Posts

Gov. Inslee Won’t Answer Question About Bathroom Rule; Bryant Opposes

 

On December 26th, a new rule went into effect that has generated a significant public response.   The rule, which was passed by the Washington State Human Rights Commission, mandates that all schools and businesses in Washington State maintain open bathroom/locker room policies which will allow people to choose the facility they want to use based on their gender identity or gender expression.

It makes it illegal for any school or business to ask someone to use a bathroom that corresponds to their biological gender or to provide them a separate gender neutral option.

Members of the Human Rights Commission are appointed by Governor Inslee.

InsleeYesterday, FPIW communications director Zach Freeman had a chance to talk with Gov. Jay Inslee as well as his Republican challenger Bill Bryant to ask them their thoughts on the new rule.

Gov. Inslee appeared uncomfortable and resorted to asking Mr. Freeman a series of questions in an apparent attempt to avoid answering any questions himself:

Gov. Inslee: Are you a journalist?

Mr. Freeman: I’m trying to be.

Gov. Inslee: Who do you work with?

Mr. Freeman: The Family Policy Institute of Washington

Gov. Inslee: Who is that?

Mr. Freeman: It’s Joseph Backholm’s group…

Gov. Inslee: It’s a what group?

Mr. Freeman: It’s a group that does family policy

Gov. Inslee: Well what kind of family policy

Mr. Freeman: We do issues of marriage, life, religious freedom…the things that nobody really likes to talk about.

Gov. Inslee: Really? What kind of things are they working on?

Mr. Freeman: Well, at the moment I’m actually asking about the bathroom rule that was proposed by the Human Rights Commission…

Gov. Inslee then cut off the question by again asking Mr. Freeman if he was a journalist and who he was working for.

He concluded the exchange by telling Mr. Freeman that if he became a part of the Associated Press “then I’m really happy to answer your question.”

You can hear the full audio of the brief but awkward exchange below:

After the interview, FPIW reached out to Governor Inslee’s press office for a statement on the issue but they have not responded.

BryantBill Bryant, the only current challenger to Gov. Inslee in the 2016 gubernatorial election, was also in Olympia yesterday. He was more willing to discuss the issue. “Everybody deserves to be in an environment where they feel safe.” Bryant said.  “That includes someone who is transitioning between genders, but it also includes a high school girl who wants to go into a locker room.  I think the Human Rights Commission picked the rights of one group over the rights of others.”

Bryant suggested that it would be appropriate for the Governor to set the rule aside for 24 or 48 months so that the legislature can address it.  You can hear Mr. Bryant’s statement below:

If you are a member of the Associated Press, you can contact the Governor’s office at 360-902-4111 where he would apparently be happy to answer your questions about this issue.  Please do ask, because the rest of us would like to know.

Everyone else can use that number to share their thoughts about this issue with the Governor.  If you do, please be respectful. He needs to hear from you, but not if you’re angry.  That only hurts the cause.   Besides, the person answering the phone is not the Governor.  It’s just someone doing their job who probably hasn’t ever done anything mean to you.  But if you’re kind to them, they’ll be happy to relay the message.

You can also email the Governor by clicking here.

Feds Bully School District to Allow Boy into Girls Locker Room

When the federal government bullies a school district to allow a boy into the girls locker room, that’s when you know the government has gotten too big.

That’s exactly what has happened to the Palatine Township School District in Illinois this week.

A biologically-male student at a district high school was denied access to women’s showers in the locker room due to his biological status as a male.  The school made efforts to create a private shower facility for the student, so that the female students wouldn’t feel uncomfortable in the showers, but that wasn’t good enough for the ACLU, who took the case to the Department of Education claiming discrimination.

After being threatened by the Department of Education (DOE) with the loss of millions of dollars in federal funding, the school district is being required to implement an entirely new set of policies to deal with transgender and opposite-gender-identifying students.  The DOE declared that the district was in violation of Title IX requirements because they held that locker room and bathroom facilities would be made available according to biological gender.

Not only has the school district been saddled with the responsibility of making structural changes to their facilities, but they’re now also being mandated to provide a “support team,” to make sure the transgendered student is happy and feeling included, as well as ensure that all facilities the sports teams visit have adequate space for the biologically-male student to change and shower in the comfort of female-only facilities.

School districts across the country are now being forced to comply with new guidelines to accommodate all transgendered students’ specific requests.  In this case, the Department of Education required the Palatine, Ill. Township School District to:

  • Provide the student with access to the girls’ locker rooms based on the student’s request to change in private changing stations in the girls’ locker rooms.
  • Protect the privacy of its students by installing sufficient privacy curtains within the girls’ locker rooms at the high school to accommodate the transgender student and any students who wish to be assured of privacy.
  • Provide a reasonable alternative for any student requesting additional privacy—beyond the privacy afforded by the privacy curtains—in the girls’ locker rooms. Examples could include use of another private area or assignment of a locker in near proximity to the office of a teacher or coach.
  • Coordinate with hosts of off-campus, district-sponsored activities to arrange for the transgender student to be provided access to facilities for female students.
  • Engage a consultant (who may be a district employee) with expertise in child and adolescent gender identity, including transgender and gender nonconforming youth, to support and assist the district in implementing the resolution agreement.
  • Establish a support team, if requested by the transgender student and her parents, to ensure that she has access and the opportunity to participate in all district programs and activities, and is otherwise protected from gender-based discrimination at school.
  • Adopt and publish a revised notice of nondiscrimination on the basis of sex. And,
  • Provide OCR with a copy or detailed description of all gender-based discrimination or harassment complaints or incidents.

Parents showed up outraged at the most recent School Board meeting, where the Board voted 5-2 to approve changes to the policy to allow any student who identifies as a woman to use the women’s shower facilities, even if they are biologically male.

Stay up to date on issues like this in Washington State.  Join the FPIW Alert mailing list!

U.S. Senator Pressuring Court to Allow a Father to Marry Adopted Son

A Pennsylvania man has petitioned a county court to annul the adoption of his adult son so that the two can legally marry.

The man, Nino Esposito, adopted his son-turned-fiancé, Roland Bosee, Jr., three years ago, claiming that adopting the man would save money on inheritance taxes in Pennsylvania.  Esposito and Bosee were previously in a same-sex relationship and opted for adoption in lieu of marriage because marriage had not yet been redefined.   They are now interested in dissolving the adoption in favor of a marriage, but an Alleghany County Judge has ruled that there is no legal means to dissolve an adoption in Pennsylvania unless there is fraud involved.

Nino Esposito (L) and Roland Bosee Jr., (R) pictured.

Nino Esposito (L) and Roland Bosee Jr., (R) pictured.

Enter U.S. Senator Bob Casey.

In a letter written to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Senator Casey asked the Obama Administration to intervene to set forth “guidelines” on how to handle cases like these, encouraging the White House to be “creative” in devising a response that is respectful of the reality that adoption laws are passed at the sole discretion of individual states.

This is the first effort in what is expected to be many efforts to reshape adoption policy to cater to same-sex couples after the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling last summer.

Some argue that this arrangement was just a workaround for tax purposes, but the case has undeniable implications for other, more conventional, familial relationships. What will be the government’s response when a biological father wants to marry his son?  Or if any adopted parent wants to marry his or her child the day they turn 18?

After all, love is love.

Changing the law to allow fathers to marry their legally-adopted sons is a troubling precedent to say the least.

The lower court’s decision has been appealed and is expected to be heard by the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Daycare Workers Fired for Refusing to Call Little Girl a Boy

As reported this morning by Breitbart, two daycare workers at the Childrens’ Lighthouse Learning Center in Katy, Texas have been fired for refusing to use male pronouns to refer to a little girl who sometimes says she identifies as a boy.

The girl, who has two male parents, is just six years old.

“I don’t think [daycare workers] should be talking to other people’s children who are under the age of 18 about being transgender,” said Madeline Kirksey, one of the fired daycare workers.  She said that the girl sometimes refers to herself as a little boy, but sometimes tells the other children not to call her a boy or refer to her as “John.”

Following her firing, Kirksey called Texas Child Protective Services expressing concern that the girl’s gender confusion might have been aggressively pushed on the small child by the two male partners.

This story breaks just as nearby Houston, Texas made national headlines for the landslide defeat of a city ordinance that would have allowed people to enter bathrooms for the gender in which they identified that day, with no questions asked.

Why is it acceptable for anyone — especially those who have parental rights — to persuade a young, impressionable six-year old child to question her very existence and genetic makeup?  Under what context would a parent think that a young child could even begin to understand the deep, psychological, and emotional subject of human sexuality?

Read the rest of the story here, and share your thoughts below.

 

 

Three Reasons It Isn’t Over

The Supreme Court has spoken.

It wasn’t a surprise, but it was disappointing. In a 5-4 decision, the Court created an oven-fresh, new right to marry someone of the same gender.  The Court provided no limiting principle that would prevent their logic from extending to other kinds of relationships whose profession of love is not currently acknowledged with a marriage license.

The decision was a setback for the rule of law.

The Constitution says as much about marriage as it does about the Seahawks.  When the Constitution is silent on an issue, then that issue should be resolved by the legislative branch of government.  The states (or Congress) should have been allowed to continue wrestling with this issue and reaching a resolution based on the input of the people through their elected representatives.

But as it turns out, the voices of 51 million people from thirty-one states who voted for laws defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman were overruled by five, unelected lawyers in Washington, DC.

For a number of people, the response to the Court’s decision was relief.  Sentiments like, “At least it’s over!!” and “Can we please stop talking about gay marriage now?”

Unfortunately, the conflict between the sexual revolution and the nation’s faith-based people and institutions may only intensify in the coming months and years.  Here’s why.

1. The LGBT political leadership doesn’t want to coexist:  An entire industry was built to accomplish what happened on Friday.  That industry is not going to suddenly declare itself obsolete. You don’t raise money by declaring victory. Now that “full equality under the law” has been accomplished, there will be another crisis requiring their attention, and another, and another…

2. Some people are still free to disagree: The goal of the LGBT political movement has always been to eradicate the belief that homosexuality and heterosexuality are different.  That is why they promote policies that allow someone to decline to decorate a cake critical of same-sex “marriage,” but not decline to decorate a cake supportive of it.  The goal is to create a government that punishes beliefs about homosexuality they disagree with. Therefore, as long as you have the freedom to run your business, non-profit, university, school, or church according to your beliefs, their job is not done.

3. Now it’s easier to call you a racist, legally speaking:  The 14th Amendment was written to stop the government from treating people differently because of their race. Now that the Supreme Court has discovered a new right to marry someone of the same gender in the 14th amendment, it’s easier to argue that those who don’t celebrate homosexuality are the same as racists. As a result, the ability to remove tax-exempt status, cut off federal funding to religious universities, and otherwise marginalize people who believe in natural marriage became easier.

Marriage has been redefined most recently, but it may not be the last word to be redefined.

Soon, “religious freedom” may mean only the freedom to believe what you want in your head and maybe talk about it at church or at home. You may need a license though. In the same way, “civil rights” may soon be redefined so that a person can be forced to celebrate an event they disagree with but not free to say something “offensive”.  After all, that’s “hate speech.”

The world is changing quickly, but the truth about marriage remains.

And the need for courage only grows.

So you stayed out of the debate about marriage because you didn’t feel like telling someone else how to live their life.  Great.

But what will you do when they start telling you how to live yours?

Will you surrender all your freedom in an effort to avoid being misunderstood? Let’s hope not.

But we’re going to find out, because, despite what we all wish, this is far from over.