ERA

[All-American]

There was a mention of the ERA in one of the other threads. I came across this bit and thought it worthy of mention.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/03/th...issue?lang=eng

Interestingly, one of the driving forces behind the LDS Church's opposition to the ERA was the possibility of homosexual marriage.

[Viking]

There was a mention of the ERA in one of the other threads. I came across this bit and thought it worthy of mention.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/03/th...issue?lang=eng

Interestingly, one of the driving forces behind the LDS Church's opposition to the ERA was the possibility of homosexual marriage.

Someone I know briefed the 1st pres on the legal/constitutional aspects for that.

[doctorcoug]

Someone I know briefed the 1st pres on the legal/constitutional aspects for that.

Ugh

[RobinFinderson]

Interesting. Here is a quote from the bullet point about 'homosexual marriage:

Passage of the ERA would carry with it the risk of extending constitutional protection to immoral same-sex—lesbian and homosexual—marriages. The argument of a homosexual male, for example, would be: “If a woman can legally marry a man, then equal treatment demands that I be allowed to do the same.” Under the ERA, states could be forced to legally recognize and protect such marriages. A result would be that any children brought to such a marriage by either partner or adopted by the couple could legally be raised in a homosexual home. While it cannot be stated with certainty whether this or any other consequence will result from the vague language of the amendment, the possibility cannot be avoided.

The part in bold is interesting, because it anticipates the equal protection argument that is currently being used to 'jam gay marriage down our throats' (thanks for that imagery, conservative CUFfers).

[Moliere]

The city of Houston (not me since I don't reside there) is voting on an equal rights bill called HERO (Houston Equal Rights Ordinance). I'll admit to not reading the text of the legistlation, but I know enough about it that I would support it. It contains an exemption for religious entities, and in fact protects people of all religions from discrimination based on their religion. It seems like a good bill and not too much different than what passed in Utah a while back.

So what is the argument against it? It seems that the biggest (or maybe loudest) argument against it is that it will allow sexual predators to go into the bathroom of the opposite sex because they can just say they are queer or transgender or whatnot and no one can tell them they can't do that. Yeah, that's the argument against it. I think once your argument becomes that assinine you've effectively jumped the shark...and of course Gov Abbott is against it. Here's his tweet:

Embedded Tweet

And of course the religious right is against it....as is Lance Berkman.

[Moliere]

12208488_1001184899931866_2016108580325834475_n.jpg

[old_gregg]

[ATTACH]6407[/ATTACH]

or a janitor

[Bo Diddley]

The city of Houston (not me since I don't reside there) is voting on an equal rights bill called HERO (Houston Equal Rights Ordinance). I'll admit to not reading the text of the legistlation, but I know enough about it that I would support it. It contains an exemption for religious entities, and in fact protects people of all religions from discrimination based on their religion. It seems like a good bill and not too much different than what passed in Utah a while back.

So what is the argument against it? It seems that the biggest (or maybe loudest) argument against it is that it will allow sexual predators to go into the bathroom of the opposite sex because they can just say they are queer or transgender or whatnot and no one can tell them they can't do that. Yeah, that's the argument against it. I think once your argument becomes that assinine you've effectively jumped the shark...and of course Gov Abbott is against it. Here's his tweet:

Embedded Tweet

And of course the religious right is against it....as is Lance Berkman.

Seems unnecessary at the city level. Isn't that really something the state should be regulating?

[Moliere]

Seems unnecessary at the city level. Isn't that really something the state should be regulating?

The state of Texas would never pass something like this. The urban areas are the only places it could pass. Our lesbian, democrat mayor is the spawn of Satan for this...at least according to the local pastors.

[Topper]

The state of Texas would never pass something like this. The urban areas are the only places it could pass. Our lesbian, democrat mayor is the spawn of Satan for this...at least according to the local pastors.

The weird aspect of this is the absolute insignificance of "transgenders" in terms of numbers. I have done some random speculation and the numbers of transgenders are mind-boggling small, although the article below suggests a larger number than seems correct. Why pass ordinances for something so infrequent? Very strange how politics works.

This article suggests that 0.3% of the population is transgender. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/up...opulation.html

It is unclear if a person must actually undergo surgery or merely identify with the opposite sex to be so classified.

[Nakoma]

The state of Texas would never pass something like this. The urban areas are the only places it could pass. Our lesbian, democrat mayor is the spawn of Satan for this...at least according to the local pastors.

Apparently, Houstonians don't want men using women's bathrooms. What a bunch of rednecks! I thought Houston was progressive. Guess not.

http://www.khou.com/story/news/polit...ance/75125446/

[Nakoma]

Houston needs this federal fix.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...102-story.html

[BigFatMeanie]

"This was a campaign of fear-mongering and deliberate lies," Houston Mayor Annise Parker said. "No one's rights should be subject to a popular vote."

...

"This will have stained Houston's reputation as a tolerant, welcoming global city," Mayor Parker said. "I absolutely fear there will be a direct economic backlash."