Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » SMEAR THE QUEER
  • SMEAR THE QUEER

    Filed at 7:11 am under by dcobranchi

    Such a lovely Op/Ed in my paper today. Bullying is bad, but it just might be okay to beat up some gays and cross-dressers:

    Such is very much the case with House Bill 1366 — School Violence Prevention Act, legislation sponsored by Rep. Rick Glazier, a Cumberland County Democrat. The measure would require that public schools in North Carolina adopt policies to address the problems of bullying. But it is the enumerations of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression” included in the bill’s definition of bullying that are problematic.

    Certainly, no reasonable individual would want to be complicit with bullying for any reason. At least this is what the Senate thought and stripped away all of the enumerations from the House version of the bill and sent it back to that chamber for concurrence. Nevertheless, the House voted not to concur by a 60-56 margin and Rep. Glazier vowed to get the objectionable language of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression” placed back in the legislation.

    The fact of the matter is no enumerations could cover all the bullying scenarios and none are needed to provide the essential protections for North Carolina’s children.

    The fact of the matter is that the enumerations were stripped out of the bill SOLELY because they listed the two “objectionable” categories. If the House hadn’t included those two terms, the bill sails through the Senate unopposed.

    So why insist on enumerations in the legislation? It is because there really is a hidden agenda by pro-homosexual influences.

    You would think that after all these years of being outed by ignorant fundamentalist wackos, the “hidden agenda” would no longer be hidden.

    The evil of this legislation is that it elevates “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression” to the same levels with the enumerations of “race, color, ancestry, national origin, gender, physical appearance, mental, physical or sensory disability,” which clearly are immutable or unchangeable characteristics. Yet homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender, cross-dressing and other alternate sexual behaviors are not immutable or unchangeable.

    Moreover, it would equate what is sexually perverse with the sacred — religion — which, generally speaking, defines such behaviors as immoral. What better way to negate the two strongest voices of criticism against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender behavior in society than to elevate an individual’s sexual preference to the same level as immutable characteristics and religion and by statute say it deserves the same recognition and protection?

    Religion is sacred?! Sacredieu! And I’m pretty sure a few of those “immutable characteristics” can certainly change over the course of months or years.

    Rep. Glazier, however, continues to argue the list is only necessary to protect “the most vulnerable populations.” He says the inclusion of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression” is needed so that school administrators can “teach and train” students about their prejudices and biases.

    Nice straw man, there.

    Ahhh, but there is the wolf in sheep’s clothing, is it not? If this legislation should pass, it would essentially require North Carolina public schools to teach that these behaviors are normal and perfectly acceptable. Students would be taught that alternate sexual behaviors are like race, color, ancestry — something a person can’t change — and like religion — something to be revered. And the premise for this teaching and training of students would be the law itself.

    And, wonder of wonders, the straw man is knocked down.

    How clever! This bill is not so much about protecting “all of God’s children,” as Rep. Glazier has framed it, but it’s actually a backdoor approach to the indoctrination of North Carolina’s children with homosexual ideology. Moreover, it would create a domino effect that not only impacts education, but also employment, housing, anti-discrimination laws and potentially North Carolina’s marriage statutes since the state doesn’t define marriage in its Constitution.

    And straight onto the slippery slope. Could this guy use any more bad argumentation in a single column?

    The Rev. Mark H. Creech is executive director of the Raleigh-based Christian Action League of North Carolina.

    Figures.

    4 Responses to “SMEAR THE QUEER”


    Comment by
    Karen
    July 16th, 2008
    at 10:49 am

    Was religion one of the original ennumerated protected classes? It’s implied, but never stated.

    I find using the argument that the reason sexuality shouldn’t be protected because it is not immutable from this yahoo interesting. It seems to me that his religion is all about its mutability – people have to make a choice to be saved in most if not all of the fundy sects. No one is born Christian. Clearly a change is necessary even in those sects that allow infant baptism. Not to mention that doing big wrongs can cause your church to take away your religion. By his own argument, religion must be excluded from any protections under this bill.


    Comment by
    Lisa Giebitz
    July 16th, 2008
    at 11:05 am

    You know, it’s estimated that up to 50% of transgender people attempt suicide by the age of 30. Why? Because of the constant and unmitigated hatred that is heaped upon them when they’re ‘out’. Almost every account I’ve read and every person I’ve ever talked to whose transgender has at least one harassment story (usually more), many can tell you about being assaulted (usually more than once). When they’re not out, it’s so, so painful. Pretending to be something you’re not, keeping hidden something so fundamental to your identity. Some decide if they can’t live as they need to in order to be happy (or just not in as much dissonance), then it’s not worth living.

    RELIGION DOES NOT TRUMP SOMEONE’S RIGHT TO LIVE.


    Comment by
    Traci
    July 16th, 2008
    at 11:12 am

    OMG! Or should I say OMFSM?


    Comment by
    AztecQueen2000
    July 16th, 2008
    at 12:04 pm

    The only religions that teach that homosexuality is perversion, at least to my knowledge, are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Moreover, Judaism equated homosexuality with eating shrimp (both are described as “abominations” in the Book of Leviticus.)
    A lot of these “Christian” idiots better check their Bibles before spouting off and revealing their ignorance.