Next up – Transgenders

David Anderson, Tillicum

Now that same sex marriage has been made legal in Washington, it is worth examining some of the logic that brought this about.  One of the Republicans that supported 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’s is little more than an argumentum 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 seeking to establish gender identity.

Besides the sadly typical political weathervane 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.  Father’s abandoned their families in droves.  Poverty levels skyrocketed.  Prison populations increased at dramatic levels, a consequence of kids now growing up without a father 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’ are 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 skyrocketed.”

This is the court, trumpeted 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’ cannot help but be 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 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.