Every year, Democrats warn Republicans about diving into “divisive social issues” such as abortion, marriage, and family. It’s the fulcrum used at just about every turn as organizations such as Equality Virginia and the ACLU play the role of dutiful iconoclast. Until, of course, they are in a position of power — in which case our very own Attorney General Mark Herring defies the Virginia constitution, picks up his briefcase, and sets it down on the opposition’s desk.
Then divisive social issues are OK.
What is happening here is a theme we have seen play out over the last 10 years at least: where secular values press advantage over sacred ones; where secular religions impose their sensibilities upon sacred religions.
Certainly in the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges there seems to be renewed push to exterminate any vestige of the old order. Religious liberties are under threat, marriage utterly redefined as “gmarriage” by the force of the state, Catholic institutions finding themselves targeted in being denied HHS mandate “exemptions” while the Little Sisters of the Poor are forced to subsidize birth control and abortifacients. The litany of embarrassment continues unchecked.
…and now we have transgendered bathrooms. State Senator Adam Ebbin would love to make sure the “Naughty Bits Bill” (SB12) becomes the law of the land, preventing “discrimination in public employment” (read that carefully folks — that’s not just public employees, that’s anyone in “public employment” as contrasted with the private sort, I suppose) and earning the full-throated support of — guess who? — Equality Virginia. Meanwhile, Delegate Dave LaRock has proposed countering legislation (HB397) that is co-sponsored by Del. Mark Cole, Del. Danny Marshall, and State Senator Tom Garrett that plainly states that separation by sex would not defined as discrimination. The clearly non-plusses the folks at the ACLU.
So what is Equality Virginia and the ACLU doing here with the “Naughty Bits Bill”? Why does it matter? And more to the point: why are they cramming transgenders down our throats when at the end of the day, they know that the result will park some transgendered dude next to someone’s teenage (or younger) daughter?
* * *
So what is all this about? In September 2012, a mother filed a complaint about a man who had entered the girls locker room — naked — at Evergreen State College where the local high school conducted its swim meets. Needless to say, the mother wasn’t terribly impressed with the display, and called the campus police after the swim coach walked in and discovered Mr. Colleen Francis (pictured above) in the sauna “sitting with her (sic) legs open and her (sic) male genitalia showing…” and though apologetic to Mr. Collins, explained that there were girls as young as 6 years old who used that facility, and he would have to leave.
Mr. Colleen Francis got his way though. Instead of prosecuting Mr. Collins for indecent exposure, he got a set up which only Eric Cartman could envy, according to LifeSiteNews:
Instead, the college set up curtains that the girls were instructed to change behind.
“Little girls should not be exposed to naked men, period. A college’s notions about ‘non-discrimination’ don’t change that,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel David Hacker.
The college set up curtains. I’m sure a few little girls had to have a talk about Mr. Collins and why girls have… um, male genitalia.
* * *
Let’s fast forward to today, where Virginia school boards are under concerted assault from Equality Virginia and the ACLU to balkanize localities into violating Virginia’s Dillon Rule in order to set the stage for Ebbin’s “Naughty Bits” Bill in the General Assembly — after which they will then insist that the Dillon Rule be enforced rigidly to protect ill-gotten legislative gains.
Too soon? OK, let’s back that train up and we’ll start again.
Virginia’s Dillon Rule is the backbone of Virginia’s economic success. In effect, it states that localities cannot do anything unless the state expressly allows them to do so. So strict is this interpretation, that even now State Senator Mamie Locke has a bill out to permit localities the option of banning plastic bags. Plastic bags, folks.
Now Equality Virginia and the ACLU know this. They also know that anything that treads on Virginia’s economic recovery has two major pitfalls: (1) that anything that threatens Virginia’s Dillon Rule is a “third rail” that portends instant failure, and (2) the political future of Governor Terry McAuliffe — insofar as he seeks to become Secretary of Commerce within a potential President Hillary Clinton administration — depends on a success story that does not place the heavy hand of government on economic revivification.
On Question 1, this has been the strategy of Equality Virginia and the ACLU all along.
Don’t think for a moment that somehow — somewhere — there is this groundswell of really confused kids begging to use the other bathroom. For several years these two organizations have been at it, and have produced… precisely three instances: Gloucester, Stafford, and Fairfax Counties.
Gloucester: This one has been on the books for sometime, and Gloucester County has simply dug their heels in. The result? Lawsuits… expensive lawsuits designed to be expensive, to then cart around and threaten other school boards with newfangled “non-discrimination policies” to be enacted in the dead of night…
Stafford: …which is precisely what happened in Stafford County, where the school administration popped an 11th hour vote on a worn out Stafford School Board, once again threatening Title IX implications if they refused. In this instance, it is claimed that a fourth grade boy wants to use the girls restroom because he too is “transgendered” (or something to that effect). Stafford first enacted the policy, then caught a storm of opposition from teachers, parents, concerned citizens, taxpayers, you name it — and quickly revoked the policy in a 6-0 vote.
Fairfax: In this instance, Fairfax County not only hired advisors before the big vote, but managed to pass it in a heated 10-1 vote with one abstention. Judicial Watch filed a FOIA to determine how it all went down, and as of this writing, Fairfax County Public Schools not only had to be taken to court, but has not even responded adequately — ideally putting them in direct contravention of Virginia’s FOIA statute. Liberty Counsel is already in court representing several concerned taxpayers and unnamed litigants (ostensibly so they cannot be targeted by bullies on the political left) challenging the non-discrimination policy based on — you guess it — a violation of Virginia’s Dillon Rule.
Hence the absolute need for Ebbin’s bill, and the grand strategy all along. If Equality Virginia and the ACLU had been successful in drafting say, 10 or 20 localities into their orbit? Not only would Ebbin’s bill have stood a better chance, but the aftereffects of the total wrecking of Virginia’s Dillon Rule would have exponentially harmful ramifications.
The bottom line here is very simple. Virginians might agree and disagree on “divisive social issues” but Richmond is united on protecting the rules that fuel the engine of Virginia’s economic success. For Equality Virginia and the ACLU to backdoor this sort of radical social change by imperiling Virginia’s business climate is preposterous on its face — not because it is fantastic to believe, but because it demonstrates the fanaticism of a well-financed few to push an agenda at any cost — economic or otherwise.
The answer on Question 2 is simple: does McAuliffe really want to risk his political future by overtly catering to a handful of transsexuals? Probably not.
More importantly, from the perspective of the business community, the entire approach of Equality Virginia and the ACLU has to be concerning. Right now, the active precedent that these two organizations are attempting to establish is that localities can — at their whim — perform extralegal operations that run directly contrary to state law. Specifically with regards to Fairfax County, the non-discrimination policy goes well beyond mere non-discrimination when it embraces transgenders. Should a locality impose a version of Ebbin’s bill where “public employment” is the defining line, then all one needs to do is take existing Title IX statute (as they threatened in Stafford County) and stretch the 1964 Civil Rights Act over the definition of discrimination and viola! — we have created yet another protected class in Virginia.
The implications? Aside from completely undermining Virginia’s Dillon Rule, if Jimmie works at the local car dealership and decides over the Christmas holiday that he wants to become “Candi” — then Candi he… um, she is. If you as an employer decide to fire Ji– er, Candi because no one is buying cars from Candi, guess what? That’s discrimination… or at least, Candi will allege as such.
Let’s drill this down a bit. If Jimmie is a 2nd grade school teacher and comes back from summer vacation as Candi, how do you intend to explain that one to your 7 year old? High school football games? Open to the public… and when your teenage girl is greeted by Candi in the stalls, what then?
Obviously, the response from Equality VA and the ACLU stem two ways: either “deal with it” or “don’t take Candi from strangers” (or something to that effect).
* * *
This becomes much worse though. Ebbin’s bill as written doesn’t merely target schools, nor does it merely target businesses. Ebbin’s bill directly and deliberately targets churches non-profits, and organizations with religious charters. That’s right — all fall under the heavy hand of this bill’s interpretation of non-discrimination — even at the expense of Virginia’s RFRA laws.
When folks speak of the conflict between secular religions and sacred ones, liberal eyes tend to roll to the back of their heads. Come now, they argue, the defenders of the lowest common denominator aren’t religious fanatics. It’s the stody defenders of tradition and “the way things have been” that are the enemy, the haters, the bigots….
But we know this isn’t true. People can hold on to ideologies perhaps even more fanatically than many hold on to their faiths. The secular left is no different, and they too have their priests and inquisitors, their creeds and cardinals, their heretics and true believers. And woe betide those who stray from the new modern theology, especially when it comes to certain pet orthodoxies of the left: abortion, gay marriage or “gmarriage” in modern parlance, and so forth.
I’ll spare you from the “one set of beliefs is just as good as another” pantomime. Yet permit me this one thought: in an era of might makes right, does it really serve anyone’s pleasure that the pendulum of statecraft — having worked in the direction of sexual tradition for a few hundred years — really needs to swing back in the opposite direction? Or does common sense dictate that, regardless as to how one’s private life plays out in one’s public expression, your chromosomal DNA is ultimately going to dictate facts at the end of the day?
Or perhaps further, one might humbly suggest that the very idea of a 2nd grader questioning his or her sexuality strikes one as a particular and psychological oddity.
* * *
Of course, to some degree, objections to Candi are somewhat facetious. Let’s wipe away the veneer on the social objections. One side passionately believes that — now the fight to redefine marriage via the law has been won — the next hill to conquer is arguably that of transgender equality. The other side thinks that is positively revolting (sensible religious norms aside), contrary to science, and outright inane for the whole of common society to be forced to wield the totality and force of government to accommodate Jimmie/Candi’s “special” needs.
Let’s place that to the side and focus on process for one moment.
Is it really a good idea — truly and seriously — to plow directly through Virginia’s Dillon Rule, the backbone of Virginia’s economic climate and the spur to which the Virginia economy is run, to accommodate on record maybe three transgenders? To give credence to a tactic and make valid the approach that one can balkanize local governments into operating around the Dillon Rule, only to expect it to forcefully come crashing down on your side later once Ebbin’s bill passes? How would that work if say, local ordinances forbade the issuance of marriage licenses first, then the bill to allow Virginia Clerk of the Courts to conscientiously object came down (as Carrico’s bill would certainly allow).
Would not Equality Virginia, the ACLU, the Chamber of Commerce, the NFIB, and a host of pro-business organizations have issue with such an approach? Of course they would… because anything that imperils Virginia’s Dillon Rule and brings these sorts of social arguments into the economic sphere is silly at best.
* * *
LaRock’s bill is a worthwhile remedy. All it stipulates is fact: separation based on sex is not discrimination. That’s a common sense bill that would put this balkanization project from Equality Virginia and the ACLU on ice for good.
Transgendered men don’t belong in women’s bathrooms. For Equality Virginia and the ACLU to target and jeopardize Virginia’s Dillon Rule in an effort to give a handout to transgenders is deplorable strategy, regardless as to your arguments on the social issues.
As for Ebbin’s “Naughty Bits Bill”? Best not to touch that one.
