Here is a 10 min. video of a WGBH/Greater Boston debate between a "Yes on 3" proponent and a "No on 3” proponent, if someone has interest and time to see it before voting today.
I anticipate that “Yes on 3” will prevail because the Question is phrased in a way that makes most people think they would be supporting unacceptable discrimination if they vote No. Also, the "Yes on 3" campaign has endorsements of many progressive groups, and it collected nearly $4.5 million in donations (vs. a little over $600,000 that was collected by “No on 3”).
Personally, I have been waffling over this issue. Some LGBT people I know have made it clear they support “Yes on 3”, and it is difficult for me to ignore that. But then I read this well-written piece in the Boston Globe, and the arguments in it also make sense.
Three reasons to vote No on Question 3 - The Boston Globe
The author, Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby, cites these three reasons for why he will be voting “No”:
1. When antidiscrimination laws are expanded, freedom of association — a core human liberty — is infringed.
2. Massachusetts has already shown that it can accommodate transgender access — no law required.
3. The gender-identity law ignores sensitive issues of privacy and vulnerability.
In previous postings on this subject I, and John Spritzler, focused primarily on reason #3. But Jacoby’s piece has opened my eyes to another important aspect of this issue — the one he outlines in his reason #1.
As he sees it, the 2016 Massachusetts law, Chapter 134, infringes on Freedom of Association, a long-standing principle that is recognized in American law.
Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria.
Since the 2016 law makes it illegal for a business or organization with membership limited to one sex (such as a women’s gym, or a men’s club) to exclude individuals who are biologically of the opposite sex, it looks like this effectively violates those organizations Freedom of Association.
(Are Mensa Clubs discriminating when they are denying membership to people with low or average IQ?)
Needless to say, I would never condone discrimination against transgender people in employment, healthcare, education, credit, and other areas that are essential to any individual’s ability to function in society — and such discrimination is already prohibited and punishable by another Massachusetts law that is not being challenged by anyone.
But if a transgender person were to be refused membership in something like “Grandmas’ Aerobics Group”, or “Men’s Cigar Smoking Club”, or “Postpartum Depression Support Group”, or “Women’s Baking Club” — should that be viewed as legally prohibited discrimination, subject to heavy fines and even jail (as the 2016 law stipulates)?
Bigoted behavior is something that society already looks down upon — and people often express their strong disapproval of bigotry when they encounter it (which is often sufficient to put the bigoted person in their place). But at the same time, it seems to me that in a free society, bigotry cannot be classified as illegal — just as being stupid, or insensitive, or rude, or unwelcoming, or prejudiced, cannot be classified as illegal.
If a person is harassed or threatened, that is already illegal, and it doesn’t require that the harassed/threatened person be a member of a protected class.
There are many instances where people find themselves put down, teased, disrespected and ostracized for all kinds of things — for being short or fat, for having a heavy accent, for their ethnicity, for being handicapped or having some physical abnormalities, for having tattoos, for being mentally slow, for being an unwed mother, for being clumsy, for being vegan — and on, and on. But we cannot have laws that classify that as discrimination.
The issue with Question 3, I think, is that many people feel sorry for transgender people — they view them as emotionally fragile, and worry that any kind of rejection may lead to a nervous breakdown, or worse. But is this a reason to bestow a special legally protected status on them? Some will say yes, others will remain unconvinced.
There is potentially no end to groups claiming victimhood or oppression, and demanding a special protected status. We are living in very strange times.