Wednesday, March 25, 2009

No Hate In Gainesville


Voters in Florida stomped down Amendment 1--a ballot initiative that would have repealed an LGBT anti-discrimination law. Yes indeedy, they were voting in Florida yesterday to allow discrimination.

How American, Mom and apple pie!

But then 58% of the voters said No to that; No to allowing discrimination and hate be made acceptable. No. And more good news: voter turnout was 27%. While not a huge number, the usual turnout is around 15%.
Still, there were some 8,000+ folks who voted Yes to hate. So the work is far from over.

"I love this town!" Commissioner Craig Lowe shouted, announcing the defeat Amendment 1. "Today we showed what we are really made of. This has been an experience that none of us has asked for, but we have established that in Gainesville every person matters."

It was Lowe who, in January of 2008, paved the way for the city to enact anti-discrimination protections for transgender individuals.
Instantly a conservative political action committee, Citizens for Good Public Policy--gosh I love their names....they're all so good and lovely and hateful--began campaigning to put an amendment on the ballot that would repeal the newly passed city rights legislation for transgendered people, but also, as an extra bonus, it would repeal anti-discrimination laws designed to protect the gay, lesbian and bisexual communities!

Equal Opportunity Hatred. One Vote To Hate The Most!

Those gosh darned good folks at Citizens For Good Public Policy gathered more than 6,000 signatures to put hate on the ballot; and let's just call it hate. Anytime you want to legislate against a particular group of people, you are legislating hate, so don't cover it up with cute names and pictures of kittens, and flags and crosses.

We ain't buying that crap no more.

Mark Minck, chair-hater for those Citizens for Good Public Policy, said he was happy with the outcome. Uh, Mark? Honey? You lost. You're not happy. Don't play baby. Don't. But then this fool goes on to say that the goal of the ordinance was not to allow discrimination but rather to keep men out of women's restrooms.

That's right. it was all about bathrooms. Minck and his hatemongers believed that by allowing, say, a male transgendering to female, to use the women's restroom was akin to allowing predators and child molesting men access to those same bathrooms.

Yep. The old 'compare 'em to molesters' chestnut reared it's ugly head.

When will they learn?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Say anything, but keep it civil .......