Return of anti-crossdressing laws

Non-fashion, non-skirt, non-gender discussions. If your post is related to fashion, skirts or gender, please choose one of the forums above for it.

Re: Return of anti-crossdressing laws

Postby crfriend » Sat May 18, 2019 3:36 pm

moonshadow wrote:And to touch on abortion lightly, we have the abortion issue to thank for all of this. And that's why I loathe the topic and I STRONGLY suspect that BOTH sides are keeping that fire going intentionally to work on the bigger agenda behind the scenes (that being the removal of all other rights).

Contemplate it being one team that's deliberately behaving like two to keep focus elsewhere.

It's worth recalling that the Republicans weren't always the party of the extreme right, nor were the Democrats always the party of the extreme left. Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, was a Republican but was also one of the most progressive presidents of all time laying the groundwork for much of what we take for granted today, and which bore enormous benefit for ALL citizens of the USA. Sadly, I believe we've seen the last of folks like that. JF Kennedy, the last meaningful Democrat, boldly pushed boundaries like few before him, and he eventually wound up dead (with cover-up theories still circulating all over the place).

The first couple of decades of the 20th Century are worth studying closely, for it is during that time that we first really faced modern challenges and conquered many of them -- only to undo all of that progress later on down the road in the name of greed.

Finally, the age-old adage of "Follow the money" holds very fast here, because if you follow the money it points right to where the trouble lies.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 10234
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Return of anti-crossdressing laws

Postby dillon » Sat May 18, 2019 5:36 pm

moonshadow wrote:Why do all the free states have to be in areas with hard winters?

Is it too much to ask to have a warm free state?

What about New Mexico... ? you don't hear them on the news much.....

Kinda hard to say how Virginia will swing. Some say we're "blue", but that's just people who either don't live here, or are New England transplants.... I know better.

I’m thinking hard about NM. It still gets chilly in Taos and Santa Fe, but that’s a product of elevation. But the sun shines a lot. And I like warm tights.
As a matter of fact, the sun DOES shine out of my ...
dillon
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:12 pm
Location: southeast NC coast

Re: Return of anti-crossdressing laws

Postby r.m.anderson » Sun May 19, 2019 12:42 am

I don't know if I would like to live in those warm weather states !
Too many degrees of fire and brimstone adjacent to hades !
What is it with those Bible Belt states knocking on hell's door and
expecting a cool reception ?
"Kilt-On" -or- as the case may be "Skirt-On" !
WHY ?
Isn't wearing a kilt enough?
Well a skirt will do in a pinch!
Make mine short and don't you dare think of pinching there !
User avatar
r.m.anderson
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1791
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:25 pm
Location: Bloomington MN

Re: Return of anti-crossdressing laws

Postby alexthebird » Sun May 19, 2019 4:49 pm

Over the past couple of weeks I've started to think about these things a little differently. At one time (the '60s & '70s) I was a card-carrying progressive liberal but as I've gotten older (wiser?) and encountered people outside of my social class, I've become progressively less sure of myself.

The recent actions of the Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri legislatures were very illuminating in that they highlight in a big way the issue of states rights and the role of the federal government.

I live in Philadelphia (on the edge of the gayborhood), a city as committed to human rights, freedom of expression, and giving the community a real voice in their schools, zoning, and governance as any other city in this country. Philadelphia is a sanctuary city and takes that role VERY seriously. I LOVE this city. I recently vacationed for four days in my old stomping grounds of Cambridge MA, where I saw at least six men wearing skirts or dressings and, most incredibly, two 4th grade boys on a field trip wearing their school skirts. I went to a Gender Bender exhibit at the Museum of Fine Arts. The museum also labels it's bathrooms with the phrase (self-identified). I saw three different other guys (besides the skirt wearers) stretching gender boundaries by wearing floral leggings or makeup. Street level political activity in the Square was dedicated to various permutations of women's rights. It all made me smile.

On the other hand, I recognize that there are some who look askance at the things that make me love Philadelphia and Cambridge. They aren't wrong for that. I'm having trouble characterizing the actions of the Alabama, Missouri, and Georgia legislatures as anything other than an honest expression of what local people think and feel.

So isn't that what states are for? If you believe that the rules around abortion should focus on the woman carrying the fetus, that people should be able to wear what they want, that where you pee shouldn't depend on the plumbing you had at birth, and that immigration is the foundation of this country, then you should probably be living in Massachusetts or Pennsylvania.

If you believe that the rules around abortion should focus on the potential life of the baby-to-be, that God (or somebody) created Men and Women separately for a reason, that women need to be protected from men's perverted urges, and that we have to have greater control on who comes into this country, then you should probably be living in Alabama or Missouri.

This obviously creates issues when something has to be handled at a federal level, but is there a problem with states figuring this out for themselves and people then deciding on their own where they should live? I'm really not advocating for anything here, just asking.
User avatar
alexthebird
Active Member
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 12:37 pm
Location: Philadelphia USA

Re: Return of anti-crossdressing laws

Postby moonshadow » Sun May 19, 2019 6:17 pm

alexthebird wrote:On the other hand, I recognize that there are some who look askance at the things that make me love Philadelphia and Cambridge. They aren't wrong for that. I'm having trouble characterizing the actions of the Alabama, Missouri, and Georgia legislatures as anything other than an honest expression of what local people think and feel.

So isn't that what states are for? If you believe that the rules around abortion should focus on the woman carrying the fetus, that people should be able to wear what they want, that where you pee shouldn't depend on the plumbing you had at birth, and that immigration is the foundation of this country, then you should probably be living in Massachusetts or Pennsylvania.


"Isn't that what states are for?"

To some extent. The states can make any laws they wish as long as none of them are contrary to the federal constitution. Abortion aside (more on that later), no state can (or should, we'll see how this high court upholds it's own constitution) create or enforce a law that pits on group over another with regards to what they can and can not do. This is spelled out in the 14th amendment. So, in theory, the only way a state could say, ban men from wearing skirts would be to enact one of two laws, a) to enforce strict gender roles amongst both sexes and require women to wear skirts, which would be more in compliance with biblical law, or b) to enact a law that nobody can wear skirts, men or women.

Additionally, this means, that no matter how unpopular it can be, a state can't pass a law making it illegal to me Muslim... even in the deep south no more than they can ban the bible in California.

Your thinking is very democratic, whereas it seems your basically stating that depending on where you live, the majority should decide the lifestyle of the minority.

This is why our constitution guarantees us a republican form of government, to prevent this type of thing from happening. In the U.S. (in theory), the 51% should NOT have dominion over the other 49%. How in the world modern day democrats somehow managed to be the party of the minority and republicans the party of the majority is beyond me. Now I do realize that prior to the 14th, states had very strong rights as the constitution generally only applied to how the federal government treated the citizens of the various states. This was an oversight that HAD to be corrected in the 13th ad 14th amendment respectively. Prior to those, then it was up to the states to decide whether to legalize slavery or not.

Perhaps some of us southern skirt wearers don't want to be required to move up north just to enjoy freedom. We were promised a free nation, and damn it, I personally intend to hold this country to it!

At my core, I am "republican", my political ideals are a work in progress, but I almost always sway to the direction of individual freedom, even if I disagree with the liberty being practiced.

As to Christianity, I'm sure I've painted myself as an enemy of Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've seen the beautiful and spiritually fulfilling side of the faith, and at many points in my life (to the present day), I share in it often. What angers me is what modern day "republicans" and "conservatives" are doing to the faith. They have focused on it being a "holier than thou" practice full of ego worshiping practitioners who seem to delights in riding on a moral high horse while condemning anyone that they perceive to be beneath them as hell bound sinners. I'm sorry, that is NOT what the Christian message is.

Now again, I have no problem with Christianity or Christ, but I want to experience Christ on MY TERMS, I DO NOT want it shoved down my throat by people who I personally believe to be sinister.

On abortion,

Whatever your leanings on the practice, no one can deny that these southern legislatures are breaking the law. This issue was settled in the 1970's and it just keeps going. Now that we have an evangelical friendly high court, southern legislatures are racing to overturn the last 40 years of progress. The abortion issue is an EXPERIMENT to see how easy it can be done... I guarantee it WON'T stop there. Before you know it, mandatory Christian prayer will be back in public schools [0], creationism will be the only science taught, and of course, to keep in line with the theme of this thread, the old anti-crossdressing laws that existed in the 50's and prior will slowly make a come back.

So I'm sorry alexthebird, I can not support a breakdown of freedom across state lines just because various majorities in different states take issues with this or that. That's NOT a republican form of government... that's MOB RULE.

As for abortion... ban it... move on. Liberals and democrats reading this: let it go, we've got bigger fish to fry at the moment. Freedom is in peril! Let's make this a nation worthy to birth a child into, then we can hash out abortion....

[0] And before somebody says "GOOD!", then let me remind you that the separation of church and state is what prevents mandatory Islamic prayers from also being recited in public schools.... Christianity is the big dog now, but Islam is growing, when you're child represents the Christian minority in a school system located in an area dominated by Muslims... you'll be cherishing the separation of church and state then! Public education is for learning how to function in the real mortal world. Spiritual education is best left to home and church instruction.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness."
-Alejandro Jodorowsky
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Lebanon, Virginia

Re: Return of anti-crossdressing laws

Postby moonshadow » Sun May 19, 2019 6:46 pm

moonshadow wrote:As for abortion... ban it... move on.


As for what to do about rape and incest cases....

One guilt is proven and a verdict handed down, the convicted shall be executed that same day by hanging. NO EXCEPTIONS for elected officials, law enforcement or anyone and this includes female rapist too.

I guarantee 99% of rape cases will cease and there will be NO repeat offenders!

There... problem solved.

Pssst... and I betcha most pro lifers will support this.... :wink:
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness."
-Alejandro Jodorowsky
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Lebanon, Virginia

Re: Return of anti-crossdressing laws

Postby Jim » Sun May 19, 2019 7:01 pm

moonshadow wrote:How in the world modern day democrats somehow managed to be the party of the minority and republicans the party of the majority is beyond me.

It's called "gerrymandering".
User avatar
Jim
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:39 am

Re: Return of anti-crossdressing laws

Postby Dust » Wed May 22, 2019 12:51 am

moonshadow wrote:This is why our constitution guarantees us a republican form of government, to prevent this type of thing from happening. In the U.S. (in theory), the 51% should NOT have dominion over the other 49%. How in the world modern day democrats somehow managed to be the party of the minority and republicans the party of the majority is beyond me. Now I do realize that prior to the 14th, states had very strong rights as the constitution generally only applied to how the federal government treated the citizens of the various states. This was an oversight that HAD to be corrected in the 13th ad 14th amendment respectively. Prior to those, then it was up to the states to decide whether to legalize slavery or not.

This is why we have checks and balances, separation of powers, both the House and the Senate, and the Electoral College: to keep away a 51% mob rule.

[0] And before somebody says "GOOD!", then let me remind you that the separation of church and state is what prevents mandatory Islamic prayers from also being recited in public schools.... Christianity is the big dog now, but Islam is growing, when you're child represents the Christian minority in a school system located in an area dominated by Muslims... you'll be cherishing the separation of church and state then! Public education is for learning how to function in the real mortal world. Spiritual education is best left to home and church instruction.

This is how we got religious freedom in law here in the first place. It started in Maryland. Maryland was originally a Catholic colony. But they were importing large numbers of Protestant indentured servants, and saw a coming demographic change. So they passed religious freedom to protect themselves once they lost the majority. The Catholic Church also introduced the concept of "separation of church and state," in a more limited way, centuries before, so this was nothing new.

Even at the time of the First Amendment passing, some states had a state religion (I believe Massachusetts was one). The First Amendment explicitly states that it is for the federal government ("Congress"). The states did not have to follow it until later amendments were passed.
Dust
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:03 pm

Re: Return of anti-crossdressing laws

Postby moonshadow » Wed May 22, 2019 11:31 pm

Dust wrote:The First Amendment explicitly states that it is for the federal government ("Congress"). The states did not have to follow it until later amendments were passed.


Actually, I'm not sure of any federal statute in the constitution or otherwise banning a state from enacting an "official religion". In fact, the 10th amendment pretty much leaves these matters directly to the states. I think most people just assume it's illegal, but I don't really think it is. Tennessee proposed making the bible the official book of the state a few years ago, then they dropped it for fear that it might be rendered unconstitutional. If they are speaking of the federal constitution, I wondered "what part?"

The 14th has nothing to do with religion, other than to say that the government can not treat people of differing religions differently. For sure, a state with an official religion would certainly walk a tight rope in this regard, but as long as they maintained that they are not giving anyone of ______ religions preferable treatment in the legal system, then theoretically, they should be in compliance with federal law.

Now individual state constitutions may have prohibitions on enacting a state "official religion", but that's a different matter. In fact, Virginia, while our constitution doesn't define an "official state religion", it does read that we should "practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other", the entire article reads thusly:

Article I. Bill of Rights
Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion

"That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please."

Note, I do not read this as a requirement for Virginia citizens to be Christian, rather simply enacting a "duty" to be basically, Christ like.

Nothing wrong with that... too bad more people (especially 'round Appalachia) don't follow it...
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness."
-Alejandro Jodorowsky
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Lebanon, Virginia

Re: Return of anti-crossdressing laws

Postby crfriend » Thu May 23, 2019 12:04 am

moonshadow wrote:Actually, I'm not sure of any federal statute in the constitution or otherwise banning a state from enacting an "official religion".

The First Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America begins with the words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [...]". So your approach is technically correct, insofar as individual states may enact stricter laws than the Federal State, but not the other way around. Note also the verbiage of the quote above, specifically the bit about "establishment". This means, in essence, "No theocracies." The "founding fathers" already had their hands full with Massachusetts, Rhode Island (which was actually pretty forward-thinking at the time). Pennsylvania, and Maryland (Puritans, (moderate) Baptists, Quakers, and Catholics, respectively), and realised that any attempt to formally establish a State Religion would end in disaster, so they forbade "establishment" at a Federal level. The notion of the "wall" (there's that term again) of separation of Church and State actually came about much later (and represents one point where the framers of the Constitution got it wrong as they never mentioned "freedom from religion).

It's a moot point now as the USA is quite clearly in a post-Constitutional regime, but the notion still sticks and every so often some random fundamentalist manages to get some anti-evolution "monkey law" proposed to some random legislature. If memory serves, one got proposed as far north as Maryland and I seem to recall that it got sent to the Committee on Fish and Game where it died a quiet death. But, that just goes to show that the problem is pervasive.

The 14th, as is the case with the original Bill of Rights is largely null and void because it depends on the first ten amendments (and here's another point where the founders got it wrong when the limits of interaction between Federal State and the individual was left out of the main body and shoved off into an appendix).

The tenth amendment was nullified in the 1860s with the establishment of the Union over all else.

One cannot read the Constitution of the United States of America without recalling that it is largely an "obsolete document" (as Ronald Reagan termed it) and which is, to all practical purposes, ignored in practise.

In short, "Ya gets what ya gets, and you have no choice to submit." (or be shot dead by the police)
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 10234
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Return of anti-crossdressing laws

Postby dillon » Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:41 am

crfriend wrote:
moonshadow wrote:Actually, I'm not sure of any federal statute in the constitution or otherwise banning a state from enacting an "official religion".

The First Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America begins with the words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [...]". So your approach is technically correct, insofar as individual states may enact stricter laws than the Federal State, but not the other way around. Note also the verbiage of the quote above, specifically the bit about "establishment". This means, in essence, "No theocracies." The "founding fathers" already had their hands full with Massachusetts, Rhode Island (which was actually pretty forward-thinking at the time). Pennsylvania, and Maryland (Puritans, (moderate) Baptists, Quakers, and Catholics, respectively), and realised that any attempt to formally establish a State Religion would end in disaster, so they forbade "establishment" at a Federal level. The notion of the "wall" (there's that term again) of separation of Church and State actually came about much later (and represents one point where the framers of the Constitution got it wrong as they never mentioned "freedom from religion).

It's a moot point now as the USA is quite clearly in a post-Constitutional regime, but the notion still sticks and every so often some random fundamentalist manages to get some anti-evolution "monkey law" proposed to some random legislature. If memory serves, one got proposed as far north as Maryland and I seem to recall that it got sent to the Committee on Fish and Game where it died a quiet death. But, that just goes to show that the problem is pervasive.

The 14th, as is the case with the original Bill of Rights is largely null and void because it depends on the first ten amendments (and here's another point where the founders got it wrong when the limits of interaction between Federal State and the individual was left out of the main body and shoved off into an appendix).

The tenth amendment was nullified in the 1860s with the establishment of the Union over all else.

One cannot read the Constitution of the United States of America without recalling that it is largely an "obsolete document" (as Ronald Reagan termed it) and which is, to all practical purposes, ignored in practise.

In short, "Ya gets what ya gets, and you have no choice to submit." (or be shot dead by the police)


No theocracy? Get real. Theocracy has no respect for constitutionality. It subverts constitutionality. It undermines in the most subtle and seemingly innocuous ways the power of a constitution. And it never relents in that pursuit. Once entrenched, it never relinquishes authority. Theocracy is the most insidious threat to American democracy that exists. And not the imposition of a foreign theocracy, but homegrown Christian theocracy, spreading its tentacles like the mycelia of some giant mushroom. Before you all start screaming "It can't happen here, because we are Christian, and they are Muslim" I'd just ask that you examine the history of Christian theocracy in America. If you're objective, you'll be shocked. If you're not objective, well, maybe you'll like the concept.

The Wall of Separation, as a phrase, goes back to Jefferson. But it was my favorite President, John Quincy Adams, who took it to heart, and embodied it. He took his Oath of Office upon a book of laws, rather than upon the Bible, because he wanted to send the message that Theocracy has no place in America. Guess he's tossing and turning in the grave today.
wall-america-needs-most edit1.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
As a matter of fact, the sun DOES shine out of my ...
dillon
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:12 pm
Location: southeast NC coast

Re: Return of anti-crossdressing laws

Postby crfriend » Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:48 am

dillon wrote:[No theocracy? Get real.

The least you could have done is read the rest of my post.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 10234
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Return of anti-crossdressing laws

Postby dillon » Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:53 am

crfriend wrote:
dillon wrote:[No theocracy? Get real.

The least you could have done is read the rest of my post.


I did, Carl, but it is hard to concede that I have been bettered in cynicism.
As a matter of fact, the sun DOES shine out of my ...
dillon
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:12 pm
Location: southeast NC coast

Re: Return of anti-crossdressing laws

Postby crfriend » Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:59 am

dillon wrote:I did, Carl, but it is hard to concede that I have been bettered in cynicism.

This is not a matter of "being bettered", but rather a matter of separating wheat from chaff, fact from fiction, and truth from propaganda.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 10234
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Return of anti-crossdressing laws

Postby beachlion » Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:13 am

As an alien to the USA, I would say that the separation between state and church is not completed unless all religious text is removed from the money, the source of all evil. When they designed the Euros, they made sure no religious text or symbols would be on the money.
All progress takes place outside the comfort zone - M J Bobak
User avatar
beachlion
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:15 am
Location: Allentown, PA, USA

Previous

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest