2 out 2 South Dakota Catholic Bishops agree – Thou shalt pass House Bill 1008

@SoDakCampaigns

Here’s something that found it’s way to me regarding House Bill 1008, the measure to restrict access to certain restrooms and locker rooms in public schools. South Dakota ACLU is opposing it, but in this game, I’ll see their liberal organization, and raise them a pair of Bishops:

Joint Statement on HB 1008_January 2016

Stipulating that access to facilities based on the gender of birth protects all students and preserves our religious liberty and upholds our protected freedom of conscience. If special provision is needed for individuals, that can be accommodated as the legislation encourages. Exemption for religious schools is not sufficient because accommodation policies apply to all Catholic students, whether enrolled in parochial or public schools. Additionally, as we remain mindful that litigation can come from every side of any issue, threat of litigation ought not to drive policy decision-making but rather what is best for the common good.

We encourage the passage of HB 1008 to protect the rights and dignity of all of our young.

That’s a pretty clear statement coming from the leaders of the Catholic flock in South Dakota.  How do you think this will affect the debate over the issue?

12 thoughts on “2 out 2 South Dakota Catholic Bishops agree – Thou shalt pass House Bill 1008”

  1. “2 out 2 South Dakota Catholic Bishops agree – Thou shalt pass House Bill 1008”?— So what? If the catholic church wants to influence government they can start by paying taxes.

  2. Fretwalker,

    The ACLU has the exact same tax treatment as the Catholic Church.

    Would you also support their loss of tax exempt status too?

    Sidenote: Do do it to either would be ruled unConstitutional but I’m still asking the question. 🙂

  4. I’ve got an idea. Why don’t we ask President Trump to deport any women who were not born in America as a female. Same goes for men. Problem solved.

    1. Amendment. Remove “America” above and replace it with the “United States”. That was a loophole the size of Mexico.

  5. Ah, the bishops weighing in on law once again. I do applaud their attentiveness, but I am still waiting for them to call on our legislators to prohibit the sale and wearing of cotton-polyester blends – punishable by stoning, of course. Or, better yet, help all those camels pass through the eye of a needle by encouraging the enactment of a progressive state income tax!

    But in all seriousness, we are created in the image and likeness of God: men, women, males, females, gender-fluid, what have you. I understand the “otherness” of this might be jarring to some people and might frighten them into thinking interaction with transgender children might have some adverse impact on their own children. But, in all reality, where does that, at best, fear or, at worst, hatred come from?

    Is it because parents themselves are confused and unable to explain the concept of transgender to themselves? I, for one, found the whole thing silly when I was in school and never really tried to understand it. However, after asking questions, engaging in dialog with, and truly getting to know transgender people, it became clear just how much a part of their identities their assumed genders were.

    Today I am comfortable as day with people of any gender and consider trans people as some of my closest friends. It is devastating to see them fight back against stigma and hatred as they try to find comfort in their own bodies.

    So why do we have to resort to discriminatory language here when actually endeavoring to understand both sides of the topic or teaching our children with this in mind could achieve an even more amicable outcome?

    For every Bible verse commenting on the sanctity of gender, I am certain their are at least five instructing us to love one another because, as we are all made in His image, in loving one another we are loving God.

  6. Yet another law thrown on the heap of needless legislation solving problems that do not exist. Congratulations.

  7. Mr. Powers,
    Thank-you for this post. For years you Catholics (Schoenbeck is known for it) have decried foul when you’re faith is brought up in excuse or defense of your anti-women’s rights extremism. It’s all fair game now that you’ve introduced this evidence from two Bishops that tread far from their Pope, once again. Finally valid criticism of Catholic policy is on the table politically.

    1. It’s “your”, not “you’re”; here I thought you were so smart (in your own mind). I know you hate religion and morality unless the morality is the product of humans rather than the Creator.

        1. “Schoenbeck is known for it” “Schoenbeck is beatable”

          PorterLansing are you moving back to South Dakota from Colorado to run against Representative Lee Schoenbeck?

  8. It’s interesting that 2 men in positions that only men can hold are taking upon themselves to dictate where folks go potty.

    Further, the good Bishops are using the diagnostic term “gender dysphoria” which is very different from non-conforming gender. The difference is “the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.” Passing this bill would certainly help to move those well adjusted non-conformers into experiencing gender dysphoria.

    http://www.dsm5.org/documents/gender%20dysphoria%20fact%20sheet.pdf

Comments are closed.