I find it constitutionally abhorrent that the State of California is trying to impose the will of its progressive socialist democrat legislators on other states by banning state-sponsored travel to those states if they do not conform to the dictates of California.
Now, the California Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, has enlarged the state’s travel ban to include Iowa because Iowa’s duly elected representatives of their own constituency refuse to cover state-funded gender-transition surgery in its Medicaid program. It is not as if taxpayer-funded gender-transition surgery is a life-threatening disease or illness, nor is it a human or civil right. In fact, it is elective cosmetic surgery that does not change the biological facts of life that are chromosomally determined.
The states subject to sanctions are Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.
One can only imagine a future when the progressive socialist democrat-dominated California legislature attempts to pressure corporations and individuals into conforming to state-mandated social engineering dictates.
|
California Assembly Bill AB 1887 provides that "California must take action to avoid supporting or financing discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people." (Gov. Code, § 11139.8, subd. (a)(5).) AB 1887 prohibits a state agency, department, board, or commission from requiring any state employees, officers, or members to travel to a state that, after June 26, 2015, has enacted a law that (1) has the effect of voiding or repealing existing state or local protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression; (2) authorizes or requires discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression; or (3) creates an exemption to antidiscrimination laws in order to permit discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. (Gov. Code, § 11139.8, subds. (b)(1), (2).) In addition, the law prohibits California from approving a request for state-funded or state-sponsored travel to such a state. (Gov. Code, § 11139.8, subd. (b)(2).)
The travel prohibition applies to state agencies, departments, boards, authorities, and commissions, including an agency, department, board, authority, or commission of the University of California, the Board of Regents of the University of California, and the California State University. (Gov. Code, § 11139.8, subd. (b).)
The law also requires the Attorney General to develop, maintain, and post on his Internet Web site a current list of states that are subject to the travel ban. (Gov. Code, § 11139.8, subd. (e).)
[OCS: Of course there are exceptions, mainly for activities which brings revenue into California or benefit the state such as: enforcement of California law, including auditing and revenue collection, litigation, to participate in meetings or training required by a grant or required to maintain grant funding, to complete job-required training necessary to maintain licensure or similar standards required for holding a position, in the event that comparable training cannot be obtained in California or a different state not subject to the travel prohibition.]
|
Bottom line…
This is a prime example of government tyranny by a vocal minority that wants their beliefs and practices, previously considered religiously or socially aberrant, mainstreamed, and even promoted, so they can feel better about themselves. As a constitutional conservative, I believe that any individual, be they straight, gay, or any flavor conceived by the “alphabet people” (GLBTQIA+), should have the right to go about their private business unmolested by the state as long as they do not abridge or limit the rights of others. It's known as equality under the law and does not favor any class of individual.
To the extent that one needs to introduce class warfare into the United States or promote some class over another to redress historical grievances is un-American. We are a young and growing nation that should learn from its mistakes and not perpetuate them on behalf of those that profit from their continuation.
I do not recall this matter being submitted for consideration by “We the People” or where our state representatives have the moral or legal authority to make such judgments. But, then again, this is Kellogg’s Kalifornia, dominated by flakes, fruits, and nuts.
The corollary to the Golden Rule should be: live and let live.
We are so screwed.
-- steve
