This is the first of two bills which the Maryland General Assembly is attempting to pass that would represent an erosion of respect for human sexuality and disregard for our society's foundational relationship. Please help to fight it.
According to the Maryland Catholic Conference (MCC):
Senate Bill 566 is a transgender rights bill that would codify in law a distinction between one's "gender identity" and one's "assigned sex at birth." The bill is well intentioned and the Church respects the dignity of each individual. However, such a distinction manifests an egregious violation of our society's basic understanding of the human person, and the natural complementarity of the sexes. As written, the bill does not include protections for religious institutions, which would be required to comply with the employment and other provisions of the bill in regards to transgendered individuals.
My only gripe I have with the Maryland Catholic Conference (MCC) on this is: Where the heck were they when we were fighting this in Montgomery County? They were AWOL.
++++
Stop Obama at Notre Dame. Click here to find out how.
4 comments:
The trouble is, that such a distinction exists in reality for a small minority of people.
The bill is about making persecution on the basis of a biological condition illegal.
I know it's confusing and unsettling for many to think about this, but Intersexed people exist, and the evidence we have now is overwhelming that transsexuality is an Intersex condition.
Washington DC has had laws against such persecution for how long? And Montgomery county for over a year now. So... what harm has been caused by these laws? If I remember correctly, one politician said "Wait until little girls start showing up dead all over the county because of freaks of nature."
So has this happened?
The MCC might like to check with a canon lawyer on Vatican policy here too. Because if, as seems probable, transsexuality does have a biological basis, then treating it is not only licit but morally imperative. And persecuting those who have it merely because they make others uncomfortable is a sin.
"our society's foundational relationship"?
"our society's basic understanding of the human person, and the natural complementarity of the sexes"?
Let me translate: "My religion's particular set of theologically-based prejudices."
Your hubris knows no bounds. Apparently, you've convinced yourself that you're entitled to "protections for religious institutions," which you believe "would be required to comply with the employment and other provisions of the bill in regards to transgendered individuals."
? Your religion tells you to discriminate because according to your scripture your god considers someone else's personal behavior an "abomination." Is that why you think you're entitled to an exemption from a law that mandates fair treatment for everyone?
That's your morality -- not mine, and not society's either. The Establishment clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits government from importing religious beliefs into the public sphere. The Free Exercise clause allows you practice your religion freely. You've even been given license to discriminate within the confines of your church but no further but that's only a practical political accommodation to a perception of your political power. It is not law.
There's no real difference between what you are trying to do and the Taliban's medieval morality under which they whip women for stepping outside without a man's permission. A pox on both of you.
So stop worrying about your immortal soul. Keep up this attempt to influence secular legal matters and you can start worrying about your tax deductibility of contributions made to your church.
To Anon:
I find your note quite interesting.
You want me to check my beliefs at the door of my Church when I leave but believe that your beliefs should guide everyone. Is that fair? Is that just?
Comparing me to the Taliban is really not a good comparison. Although I believe that certain lifestyles are immoral, I (and my faith) also don't believe in putting them in the town square and stoning them to death -- which they did on a number of occassions.
Concerning fair treatment...I guess someone who is convicted of child molesting or child porn should therefore be allowed to work in a child care center? Or maybe someone who as abused dogs be allowed to work for the local pound?
The Constitution and Bill of Rights does not allow for the establishment of a state religion but does take many concepts from religous faith. Many local laws do the same. For example, murder -- the killing of someone else "Thou Shall Not Kill" -- is found as immoral in many religous faiths, so based on your logic, should laws based on killing one another be removed? How about "Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Goods" -- stealing. Should we eliminate all laws on stealing?
Finally, all of us discriminate each and every day -- you do too. You make a choice on who to associate with and not to associate with...don't you? You make decisions to eat a burger from McDonald's vs. Burger Kind? Don't you. That is discrimination.
I think you have readers that prowl Catholic bloggs with the intention of intimidating the author. There is a certain familiar ring to the previous "anonymous". How tedious when being a bully passes for intelligence.
Post a Comment