I remember when I was a teenager my senior year of high school. Bush was president, and both at state and national levels they were trying to ban same-sex marriage. Making it illegal for same-gender couples to adopt, even trying to help with foster care. Spousal or domestic-partner benefits were hard to obtain. We would have to jump through all kinds of legal hoops and spend massive amounts of money straight couples didn’t have to, to make sure our partners were provided for in case one of them passed away or something major happened.

At the time, I thought marriage was an outdated system. Government should’ve just stay out of it (I was very libertarian back then), and that any two consenting people should be able to draw up a contract and send it to their local surrogate, no questions asked. No distinction between single or married when filing taxes; no discounts for partners or families when electing for company health benefits; if it was $50/person, than a couple should be $100 (kids should still be discounted, tho). If a company chose not to hire somebody who was great at their job but either was in a same-sex marriage or underwent a sex change, that was a loss on the company. If a landlord kicked out someone for either of those reasons, that was stupid because it takes a lot of time and money to kick out someone and find a new tenant. Government benefits should be tied only to a person, not to a spouse or parent.

Half a lifetime later, now as I see states trying to prevent sex changes and once more increase barriers to same-sex marriage (despite the 2015 ruling that legalized gay marriage everywhere). Partners should be entitled to the same tax deductions as the tax filer. Businesses, landlords, and others have no right to discriminate against us just because they don’t like same-sex relationships or people living as members of the opposite sex. If a widow is entitled to her late husband’s pension and Social Security, so should my girlfriend if I die before them (and vice versa). I shouldn’t have to be afraid of losing my job or housing because someone disagrees with me living as a man. A doctor has no right to refuse me care, especially in a medical emergency, because they see I still have my vagina instead of a penis. A business open to the general public can’t decide to whom they will and won’t cater to. And government officials should be working on the behalf of all their constituents, not just to their political party.

The WPATH-SOC for transsexual youth dictates only puberty blockers (which is still potentially harmful, as the drugs were developed for sick kids, not to mutilate healthy bodies); HRT may be given as early as age of 16, but no surgeries before the age of majority of 18. Most surgeons (and health insurances covering sex reassignment surgeries) still require at least one or two statements by psychiatrists stating patients are of clear mental health and have a history of transsexualism before they will operate on anyone. Maybe if these “politicians” actually did a little research, they’d realize they’re either codifying into law stuff that already exists in the healthcare system (thus wasting time with redundancy).

The government’s job is to protect people, not enact into law discrimination because same-sex relationships and sex changes bother a few Bible-thumping holy-rollers. If these Bible-thumpers want to practice their religion, fine, but their right stops when it interferes with mine to marry, live, work, and exist as a man.

%d bloggers like this: