SENATE BILL: Equal Rights Amendment (Sent to the Regions)

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I've had a dialogue with Afleitch and others also have in the Judiciary Committee... I don't want to clog this post by copying it all but I urge Senators to take a look

My concerns about this amendment remain and the question I pose to the sponsors is this...
What specific rights (minus gay marriage) are withheld from women and gays right now that lead you to sponsor this legislation? In other words, what problem are we trying to solve here...

[CLARENCE 2015!]

In other words, what problem are we trying to solve here...

We are trying to guarantee equal rights for all Atlasians regardless of sexual orientation or identity by incorporating it in to the supreme law of the land, our Constitution.

I understand that, but what rights are denied them now? I agree that marriage should be granted and have stood for this... but this law is broad and has many consequences which go far beyond righting obvious wrongs

[CLARENCE 2015!]

In other words, what problem are we trying to solve here...

We are trying to guarantee equal rights for all Atlasians regardless of sexual orientation or identity by incorporating it in to the supreme law of the land, our Constitution.

I understand that, but what rights are denied them now? I agree that marriage should be granted and have stood for this... but this law is broad and has many consequences which go far beyond righting obvious wrongs

I'm a forward-thinking progressive. There doesn't need to be rights currently denied if there could be rights denied in the future. I don't expect you'd be the founder questioning why we need a right to bear arms asking "How is it denied now?". For me, it is about guaranteeing freedom to our citizenry. Your examples of consequences have been addressed many times so I have nothing to add there...the amendment is entirely sound. There are minor text changes that may be appropriate so long as the brevity and purpose of the current text remains intact.

I agree with your intention but my concerns have not been addressed... I believe the bill currently is too broad and would like to see an amendment specifically excluding single-sex organizations. If I want to start a Newberry Men's Club, I ought to be able to... same for the Women's Club which exists now. I should not be able to join the Women's Club if they don't want men as members

[CLARENCE 2015!]

1- my last comment did not involve restrooms, but in the Judiciary Committee I quoted Afleitch in which he appeared to contradict the statement you quoted

2- I would put my views on protecting gay rights up alongside any liberals, including you. This is not about gay rights- we are in agreement on specific rights gays do not have that they ought to have. This is about executing Ted Bundy with an ICBM...

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Respectfully, I think you are confused about what this amendment will actually do. I'm happy to answer questions but I don't want to sound like I'm repeating myself over and over as I think the other Senators will find that unproductive.

Right...I appreciate your position and believe we are united in intent, but not the method of how to get there. I look forward to a respectful discussion

[CLARENCE 2015!]

This last sentence...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is what concerns me greatly... could the President or AG elaborate? Does this simply mean that a building could not have a men's restroom without having a women's? Or does it mean restrooms must be unisex?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I would oppose changing sex to gender identity.... if some one has had an operation and has certain parts, that is his or her sex. If some one is biologically a male, that person claiming to identify as a female does not give him entry into a women's bathroom. You are opening the door to sexual predators who would exploit our tolerance for their sick gain...

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I would oppose changing sex to gender identity.... if some one has had an operation and has certain parts, that is his or her sex. If some one is biologically a male, that person claiming to identify as a female does not give him entry into a women's bathroom. You are opening the door to sexual predators who would exploit our tolerance for their sick gain...

First of all, it's offensive that you think transgender Atlasians are comparable to sexual predators.
Secondly, you are quite mistaken if you think that these people aren't already using the restrooms.
My last point is that it is rather stupid for us, as a government, to deny rights to our people out of a paranoid fear that some creep might try to abuse a restroom and make an illegitimate claim of defense, and further, that our good courts would rule in favor of said creep were there an issue.

This restroom scare is all smoke and mirrors.

I believe my remarks make it quite clear that I am not equating transgenders with sexual predators... I am making a distinction between them and arguing that the latter can exploit laws meant to protect the former

I do not believe a transgender (assuming that means some one who has had a sex change operation) is the same as some one who claims to be another gender which doesn't match his or her biology....which to me seems rather silly. Can my granddaughters check the African-American box when they apply to colleges if they claim to identify as such?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

How so?  If a man is psychologically a female, shouldn't she be allowed to enter the bathroom facility that most suits her?

If that man has a Johnson- then HE should not be allowed to enter a female bathroom

[CLARENCE 2015!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strawman.

How so? This amendment seeks to equate sex and sexual identity with race in terms of protected status...is it therefore irrelevant to suggest that a white person could claim to identify as an African-American just as a man could claim to identify as a woman?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Also, Scott- gender identity is inherently physical. I am sure you know biology, but here is the basis... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

[CLARENCE 2015!]

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

Why must restrooms be separated by gender? Since you're the one raising this issue (it's actually a non-issue with regards to the amendment but...), I'd like to be able to understand your side some more.

I don't believe it's my obligation to defend what is a nearly unanimously supported policy...it is common sense to divide males and females for personal business such as using the restroom. I believe it is clear that we need confirmation thru an amendment that this will not be altered

[CLARENCE 2015!]

And while I have never been inside a women's bathroom, is there anything special in it that a pervert would be able to exploit to get himself off? Do women walk around naked in there? As far as I know they all have their own stalls so visibility won't be a problem like it would be in male bathrooms with our urinals...not like there is a big problem there or anything.

Most stalls are not completely enclosed...there is a small area with the hinge where some one could see thru...I also believe it would make nearly all women uncomfortable

[CLARENCE 2015!]

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

Why must restrooms be separated by gender? Since you're the one raising this issue (it's actually a non-issue with regards to the amendment but...), I'd like to be able to understand your side some more.

I don't believe it's my obligation to defend what is a nearly unanimously supported policy...it is common sense to divide males and females for personal business such as using the restroom. I believe it is clear that we need confirmation thru an amendment that this will not be altered

I would like to see a logical argument. If it is common sense and unanimously supported, surely you could conjure up a reason?

Please see my post right above this in response to Sbane...

[CLARENCE 2015!]

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

Why must restrooms be separated by gender? Since you're the one raising this issue (it's actually a non-issue with regards to the amendment but...), I'd like to be able to understand your side some more.

I don't believe it's my obligation to defend what is a nearly unanimously supported policy...it is common sense to divide males and females for personal business such as using the restroom. I believe it is clear that we need confirmation thru an amendment that this will not be altered

I would like to see a logical argument. If it is common sense and unanimously supported, surely you could conjure up a reason?

Please see my post right above this in response to Sbane...

But you do find it acceptable for women to peep through stalls at other women? There must be a better reason for you to hold this position. I'd like to know, so I can better understand your point of view.

It is simply the fact that men and women, when involved in private activity with exposed private parts, feel more comfortable being seen in such a state by those of their same gender... I don't have poll numbers to jutify this, it is simply a part of human nature or maybe our culture

[CLARENCE 2015!]

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

Why must restrooms be separated by gender? Since you're the one raising this issue (it's actually a non-issue with regards to the amendment but...), I'd like to be able to understand your side some more.

I don't believe it's my obligation to defend what is a nearly unanimously supported policy...it is common sense to divide males and females for personal business such as using the restroom. I believe it is clear that we need confirmation thru an amendment that this will not be altered

I would like to see a logical argument. If it is common sense and unanimously supported, surely you could conjure up a reason?

Please see my post right above this in response to Sbane...

But you do find it acceptable for women to peep through stalls at other women? There must be a better reason for you to hold this position. I'd like to know, so I can better understand your point of view.

It is simply the fact that men and women, when involved in private activity with exposed private parts, feel more comfortable being seen in such a state by those of their same gender... I don't have poll numbers to jutify this, it is simply a part of human nature or maybe our culture

Thank you Senator. That is more along the lines of what I was looking for.

How do you reconcile this with the fact that the gender binary is a flawed concept and doesn't take a range of gender identities into account?

No problem Napoleon..., I am enjoying this discussion and I will admit that I am not educated on the concept of a range of gender identity... from what I do know there is no objective way to determine where a person is on that range. The objective determinant here is biology- what parts a person has. Could some one with male parts feel like a woman? Sure... I don't deny that, but there is no way to check that the person truly feels that way...even if there was, would we place a number on where that person is on the range?

I believe when we have to draw the line objectively and the physical aspect of gender seems to be our only option

[CLARENCE 2015!]

And while I have never been inside a women's bathroom, is there anything special in it that a pervert would be able to exploit to get himself off? Do women walk around naked in there? As far as I know they all have their own stalls so visibility won't be a problem like it would be in male bathrooms with our urinals...not like there is a big problem there or anything.

Most stalls are not completely enclosed...there is a small area with the hinge where some one could see thru...I also believe it would make nearly all women uncomfortable

Well, couldn't a gay guy conceivably get more than that much of a glance when we are taking a piss in a urinal? Surely there are some perverted ones. Same with lesbians...couldn't they also want to sneak a peek? Why isn't this a problem currently? Don't you think it is because behavior like that would be immediately cracked down upon, either by the bathroom users or authorities. The biggest difference in this case would be that women might be physically unable to do anything against a guy creeping in the bathroom.

That is exactly the issue I believe... men,regardless of how they identify sexually, are normally stronger physically then a woman and would be more able to commit sexual assault

[CLARENCE 2015!]

And while I have never been inside a women's bathroom, is there anything special in it that a pervert would be able to exploit to get himself off? Do women walk around naked in there? As far as I know they all have their own stalls so visibility won't be a problem like it would be in male bathrooms with our urinals...not like there is a big problem there or anything.

Most stalls are not completely enclosed...there is a small area with the hinge where some one could see thru...I also believe it would make nearly all women uncomfortable

Well, couldn't a gay guy conceivably get more than that much of a glance when we are taking a piss in a urinal? Surely there are some perverted ones. Same with lesbians...couldn't they also want to sneak a peek? Why isn't this a problem currently? Don't you think it is because behavior like that would be immediately cracked down upon, either by the bathroom users or authorities. The biggest difference in this case would be that women might be physically unable to do anything against a guy creeping in the bathroom.

That is exactly the issue I believe... men,regardless of how they identify sexually, are normally stronger physically then a woman and would be more able to commit sexual assault

Yeah, but why would they be more likely to commit sexual assault in a bathroom rather than anywhere else?

I think you pretty much have this right...we can discuss this theoretically but people think differently. Women probably would not like men hanging about in their bathrooms, even if they were gay. And men also would not like wo....actually wait a second, men might like women hanging out in their bathrooms come to think of it.

Hahahaha... however I do believe we are on the same page. I wll propose an amendment tomorrow which will deal with my personal objections- in terms of bathrooms and sex-exclusive organizations

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Well here we go again Napoleon...

The reality is that the Equal Rights Amendment has not been adopted in the fictional USA... many women oppose it for reasons I have outlined in my statements in opposition, such as opening them up to be drafted and infringement on women's organizations. The AFL-CIO opposes it for other reasons.

I am not suggesting the AG is lying...giving one's opinion isn't lying, nor is disagreeing with his opinion which I strongly do. Let's not pretend the AG is without any bias- just as I am not! We have our views and his testimony, which I appreciate and respect, was influenced by his personal views

I have strong objections, shared by others in this body and many across the country...rather then oppose the bill because of these objections- I am choosing to offer an amendment to compromise and create a situation where I and others can support this bill. I am disappointed that you are reacting the way you are to my intention to propose an amendment which- if passed- will lead me and others to back this bill...

A bill does not have to be 100% to your liking...the 3/4 draft compromise sure as hell wasn't to mine, but I voted for it because it was the result of a good faith effort to find middle ground on the issue.

Listen to this classic...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7knIi3LGf4M

[CLARENCE 2015!]

As for the ERA- I'm very familiar with its passage in Congress. Had you been born yet? The odd part of this all is that it is still not in the US Constitution... that means somewhere at some time, some people must have disagreed with your views on this issue. It was not ratified and consistently lost support when its fallacies were pointed out...virtually every woman I knew at that time when the ERA regularly made news opposed its passage

As for the toilet amendment- I don't plan to include the word toilet in my proposed amendment so you can sleep soundly tonight. As for the legal reality- that is open to debate. I believe the broad nature of the ERA can lead to unexpected and unwanted consequences... others have historically shared that view. My proposed amendment will be a good faith effort to reach our mutual intent with the passage of the ERA without those negative consequences

I'm now 70 years old and refuse to let myself get drawn in to a catfight on the web about a fake ERA to a fake constitution... so I will see myself to bed and continue this discussion tomorrow after proposing my amendment

[CLARENCE 2015!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Better?

Given that perceived 'biological differences' between the sexes and the resulting capacity or capability of each sex being able to do or not do specific tasks is the root cause of sex discrimination, why should an exemption be made for it? Surely 'biological difference' can be used to justify hiring a woman over a man in a child nurturing role or a man over a women in a labour role?

Yes!!! What is the problem with this? If a man is more physically able to hold a job in construction, why shouldn't I be able to hire him for that reason?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I'm now 70 years old and refuse to let myself get drawn in to a catfight on the web about a fake ERA to a fake constitution... so I will see myself to bed and continue this discussion tomorrow after proposing my amendment

If Atlasia is that trivial to you, why are you here?

Precisely because it is that trivial... in "real world" politics, the issues we discuss elsewhere on this board have an impact on my life. Whether taxes, foreign policy, the election, etc...these issues matter and I can understand those who become passionate and get angry over these issues considering their importance. The fantasy board does not have an impact on a single life so we should be able to have debates and discussions free from anger and free from a complete disregard for other's ideas... some times I break that, some times Napoleon does, and others. Whether this passes or fails, the rights of any one would not change so people for crying out loud, TAKE IT EASY!!!

[CLARENCE 2015!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is SJoyceFla's proposal but with an added clause... this clause is meant to protect Moose International and Women's Clubs, organizations along those lines and not for example Augusta National. If you believe there is better wording avaiable- please suggest

[CLARENCE 2015!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is SJoyceFla's proposal but with an added clause... this clause is meant to protect Moose International and Women's Clubs, organizations along those lines and not for example Augusta National. If you believe there is better wording avaiable- please suggest

I am adding the bolded clause based upon the following 1998 New Mexico Supreme Court case... http://nrlc.org/news/1998/NRL12.98/Doug.html

[CLARENCE 2015!]

OK... I am going to do my best to respond to all of these points in one post. If I miss some one's comments, please let me know...

Vagueness of my Amendment

I find it very amusing that this is the criticism of my amendment... this is my point about the ERA as a whole! If your concern is that a judge could conceivably interpret my amendment in a way that you would not want- please understand that a judge could do the same for the ERA which leads to my next point....

Abortion

Considering the fact that I provided a link to a state Supreme Court case in which ELECTIVE- not medically necessary- abortions were mandated to be covered due to the ERA, it is hardly irrelevant. It is clear that the ERA opens up a can of worms which none of us can predict and while Scott may not have proposed the ERA to spefically address abortion- it is clear that the issue has been connected in the past and could easily be in the future. Afleitch- my amendment also does not ban elective abortion... it simply makes it clear it is not a right provided by the ERA

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Napoleon- this is absurd on two levels. Of course it is ridiculous to suggest I'd be fine with that, but it is also absurd to say that it is hurtfully discriminatory if I hired some one because they were more physically able. Is it discriminatory that I preferred to hire a woman whenever I hired a nanny or babysitter for my children? Perhaps you think it might be... but there are certain qualities that men and women have in more abundance. I am not offended that I could've never been a basketball star because I am 5'9...why would you take offense to a woman losing out on a construction job because other applicants were physically stronger or a man losing out on a job as a nanny because the parents felt more comfortable with a woman watching their children?

Restrooms

Sbane- while I agree that Afleitch's testimony on this issue is comforting, both Napoleon and especially Scott have made comments in this debate supporting the ride of a man who identifies as a female to use the women's restroom. This is very concerning to me. My amendment is an attempt to avoid this issue without specifically putting restrooms in the constitution