Same Sex Marriage May Become Legal...Next up—Transgenders

With same sex-marriage much in the news, how is your representative voting and have we missed something in the debate?

Mainstream media has reported that one of the latest Republicans to announce support for recognizing gay marriage (Senate Bill 6239) is Glenn Anderson (Fall City - King County). While Anderson explains his rationale at some length, there are a couple of reasons to believe Anderson is little more than an argument ad populum. Anderson is, after all, a candidate for lieutenant governor.

Announcing that he has "investigated the relevant criteria defining marriage," Anderson concludes that the "primary purpose of civil marriage remains to provide a neutral and secular foundation for social order and an orderly transfer of property rights."

Transgenders can do that.

Tricia Romano reports Time magazine predicted just last month that transgender people's legal issues to be the next big civil-rights frontier. And why not? The same premise Anderson uses to defend same sex marriage — that of an "underlying genetic predisposition" — is promulgated by the trans trenders likewise seeking to establish their own gender identity.

Besides the sadly typical political weather vane approach to lawmaking — as one congressional candidate told me: "sometimes you have to sacrifice principle to get elected" (he lost) — Anderson says he's checked the ancient historical record on marriage but in the process has overlooked some of the more recent trends.

Anderson writes, "little change has occurred in the traditional definition of civil marriage until California authorized no-fault divorce in 1962." Yes. And then what happened?  "No-fault divorce," writes Jim Daly of Focus on the Family, "promised to simplify, streamline and decrease the contentiousness surrounding marital breakup.  Instead it only encouraged struggling spouses to throw in the towel.  Fathers abandoned their families in droves.  Poverty levels sky-rocketed.  Prison populations increased to dramatic levels, a consequence of kids now growing up without fathers in the home."

Anderson ignores yet another trend when he writes, "Finally, we must ask what the federal judicial criteria for constitutional 'equal protection under law' is related to our constitution."  Yes, let's do that shall we?  What constitutional and judicial protections are there for the unborn?  In 1973 the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states.  "Supporters," writes Daly, "heralded a new era of responsibility, where every child would be a wanted child.  Tragically, over 48 million babies have now been aborted and the beauty of life has been cheapened as a result, while child abuse has sky-rocketed."

This is the court, trumpted by Anderson, of which Romano writes that "last month ruled in favor of Vandiver Elizabeth Glenn, who was fired from her job after coming out as transgender."

Taking their cue from such legislative endorsements as Anderson's for gays and lesbians, transgenders are now strutting their stuff.  With Romano's revelation of "trans supermodels walk(ing) the runways; news stories pop(ing) up every day about transgender rights being trampled on; and people like Chaz Bono outed as a lesbian by the National Enquirer in 1990" there is reason to believe that Anderson's 'research' is not a little affected by "the whole celebrity media and tabloid culture kicking into gear."

Romano observes, "While it has been 15 years and counting since Ellen DeGeneres came out on the cover of Time, helping people start to come around to concepts like gay marriage and gays in the military, trans awareness has grown exponentially through the Internet's connectedness."

When trend-setters determine truth, we're in trouble.  

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Joseph Pominville February 15, 2012 at 04:13 AM
wow, next thing you know, someone with gender issues will be infringing on your right to be a right wing bigot. It will be a good day when history shines a bit of light on your politics of hate. Have you any idea of the problems these people face? What would Jesus do? Deny equal rights? Make these folks social outcasts? Make them feel guilty about what they truly feel? You sir, are the kind of people religion should rebel against. The people who only recognize the narrow view of humanity that you have.
David Anderson February 15, 2012 at 04:21 PM
I doubt that name-calling helps your cause Joseph. In the article I wrote “Next up – Transgenders” I challenge you to connect the dots, check the slope, and convince me we’re not going downhill. “We are debating whether our government should redefine the millennia old definition of marriage, pretend there is no difference between men and women, and bring the force of state government to bear on those who disagree. Unless you open up every conceivable relationship, the government would still be in the position of preferring some relationships over others” – Family Policy Institute.
Joseph Pominville February 16, 2012 at 02:22 AM
David, Its my "cause" to help people that are downtrodden. That are treated like 2nd class citizens by the very government that collects thier hard earned wages and sends these people to fight wars and possibly die for their country. I served for many years with many dedicated people in the service, some of them were homosexual. All of them are heros in my eyes. Its not downwards progress to encourage an open mind when dealing with things we dont understand. Our founding fathers separated church and state for this reason. To ensure that all American citizens enjoy the same rights under law, no matter what religion they are, or what religion that objects to thier very exsistance. What would Jesus do? Not John, not the pope, just Jesus? What possible harm could come to you from someone of the same sex having the same economic rights you enjoy? I will stand by any person that pays thier taxes, obeys the law and works to better thier community, you included, David
David Anderson February 16, 2012 at 02:45 AM
“What possible harm could come to you” is the question to which I answer as you did – it’s about your community, your country – not me. It’s not about me, anymore than it’s about you. It’s about the values and beliefs upon which our country was built and for which many have died. The trend of our culture in just the last thirty years or so, with regards marriage, has indeed deteriorated. Significantly. No-fault divorce, abortion; same-sex marriage, and transgenders advocating for similar “gains” as achieved by the redefinition of marriage – in that order - are all indicators of the demise of the family. Prove me otherwise.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »