Graphic by Will Kailing
Steven Segel
Opinions Contributor
YES
Ballot question three plays a paramount role in how Massachusetts will be perceived for generations to come as a leader in human rights. Like every generation before us, we will look back and calculate the endless social reforms which could not protect our fellow inhabitants of the Commonwealth, the United States, and the World.
We have a chance on November 6th to reassure our inalienable rights, reaffirm the Equal Rights Clause of the Constitution, and protect discrimination towards individuals on the basis of their gender identity by supporting “Yes on 3.”
The current protections of gender identity are undeniably constitutional. In a strict, loose, and pragmatic approach to constitutional interpretation, the fourteenth amendment orders that no state shall deny any person “the equal protection of the laws.” Moreover, the Massachusetts Constitution provides protections in Article One for all people “seeking … their safety and happiness.” Thus, in both Constitutions, protections shall be endowed upon all individuals for them to receive equal protection under the laws, including and not limited to in association with one’s gender identity.
A common exaggerated talking point used for political grandstanding within groups opposed to protecting against discrimination towards any individual on the basis of their gender identity is that by allowing individuals who identify with the opposite gender to use the restroom of the gender they identify with there may be harassment, abuse, and assault. This theory is safeguarded in the bill signed into law when the bill defines gender identity as “a person’s sincerely held gender-related identity.” This effectively hedges against the possibility of abuse by requiring one to “sincerely” identifying with one gender.
Additionally, the physical framework has been in law for the past two years, and in that span, there has been no increase in public safety incidents, while harassing people remains illegal within the Commonwealth. This bill was signed into law by Republican Governor Charlie Baker, and presumably, both major party candidates for Governor of Massachusetts support a Yes Vote on ballot question Three. Undoubtedly, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a clear chance to affirm our commitment to moving our country forward, upholding the constitution, providing equal protection under the law for all individuals, and leading the way in civil and human rights reform.
If you believe in the Constitution, human rights, civil rights, and a country that works for every citizen, then you should support “Yes on 3” to ban all discrimination towards our neighbors, classmates, and friends on the basis of their gender identity.
NO
The people who are going to vote no on question #3 argue that the bill should be repealed because it could impact the safety of women and children in public areas, specifically bathrooms and changing rooms.
Keep MA Safe, an institution designed to ensure the safety of Massachusetts citizens made the following argument to influence citizens to vote no:
“What the citizens of Massachusetts weren’t told was that there were only a handful of allegations of such denial of access to public accommodations and that those claims were already covered under state law. What changed on October first of last year was access to bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and changing facilities. It is now a potential criminal civil rights violation for a woman or young girl to object when a biological male undresses next to her in a public facility. This is not progress for our Commonwealth. We should not require women to sacrifice their privacy for the sake of sexual charades.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what we’ve seen happen in the last year. In December, a woman was photographed by a man lurking in the ladies’ room of a T.J. Maxx in Plainville, MA. When she asked employees for help, they seemed torn regarding what to do. Do they call the police, and risk being brought up on hate crimes charges? Or do they protect themselves and their employer by looking the other way and side with the man over the frightened woman? The law is now weighted to benefit those who would violate private spaces. How many cases go unreported?”
If you wish to read more on how people who are going to vote no support their decision, check https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_3,_Gender_Identity_Anti-Discrimination_Veto_Referendum_(2018)
______________________________________________________________________________
Feel differently? Contact us if you are interested in sharing an opposing perspective!
