Will the ACLU’s bathroom-sex agenda stall?

By Brenda Zurita

Reprinted with permission from CWA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, Jan. 16, 2008

Due to the current Hollywood writer’s strike, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has jumped in to fill the gap existing in late-night monologues and sit-coms. If only that were true there might be a joke in there somewhere.

Alas, the title refers to a brief filed by the ACLU in the Larry Craig case in Minnesota. Yes, the senator of the “wide stance” fame has a new defense argument, courtesy of the ACLU.

The Associated Press reported that the ACLU is arguing there is an expectation of privacy when people have sex in public bathrooms.

Hmmm, when I enter a public bathroom I have the expectation of toilet paper being in the stall, not a sex encounter. And privacy in a public bathroom is at a minimum. The gap around the door frame and the open space between the dividers and the floor and ceiling provide only a modicum of coverage. Not exactly a rendezvous spot for randy patrons expecting privacy. It does however make an excellent place for exhibitionists to meet.

Imagine taking your child to a public restroom and hearing two people engaging in a sex act six inches away. Again, due to the construction of the average public restroom stall, there is little that is private. Having an expectation of privacy there is laughable. And what about the expectation of people using the restroom for what is was intended and not being subjected to sex acts?

But let’s just say the ACLU is correct and the expectation of privacy for having sex in a public bathroom is tenable. The next time a “wide stancer” needs to stretch his legs, should he do so in the Minnesota Supreme Court’s restrooms? Public school restroom stalls? Public library restroom stalls? Community center restroom stalls? Government building restroom stalls? (This is not to be confused with Congressional offices, the Oval Office or some of the national monuments in Washington, all of which may or may not have stories to tell from their public restroom perspective but do have a few vignettes about sexcapades outside their stall walls.)

If we throw morals, decency and common sense out the window with this argument of expectation of privacy in a public restroom while engaging in sex, what are the implications?

Given the law passed in Maryland allowing men to use women’s restrooms if they consider themselves a woman trapped in a man’s body and allowing women to use men’s restrooms if they consider themselves a man trapped in a woman’s body, what is to stop a rapist or pedophile from entering a restroom and abusing a boy or girl in a restroom stall? Would a man have to claim he is a woman in a man’s body to use the women’s room and if so, what is the proof he’s not just a wily rapist or pedophile? And who will be monitoring this? If there is an expectation of privacy then all users of public restrooms would have to assume the sex going on in the next stall is consensual and cannot be reported as it would invade their privacy. Where are the lines drawn?

The subject of bathroom breaks seems to have broken from reality. As moms everywhere will tell you, make sure you go before you leave home because if the ACLU is successful, you won’t want to know what is going on in the stall next to you.

  Should transsexual and transvestite (cross-dressing) men get legal “rights” based on their gender-confused “identity” and behavior? Above, a man who has become a ”she-male” using female hormones rides “topless” for blocks atop a float in this year’s Chicago’s “gay pride” parade. Police did nothing. Photo: Americans For Truth.

When [CNN's Larry] King asked [male-to-female transgender activist Steve Stanton] if he stands up when he goes to the bathroom in a woman’s restroom, he replied: “No, I don’t. No, I sit down in the woman’s bathroom.” — Traditional Values Coalition report

By Peter LaBarbera

Remember that joke about a lesbian trapped in a man’s body? … It’s not a joke anymore! Folks, it just doesn’t get any stranger than the “transgender” movement. We pity the men and women who struggle with gender issues and rebel against their God-given sex, but the gender-bending warriors (activist groups like GenderPAC) are serious about radically changing our culture. They’re even promoting “gender nonconformity” among our youth. Do not underestimate them.

The “transgender” lobby has copied aggressive “gay” activist tactics and is on the verge of creating federal “civil rights” based on gender confusion. Their top goal? Passage of the “Thought Crimes” and “ENDA Our Freedom” bills. If these become law, we’re talking about federal “rights” — and that means federal lawsuits — for “she-males” — biological men who act as if they are women and even demand to use female restrooms (see our story, “The Transg-ENDA: Man in Purple Suit Invades Ladies’ Restroom in Md.”). 

When gender-twisting groups are publishing papers titled, “Peeing In Peace: A Resource Guide For Transgender Activists And Allies” (click HERE for TVC’s analysis of the paper), you know ”civil rights” is being contorted beyond recognition.

TAKE ACTION:

1. Read the reports at bottom by this message by Traditional Values Coalition — a leading pro-family group on Capitol Hill opposing the homosexual- and transsexual activist movements. See the related the AFTAH links as well.
2. Contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative (e-mail: www.congress.org; phone: 202-224-3121). Tell them to oppose the ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act), which would subject businesses to lawsuits by homosexual and “she-male” (”transgender”) activists;
3. Also ask your senators to vote against the S. 1105, the so-called “Hate Crimes” bill, which passed the House and is expected for a vote in the Senate soon. This “thought crimes” bill will make it easier for homosexual- and transgender activists — working hand-in-hand with liberal prosecutors — to harass conservative businessmen and Christian/pro-family advocates by falsely claiming themselves as victims of “hate.”

______________________________  

TVC reports:

Larry King Shills For Transgender Movement

Traditional Values Coalition website

August 14, 2007 — Larry King’s August 10 show featured a panel of men and women who think they’re the opposite sex. Some have already undergone so-called “sex reassignment” surgery, while others have not.

King let them tell their stories about feeling like they were the opposite sex, and he interviewed two sons of a father who decided he was a woman. The teens expressed support for their father, even though he now looks like a Hollywood actress. Their father, who now calls himself Jessica, told King that he’s a lesbian and dates women. He told King, “I identify as lesbian, yes, absolutely.”

King also interviewed Steve Stanton, the former city manager of Largo, Florida. Steve decided he was a woman and currently dresses like one. He has not had a sex-change operation but is scheduled for one. When King asked him if he stands up when he goes to the bathroom in a woman’s restroom, he replied: “No, I don’t. No, I sit down in the woman’s bathroom.”

TVC’s reports, “A Gender Identity Disorder Goes Mainstream”  and “Will Transgender Activists Come To Your School?” explain how the transgender activist movement is seeking to destroy the idea of male and female.  In addition, transgender activists are seeking to have their “gender identity” given federally protected class status under three key bills being considered in Congress: ENDA, Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and the Clarification of Federal Employment Protections Act.

Original story, posted July 15, 2007 

Homosexual activists are upset that we used the case of Russell Groff — a Tennessee boy who entered the homosexual lifestyle as a teenager and died of AIDS at 26 – as an example of the extreme health risks of (male) homosexual behavior. More on that later: we’re on vacation, and there is considerable “gay” misinformation to counter — including homosexual “fact checking” blogger Jim Burroway’s specious claim – relying on a Maryland homosexual activist group’s website – that Russell died of a “staph infection following gall bladder surgery.” (Russell’s mother Carolyn Groff sent us his Maryland death certificate showing HIV/AIDS as a cause of death.)

The following comment was posted July 15 on lesbian activist Pam Spaulding’s blog, which seems to have a problem with violence-prone contributors. (In February, a South Dakota man published our address on Spaulding’s blog with the words, “Sniper’s, take note”; he received a formal police warning for the threat and Spaulding, who said she was unaware of the comment, banned him from her blog.)

For the full thread including “underbear1’s” menacing comment below (emphasis added), click HERE:

Having survived a lover who died of AIDS

 

 

If I’d have faced a Baptist Fred Phelps-type protest, and a f*cktard like Petey using someone else’s memorial to twist to his hateful message, I would have snapped, and taken them all out with an AK-47, and not given a sh*t if it cost me my life, because at that point, (I was considering suicide anyways.)

 

Petey be glad you still are breathing, you picked on someone much more forgiving than I am.

 

——————————————————————————–
by: underbear1 @ Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 16:16:57 PM CDT 
[ Reply ] 

From MCPS [Montgomery County, Maryland, Public Schools] Flyer Distribution Policy: Should Organizations Be Allowed to Distribute Material with Report Cards?, Pia Nargundkar vs Iliya Smithka, published Nov 28, 2006, by Silver Chips (student newspaper at Montgomery Blair High School):

Iliya Smithka says YES: Organizations have the right to free speech within schools.

According to the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) website, flyers can be sent home with Blair students when report cards are handed out, on Nov. 10, Feb. 1 and April 11. On Nov. 10, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) distributed an inoffensive and informational flyer about the organization, much to the displeasure of many students and parents. These same students and parents must realize that the flyer policy supports nonprofit organizations’ right to free speech and a free market society.

The policy states that “printed informational material [from] MCPS, any federal, state or local government entities [and] nationally affiliated PTAs operating within MCPS and MCCPTA” may be distributed or displayed at any time during the school year. Nonprofit organizations, such as PFOX, may distribute material directly to the students no more than once each marking period. Like any local organization, PFOX wants students and parents to join and support their organization. Though some people may disagree with the organization’s message, it still has the right to promote its message to its potential members.

Though some of the material in PFOX’s flyer offended openly gay Delegate Heather Mizeur (D, 20th), she believes that the policy protects “the fundamental right” of free speech. “Whether or not it’s considered
offensive,” Mizeur argues, an organization has the right to free speech. The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from making a law restricting liberties such as free speech and the right to petition. MCPS supports the amendment with this policy, allowing organizations to distribute their message to students and their families via a flyer once a quarter.

Free speech goes both ways. “If, on the other side of the issue, Equality of Maryland can [issue a flyer],” reasons Mizeur, “then so should PFOX.” Offensive as PFOX’s purpose may be to some, it does not exclude the organization from the American right to free speech. The Ku Klux Klan, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, PFOX and Equality of Maryland could all conceivably send home flyers with Blair students.

At the bottom of PFOX’s flyer, a disclaimer reads, “Note: These materials are neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Board of Education of Montgomery County, the superintendent, or this school.” But MCPS does support PFOX’s right to free speech. The first amendment guarantees this freedom, and the Board of Education is merely regulating such speech with this flyer policy. By supporting this policy, MCPS is
backing the Constitution. What’s so controversial about that?

Pia Nargundkar says NO: Students should not be forced to take home material of questionable content.

According to the MCPS web site, at the beginning of the school year and then once again at the end of the first three marking periods, flyers from “nonprofit community organizations” can be distributed directly to students along with report cards. This distribution is not protected under the First Amendment and should be banned.

All of the flyers must contain the disclaimer, “These materials are neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Board of Education of Montgomery County, the superintendent, or this school.” As MCPS does not expressly support the messages spread via these flyers, they should not mandate their distribution. Instead of forcing students to take these flyers home, the information can be kept in the main office or a similar central location for students to pick up should they be so inclined.

Information that is handed out with report cards should strictly relate to school issues only. If the school needs to distribute material on after-school activity buses or upcoming standardized tests, then the
end-of-quarter homeroom meetings are the right place to do it. However, information from outside organizations should not be handed out, especially when these organizations have agendas that may clash with students’ beliefs.

The recently distributed Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) flyer is a striking example. Many students found PFOX’s claim of homosexuals changing their sexual identities to be offensive and untrue. One
Blazer notes, “It is extremely easy for unsuspecting people to be lured into thinking that PFOX is an organization that genuinely supports gays.” Instead, he believes, the organization “shames gays into hating who they are.”

Schools should not perpetuate such controversy. Organizations like PFOX do not present any research to prove their claims. If MCPS does not allow students to read biased, unsupported textbooks then they should not force them to take home biased, unsupported flyers. Proponents of the policy argue that the First Amendment and freedom of speech laws protect the distribution of such flyers. Yet schools are institutions of learning meant to teach students facts not dole out propaganda; historically this has meant schools can have much tighter free speech rules than the government is allowed to enforce.

Some argue that the vast majority of these flyers deal with innocent community activities, such as recruitment for community sports teams, and say that the distribution of such innocuous pamphlets should be allowed. But MCPS cannot allow the circulation of flyers from certain organizations and not from others without seeming to make a political statement. Furthermore, it is ironic that these defenders of free speech would advocate curtailing some organizations but not others – that in and of itself is a more direct violation of free speech. By allowing the distribution of some flyers and not others is discrimination based on beliefs – an act ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Yet the controversy of the free speech issue is easily resolved. Although the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees free speech, it should not be used as a blanket excuse to defend all actions. As long as the flyers are available, the organizations maintain their right to free speech, and students are not forced to bring home material that goes against their beliefs.