Mediscare or even Weinergate. It seems to me that name calling is a poor substitute for informed political argument. There are multiple Tea Party organizations and a large number of people who believe in some of the primary objectives of the Tea Party concept. For most Tea Party supporters their impetus relates primarily to taxes and the unbridled growth of the federal government. To put your local legislators into the 'teabagger' group because they see things differently than you do seems to be as big a mis-use of terminology as the concept of 'one-size fits all pantyhose'.
It is sad that there is even the need for legislation to compel one person to treat another one civilly and with respect. I do think that there was a lot of merit in Jefferson's concept of limited government or in James Buckley's writings that if men were angels we would not need governments.
Pat
Well said!
ReplyDeleteWell said....agreed!
ReplyDelete