Windham School Board – That Transgender Bathroom policy really isn’t official? Part 3 - Granite Grok

Windham School Board – That Transgender Bathroom policy really isn’t official? Part 3

“…transgenderism is a belief system that increasingly looks like a cultish religion—a modern-day Gnosticism denying physical reality for deceived perceptions—being forced on the public by the state”.

Windham School Board Transgender Bathroom Policy discussionWell, tonite is the night that Rob Breton, Dennis Senibaldi and Keleigh McAllister will be facing the music – and probably not tunes they wish to listen to.  And elections are coming up, to boot!  Since I can’t be there, I did write down some ideas on the JBAB policy (“Transgender Bathroom bill for Windham Schools”) and applied what should be our MOST fundamental Law concerning what they are foisting upon the good folk of Windham.  That, of course, would be both the US and NH Constitutions.  There’s one particular section that is rather egregious in its overreach and liberty hating thrust in ignoring what should be concrete, steel hardened, fences that limit the reach and intrusiveness of Government into individuals’ lives (but then again, Progressives hate the Constitution, so no biggie for them). Guidance C (emphasis mine):

C. Names/Pronouns
A student has the right to be addressed by a name or pronoun that corresponds to the student’s gender identity.  A Court-order name or gender change is not required and the student need not change his or her official recordsThe intentional or persistent refusal to respect a student’s gender identity (for example, intentionally referring to the student by a name or pronoun that does not correspond to the student’s gender identity) is a violation of this policy.
It shows, spectacularly, how little regard these “school leaders” actually know about our Constitutions. A question that NEEDS to be brought up is this: How is Guidance C NOT a violation of both the First Amendment of the US Constitution and several articles of the NH Constitution. Remember, these are our foundational Law – if “lawmakers” refuse to follow them, why should others follow theirs? A few things are outrageously wrong with this.

First Amendment (US Constitution):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As the lead quote says, Transgenderism is seemingly now a State sponsored religion with its own acts, its own liturgy, and its own book of sins which cannot and will not allow others that do not wish to either participate or affirm someone else’s sexual dysphoria to dissent, disagree, or depart from it.  Article 2 (from the NH Constitution, following as well) speaks to this identity politics new protected class (at least by the Windham School Board’s measure):

[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights – among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.

Gender identity is not protected by the NH Constitution.  It isn’t even mentioned.  Words have meanings and the absence of certain words, in this case “gender identity”, is quite loud.  Let me spin this on its head: Progressives are always hammering that AR-15s and semi-automatic weapons were not known to our Founding Fathers (actually, repeating weapons did exist, but let’s move on) so modern citizens should not have them; they just weren’t in the Constitutions.

So, neither is Gender Identity – so, what is good for the goose also good for the gander?  DO you really want to play this game?  I think not.

[Art.] 4. [Rights of Conscience Unalienable.] Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the Rights of Conscience.

[Art.] 22. [Free Speech; Liberty of the Press.] Free speech and liberty of the press are essential to the security of freedom in a state: They ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.

So the Windham School Board, in all of its brilliance, has decided that with Guidance C, they have the RIGHT to override Free Speech and Right of Conscience. They are mandating coerced speech (“you must call them by what they tell you to”). When Government tells you what you must say and ascribed when you must say their demanded speech, is that not coerced?  Yet, here in the “Land of the Free” and the “Live Free or Die” State, they make a mockery of some of the most sacred pillars of our Republic – that we are free to think what we want and to say what we will and GOVERNMENT cannot both suppress such speech or take away liberties for doing so.   These leaders of schools have forgotten that they are Governmentthe Constitution(s) are there to LIMIT Government in its behavior towards Civil Society and the Individuals in it. Instead, they are all about flipping the relationship of Citizens to the Government they have to being one that Government has serfs that must act as specified.  Rob Breton, Dennis Senibaldi, and Keleigh McAllister (among others) just told those that died to create, write, and protect them “up yours!“.

Don’t they TRULY understand what “Right of Conscience” really means in the face of Government mandated coerced speech (which is them TELLING others “You WILL use THESE words or be under a penalty) – is this the lesson they wish to teach their students??? That Free Speech is just that – free and unencumbered – that Government (even with the latitude given schools to “keep order”by some court decisions) should not and cannot impose its will on citizens. Who do they think they are – Kim Jong-un? Where did they hide that anti-aircraft gun to which to tie offenders to the muzzle?

This is a policy BEGGING to be brought to court!

Oh, by the way – speaking of court, this policy is toothless. It says “is a violation of this policy”; so what’s the penalty regime? And if someone has $$ and the attitude, that lack can have a suit brought against that as well for any penalty would be capricious and arbitrary.  The opposing lawyers will LOVE this!

Nope, this is just another “Me TOO!” moment for the Windham School Board (just like little kids scream out when a wanted item appears).