Why Mass. should say "NO to Question 3"


New Boston Post - Choose Safety and Privacy on November 6th Vote No on Question 3
Click here to continue reading ...
There are two reasons to vote No on Question 3 in Massachusetts. The first reason has to do with common sense; the second with your worldview. First, common sense. If you have a wife, daughter, or a granddaughter and she is using a public restroom, do you want a man who at that moment “identifies” as a woman to come into that bathroom and share the bathroom with her? Isn’t the safety and privacy of your wife, daughter, or granddaughter more important than the politically correct mantra of respect for transgenderism? Of course it is. Now voting No on 3 does not mean that one should disrespect transgender individuals. It is vital to treat individuals with gender dysphoria (the current clinical term for transgenderism) with dignity and respect. Those who advocate for voting Yes on 3 spread the canard that those of us seeking safety and privacy for women and girls in public accommodations want to treat transgender individuals badly.

That is nonsense. Voting No on 3 simply means that only women and girls who are biologically female should be allowed to use women’s public facilities. We want to avoid the possibility that our loved ones might be exposed to a biological man who exploits this radical law, especially a man who is a convicted sex offender, which is currently allowed by the law.

Another piece of common sense: If someone complains about a man acting suspiciously in a women’s public facility or even attempts to prevent his entry, the law may subject the person who complains to a fines — $10,000 for the first offense and up to $50,000 and a sentence of up to one year in jail for a three-time-plus offender. This part of the law belongs in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Rather than punishing the offender, the law punishes the victim.

Opponents of repeal say it defies common sense that anyone would be subjected to these penalties. But it actually defies common sense that state law would set forth such penalties. And if they aren’t realistic, then what are these penalties doing in the law?

Here’s a hint: Draconian penalties like these all but ensure that few untoward incidents will be reported to the police.

The second reason for voting No on 3 has to do with one’s worldview. The majority of Americans still draw their belief in what is right or wrong from their faith. Some 40 percent of Americans still go to church several times a month. And the Judeo-Christian worldview of human sexuality stems from the second chapter of Genesis: “And God created them male and female, and he blessed them and called them ‘human’.”

The worldview that gender is merely a social construct is not only at odds with the Judeo-Christian understanding of gender, but also contradicts biology, anatomy, genetics, and the understanding of all great civilizations until recently. As Ryan Anderson expresses in his brilliant book When Harry Became Sally, gender dysphoria (the condition of feeling one’s emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one’s biological sex) was defined by psychiatrists, as recently as fifteen years ago, as a psychological problem that needed attention and therapy.

But now gender dysphoria has become a civil right. The American longing for self-actualization — supported by university-spawned ideology, generous funding by left-wing foundations, and wealthy progressives, and the well-intentioned desire to show toleration and respect for almost any behavior – is transforming both American culture and law.

Well, enough is enough. A man “identifying” as a woman for a day or a week is still a man and has no place in a public facility threatening the privacy, if not the safety, of our wives, daughters, or granddaughters.

The safety threat is real. This law sets up a look-but-don’t-touch scenario, making it impossible for women and girls to speak up effectively for themselves until after they have been assaulted or otherwise harmed.

The privacy threat is undeniable. This law expects women and girls to give up their dignity in the name of transgender ideology – or else, as Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey once famously said, “hold it.”

Polling on Question 3 has been unusually volatile. How people understand what is being asked of them has a huge impact on how they plan to vote on it. When they understand it to be about women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, a large portion of voters want to repeal the current gender-identity law by voting No.

How large? We won’t know until Election Day. But your vote matters. Your vote – and what you say about it to friends and neighbors – could help restore sanity to this part of Massachusetts law.

Vote No on Question 3. Finished reading

Mass. Attorney General Maura Healy (She will vote "yes" on 3) on WGBH TV Oct. 3, 2018:
"By the way, there is no evidence anywhere, no record anywhere, and we've looked across the country, of an instance where somebody used that protection like this to commit a crime." Really, Maura? Read this: ------------>
Documented: Bathroom Incidents [PDF]

More: Bathroom Incidents

Pascha Thomas' Story - Video

Privacy in restrooms, locker rooms & showers is one thing, but there's more!

Are you ready to make history? Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker [PDF] signed off on a law which expanded non-discrimination protections to "transgenders." This is outrageous nonsense, but we now have a chance to stop it!

We need to say “No to Question Three” to win on the November ballot in Massachusetts.

Question Three on the Massachusetts State Ballot reads in part:
Do you approve of a law summarized below, which was approved by the House of Representatives and the Senate on July 7, 2016?

SUMMARY:
This law adds gender identity to the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination in places of public accommodation, resort, or amusement. This law prohibits discrimination based on gender identity.

A YES VOTE would keep in place the current law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity in places of public accommodation.

A NO VOTE would repeal this provision of the public accommodation law.

Obviously, we want a “NO!”
“Gender identity” is a total fraud, and it needs to be confronted that way. But the pro-family establishment is not fighting hard enough. They are treating this matter simply as an issue of privacy and public safety. That’s part of the issue, but the pro-transgender movement is defending their insanity as a civil right.
And the cost to us is the loss of our rights.

It’s not a civil right.
It’s a known mental disorder.
To win, we need to confront this lie!

The public needs to know the whole truth about the LGBT Movement. It’s based on lies, fraud, and distorted science. If the campaign for “No to Question Three” focuses only on safety, the repeal effort will fail, and the law will stay on the books.

MassResistance wants to campaign for “No to Question Three” and tell the whole truth about transgenderism & this “non-discrimination” law.
  1. Transgenderism is not a civil right, but an uncivil wrong
  2. Transgenderism is not a unique form of self-expression, but a mental disorder
  3. Transgenders need psychiatric assistance, not public accommodation
  4. Opponents of transgenderism are not crazy bigots, but sane and loving people who care about their families, faith, and freedom
MassResistance is campaigning to stop this travesty!

NO to 3 Committee

VoteNoTo3.com
  • Spread the word. Link to this page from your Facebook page or website.
  • Contribute. The November 6th election day is quickly coming up. Help us get the word out by making a contribution.
    Many thanks to those who have contributed!
    • Send a check - personal or company checks are acceptible for Ballot Question Committees, NO limit on the amount.
      Make the check out and Mail to:
      • NO to 3
      • P.O. Box 10486
      • Holyoke, MA 01041-0486
    • A must - Supply your address, whether writing a personal or company check