a bridge too far


I’m all for a just society in which everyone is respected and has an equal shot. But in my humble opinion, this initiative on Tuesday was ridiculous. If I correctly understand the proposed ordinance, men dressed as women would be allowed in women’s restrooms, but women dressed as men would not be allowed in men’s restrooms. Why should women alone be expected to accommodate the relatively small number of transgender individuals? Why even force such an unreasonable choice? This has nothing to do with equity. The only positive thing you can say about this is, it puts another nail in the coffin of political-correctness.

And am I missing something obvious here? If supporters of this ill-conceived policy were truly respectful of all genders, Houston building codes should be amended to provide for unisex (or “gender neutral”) restrooms in all public buildings built or renovated after the present date and, if memory serves me, a number of stalls equivalent to urinals and stalls in men’s restrooms is needed in women’s facilities, eliminating long lines at popular events.

I rarely ever agree with many positions the Republicans have taken in recent years, but on this issue I have to side with them. The reformation of sexual mores is a major development in America, and one should accept the fact that it is going to be a gradual development. It will take some time for our built environment to catch up with societal attitudes, and reasonable people cannot expect overnight change.

An inexpensive but transitory solution would be for members of the Building Owners’ and Managers’ Association (BOMA) and other building operators to post signs at conventional rest rooms directing people to the nearest unisex restrooms—even if they’re in someone else’s building—should they want to use them for any reason.


Houston Voters Speak Loudly: No Men in Women’s Restrooms

by Staff, GOPUSA Eagle

Proposition 1, or the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, was losing by a margin of 61% to 39% with 65% of precincts reporting, a stunning defeat for Houston Mayor Annise Parker and the national gay-rights movement, which had poured millions into the race.

But despite that heavy spending advantage, Houston Unites, which supported the ordinance, struggled to combat the Campaign for Houston’s television and radio ads warning that the ordinance would allow men, including sex predators, into women’s public restrooms, showers and locker rooms.

Read the full story at The Washington Times.men_restrooms-300x180

In a completely different take on the results, the Houston Chronicle begins their story in this way: “The hotly contested election has spurred national attention, drawing comment from the White House and the state’s top officials. Largely conservative opponents of the law allege that it would allow men dressed as women, including sexual predators, to enter women’s restrooms.

“Supporters of the law, including Mayor Annise Parker, argue that it extends an important local recourse for a range of protected classes to respond to discrimination.”

So… “opponents” are largely “conservative” but “supporters” receive no label at all. Those evil conservative are at it again, eh? Except for that fact that the ballot measure failed two-to-one and, as The Washington Times noted, common sense voters were heavily lobbied by the left-wing Houston Unites organization.

The Houston Chronicle story also go on to include a statement from supporters: “We are disappointed with today’s outcome, but our work to secure nondiscrimination protections for all hard-working Houstonians will continue. No one should have to live with the specter of discrimination hanging over them. Everyone should have the freedom to work hard, earn a decent living and provide for themselves and their families.”

Guess what? Everyone DOES have the freedom to “work hard, earn a decent living and provide for themselves and their families.” This ordinance had nothing to do with that. It was all about advancing an agenda that goes against nature, common decency, and common sense.




Weather Report

87° and Clear


0 Responses to “a bridge too far”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: