Defenders of traditional marriage say that preserving traditional marriage as the only form of civil marriage does not deny anyone their “right to marry,” because all adults may marry, provided that they marry someone of the opposite sex. This argument is rejected by “gay rights” proponents, however those same activists will sometimes use the same logic when it comes to public restrooms.
Consider the case of Colleen Francis, a male who chose to live as a woman and who was caught exposing himself to young girls in a woman’s locker room at Evergreen State College. I suppose it was fear that prompted the university and civil authorities to respond as they did.
Students from nearby Olympia High School as well as children at a local swimming club share locker rooms with the college.
According to a police report, the mother of a 17-year-old girl complained after her daughter saw the transgender individual walking naked in the locker room. A female swim coach confronted the man sprawled out in a sauna exposing himself. She ordered him to leave and called police.
The coach later apologized when she discovered the man was transgendered but explained there were girls using the facility as young as six years old who weren’t used to seeing male genitals.
“They’re uncomfortable with him being in there, her, being in there and are shocked by it,” parent Kristi Holterman told KIRO-TV.
According to the police report, the local district attorney probably will not pursue charges because he said the “criminal law is very vague in this area.”
Can’t you just hear “gay rights” activists saying, “Who are you to ‘judge’ this man?”
This case has prompted what is known as a “Colleen Francis” clause in ordinances related to discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” One such clause was adopted by city commissioners in Helena, Montana. This remark about the clause from a “gay rights” blog called Gender Trender caught my eye.
All males have a right to use facilities based on anatomical sex. What they wear, or how they think of themselves should have no bearing on this.
Do you see that? This is an admission that forcing a “transgendered” man not to use a women’s restroom is not denying him the right to use facilities. Forcing him to go to the men’s restroom preserves his right to use public facilities.
Funny how they will not accept this same reasoning when it comes to marriage. If it is not denying anyone’s rights by forcing them to use the restroom appropriate for their anatomy, then neither is it denying anyone’s rights by requiring that if they get married that it be to someone of the opposite sex.
It’s the very same logic.
Hat-tip, J. Matt Barber, A Politically Incorrect Guide to ‘Sexual Identity,’ CNSnews.com