Transphobic CA Group Targets Trans* I...

Transphobic CA Group Targets Trans* Inclusive Law

There are 28 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Aug 28, 2013, titled Transphobic CA Group Targets Trans* Inclusive Law. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

A coalition of transphobic groups are gearing up to put a referendum on the ballot to strike down a recent law benefiting trans* students in California

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#1 Aug 28, 2013
We are ALL different from one another.

I'll never understand why some people CANNOT "live and let live".

And btw, for a couple of DECADES, the LAW in New York has been that ANYONE can use ANY bathroom, regardless of how it is marked. I haven't heard any yelling about that over the years.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2 Aug 28, 2013
FTA: Perhaps it is time to get enough signatures together to put an end to the never ending referendum system in California.

I agree.

BTW They don't seem to be aware that in the early 1940's SCOTUS ruled that civil rights are covered under the 9th Amendment and ARE NOT subject to votes or elections. Petitions don't make illegal votes legal.

SCOTUS Majority opinion:

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3 Aug 28, 2013
DNF wrote:
FTA: Perhaps it is time to get enough signatures together to put an end to the never ending referendum system in California.
I agree.
BTW They don't seem to be aware that in the early 1940's SCOTUS ruled that civil rights are covered under the 9th Amendment and ARE NOT subject to votes or elections. Petitions don't make illegal votes legal.
SCOTUS Majority opinion:
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Ditto!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#4 Aug 28, 2013
D.C. limits their popular vote petitions, specifically placing equal rights and civil rights laws off limits to popular opinion. If Ca keeps the initiative system, they should make similar restrictions requiring equal treatment for all persons, as required by the Federal as well as State Constitutions.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#5 Aug 28, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
D.C. limits their popular vote petitions, specifically placing equal rights and civil rights laws off limits to popular opinion. If Ca keeps the initiative system, they should make similar restrictions requiring equal treatment for all persons, as required by the Federal as well as State Constitutions.
California needs to as well!!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#7 Aug 28, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
We are ALL different from one another.
I'll never understand why some people CANNOT "live and let live".
And btw, for a couple of DECADES, the LAW in New York has been that ANYONE can use ANY bathroom, regardless of how it is marked. I haven't heard any yelling about that over the years.
Me neither bro.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8 Aug 28, 2013
DNF wrote:
FTA: Perhaps it is time to get enough signatures together to put an end to the never ending referendum system in California.
I agree.
BTW They don't seem to be aware that in the early 1940's SCOTUS ruled that civil rights are covered under the 9th Amendment and ARE NOT subject to votes or elections. Petitions don't make illegal votes legal.
SCOTUS Majority opinion:
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Indeed.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#9 Aug 28, 2013
You gotta wonder about parents that can't potty train their own children well enough to teach them to lock the door!

Yet they want to decide what's best for the children of other people?

I see women bringing young boys into the ladies room all the time and Dads changing their baby daughters in Airport restrooms.

Guess those parents should be locked up!(NOT)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#10 Aug 29, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
California needs to as well!!!
When you gonna get it rolling, doll?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#11 Aug 29, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
California needs to as well!!!
I agree, but to do so would require amending the California Constitution, and it's doubtful that will happen in the near future.

Also, any move to amend the Cali constitution to eliminate these popular refernda and propositions will be seen as an attack on the freedoms of Californians and a seizing of power by the politicians. And Californians from all across the political spectrum are going to be against that.

So I don't think you will see an end to the propositions anytime in the near future.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#12 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
If Ca keeps the initiative system, they should make similar restrictions requiring equal treatment for all persons, as required by the Federal as well as State Constitutions.
What could be more equal than a law limiting ALL people that want to marry to a qualified opposite sex partner? If the law applies to EVERYONE it's equal. Anything else would require a special law.

The alternative would be to get government out of marriage altogether and do away with any and all regulation. Let anyone marry anything or anyone they want to.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#13 Aug 29, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
When you gonna get it rolling, doll?
I'll see what I need to do and get this going.....will you help?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#14 Aug 29, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
What could be more equal than a law limiting ALL people that want to marry to a qualified opposite sex partner? If the law applies to EVERYONE it's equal. Anything else would require a special law.
The alternative would be to get government out of marriage altogether and do away with any and all regulation. Let anyone marry anything or anyone they want to.
That's NOT equal....that's RESTRICTIVE!!!

Again, why should either a Gay man or Lesbian be required to marry someone of the opposite-sex just because you feel that's equal?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#15 Aug 29, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, but to do so would require amending the California Constitution, and it's doubtful that will happen in the near future.
Also, any move to amend the Cali constitution to eliminate these popular refernda and propositions will be seen as an attack on the freedoms of Californians and a seizing of power by the politicians. And Californians from all across the political spectrum are going to be against that.
So I don't think you will see an end to the propositions anytime in the near future.
Our State Constitution has been AMENDED over 500 times in our 150 year existence.......it's about time we STOP having these stupid Propositions on just about every election........and then even if they pass by the voter, they can be legally challenged and deemed unconstitutional......so, either they need to be gone altogether or they need to go through some sort of review process!!!

Frankly, what's the point of having legislators and a State governing system, if the initiative process can overturn and change things..........either you have one or the other!!!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#16 Aug 29, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
That's NOT equal....that's RESTRICTIVE!!!
Again, why should either a Gay man or Lesbian be required to marry someone of the opposite-sex just because you feel that's equal?
Regulations are restrictive, it's their nature.
Gays aren't required to get married at all.
Seems you favor the alternative, do away with all regulation and get government out of marriage altogether.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#17 Aug 29, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Regulations are restrictive, it's their nature.
Gays aren't required to get married at all.
Seems you favor the alternative, do away with all regulation and get government out of marriage altogether.
Sorry, but you'd be wrong......what I favor is allowing 2 consenting adults decide for themselves who they want to marry regardless of gender.

I mean you got to marry the person of your choosing and your wife got to marry the man of her choosing........so why should a Gay man get to marry the person of his choosing? or a Lesbian get to marry the person of her choosing?

See, I was given a right to marry the person of my choosing and I exercised that right, the same as my wife did......and here you are 9 years after Massachusetts still being p!ssed off that you can't do anything to change that which you don't like......it's sad that you want a society based totally on what you agree with, instead of a society that treats people equally who are of the age of consent!!!

By the way, straights AREN'T required to marry either, but we don't prevent them from marrying a total stranger, do we? We don't prevent registered sex offenders from marrying, do we? We also don't prevent registered sex offenders from having children, do we? Yet, here you are advocating that we continue to place restrictions on Gays and Lesbians just because WONDERING from Massachusetts DOESN'T like GAY MEN!!!

Get over yourself and move on........you don't have to continue to live in a Marriage Equality state......you can move to a place like Idaho that may be more to your liking seeing as the Aryan Nation basically reside in that State and they hate all the same type of folks you do!!!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#18 Aug 29, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Our State Constitution has been AMENDED over 500 times in our 150 year existence.......it's about time we STOP having these stupid Propositions on just about every election........and then even if they pass by the voter, they can be legally challenged and deemed unconstitutional......so, either they need to be gone altogether or they need to go through some sort of review process!!!
Frankly, what's the point of having legislators and a State governing system, if the initiative process can overturn and change things..........either you have one or the other!!!
I agree that having a referendum option runs counter to the idea of a legislature.

But the political reality is that since Cali HAS a referendum system, the citizens are just not going to want to give that up because it obviously empowers each citizen. As a general rule, people don't give up their political power willingly.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#19 Aug 29, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
What could be more equal than a law limiting ALL people that want to marry to a qualified opposite sex partner? If the law applies to EVERYONE it's equal. Anything else would require a special law.
The alternative would be to get government out of marriage altogether and do away with any and all regulation. Let anyone marry anything or anyone they want to.
How disingenuous.

You know the gender restriction only affects gay people, preventing them from enjoying the more than 1,138 rights and protections afforded opposite sex couples.

Restrictions on fundamental rights, to be valid, must provide some reasonable and compelling governmental interest. Gender restrictions provide no such interest, and you fail to offer any.

There is no way to get government out of the marriage business, even if you could convince a majority to give up the over 1,138 rights and protections they currently enjoy. Only the government can settle disputes over property, child custody, etc.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#20 Aug 29, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
How disingenuous.
You know the gender restriction only affects gay people, preventing them from enjoying the more than 1,138 rights and protections afforded opposite sex couples.
Restrictions on fundamental rights, to be valid, must provide some reasonable and compelling governmental interest. Gender restrictions provide no such interest, and you fail to offer any.
There is no way to get government out of the marriage business, even if you could convince a majority to give up the over 1,138 rights and protections they currently enjoy. Only the government can settle disputes over property, child custody, etc.
"Only the government can settle disputes over property, child custody, etc" ?!

Obviously, you've never heard of a .44 magnum or a Sharps big bore carbine !

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#21 Aug 29, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, but to do so would require amending the California Constitution, and it's doubtful that will happen in the near future.
Also, any move to amend the Cali constitution to eliminate these popular refernda and propositions will be seen as an attack on the freedoms of Californians and a seizing of power by the politicians. And Californians from all across the political spectrum are going to be against that.
So I don't think you will see an end to the propositions anytime in the near future.
On the issues of Rights, not as much opposition as you might think.

The wording will be crucial.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 8 min Get Real 9,798
News Michigan sued after gay couples are rejected fo... 24 min Clark 15
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 35 min cowboy chris 7
News Worker fired for same sex 'No' vote hits out 1 hr Wondering 12
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Wondering 56,039
News Brazil judge rules homosexuality a disease, app... 1 hr Dallas 4
News Gay teen against same-sex marriage heckled at u... 1 hr Clark 4
News Anti-Gay Obama Graffiti Vandal to Spend 90 Days... 3 hr Imprtnrd 16
News Four Men Plead Guilty to Federal Hate Crime Cha... 23 hr Gremlin 2
More from around the web