Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Queen Christine and Feminist Anti-logic

WA State’s legislature has enacted yet another example of obsessively control-freak law, this time banning discrimination against people based on their “sexual orientation.” The language of the original law was suitable for unchosen and non-changeable characteristics such as race, but is full of all sorts of weird interpretations when applied to something that is at least partially a matter of personal choice and self-control (or lack thereof). For example, is sexual preference for farm animals now a protected behavior?

At any rate, with little evidence that actual discrimination against gays actually occurs in WA State, there was really no reason to waste so much time and energy updating the statute in question with special protections for gay people. We all know that this addition to the anti-discrimination laws of the state will not do much to help an oppressed people simply because gays are not oppressed. Meanwhile, it adds to the burden of state control over our lives through the now vastly expanded ability to file lawsuits against any person or organization that does anything a gay individual or group does not like.

This is going to be a huge burden for businesses in the state as well as the judicial system. Consider this: Why shouldn't any of us who get fired from a job just claim to be gay and then file a lawsuit? And, if a business is sued for allegedly firing a self-identified gay person because she is a lesbian, the first line of defense will be to claim that the self-identified lesbian is not really a lesbian.

Then, the judge will be in the unenviable position of having to decide if someone is really gay. Worse, contemporary feminist theory claims that we all exist on a "spectrum of gayness," somewhere between hetero- and homo-sexual. Ultimately, will the State Supreme Court have to define a test of where one lies on this "homosexuality spectrum" and then tell us just where the bright line is drawn as a starting point for receiving special protections? That's scary enough after watching the mess the Court made after creating a new legal concept called "meretricious relationship."

As seemingly the only person with power to set up a roadblock against our state lawmakers' silliness, Tim Eyman filed an initiative to roll back the special rights for gay people passed by the legislature. Yes, if this initiative passes, gay people will have to live within the protections afforded the rest of us. It’s a good move on Eyman’s part as opponents of gay marriage (which is part of the agenda and it’s ridiculous for anyone to suggest otherwise) will fund his initiative and be happy to reward him through contributions to his personal income fund as well. Eyman says:
Politicians are deciding based on special interest group pressure and their own reelection calculations. The voters have watched this disgusting display of arrogance and selfishness for weeks.
Queen Christine, a rabid fan and supporter of anything gay (her chief attorney, after all, is a lesbian) used feminist anti-logic and trickery to argue against Eyman’s new initiative:
I'm surprised someone would file an initiative to say let's discriminate against our fellow citizens. It strikes me as counter to the values of the state of Washington to have an initiative now that would say to the people of the state of Washington it's ok to discriminate... against gays and lesbians.
It’s sad to see our legislature pursue something so unnecessary simply because it makes them feel good while also pandering to a group of people that seem to be more celebrated than oppressed. But, it’s even worse to see Governor-through-theft Queen Christine Gregoire deliberately insult our intelligence.

Rolling back a special “protection” is not the same as saying it is “OK to discriminate.” For example, there is no special protection for people who like the color blue, but that doesn’t mean that the state is saying to people that it is OK to discriminate against them. Meanwhile, discrimination occurs constantly in all sorts of settings and over all sorts of issues. For example, the Seattle Silly Council deliberately set out to discriminate against men in their choice of a new member to replace Jim Compton. Nobody in state government, least of all Queen Chirstine, seemed to mind.

Our state’s self appointed Queen is hoping she can prey on the ignorance of logic rampant among King County voters. That’s hardly surprising since gender feminists have been getting away with emotional baiting for years at the expense of fathers and families.

Next, the chivalrous combination in the phrase “women and children” that is often leveraged by gender feminists in order to get special protections and rights for women (often at the expense of children) will be updated to include gays. “Women, gays, and children” will become the moniker for all to drop rational behavior.

But, in this one rare case, I think voters are not going to fall for this sort of dishonesty. Personally, I could care less whether gay couples are able to get married or not, and with the ability of the state to meddle in marriages I don't see why anyone does it. I simply want to keep the irrational ship-of-state out of yet another issue where it seems to do more harm than good. Thankfully, Eyman’s initiative will probably pass, providing at least one moment of sanity in an otherwise depressingly anti-liberty year in WA State politics.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Main