Trump Admin To End Obama’s Transgender Rule: “Women and girls are entitled to privacy…”

Arguing that battered women in shelters should be protected from male predators who claim they are female, the non-profit legal group Liberty Counsel is praising a rule change proposed by the Trump administration.

It would eliminate an Obama administration rule in 2016 requiring that shelters allow people to enter based on their “gender identity.”

The Obama rule turned shelters for the homeless and for abused women into a battleground for the transgender-rights agenda.

The Trump administration now has proposed a rule to fix the problem.

It would protect vulnerable women and children by letting federally funded shelters consider a range of factors, such as biological sex, in deciding whether to provide lodging to certain people.

The rule is set to take effect next month.

Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver commended the Trump administration for protecting women and children through the new HUD rule.

He said the current rule “does not consider the practical concerns of shelter providers who serve vulnerable clients who are seeking refuge from violence and abusive relationships.”

“Women and girls are entitled to privacy and protection from predators who ‘identify as females’ with the intent of committing sexual assault,” he said.

The new rule allows shelters with bathrooms and sleeping quarters separated by biological sex to establish policy that considers “privacy, safety, practical concerns, religious beliefs, any relevant considerations under civil rights and nondiscrimination authorities, the individual’s sex as reflected in official government documents, as well as the gender which a person identifies with” before allowing people entry.

Liberty Counsel said Obama’s 2016 Equal Access Rule “mandates that federally funded single-sex homeless shelters admit residents based on their stated gender identity.”

The new rule provides “that grant recipients, subrecipients, owners, operators, managers and providers under HUD programs which permit single-sex or sex-segregated facilities (such as bathrooms or temporary, emergency shelters and other buildings and facilities with physical limitations or configurations that require and are permitted to have shared sleeping quarters or bathing facilities) may establish a policy, consistent with state and local law, by which such shelter provider considers an individual’s sex for the purposes of determining accommodation within such shelters and for purposes of determining sex for admission to any facility or portion thereof.”

SOURCE  







How Same-Sex Marriage Creates A Court-Mediated Market For Orphans

The Leftist contempt for biology ramps up

Pop quiz. Name one great novel in which a child embarks on an epic quest in search of his missing uncle. Just one. No? Okay.

How about this? Name a major motion picture in which the central drama surrounds the main characters desperate search for their mother’s long lost boyfriend.

Nothing? Of course not. No one would bother. You’re coming up empty because such relationships are not central to a child’s identity, formation, and development.

Now, name a great story where a child searches for her missing father. Your answers probably range from classics like Marina’s reunion with her father in Shakespeare’s “Pericles” to the cartoon “An American Tail” to the blockbuster “Guardians of the Galaxy 2.” We can all identify with these stories because the relationship we have with our father is identity-constituting and central to our development. “Luke, I am your stepfather” would have been tremendously unsatisfying.

These works of literature and pop culture reflect one of the deepest human longings—to be known and loved by the two people responsible for our existence. Until about five minutes ago, our laws reflected these universal longings by recognizing parenthood on the basis of a biological connection.

But, as we have all witnessed, drastic changes are possible in just five minutes of this me-centered epoch of history. Now, some courts are recognizing parenthood based on an adult’s “intent” to parent, regardless of the fact that it means the child will have to lose one (or both) of his or her biological parents in the process.

This dangerous legal trend is evident in a petition submitted to the Supreme Court last month. The case involves my friend Frank, a gay dad who created two children through surrogacy with his former partner, Joseph. Joseph’s sister, their genetic mother, was paid for her services as a surrogate, which, if you’re following, makes Joseph the children’s biological uncle. Complicated, I know. If this makes your head spin as an adult, just imagine the emotional confusion these two children will have to sort out.

Frank is the biological father of his twins and, for their first seven years, he was their sole caregiver. Relationship issues arose soon after the twins were born, and he and Joseph eventually broke up. Before that, Joseph had minimal involvement in the children’s lives and was in and out of the home. Sadly, the biological mother does not want a parental relationship with her children.

Two years ago, Joseph sued Frank for custody of the twins in New York state and, even though the court found no evidence that Frank was an unfit parent, Joseph won. Now the kids only see Frank, their father, a few days a month. The decision means that a man who isn’t a biological parent, isn’t an adoptive parent, and isn’t even married to the children’s parent now has a “right” to these kids.

In essence, the court has deemed that in the parent-child relationship, biology is irrelevant. Frank is taking his case to the Supreme Court.

Gay Marriage Is Responsible for This Father’s Loss
You may be surprised to hear that the very law that was supposed to be Frank’s “new civil right”—gay marriage—played a significant role in the court’s decision. The problem stems from the law equating two very different things: same-sex and opposite-sex couples. While there may be no difference in the level of commitment and connection of these two pairings, there is a stark difference in what they offer to children. As I explained in The Federalist earlier this year:

The law now demands that the two couplings be treated equally in matters of parenthood, that same law must now codify what biology prohibits—namely, making two adults of the same sex the parents of a child…state after state is now scrubbing parenthood laws of references to ‘mother’ and ‘father’ in the name of ‘non-discrimination.’

In parenthood, biology discriminates, big-time. In an effort to be gay-friendly, however, courts have opted for the progressive “intent-based parenthood” over biology-based parenthood. It was on the basis of “intent to parent” that a New York court awarded Frank’s ex-partner near total custody of his children.

To put a finer point on it, Joseph wasn’t awarded custody of his children. Joseph was awarded children. The twins didn’t get their Italian heritage from Joseph, had never lived at his house, and didn’t feel comfortable in his care. But the court decided Joseph was their parent anyway. Because equality!

The lower court has made its decision. The biological mother has refused to take a parental role. Joseph has made his case and now gets to parent the children (or rather, the nanny he hired who watches them all day gets to parent them). Frank has spent years battling it out in the court for his parental rights.

When Children Are Subject to Adult Desires
Do you see anyone’s perspective missing in this messy legal row? If you answered “the children,” you are one of the few adults who understands what’s really at stake whenever we discuss issues of marriage, parenthood, and reproductive technologies.

But, like all children, Frank’s kids don’t get a voice in these legal proceedings. They can’t hire lawyers. They can’t petition the court. They can’t even share their perspective in a Federalist article. Still, it’s these two children who have the most at stake if the justices choose to hear this case.

That’s why my nonprofit Them Before Us, devoted to defending children’s rights in the family, just filed an amicus brief on behalf of Frank’s children. We packed our brief with family structure experts and the quotes of kids who have walked in those 9-year-olds’ shoes. The justices need to know what’s at stake for Frank’s children, and all children, if the government decides that biology is irrelevant in the parent-child relationship.

What exactly is at stake? Children’s deepest longings, identity, and safety.

Here’s an Overview of the Main Issues at Play
For those of you who aren’t interested in digesting the 6,500-word document, here’s the section-by-section summary of our SCOTUS brief.

The court should clarify children’s fundamental liberty interests in their biological family bonds. “No doubt Petitioner has a fundamental liberty interest in parenting his children. But this right should not guide the Court’s decision to grant review. Instead, the Court should grant review to clarify that children have an enumerated right to be known and loved by their biological parents.”

“Intent-based” parenthood is about what adults want, not what children need. “When the basis for parenthood is no longer biological but ‘intentional,’ it endorses scenarios…where children are swapped and traded, cut and pasted into any and every conceivable adult arrangement.”

Children long for their biological parents regardless of their family structure. “In the heart of a child, not all adults are created equal. There are two people children innately long to know and be known by—their biological mother and father…This longing to be known by one’s biological parents exists regardless of the parents’ sexual orientation. For children, it is not about their parent’s sexual identity. It is simply about biology.”

Biology gives children their identities. “A child’s relationship to his biological parents is the closest of that child’s human relationships. It is identity-determining. To be born of different parents is to be an entirely different person…children can miss the love of absent biological parents even if they are well-loved by others.”

Biology is crucial to children’s safety and wellbeing. “There are committed non-biological caretakers. But studies show that unrelated cohabiting adults are less invested in and protective of the children in their care. This phenomenon is known among evolutionary biologists as the ‘Cinderella Effect.'”

Only biology and adoption are the basis for parenthood. “The trend toward ‘intent-based’ parenthood is grievous. It is never necessary to give a child to an unrelated adult without requiring that adult to undergo vetting, training, and supervision.”

Frank’s Case Has Severe Implications
Obviously, this case has major implications for Frank’s two children, who are getting a firsthand education of the “Cinderella Effect.” I’ve spoken with family court expert Francesca Banfield, who filed a complaint with Child Protective Services (CPS) stating that Joseph has been slapping Frank’s nine-year-old daughter in the face.

This case also has the potential to either strengthen or degrade every parent-child relationship in the country. When biology isn’t the basis for parenthood, it’s a major power grab for the state, which can override anyone’s claim to their own children. As a result, it’s a threat to every parent—and every child.

What’s worse, if the state has the authority to disregard children’s rights to their mother and father and award them to any adult who “intends” to parent them, then children are reduced to commodities. Did we not fight a civil war to end that practice?

I wish that the redefinition of marriage had simply expanded the pool of people who could participate in this institution that has, historically, been the most child-friendly the world has ever known. But it was only child-friendly because, in nearly every case, marriage united children to the two people to whom they had a natural right.

Redefining marriage has forced the principles of this institution to work in reverse—the children who grow up within a same-sex-headed household are separated from one parent in every case. And in Frank’s case, they are separated from not one but both of their biological parents.

The case before the high court is not a gay, lesbian, or heterosexual issue. It’s is a children’s rights issue. We can go ahead and make mothers and fathers legally optional, but the law is powerless to alter the desires of a child’s heart. There’s a reason why Barack Obama’s book was not titled “Dreams from my Inconsequential, Unimportant, and Totally Optional Father.”

SOURCE  







Shoving "pride" in everyone's face is yielding less acceptance

June, so-called "Gay Pride Month," ended on a low note for homosexual advocacy groups that promote gender confusion and identity dysphoria among young people. The trends regarding acceptance of that agenda among those 35 and under are showing promising signs of decline.

The nation's oldest (1985) and one of its most prominent homosexual groups, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, which has since expanded its advocacy to include the other manifestations of gender confusion — LGBTQ+ (ad infinitum) — just received the results of opinion research it sponsors annually. And the news was not good ... for homosexual advocacy.

The report notes: "Five years ago, GLAAD partnered with The Harris Poll to launch a unique index to measure Americans' attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people and issues. In the first three years of the Harris Poll study, the Accelerating Acceptance report showed positive momentum year-over-year, with Americans stating they were more comfortable with LGBTQ people and more supportive of LGBTQ issues. ... Last year, however, the acceptance pendulum abruptly stopped and swung in the opposite direction. More non-LGBTQ adults responded that they were 'very' or 'somewhat' uncomfortable around LGBTQ people in select scenarios. ... The decline in acceptance and rise in discrimination found in the survey corresponded to an increase in hateful rhetoric in our culture."

By "hateful rhetoric," GLAAD is referring to the empowerment of dissenting social and cultural views that it attributes to Donald Trump's election. However, I would argue that the decline in support for GLAAD's constituency is the result of the absurd extent to which these thugs have taken their jack-boot agenda, from men invading girls' dressing rooms and bathrooms to battles over the use of pronouns that dare imply there are only two genders. Of course, only the most reality-challenged heterophobic gender deniers argue that point.

In fact, the Harris survey results regarding what parents would want for their children is the most revealing trend indicator. Among the Left's most dependable demographic of useful idiots, those aged 18-34, a full third (33%) said they would not be comfortable with their children in a class with a gender-confused teacher — and that was up from 25% in 2016 and 29% in 2017. And 39% of young adults indicated they did not want their children exposed to an LGBTQ-themed history lesson, up from 27% and 30%, respectively, in 2016 and 2017. The survey also found that only 45% of young people indicated they were "very" or "somewhat" comfortable around gender-confused/dysphoric individuals — and that was down from 63% and 53%, respectively, in 2016 and 2017. The number of young people indicating they would be distressed by finding out a family member was homosexual rose from 29% in 2017 to 36% in 2018.

Remarkably, there was a significant drop in acceptance among young women — 64% were "comfortable" with homosexuals in 2017, down to 52% in 2018. As I have noted previously, women voters are the largest Democrat Party voting block, and their collective LGBT sympathy is a major reason Democrats pander to that gender-confused subset.

Harris Poll CEO John Gerzema tipped his biased hand with this observation about his company's GLAAD poll: "We count on the narrative that young people are more progressive and tolerant. These numbers are very alarming and signal a looming social crisis in discrimination." According to GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis, the "rise in divisive rhetoric both in politics and in culture" has had "a negative influence on younger Americans." She insists that "LGBTQ people and allies must urgently address today's cultural crisis by being visible and vigilant."

However, as I previously noted, the outcome of homosexual advocates "being visible and vigilant" is precisely why their support is dropping. Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family agrees. He says that the drop in acceptance is because "the 'gay' movement continues to over-play its hand and that will certainly continue." He adds, "Rather than simply being 'live and let live,' they are forcing Americans to embrace their politics, and often with overwhelming muscle and the life-crushing public accusations of a person's so-called 'bigotry' and 'hatefulness' if they dare disagree."

As for the absurd gender-pronoun variants, GLAAD's Ellis notes that it's "a newness that takes time for people to understand." Or it takes time for people to reject.

The most ridiculous example of corporate support for gender-pronoun confusion came when Nabisco announced a new packaging scheme for its Oreo cookies: "We're proud to celebrate inclusivity for all gender identities and expressions. In partnership with National Council of Teachers of English, we're giving away special edition Pronoun Packs and encouraging everybody to share their pronouns with Pride today and every day." Seriously, Nabisco's advertising department has become that detached from gender reality.

Regarding how LOUD the "LGBT+" crowd has become, another just-released research report found that Americans think one in four people are LGBT+. According to the report, "Americans' estimate of the proportion of gay people in the U.S. is more than five times Gallup's more encompassing 2017 estimate that 4.5% of Americans are LGBT, based on respondents' self-identification as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender."

Finally, for those who are quick to label others who don't embrace their gender-bending orthodoxy as "haters," we as Christians are called to love other sinners but not to embrace sin. That distinction is too often lost in rancorous rhetoric from the Left, as was the case over the weekend during New York's "gay pride" parade. The storefront of a Chick-fil-A in Manhattan was desecrated with signs reading "F—k haters," a reference to the fact the business is Christian owned. Of course, the "haters" were those who posted that message.

SOURCE  








Australian PM  was asked about freedom of religion on public broadcaster

When Leigh Sales put a hypothetical question to the PM, Scott Morrison refused to budge and be drawn into “extreme” examples.

Scott Morrison has weighed in on Israel Folau’s fight against Rugby Australia after being asked about the controversy during an interview on ABC’s 7.30 program last night.

After speaking about the religious freedom bill being put forward by the Liberal Party this year, Leigh Sales asked the prime minister for his view on Folau’s recent sacking following the comments he made about homosexuals on social media.

Despite the PM skirting around the question, Sales pushed the issue, asking if being a public figure made any difference to the type of views you can express.

“If a public figure said, for example, that Jews are going to hell, they would be rightly and roundly condemned for that,” Sales said.

“But if a public figure says gays are going to hell, it can be defended as religious freedom. Do you see any problem with that situation?”

But Mr Morrison said he would not let the debate around anti-discrimination legislation “derailed” by “extremes of examples” like Sales had put forward.

“Well, again, I mean, the issue is making sure you get the balance right in the legislation, which respects the same principle of anti-discrimination as applies to many other cases,” He replied.

“We already have anti-discrimination legislation which deals with these sensitivities in other areas, and that will apply also to religious faith.

“And what I would hope is that we can have a sensible and adult debate about this one - not one that is drawn to extremes of examples or things like that to try and derail debates, but one that actually keeps people together and honours the key principle.

“I mean, religious freedom is a core pillar of our society. And it’s not unreasonable. And I think there are many millions of Australians who would like to see that protected, and I intend to follow through on that commitment.”

Sales also asked the PM about the Folau case, where the Wallabies star is fighting his sacking by Rugby Australia over an Instagram post.

“Under the changes you introduce, would you like to see somebody like Israel Folau be able to make the remark he made and be safe from being sacked,” Sales asked.

Mr Morrison was very brief with his response, saying a balance needs to be struck between an employer’s expectation of their employees and how much say they should have over what they do in their personal lives.

“I think it’s important, ultimately, that employers have reasonable expectations of their employees, and that they don’t impinge on their areas of private practice and private belief or private activity,” Mr Morrison said.

“And there’s a balance that has to be struck in that, and our courts will always ultimately decide this based on the legislation that’s presented.”

He added that as the Folau case would likely be making its way through the court very soon he couldn’t really make any further comments.

Mr Morrison said there is currently a gap in the law when it comes to expressions of religious faith, and the new bill aims to close that gap.

“We’re looking at a religious Discrimination Act which I think which will provide more protections for people because of their religious faith and belief in the same way that people of whatever gender they have or sexuality or what nationality or ethnic background or the colour of their skin — they shouldn’t be discriminated against also,” he said.

SOURCE  

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************