My Eight Year-Old Daughter Must Now Share the Girls Room with Grown Men
by Motte Brown on 05/30/2008 at 3:05 PM
Last year I wrote about a controversial decision by the California state Legislature that would allow men to use women's restrooms as long as they dress like or identify themselves as women.
But California state government liberals have nothing on Colorado state government liberals. Yesterday, the Democratic Governor of Colorado Bill Ritter signed a bill that prevents "discrimination" based on "sexual orientation" in "places of public accommodation."
Here's the release from Dr. James Dobson on S.B. 200:
Who would have believed that the Colorado state Legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women's restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation?
Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence. The legislation lists every conceivable type of organization to which this law applies, including restaurants, bathhouses, massage parlors, mortuaries, theaters and 'public facilities of any kind.' Those who would attempt to protect females from this intrusion are subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and up to one year behind bars.
This is your government in action. It represents a payback to Tim Gill and two other billionaires who have essentially 'bought' state legislators with enormous campaign contributions. Coloradans deserve better!
And by the way, because of the way this bill is written, it is not subject to the initiative process. There is no recourse.
So whenever my eight year-old daughter needs to use a public restroom, my wife will have to go with her to ensure there aren't any questionable characters in the next stall. Nice.
1. Christina (in green) said the following at 4:00 PM on May 30:
Why is it that genetalia is no longer enough to define gender?
Why can't bathrooms be GENDER specific?
What was the logic here?
2. Mrs. B said the following at 4:04 PM on May 30:
I can see the point of view they're coming from in making this legislation (not that I agree with it), but this opens up a whole new venue for sexual predators. A total pervert can dress like a woman or claim to be bisexual and enter a ladies' room no questions asked. I can just see some pedophile in one of those 1-person bathrooms waiting for a little girl to come in... Colorado has essentially decided that being PC is more important than protecting the women's (not to mention children's) safety.
I'll be waiting to hear all the court cases that come as a result of women and children being harassed in ladies' room as a result of this legislation.
3. Ashley said the following at 4:21 PM on May 30:
This is pretty ridiculous, as it should just be based on gender, not sexual orientation.
However, for those going to make comments on pedophiles, etc... those people will enter opposite sex restrooms anyway, with or without this law. Obviously, laws don't stop sexual predators. I would be surprised if this law alone suddenly made parents more concerned about sending their child to the bathroom alone - this signifies ignorance to me.
4. pass the ammunition said the following at 4:35 PM on May 30:
While I'm not sure yet how I feel about this decision, I know there have been several harassment/assault problems with women who appear to be men men using women's restrooms, or female-appearing men using women's restrooms.
This would probably make it a lot easier for those people to avoid getting assaulted if they could just use whichever bathroom that they looked the most like the other people using it. Still though, I'm not sure how I feel about this.
However, I doubt you have much to fear for your daughter. Most of "those people" aren't predators. Also, I would be willing to bet money that people have already been doing this and no one's noticed most of the time.
5. Sam said the following at 4:38 PM on May 30:
Yeah, I guess the discrimination felt by one (probably small) group of people outweighs the fear of women all over the state. I for one admit to being afraid of the idea of sharing a bathroom with a man. I might see things I'd just rather not see. And the men might see things we don't want them to see either. Bathrooms are areas of privacy for women. We adjust things. Talk about things. Travel in packs there.
Don't even get me started on the idea that sexual perverts could infiltrate bathrooms. It's just wrong and disgusting and I have NO IDEA what the CO Legislature was thinking passing this ridiculous law.
Go into the room where your equipment is most appropriate, folks. Is that really so hard to understand?
6. k. said the following at 4:47 PM on May 30:
Well, on a pragmatic note, transgendered/transsexual people have already been using the same restrooms for years. We just haven't known. (After all, unless you administer a physical search/lab test to everybody in a skirt who walks into the bathroom, there's no way to know for sure.) Plus, there's been nothing in the past to prevent pedophiles from dressing as a woman and hanging out in the restroom, anyway. I'm not sure you're making the case that this bill will suddenly give them the green light to do so.
I can understand why people are upset by this. Personally I think FotF's reaction might be a little alarmist, but the jury's still out on that.
7. Nick said the following at 4:59 PM on May 30:
Motte said: "So whenever my eight year-old daughter needs to use a public restroom, my wife will have to go with her to ensure there aren't any questionable characters in the next stall"
No she won't - you can just don her dress and take your daughter in yourself!
8. Alex said the following at 5:13 PM on May 30:
How can you do this? How do you justify this to yourself?
9. DannieA said the following at 5:53 PM on May 30:
Forgive me if this comment seems out of place, but as a native Californian I have always been tired of people ragging on my state saying how it's sooooo bad and liberal that decent Christian people shouldn't live there.
Well maybe now people can bite their tongues...other states have shown how much more liberal than California they are.
10. JJ said the following at 6:03 PM on May 30:
While I think laws like this are pretty silly, admittedly I don't see this being a big problem. If you're in what you perceive to be a seedier area, well than don't send your kids to the restroom there. (like you probably wouldn't have anyway)
What did jump out at me was Dr. Dobson's going right from "predator" to "bisexual, cross-dresser..." which is troubling to me. That's certainly not the examples I see when watching the evening news...
11. Highly Concerned... said the following at 9:28 PM on May 30:
Okay, I just had to respond, and I’m sure some people may get offended. I’ve never been a PC person anyway….
I find this law passing, and that of California's law passing, a part of a much larger unfolding agenda. We already know the state of California, for the most part is on the fast track to perdition as an extremely liberal state. Just about everything is legal in Cali that shouldn’t be, and if it is illegal, there are no true laws to really enforce them. It is the home of the very industry that has enabled America to become the depraved Porn Nation that it is today. Or, sorry, I should be PC and perhaps say, America is a “free-loving, sexually uninhibited nation that enjoys the fruits of its liberalness and all is well in the USA…..riiiiiiiiight…..
Folks, political correctness is not a Christian virtue; as much as it is a scapegoat to avoid doing what’s right sometimes, and speaking in truth. It is an accepted way of avoiding offending people for their perceptual sensibilities. Don’t get me wrong, using derogatory terms is not acceptable, nor is speaking in a manner that does not reflect the light Christ has called us to be to the world. Political correctness has its place—just not in every arena. The Scriptures call Christians to speak in love and truth towards one another, and hold each other accountable--this includes the secular world. What happened to acknowledging what the legitimate and obvious concerns should be concerning the protection of women? When was the last time you read in the news paper of men getting raped, murdered or kidnapped with kids in public places like a mall? Sure it may happen occassionally, but women are typically crime victims. Who else is typically a crime victim? People who are identified as cross-genders, trans-sexuals, homosexuals, etc. The CO law now legalizes the opportunity for crimes to happen—before this law it was socially unacceptable and unnecessary, now the door of opportunity has opened. We must remember we live in a fallen world. There is an enemy who is tireless in seeking such types of opportunities to work it in his favor--he is seeking every opportunity to kill and destroy God's creation.
No one reading this post is going to tell me if they had a daughter in pre-school – or any grade for that matter, that they would feel 100% comfortable and perfectly confident of her safety and well being with the knowledge of her being defenseless (and with no legal recourse should anything happen to her in a public space like school), when a stranger, a much older boy, or man is allowed to go into the next stall next to her. I don't think so—are kids aren’t even safe right now as they go to their schools. So now that the unknown predators are allowed to come and go into such a vulnerable place such as a bathroom, what options do you have? Not to use a rest room in public? Sex crimes are at an all time high!!! Lets not kid ourselves. Sure the dad can go in there, but we also know a lot of our youth is being raised by single-family homes, mostly run by mothers. Then what?
Its just not right, and it is all a part of the bigger picture--the gay/alternative agenda, to normalize living in such a way that God has declared to be an abomination. For scriptural reference read Romans 1:16 - 32. This is the subtle yet tactful agenda that is always under the radar, and its the horse the enemy is driving quietly to pull his agenda under the guise of equality and fair treatment for a particular group that clearly needs to be lifted in prayer. How are we, the salt of the earth supposed to be Christ-like and a witness, when we are so “open minded” to blurring the truths behind issues like these? God does not and will not contradict Himself, and I get tell you right now, He’s not rejoicing over this situation. This is a big deal, and all the other states are going to see what the public reaction is going to be. I think it would be a grave mistake to not make it the big deal that it should be, so other states do not follow suit with similar ridiculous concessions.
12. John the Aggie said the following at 9:46 PM on May 30:
How can you people be so sympathetic to an obviously ridiculous idea???
Come on... just because you can see where they are coming from doesn't make it justifiable... I can see where Hitler was coming from - that argument carries no weight.
I hope for the sake of this nation that the Florida revival keeps growing and spreads across all 50 states, and knocks some Judeo-Christian sense into America again!
13. Matt said the following at 11:53 PM on May 30:
I'm trying to understand how #2 and #4 can see where these people are coming from? Just because people "have been doing it" doesn't mean that you legislate their right "to do it".If being of a specific gender makes you discriminatory then what exactly is non-discriminatory?
I think G.K. Chesterton said it best:
"When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws."
14. Lissa said the following at 12:57 AM on May 31:
Yes, this is sad and slightly scary to me, especially as a young woman.
What I don't understand about liberals, or liberal political decisions, is that they would rather make the MAJORITY of people uncomfortable (or even unsafe), for the slight convenience of a very small MINORITY of people. And if they really wanted to be fair to the confused-gendered people out there as well as to all the rest who would prefer to go on using bathrooms the way they always have, the smartest thing to do would be to just make a third unisex bathroom. Then each person, whatever their gender, can make a choice of which bathroom to go to.
And as for Ashley's comment, and the other people who are saying that pedophiles would go in the restrooms anyway...that logic doesn't make any sense to me. Whether or not some did it before these laws, clearly such changes would make it much easier for them to do so.
And exactly why on earth would we want to make it EASIER for women and children to be in danger of harrasement??
15. Lissa said the following at 1:05 AM on May 31:
"Pass the Ammunition" (#4) said:
"Also, I would be willing to bet money that people have already been doing this and no one's noticed most of the time."
So what? If they're doing it, I'd rather not know...In fact, I'd prefer to keep things that way. They can keep on doing it, no one will know, and everyone will be happy. I still don't understand why we need to change the laws to "accomodate" people who probably are already doing this anyway.
16. James said the following at 1:14 AM on May 31:
Here in AZ, if you're a guy and enter a women's restroom and a woman walks in on you, many places WILL call the cops on you by default just to protect themselves from a potential lawsuit.
Don't ask how I know: it came about as a common brain-fart on my part, though thankfully I was informed of the above as a warning, not from experience.
I wonder if this Colorado legislation will come under fire the first time a woman sues b/c she walked in on a male sexual pervert in the ladies room.
17. Nelson said the following at 2:57 AM on May 31:
Actually, he won't even need the dress.
18. Eliza said the following at 5:56 AM on May 31:
I understand everyone's concerns, but they strike me as kind of naive and extreme.
Women's bathrooms always have stalls, only stalls. No one is undressing or exposing themselves outside the privacy of those stalls, and there is no reason why a reasonable gay/transvestite person would. I could understand the concern better if the issue was with urinals, but there just isn't any such thing. And if a woman wants to use the men's bathroom, she's going to be in the stalls anyway. Exposure just isn't an issue.
When I was 8 years old, my mother always went in to the bathroom with me. Sexual assaults have always happened in ladies' restrooms--this is nothing new. A law like this is not going to make it "easier" or "more likely" that a sexual pervert is going to assault someone because 1) if they wanted to, they would find a way to before and 2) restrooms are still public places. During most parts of the day there are witnesses around.
Anyway, I don't really care about the law. I just don't think it's outrageously more dangerous than our public bathrooms already are. Dobson's fears are misplaced.
19. Esther said the following at 8:30 AM on May 31:
Two things:
Last time I checked, most homes and many convenience stores have co-ed bathrooms. Unfortunately, many instances of sexual abuse are in the family, so the next time you visit uncle Joe, maybe bathroom visits should be supervised as well. It's horrible, but I think it shows that there are dangers and sinfulness everywhere- we must always be on our guard against the enemy.
Second, some people with sexual identity issues may be predators, but most are not. When I played sports in college, I had some openly lesbian teammates. It didn't bother me to shower in the same (open) shower room with them, any more than it bothered me to be showering in front of any of the other girls (of course, group showers are somewhat awkward by definition).
20. Hannah C. said the following at 10:14 AM on May 31:
When I asked one of my friends who lives in Colorado about this, she said it applied to *transgendered* people, specifically. I don't know if that is correct or not...If it is, that means that the person is dressed like a woman anyway and, as some others have said, you might not be able to tell.
If one has a bathroom meant for the use of ONE PERSON AT A TIME, it doesn't matter whether it's women only, men only, or coed, because only one person (or perhaps a parent and child) will be in there at a time. With stalls, though, that gets sketchy. Though, since women's bathrooms have STALLS ONLY, little girls will not be seeing anything - unless the man in the restroom is a sexual pervert, which is a whole 'nother story.
I've heard many mothers say that they don't let their little boys into men's public restrooms by themselves until they are a bit older, and even then some mothers stand AT THE DOORWAY and yell to their children. For the most part, I think these mothers do not get negative reactions from other adults. I've never heard about any cases of sexual assault in ladies' restrooms, but I'm sure it's happened, sadly.
That all being said...I'm really glad I don't live in Colorado.
Oh yeah - does this go both ways? Or is it only men in women's restrooms? I thought it went both ways, but I'm not sure. (Though why anyone would want to use a men's restroom over a woman's is another story entirely - I've had to clean a men's restroom as a grocery store employee, and it stank.)
21. Chris said the following at 12:43 PM on May 31:
Uh, someone want to explain to me how a bisexual, gay or straight man can go into a women's bathroom, as Dobson claims? If you read the bill, it says that there shall be no discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation (which includes transgendered people*). One can deny any bisexual, gay or straight man the use of a female bathroom if a male bathroom exists. That's not discriminating based on sexual orientation as any man, regardless of orientation, can use the men's bathroom. This same argument can apply to cross-dressers, too.
And how do predators get lumped in with everybody else, even straight men? I'm reminded of Reverend Lovejoy's wife screaming, "Won't someone think of the children?!?"
(* Transgendered people can create a bit of a legal quagmire, particularly if someone is in the process of undergoing a sex change. I won't even get into that here. For example, do you make a man who's had a sex change, but who has Y chromosomes, use the men's bathroom?)
And for those all wound up about their children, remember that they're more likely to be molested by someone they know - family members, friends, priests, coaches, etc. If anything, a true pedophile would love a law like this. It gets everyone thinking that their kids are likely to be molested by some cross-dresser or transgendered person (which has nothing to do with pedophilia) in a bathroom at the mall, not kind old Mr. Johnson down the street who volunteers as a crossing guard or dear Uncle Dave.
22. April said the following at 1:13 PM on May 31:
Motte,
This is a huge issue and it is a disgusting and horrific law.
I would like to say, however, that criminals don't wait for laws to be passed to prey on children.
I am concerned that you think that apart from this kind of law it is okay for an 8 year old girl to go to a public restroom unaccompanied.
Therefore, I would like to ask you to reconsider your opinion. If children didn't need the protection of parents, God would have created families differently.
23. ryan said the following at 4:24 PM on May 31:
Are you kidding me? In this world today this is all we need for all the creeps out there, men or women, to have perfect access to our children. How could they pass something like this? Did they even take into account all the chilren and adults this decision will affect? I am terribly frightened for all the kids out there. I will no longer even allow my son, who is six, to go the bathroom alone. Do the people that pass this not have kids? UNBELIEVABLE!!
24. Vanessa said the following at 7:33 AM on Jun 1:
I don't live in California or Colorado...but I've been concerned with the sheer number of males of any age popping up in women's restrooms, period. While in the locker room at my health club, there were two or three instances of mothers bring their sons into the locker room (the gym provides childcare by licensed practitioners) while women are changing or using the segregated sauna/steam room facilities. I could understand the 2 year old...but the 8 year old?
I think there should be more of the "family" restrooms that have popped up in most shopping malls recently. That way, moms and dads can watch over their young children of the opposite gender in peace and relative safety. No surprises there! Maybe there should be a section set aside as "gender neutral" and all those people can go there. I hate to think we need to go backwards to a form of segregation...but the requests of the few should never be allowed to encroach on the will of the majority. Make concessions but don't give in!
25. Jess said the following at 1:21 AM on Jun 2:
There are plenty of reasons to object to this proposal without resorting to inaccurate associations. Let's consider some of the labels being thrown about and whether any of them are actually associated with predatory sexual behavior. It should go without saying that sexual preference, gender identity, and sexual paraphelias are different things. Dr. Dobson's clumping of predator (criminal behavior), bisexual (sexual orientation), and cross-dressing (currently classified as a paraphelia) is misleading.
Cross-dresser: This term (also knows as transvestitism)is generally used to describe a paraphelia (as classified by DSM IV) wherein mostly heterosexual men derive sexual gratification from wearing women's clothing; this is most often done in the privacy of their homes, but may escalate to public cross-dressing if the person has elements of gender dysphoria. Again, they are mostly heterosexual and this behavior is not associated with pedophilia or sexual assault.
Gender Identity Disorder: wherein one's biological sex does not correlate with the gender that they feel themselves to be. This is the person who is biologically female but identifies as a man, or is biologically male but identifies as a woman. This is not about sexual orientation. These are the people who may get sexual reassigment surgery (which would make them transsexual).
Transgendered is somewhat of an umbrella term that many consider to include the spectrum from cross-dressing to sexual reassignment surgery. It is separate from sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation refers to what gender(s) someone is sexually attracted to (straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual). Pedophiles may be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.
And then of course there are intersex people, who are born with a congenital, hormonal, and/or chromosomal abnormality that leaves them with ambiguous internal and/or external genitalia.
Please note that I based these definitions on diagnostic criteria used by medical and psychiatric professionals (based mostly on DSM IV). There have been studies down about whether people with particular paraphelias assault others, and I have included that data where applicable. As someone noted above, your kids are more in danger of close relatives.
Again, I'm not defending the law, but to lump any and all sexuality and gender issues together and equate them with sex offenders is misleading and unnecessary. It's late, so please correct me if I've defined anything poorly.
That being said, violence against women is a major concern (one reason my mom didn't allow me to go to the bathroom alone at 8 in public anyway). But the vast majority of violence against women is perpetrated by individuals the woman knows: date rape, incestuous childhood abuse, intimate partner violence, homicide of pregnant women. And of course these acts of violence can also be perpetrated by strangers; unfortunately, we have a lived in a world for quite some time where predators may be lurking in public restrooms or grocery stores or neighborhoods. I just don't think that the
"gay/alternative" agenda and the rampant violence against women and girls are the same issue. The major perpetrator in the latter case is heterosexual men. Let's not jump from A to Z people.
26. Lissa said the following at 2:20 AM on Jun 2:
Amen to "Highly Concerned..."'s comments! Thanks for being bold and telling it like it is, and I think you said it in a relatively kind way. It doesn't matter what you say, some people will always be offended.
Anyway, it's nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks this whole thing is ridiculous, and is wondering when Christians got so watered-down in their worldview.
It reminds me of the verse in revelations that says, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth."
I understand the importance of being loving towards others and of God's grace towards sinners, but that doesn't mean we can just throw out God's truth, (and judgement between right and wrong, darkness and light.) We need both.
27. Kimberley said the following at 5:07 AM on Jun 2:
To all those who think there is not a problem with this read #11 Highly Concerned's response!
Of course there is a problem with this and yes it will definetly increase the opportunity for perverts to prey on women and children because now they have the right to be there where as before they did not and if you found them in there you would be able to call the police or security.
We are definetly in the end times with laws like this being passed and we need to be praying!!
The Democratics have been known coming up with laws such as this in the USA and United Kingdom!
If this law was the other way round it would still be just as crazy.
We need boundaries as when there are no boundaries we don't know where something is wrong and something is right. We need Female and Male toilets we are not the same!
This is crazy is there a petition being done against the law? Or from my reading can nothing be done about this law at present?
We need to pray for our nations!
28. PLH said the following at 6:26 AM on Jun 2:
I agree with comments 18, 19, and 20. Sure, the law is troubling, but using a public bathroom of the opposite gender is hardly indecent anyway. I have used the men's bathroom once or twice when it's been a single room and the women's bathroom has a long line.
29. obewan said the following at 7:57 AM on Jun 2:
“>>Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence.<<”
What part of separate stalls don’t we understand? What about the REAL problem that has always existed in the men’s room? (Predator men and little boys?) This law does little to change things from the way they have always been. The wording of this blog serves only to create more fear and paranoia by categorizing all transgendered people as “predators”. Don’t get me wrong, I am not for the law, but I am also not for some of the extreme reactions to it. I used to attend a community college where the registrar was a trans gendered person. He was married for 20 years, had graduated from a Baptist seminary, and although he had some psychological issues related to his gender identity, he was for sure no pervert, pedophile, or “predator”. Also, where I work, there is a woman that resembles a man. She might have even had some birth defects that bought this about. She dresses as a man. She is not gay, and is happily married. She uses the women’s restroom. Countless homophobic women have been “creeped out” by her presence and complained to human resources about the “man” using the women’s restroom. Some have even screamed when she walked in. Her work falls under my jurisdiction, so I have some supervisory responsibility over this person. Unfortunately, this problem will not go away. The solution for concerned parents is for them to accompany their child to the restroom. I am more concerned about the “concerned” fathers who accompany their little girls to the men’s room when I am using the urinal. This has happened to me more than once. That problem does at least in part meet the end of Dr. Dobson’s sentence, except that I am a normal straight male.
30. Jim H said the following at 9:33 AM on Jun 2:
I cannot imagine how anyone could possibly think this is OK.
Some have brought up the argument that it will not stop sex crimes. Well if that were the deciding criteria on the necessity of a law, why have a law against murder? After all, having a law against murder obviously does not prevent murder! That kind of thinking is just stupid. What this law will do is create an environment where sexual assaults are more likely. And those that have appealed to the "privacy" of a stall are misguided. You really think a stall can offer you protection or privacy against a determined predator? You don't recall a certain US lawmaker who made advances to person in an adjacent stall?
Honestly, I can't fathom someone who claims to be a Christian can possibly be aloof to this vile legislation?
31. PLH said the following at 11:07 AM on Jun 2:
To me, the comments here reveal the grace people were emphasizing was needed when interacting with gay or sexually confused people. Sure, transgendered and cross dressing people have clear psychological problems, but shouldn't they be allowed to use the restroom without facing harassment? This isn't like gay marriage, where a clear moral choice exists. It's simply a matter of public decency. Moreover, the linking of transgendered/bisexual/cross dressing individuals with sexual perverts/predators is simply false.
32. Tami said the following at 12:01 PM on Jun 2:
obewan (29), I see your point (and agree with much of what you've said), but I also want to mention that saying "What about the REAL problem..." can be seen as being very dismissive of the other side's views. *Both* you and Motte make valid points for consideration and I'm certain that Motte sees his concerns about his daughter facing a predator in the bathroom as real, too.
And not to be an alarmist, but "separate stalls" also make for nice "separate hiding places." As a woman this is something I do need to be aware of when I enter a public restroom... law or no law.
33. Holly (the married, parental one) said the following at 12:50 PM on Jun 2:
hey y'all, people who are going to break the law by harming children and women probably don't care whether they're also breaking a law about being in the wrong bathroom. right?
and in response to Jim H above, the bifurcation of "you're either opposed to this or you're not a Christian" is insulting and silly. let's have unity in essentials (Jesus, the Son of God, crucified, buried and resurrected in atonement for our sins) and grace in the non-essentials (pretty much everything else), shall we? bless you for your enthusiasm and zeal, if that's what it is, but let's don't get too jumpy on the "you're not a Christian label, okay?
34. Kristal said the following at 2:34 PM on Jun 2:
I have to admit I was outraged when I heard about this - I still am. I think it is morally and socially wrong.
However, God did allow this to happen, maybe as a wake up call to the country? I don't know, only He does. I do think that we as a nation need to stay on top of things to prevent worse legislation from being passed. We have to vote and make our values known. If we don't they are going to slip away to the peril of our children and granchildren. The lines between morally right and morally wrong are getting grayer and grayer all the time. Especially as Christians we are called to speak up when something contradicts His Word and unfortunately so very few do. I just wonder how much longer this country is going to have His blessing.
The good news is anyone who disapproves of this bill can counteract by having the family bathrooms or single room restrooms to ease the fear of women or parents. Or you always have the option of not going into public restrooms at all. And we shouldn't fear if we know God. He is our refuge and He is in control.
35. Jim H said the following at 2:44 PM on Jun 2:
Holly #33,
Ii is not just this issue that stirs me up and what I am about to say is not directed at you, but I am getting increasingly frustrated with the downward spiral of our society and the accomodation and even nurturing of every manner of perversion that people can come up with. You would think most Christians would be resisting the increasing evil upon our generation, but many are either blind to it our have bought into the postmodern notion that God's truths as contained in the Bible are unattainable and therefore "who are we to say what is right or wrong."
Abortion falls into the same category. Christians who support abortion on demand are either woefully ignorant of God's word and the value He places on life, or are not really Christans at all.
But we can't really blame non-Christians for the downward spiral. After all, non-Christians don't have the benefit of God's word the the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The reason for the downward spiral of this country rests squarely on the shoulders of Christians (like me) who have not stood up for what is right and for what is good. More church leaders and Christians should have the courage to stand up to this relentless assault on traditional values and I applaud Dr. Donson and the Focus on the Family staff for doing so for all these years.
Call me overzealous if you want, but as they say "people who don't stand for something will fall for anything" and that seems to be what is happening in our day. In fact my zeal has been stirred up so much that I am going to send Focus on the Family a donation today because they are doing what so many are not willing to do (even many pastors) and stand up for what is right and what is good.
36. Jessica said the following at 3:00 PM on Jun 2:
This law was passed in my county in Maryland just a few months ago. Let me tell you, it definitely changes things, at least for me.
Yes, I understand the argument about women only having stalls in their restrooms, but I also know that those stalls have cracks, they have limits, they are not completely and entirely enclosed from any prying eye.
There is no reason we can't have gender specific bathrooms. When babies are born, they are boys and girls. What are we going to do? Start crying discrimination and call them 'its' until they are old enough to choose which one they get to be? Boys are boys and boys use the boys bathroom. Girls are girls and girls use the girls bathroom. I don't get what is so discriminating about genetics :-\
The big problem is, it's not only the restrooms. What about locker rooms? In high school, we actually had a male substitute gym teacher once. He came into the girls locker room and watched us all change and shower from the locker room office. He said that, as our teacher, it was his 'right' to be there. That he had to 'supervise' us. Needless to say, he never returned to teaching.
It is not possible to legislate righteousness. America needs a heart change before anything else. That is the reality of the world we live in.
37. A woman who knows she is female said the following at 3:23 PM on Jun 2:
One: this is a really silly law to pass in the first place, don't they have more important things to legislate?
Two: as a woman, the only guy I really want to share a bathroom with is my husband (stalls or not)
Three: the bathroom thing isn't as scary as the locker room part. All my experiences in locker rooms in high school, college, and public gyms has been a complete lack of private areas to change or shower. What happens when a guy decides he's feeling feminine today and wanders in with a bunch of half-clad or showering ladies? Nothing like gender equality!
Four: yes there are more important things to worry about from the christian perspective, but this is just another example of people completely disregarding the natural order of things (as far as I know humans are the only species to have gender confusion issues in genetically normal individuals (you have either 2 X or 1 X and 1 Y chromosomes and aren't a hermaphrodite or pseudohermaphrodite, etc.)) and it obviously makes many of us uneasy about the current and future issues as things tend to deteriorate in this culture and is bound to spark discussion
38. Don said the following at 11:18 PM on Jun 2:
Those of you who say this law doesn't change anything, that people of the opposite sex have been doing this for a long, that sexual predators have have already been doing this, haven't stopped to consider that prior to this law been signed it was against the law and you had a recourse if you didn't like what happened. However you don't have that choice now, because now it is legal. We have lost our right to privacy.
39. KC said the following at 12:32 AM on Jun 3:
Thanks Jess #25.
40. THINGS THAT MAKE YOU HMM! said the following at 5:24 AM on Jun 3:
RIGHT and WRONG...BLACK AND WHITE...GOOD and EVIL...GOD and MAN...MALE and FEMALE...HUSBAND and WIFE
DO NOT EVEN STICK YOUR BIG TOE INTO THE GREY AREA OR IT WILL SUCK YOUR WHOLE BODY IN AND EVERYTHING WILL BE GREY. DO NOT COMPROMISE BIBLICAL VALUES. THE TRUTH WILL SET YOUR FREE. I AM SO DISHEARTENED BY THIS BUT I KNOW THAT IT ONLY BRINGS US CLOSER TO THE 2nd COMING OF CHRIST. SCARY FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT REST IN JESUS AND THEY DON"T EVEN KNOW THEY ARE PERISHING. EVERYONE CAN SPECULATE ON THIS BUT BOTTOM LINE IS IT IN LINE WITH WHAT GOD WOULD HAVE FOR US> NO WAY! SO GET OUT OF THE GREY AREA AND EITHER JUMP ON THE BAND WAGON OR GET ON THE NARROW PATH TO RIGHTEOUSNESS> BE SET APART > A LIGHT IN THIS DARKNESS> GET ON YOUR KNEES AND PRAY FOR THE LOST SOULS IN THIS WORLD> THIS WORLD IS CONFUSED BECAUSE THEY ARE LED ASTRAY BY SATAN CHOOSE TODAY WHO YOU WILL SERVE...DO NOT COMPROMISE THE TRUTH
41. John D. said the following at 9:50 AM on Jun 3:
Poster 40 (you don't need to shout!) is correct to the extent that where Scripture is clear, one should not step into a gray area where one can be confused into calling good evil and vice versa.
However, in life there are many gray areas where the line is not so clear. Others have made reference to the fact that 1) not all perversions are created equal -- being a cross-dresser or transgendered person does not automatically make one a child molester, 2) some individuals could honestly be mistaken for the other gender and 3) when you come right down to it, the Bible says nothing about bathrooms at all.
While the Bible is clear about homosexual relations, when it comes to, for example, people who are born intersexed, the answers are more complicated.
The best that we can do is to point sinners of every variety to God's Word and what it says about His holiness as well as His grace offered through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. People are then responsible to make their own choices.
42. Kyra said the following at 10:25 AM on Jun 3:
I think the law is a little unnecessary to begin with, but to be honest I'm not sure how it changes things all that much. As it stands now, many places including several malls near where I live, have "family restrooms" The purpose of this is to allow a father to accompany his daughters into a restroom (or a mother to not have to drag her sons over a certain age into the "ladies room") Of course, there is nothing to prevent men without children from entering such restrooms now... the point is yes parents will have to keep a close eye on their children, but no more so than they always have.
43. Anne said the following at 10:55 AM on Jun 3:
Annnddd...I will be sure to avoid Colorado in the future. That is sick.
44. DannieA said the following at 10:58 AM on Jun 3:
to the editors....when there is a post with all caps...it's hard to read...most blogs don't allow messages with all caps...would it be possible to edit them so that the whole message is not in caps?
re: things that make you go hmmm....please don't write in all caps next time...makes readers dizzy
45. Pastor Craig said the following at 12:13 PM on Jun 3:
Doesn't Colorado's 1992 Amendment 2 stop this kind of thing from happening? I'm confused.
46. Tom Neven said the following at 1:37 PM on Jun 3:
Pastor Craig (#45)
Colorado's Amendment 2 was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996. Through their powers of clairvoyance, the court's majority determined that the voters of Colorado had bad motives and were thinking politically incorrect thoughts when they passed the Amendment, and that therefore made it unconstitutional.
47. Maddy said the following at 2:26 PM on Jun 3:
I told my 7 year old daughter and my 9 year old son about this bill passing in CO and asked them how they would feel if they had to be forced to go into public bathrooms with people of the opposite sex. Both of them responded, "That's Gross!" Out of the mouth of babes. What about protecting the innocence of our children.It seems our children have more sense then the political leaders in our governments
48. Sue said the following at 8:33 PM on Jun 3:
Most of the comments I have read here shame me, it is embarrassing. It gives new meaning to Jesus wept, because it is clearly what I am doing. It also gives a great illustrative message of Jesus going into the temple and turning over the tables of the money changers. Why would He do that? It is as clear then it is now that Christians have gotten so comfortable or should I say religious in this world that they don't know the difference between grace and justice right and wrong black and white. Can't we just all get along is todays Christian cry. Well there needs to be alot of crying from our shameful ungodly acceptance of evil and do a whole lot of repenting then God would hear from heaven and heal our land! Until then we will be continually lambasted with these ungodly evil laws, and many will see nothing wrong with them always giving some twist of scripture to support their world views. Is not the scripture still valid to "avoid every APPEARENCE of evil". God loves the sinner but he HATES the sin, should we not do the same. Love never compromises. You will never get them saved by endorsing thier sin! Gal 5:10. Some people need a new exercise program Heb 5:14.
49. obewan said the following at 1:47 PM on Jun 4:
I read S.B 200 and have to say it MIGHT be a stretch to say that it applies to grown men using the women’s restroom.
First of all, it uses the words “public accommodation” rather than restroom. That could be the food court in a shopping mall among other places.
It also uses the words “transgender status or another persons PERCEPTION thereof…”
The law as worded could be used to protect a “perceived gay” male who wants to rightfully use the men’s restroom.
The law also applies to public housing accommodations. This hits close to home for me, because as a normal straight male living with two other straight Christian males, I was accused of being gay by my own sister.
Furthermore, the town I lived in passed legislation forbidding unmarried people from living together, which resulted in our 3 male roommate situation being suspected as being an “illegal” gay relationship.
Still furthermore, when I once held a secret government security clearance, a female who had two roommates was denied her clearance (and job) because they accused her of being a lesbian. (And therefore subject to blackmail by the KJB.) She was normal straight woman subject to a government witchunt.
My point is, that if we make the wrong noises about stuff like this, it may come back to bite even well meaning straight Christian singles who choose to live together to save money and provide good stewardship.
BTW, I did not see a $5000 fine anywhere in the bill. I did see a fine of $50 - $500. My take is that the key focus of the bill is the word PERCEPTION. I know what it feels like to be falsely accused and potentially denied accommodations. So does the masculine female at my place of employment who nearly lost her restroom privileges as a result of her perceived appearance.
50. warren said the following at 8:14 PM on Jun 4:
I love your ministry. My wife is also a huge fan.
We must pick our fights carefully. This one seems to ring hollow to me, as restrooms are hardly sacred ground, nor would strange interlopers be well received in them.
The concept however is obnoxious, and I salute you for bringing it to the forefront of the battle for common sense and decency.
51. John D. said the following at 6:26 AM on Jun 5:
To Sue (post 48):
Yes, what you say is correct, and yet --
See Michael Hamm's unusually candid post (#84) on "Balancing Truth and Grace on Homosexuality." Gays already know the Christian view of their sin. We are already doing a great job of making our (and, more to the point, the Lord's) opinion known to them. Any more and we risk verging into Fred Phelps territory ("God Hates Fags").
(Phelps and his "church," in case anyone still doesn't realize it, are an obnoxious caricature of conservative Christians, and are not spreading the gospel of grace and truth as much as they are conditioning the public to approve of hate crimes legislation that will circumscribe the rights of real Christians.)
I trust that most Boundless readers and posters know what the Word of God says about homosexuality, and revere the Word as inerrant and inspired. At the same time, not everyone sees this particular state law on public accommodations as the end of Western civilization as we know it. (See obewan's excellent post #49, explaining some of the practical problems with an overly condemnatory and suspicious public policy.)
Also, if we are going to talk about national sins, why do we focus so much on sexual sins? (Focusing excessively on sex is an American national sin.)
Are unisex bathrooms worse than
* decades of deficit spending by Congress that have caused inflation, imposing a de facto tax on the poor who suffer the most when food and gas prices go up
* get rich quick schemes in the housing market that inevitably collapse, letting a few on Wall Street cash out early while millions of working-class people (who may themselves have been gullible and greedy) find themselves defaulting on their mortgages and being evicted
* the torture and murder of prisoners in U.S. custody ("well, they're only muslims")
I believe that some of the same people who are up on their soapboxes about the odd-looking person in a bathroom hardly consider the things I've mentioned to be sins. Talk about spitting out a gnat and swallowing a camel.
52. Tony said the following at 10:20 PM on Jun 5:
I finally had to come check this website to see what the hubbub was about on this subject. I just couldn't believe the line the radio commercials were painting on this issue. They paint a picture that every elementary school bathroom was going to be filled with predators after our children protected by this law.
First off after many years of hearing Dr. Dobson and other representatives of this group on the radio, I was rather pleasantly surprised and shocked to find the web site actually address actual family issues. From the public face of your organization one would think it should be named Focus on Gay Bashing, Focus on Politics or Focus on anything BUT the Family.
So I was rather relieved to find this disgusting parade of fear mongering was not covering the front of the site and was even a little hard to find. However having found this article and the resulting forum, I have discovered that the issue is exactly what I thought and Focus on the Family's radio ads are some of the worst kind of fear propaganda I have ever seen this side of Nazi Germany's fear propaganda about Jews.
When will decent Christian folk who belong to this organization stand up to Dr. Dobson and his fellow public speakers and say enough. This is supposed to be about helping the family not leading a crusade against homosexuals.
The public face of Focus on the Family should be more like the home page of this web site. Why isn't it? Why do people outside of your organization laugh at it and make bumper stickers like "Focus on your own (censored) family!" Or think its just a variation of Phelps hate filled ministry? Families are in enough trouble with the issues facing them in today's world and homosexuals are the LEAST of those issues. Yet to everyone outside of Focus that seems to be all your organization thinks about.
53. Dena Silver said the following at 4:06 AM on Jun 25:
In your point:
"When Reich says 'narrow-minded agenda' what he really means is 'Christian morality,'" you misinterpret the comment of Robert Reich, former secretary of labor in the Clinton administration.
He specifically uses the label "narrow-minded agenda" in order to distinguish narrow-minded from more abstract-thinking Christians. He wouldn't use the term "Christian morality," which, by his thinking, would be a generalization. He takes care not to lump many kinds of Christians into one group.
54. Richard said the following at 8:59 PM on Jul 6:
In Italy, it is common to have unisex bathrooms, where males and females go together.
While I understand how the passage of this bill make make some people feel uncomfortable, to suggest that it will increase pedophilia is absurd. Most molestations are committed by family members and friends anyway, and not by strangers.