To the editor:
According to an April 5 editorial: “Economic threat demands revisit of bathroom bill,” North Carolina may face serious economic repercussions due to the rapid passage of House Bill 2.
Major corporations and sports organizations are threatening to punish our state economically, and “there is even the question of whether North Carolina could lose billions of education dollars from the federal government.” So why was this Republican authored legislation so easily passed with some Democratic support? Could that be because true democracy requires reasonable legislation that benefits the majority, rather than a minute few?
Although national media recently broadcasted much news about a nationally known celebrity, I know of no transgendered people here in our community. I realize there are some in our state and nation, but are there enough to change gender privacy laws previously unquestioned? Proponents claim there is little evidence of enabling sexual predators in other states where “gender identity” bathroom use is allowed, but isn’t any evidence at all enough to retain the status quo? We cannot read each other’s minds, but we can see exposed body parts. If the human desire to see nudity of the opposite sex is strong enough to fuel a multi-million dollar pornography industry, how many of the sexually perverted will take advantage of claiming they are transgendered to enter bath rooms of the opposite sex? Although male and female reproductive and excretory organs have dual usage, excretion of waste is not a sexual function; therefore bathroom usage has nothing to do with assumed gender identity, and should be based on physical anatomy, now shouldn’t it?
Yes, the potential economic cost of House Bill 2 may be catastrophic, but what happened to concern about social cost? I well remember millions of Americans claiming the sexual misbehavior of a former president was immaterial, as long as the economy was good. But how good was his example as a rode model for our youth, and what effect did our partisan division over removal for his sexual immorality have on our national image in the eyes of other nations? I am extremely proud N.C. legislators of both parties put prevention of perverted exhibitionist opportunity to abuse our children over the threat of economic sanction. And where did the federal government get the education dollars it may withhold in the first place, if not from N.C. taxpayers? Yes, the court system may have to decide if House Bill 2 is constitutional, but if our courts and Constitution are Biblical, our little girls will not be victimized by perverted men’s exposition in public bathrooms, now will they?
Think about it, please!
Robert C. Currie Jr.