Saturday, December 01, 2007

CRC Pushing Referendum

The Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum now are trying to gear up for a referendum to allow discrimination against transgender people. You wonder what drives them, don't you? Today they sent out a long email trying to get people to sign their petition to overturn bill 23-07.

They are trying to turn this into a bill about bathrooms. It is scary to think of perverted men going into ladies restrooms, so, even though the bill doesn't have anything to do with that, they are going to use that to get signatures on their petition.

Q: How many stupid people are there in Mongtomery County? A: Let me see those petitions and I'll tell you.

Look, either you're on their mailing list or you're not. I seem to be on it under several names, whatever, I have to keep track of their nuttiness, hopefully you don't. Plus people send these things to me, and by the way I thank you for that, don't stop. If you're on their list, you know what they're saying. If you're not on their list, there's probably a reason for that, and I'm not going to copy and paste this whole thing for you.

But I found it intriguing to see the approach they used:
FOLKS, THIS IS A POWER TO THE PEOPLE MOMENT!!!


The legislative and executive branches of Montgomery County have failed miserably in their duties to use their power wisely. As you know, Bill 23-07 passed effortlessly. It requires that we citizens accept men dressed as women as normal, even in women’s restrooms, showers, and locker rooms in public accommodations ...

And so on.

You see, they're going to try to upset people about men lurking in ladies rooms, whatever, I don't think people are really that going to sign this, but I am cynical enough to be open to surprise. They need 25,000 valid signatures to put this on the ballot.

Will people sign a petition to keep men out of the ladies room? Probably.

Will people sign a petition to make discrimination against transgender people legal? I doubt it.

Though, of course, that's what the bill is actually about.

Let me go back to that "power to the people" thing. Look, I'm old enough to remember the sixties, I remember "power to the people." Man, this would make some of those old-time guys -- John Lennon made a record called that -- roll over in their graves, to see that their slogan has been appropriated in the name of this kind of ugliness. I suppose a referendum gives power to the people, but still ... are we going to see the CRC amassed in the streets (all six of them), chanting "Hell No, We Won't Go," pumping their fists in the air? Are they going to start burning their bras in protest of bill 23-07? Actually, I think I'd want to see that. I can see them with their yellow signs, singing, "One two three four, what are we fighting for," as they pass anti-transgender fliers out to puzzled-looking people in some public place.

The Fish Cheer. What do you think? Inappropriate for this? It's hard to tell if anything is out of bounds for them.

There is one line in this email that I want to show you. Here's what it's all about, for them:
... Thanks to the passage of bill 23-07, they must absolutely consider transgenders, cross dressers and transvestites as hires if they have the job’s qualifications, even though they may find hiring such a person is contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs.

I'm a little naive here, I was raised Presbyterian, we were kind of low-key, we just sang Bible songs and learned about Jesus and stuff. But will someone please put something in the comments that indicates what religion has the "deeply held belief" that it's necessary to discriminate against transgender people?

Here's their nightmare: a person is qualified for a job, and you can't not-hire them. Woo, that's scary. They'll get a lot of signatures for that one, I'll just betcha.

I'll tell you what, I'll toss them a hanging change-up, right over the plate, and I'll have the catcher tell them it's coming. Here, swing at this one: what religion has the deeply held belief that men have to use a different bathroom from women?

I'm guessing someone will find something in Leviticus about unclean women bathing downstream or something. Go ahead, show it to us. And explain how "deeply held" your belief in that particular rule is.

Well, here we go, they're off. They say they need 25,000 valid signatures. Well, there are nearly a million people in this county, it might happen. I'm too old and cynical to expect people to be reasonable every minute of the day.

Mainly it will depend on the news media. The number of signatures will correlate precisely with the number of times the news shows and newspapers mention men in ladies rooms when they talk about this story, and it will correlate inversely with the number of times the press mentions what the bill is actually about, which is discrimination against transgender people. How will the press handle this? I wouldn't try to predict. So far most of them have been pretty good. And, by the way, it's no good to mention that men won't lurk around ladies rooms -- you're still talking about men in ladies rooms, and that's a red herring. That's like a story saying Trent Lott didn't resign because of ... the stuff that turned out not to be true.

Will the referendum pass?

Not a chance.

18 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's the most telling part of the CRC's email:

Our core group of 40

The leadership of this group of 40 folks decided long ago that:

"This board is NOT going to recant anything because of "supplicant" appeals to listen to our position. The only thing that is going to get their complete attention is:

1. Continuing outrage streaming in to their castle headquarters
2. John Garza proceeding immediatley with his lawsuit. (Lawsuits tend to get peoples attention - merit or no merit because it forces them to deal with their legal team on a continuing basis)
3. 50,000 plus signatures between the paper petition and the on-line petition.
4. Tabulation of all the outrageous things said about us and this issue, and posted on both web sites.
5. Massive email campaign to inform and INFLAME.

In other words, aggressive tactics.

[Date=01-13-2005] Name:ADMINISTRATOR support@recallmontgomeryschoolboard.com, [Msgid=763681]"


These losers have already cost Montgomery County tens of thousands of dollars on their hissy fit. ENOUGH! IMHO the CRC should work on something worthwhile, like helping the community instead of hurting it with non-meritorious lawsuits, outrage streaming, and activly working to INFLAME the public.

December 01, 2007 11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"4. Tabulation of all the outrageous things said about us and this issue, and posted on both web sites."
--
The CRC wants taxpayer funding in order to take up an entire semester to teach the phrase "just say no."

OMGosh, I certainly hope they don't "tabulate" that outrageous thing that I just said..

December 01, 2007 12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

5. Massive email campaign to inform and INFLAME.

In the general theme of inflaming (I myself try not to inflame, but just to flame), PFOX sent out on their email list (of which I am a member, much to my surprise and dismay) an article from NARTH equating being gay with molesting small children. Do they not recognize this as naked bigotry? I think they really believe it. In places such as MC and FFX, though, I think our public officials see it for what it is.

Robert

December 01, 2007 4:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

andrea- not anon
Does the "core group of 40" include the multiple personalities9Retta/bianca/precious) and imaginary members? Their earlier push got 400 calls/e:mails from residents and I would bet that in most cases, these were several from the same family.

December 01, 2007 5:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Mainly it will depend on the news media. The number of signatures will correlate precisely with the number of times the news shows and newspapers mention men in ladies rooms when they talk about this story, and it will correlate inversely with the number of times the press mentions what the bill is actually about, which is discrimination against transgender people."

Hey, why don't you throw a real hanging curve and have your plant on the Council introduce an amendment to the bill that it should not be interpreted to give anyone access to a restroom contrary to the wishes of the restroom owner.

Since that's not what the bill's about, it shouldn't matter anyway.

But, really, isn't that one of the many things the bill is about? Tell the truth. Come on....

December 01, 2007 11:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not a bill anymore, dim jimi. Ike signed it so it's a law. Want to pass amendments to it? Find an elected official who agrees with you and maybe you'll get one discussed and voted on. Of course if the amendment is to allow discrimination against transgender people, don't expect any MoCo elected officials to vote for it. They know how widespread support for non-discrimination laws is around here, in spite of the noise your 40 homophobes have been making.

December 02, 2007 7:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey EA

I was just suggesting a tactic to you kids to help you prevent getting the thing thrown out by referendum. An amendment to clear up that the restroom issue is not part of the bill.

From your reaction, I'm going to assume that CRC is telling the truth and the restroom issue is part of the bill. Contrary to what Jim says, that is "what it's about".

Thanks for clearing that up. That's very helpful.

December 02, 2007 8:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My "reaction" today could not the basis for you assuming the CRC's lies are true for the past several weeks. You are a liar. But we already knew that about you so there's no need to thank you for clearing that up, again.

The new law is about non-discrimination. "Restroom owners" should allow all their patrons equal access to the bathroom that matches the patron's gender identity.

December 02, 2007 8:50 AM  
Blogger Tish said...

I found this paragraph of the falling-sky email to be particularly creepy:
The legislation adds ‘gender identity’ to the list of classes protected by the Human Rights Act of the Montgomery County Code. The code clearly states that public accommodations include restrooms, showers, and locker rooms. Since no anti-discrimination code could allow a return to Jim Crow times when bathrooms were segregated by race, how likely is it that an operator would prevail before a judge in attempting to keep a transgender from using a sex-segregated facility?

CRC is upset about the end of Jim Crow, right? And they are saying basically, that no judge is going to give them back their "no-blacks" bathrooms, right? So that's why they are afraid! It's not that the law will make them share bathrooms with people they don't like, it's that the law will make them share the bathrooms with more people they don't like.

CRC recognizes that no judge will rule in their favor. That's what they are saying in that paragraph. They've got to get this referendum on the ballot so that judges won't decide it. So much for the PFOX/WCTU lawsuit.

Ladies, if you don't want to use the restroom with black ladies and you don't want to use the restrooms with transgender ladies, then take the advice of Billy Sunday:

Cross your legs, ladies, and close the gates to Hell!

December 02, 2007 9:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
I think CRCers should stay out of bathrooms and locker rooms. As for Michelle "notmyshower" Turner- where does she go that someone in a public place shares her shower??? Unlike CRC, I am not interested in people's sex lives so Michelle and her shower sharing needs to stay private- and in private!

December 02, 2007 12:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I gather none of you, as citizens of MC, want the opportunity to vote yourself on this non-discrimination bill? If not, why not?

December 02, 2007 12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This TTF supporter supports the anti-discriminantion law that has been expanded to include transgenders. My elected officials wrote, discussed, voted and enacted it. A referendum would be a waste of tax money because just like our elected officials here in the county, most county residents embrace diversity and do not wish for discrimination to be legal against our transgender brothers and sisters.

December 02, 2007 3:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I gather none of you, as citizens of MC, want the opportunity to vote yourself on this non-discrimination bill? If not, why not?

This citizen of MoCo feels there's no need to waste time and money calling for another vote on a law I support that's already been voted on and approved.

December 02, 2007 5:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rational person says:

I gather none of you, as citizens of MC, want the opportunity to vote yourself on this non-discrimination bill? If not, why not?

Anon-B says:

This citizen of MoCo feels there's no need to waste time and money calling for another vote on a law I support that's already been voted on and approved.

Objective observer says:

This is a different kind of vote. This will be a vote by the people. Anon-B and her ilk don't care about wasting time and money. Adding another line to the ballot won't waste much money compared to the other arcance crap that's usually on the ballot.

Truth is, Anon-B and her ilk are afraid of democracy. They were apalled by the last two presidential election. Come January 2009, when Mike Huckabee is sworn in, you can look for them to start calling for a redesign of the Constitution.

That's when the American people will finally cut them off.

Drink up while you can, folks.

December 06, 2007 7:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Somebody said...
"I gather none of you, as citizens of MC, want the opportunity to vote yourself on this non-discrimination bill? If not, why not?"

I second that sentiment. I mean, what if it was a non-pollution bill, or a non-murder bill, or a non-nuclear war bill?

Wouldn’t you want the democratic opportunity to vote on whether or not those things were bad?

If not, why not?

December 06, 2007 12:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Go sign the petition, Improv. Go to teachthefacts.com to see how.

December 06, 2007 1:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

improv's buddy said...
"Go sign the petition, Improv. Go to teachthefacts.com to see how."

Sabotage.

December 06, 2007 2:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No underhanded tactic is too low for the CRC...after all they have god on their side and the rest of us are infidels.

December 06, 2007 9:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home