A SOLUTION LOOKING FOR A PROBLEM

The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution states The federal government  possesses only those powers delegated to it by the states or the people through the Constitution. (1791) .

It would seem that today, 225 years later, the states have bestowed upon the federal government the title of "Toilet Sheriff," and granted Washington bureaucrats the right to determine who can use a state's men's and women's washrooms, locker rooms and showers.

I have a concern that if the states cannot determine who uses their bathrooms without interference or blackmail by the federal government, what does the state have power to do on its own. What then does the 10th Amendment even mean?

The power-hungry federal government does not appear to have a limit. They are shameless with their power grabs. What they have used as justification for sticking their noses in the states' heads this time, is Title 9.

Title 9 of the Education Amendments of 1972 states, No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Basically, educational programs and activities that receive federal funds must operate in a nondiscriminatory manner.   

Fair enough, but my guess is that 44 years ago, the concept of sex was based upon the sex a person is, not the sex he/she (proper grammatically and contextually) would like to be.

How then did we get here?

I have said before I believe our society is made up of a heart (Liberals) and a head (Conservatives). Both are required to keep the body politic alive. I just worry that the heart sees no limit --no limit to the problems there are to solve, no limit to the underprivileged, no limit to those who do not experience equality. The head agrees there are problems, underprivileged and inequality, but the head believes there must be limits.

Whenever we decide to do something, we decide not to do something else. When we decide to go out for a run, we also decide at the same time not to sit on the couch and watch TV. When we decide to potentially make life easier for the 96,000 transgendered among us, we also decide to potentially make life harder for the other 317,900,000. Given those numbers, the head will fight the heart, and the head will be called heartless.

So what? Isn't this just a big deal over nothing? Just another governmental, '"Wag the Dog"? I'm sure it is that, but it is also more. What we are seeing here is a good example of the old bug-a-boo, the "slippery slope."

When a government or a movement wants to drive its people from A to Z, the trip is more effective to go from A to B to C and before they realize those lulled to sleep are sitting firmly on Z.

Consider the initial ban on smoking. It started on airplanes with a smoking section in the back. Today you are looked at as Beelzebub if you smoke anywhere. If the powers to be had banned smoking almost everywhere right out of the gate, there would have been riots.

My disapproval of same-sex marriage has never been that two people who want to be together for the rest of their lives should not be, but I believe the word marriage has already been taken and defined. Anyone who thinks that marriage will not take a ride on the slippery slope and remain only two people only need to look at smoking.

In a 1975 article in the Washington Post uber-Liberal Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg, when addressing concerns that Tile 9 would "require unisex restrooms in public places" wrote, Emphatically not so. She continued, Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.

Today the federal government is saying basically that any person can use any washroom, locker or shower they desire. We’ve hit the bottom of the slope. I wonder how the Supreme Ginsberg would respond to this now?

It's time to get the head in the game, and some state governors and school board officials are leading the charge. They, to fit the narrative, are being called haters and bigots. They will have federal funds cut off but have their principles intact.

The heart says the head's primary objection to open bathrooms is worry over transgenders attacking innocent people in washrooms and points out that has never happened. So, there should be no concern with letting any a person of any self-declared sex enter any washroom. OK! let's go with that. Does anyone feel changes in the law allowing people to self-declare and go into any washroom will make the public safer? Or, is there a better chance that it has stirred up the perverts among us and will make the public more vulnerable?

I don't know how this change in bathroom laws ever got started. Who is leading the charge? It seems like maybe the heart is running out of causes. To be fair, I have never heard any transgender person's side of this issue. To me it just seems that we have had a man's and a woman’s separate facilities for probably more than 100 years, what did the transgender folks do for the first 99 1/2 years? My guess they went to the restrooms commensurate with what they were wearing that day and used the stall. They showered with those born with the same equipment. That, on its face, doesn't seem so bad. It sounds even logical.

The heart and head have to be working together for maximum success, but for what I can see, the heart is an Ethiopian just finishing a marathon and the head is resting comfortably on a pillow in a fully reclined Lazy Boy. The heart appears to be scavenging the world hoping to find some class of people, who in their opinion, is not being treated "fairly" (as if life itself is fair), then nit-pick the Constitution or some obscure law to use as justification.

Say heart, while you're on a roll how about finding something in the Constitution that says we should insure vets' jobs upon return to civilian life that pays at least $15 per hour (they will have actually earned it) and free education. I recognize vets are not as sure a vote as the LGBT community, but they will have deserved it.