For the past few years Osmond has been crusading against gay marriage hiding behind religion as so many bigots do. Now Osmond is expanding his horizon of hate using every vile trick in the book from lying about the transgender community to “its all about the children” to try to stop Utah’s Non-discimination Bill .
In the screed below Osmond proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that his bigotry is based in hate and ignorance and that “real” religion has nothing to do with it.
As we draw together with family at this precious time of year, I hope you will consider how important family and gender are to each of us, as illustrated by this surprising new bill that redefines gender (and eventually family,) and makes it illegal to disagree.
Ending Privacy concern about Urquhart’s new “non-discrimination” bill are spreading like wild fire, some going so far as to name this the “Bathroom Bill,” referring to lines 584-589:
“….It is a discriminatory and prohibited employment practice to deny an employee access to restrooms, shower facilities, or dressing facilities that are consistent with the employee’s gender identity” ( Meaning gender “without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.” as defined in lines 88-91 )
Rather than denying the problems, the LGBT simply labels the response to legal wording as “paranoia“or “bathroom panic.” But bathroom confusion is only the first issue created by this redefinition. Being accused of hate crimes when you complain is the second.
California’s Transgender student bill
45 year old man using women’s showing facility
Transgender boy accused of sexual harassment in girls restroom
Girls threatened with Hate crimes if they complain
Even if the bathroom language were absent the bill would have the same essential problems. Urquhart’s non-discrimination billdefines and creates two new types of gender or sexual identities:
“Gender identity” means an individual’s internal sense of gender, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth. Evidence of gender identity may include an individual’s self-identification, as well as the individual’s gender-related appearance, mannerisms, and other gender-related characteristics. (lines 88-91)
“Sexual orientation” means an individual’s actual or perceived orientation as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. (lines 124-125)
Creating new than redefining privacy. Gender law, much like marriage law, is not meant to serve the emotional needs of society, but rather to be the structure that protects women and children and even men from unchecked sexual impulse.Gender is the way we organize privacy.
It is the way we structure modesty and standards of public decency.
We regulate the institution of marriage based on gender complementarity When marriage fails, our state law works to protect the child’s relationship with both the mother and the father, not based on what the parents want, but based on the child’s right to have both genders modeled in his life.
Man/woman marriage is the only way to protect the child’s biological right to have both a mother and a father- two distinctly different gifts.
Man/woman marriage is only possible in a system of two genders
Adoption follows the same premise-All born of man and woman, all raised by man and woman.
Invitro fertilization laws protect an infant’s right to have both a male and female parent, declaring it cruel to create children with the life plan that they will have no father.
Owning children irrelevant to their own emotional or biological needs for both mother and father, creates a solid foundation for human trafficking–(in French and the English translation)
If we end gender as a “sex designated at birth” and replace it with gender as an “orientation,” all of these gender based protections will end, legalizing gay adoption and gay in vitro-fertilization, punishing those who decline to participate.
Adoption agencies forced to close
Lesbians given power to create fatherless children
OB forced to create child for lesbian couple
Methodist church forced to host gay marriage
Codifying “orientations” makes it legally acceptable, if not a legally ideal, to abandon commitments and obligations, in preference to a “sense of gender” or “sincerely held belief,” based not on a child’s needs, but on adults’ desires,or “perception of orientation;” making all of us objects in other people’s needs, rather than adults meeting our obligations to society and children. This attitude will weaken our cultural commitment to self restraint and responsibility. It will affect divorce cases and custody battles adversely, as well as weakening marriage culture in general. Can we imagine that the court could condemn parents who abandoned children in order to follow their legally protected orientation?
Since Utah’s Marriage Amendment relies upon a clear understanding of marriage as a “legal union between a man and a woman” it is imperative that we hold clear legal signals as to what gender means in Utah law.
Activist lawyers and judges are hungry to exploit such a contradiction in Utah’s code. In this way Utah would unavoidably join the several states forced by judges to accept gay marriage, is ending “every child’s right to have both a mother and a father.”
This debate will come to an abrupt finish within 6-9 weeks.
We, and ask them to stop a redefinition of gender as created by the non-discrimination bill. Together we can make a dramatic difference in the world we leave our children