AdvanceUSAAmericans Defending Values and National Conservative Efforts
Home PageAbout UsLinksMediaActionSurveyDonateBlogContact Us









 Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Daniel Herbster reporting

Did you know that legislation could be passed in your state or on the national level that would allow cross dressers or even sexual offenders to use women’s restrooms?  The state of Colorado recently passed such a law in the misguided desire to prevent “discrimination” against “transgendered” individuals.  AdvanceUSA interviewed Jim Pfaff (who now works for Americans for Prosperity) back in April about his work at the Colorado Family Institute.  We’ve decided to touch base with him again about Colorado’s Senate Bill 200 and how it could be a grim harbinger of things to come nation-wide.

DH:  Senate Bill 200, recently signed by Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, claims to protect against “discrimination.”  Do you think that is true?

JP: It really doesn't protect anyone from discrimination. The legislation was intended to protect homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals from so-called discrimination. But really no such discrimination existed. The proponents of the bill claimed that there were a multitude of homosexuals being systematically discriminated against, but we looked at the numbers and found out that at best approximately 175 cases of such discrimination were ever brought forward. And of those, less than 3 to 4% had any validity to them. On the other hand, we maintain that this bill actually will have the effect of imposing by government Fiat a new form of discrimination against those of sincere religious belief. And as I said in our previous interview, one example we have is a Christian couple in Albuquerque New Mexico who owned a photography company and was hauled into a civil rights court because they refused to take pictures of a lesbian same-sex commitment ceremony based on their sincerely held religious belief. We believe many more cases like this will begin to emerge here in Colorado, and in our opinion this bill therefore does nothing to protect anyone from discrimination and, to the contrary, will likely cause new forms of discrimination.

DH:  What are some of the scary implications of this bill?  What could happen as a result of its passage?

JP: Well, the first and the most scary application of this bill is the fact that based on the wording of this law, any man, for example, can of legal right to enter a woman's restroom by merely stating that he perceives himself to be a woman. That's the first and most concerning aspect of this new law. But secondly, as I stated before, this bill could be used to discriminate against people of sincere religious belief became merely refuse to appropriately accommodate homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered individuals based on a sincerely held religious belief.

DH:  Is there a push to enact this kind of legislation on the national level or in other states?

JP: Yes, there has been an effort in Congress to enact this very type of legislation. In a month of course, many other states are considering or have passed such legislation. In fact, the New Mexico law to which I referred before is very similar to this new Colorado law.

DH:  Is there an effort in Colorado to repeal this legislation?

JP: There is not currently an effort to repeal this legislation. We have a very free and open ballot process which allows any individual to submit such a repeal measure. It is not likely, even after the elections in November, that any bill introduced to repeal SB 200 could see the light of day because the Colorado Gen. Assembly is likely to remain in Democratic hands.

DH:  What could our readers do to prevent sexually-based anti-discrimination laws such as this from being passed in their states or in our national government?

JP: Well, first of all they need to get involved. Now I know that this is something we say over and over a given, but it really is important for individuals reading this interview to decide that if they care about the direction our country and/or their state is taking, they must find some way big or small to get involved. That begins with finding a solid pro-life, pro-family organization in their state, and contacting that organization and letting them know that they will be willing to help as a volunteer and anyway they might need. Secondly, they need to get involved with the local political party of their choice. They need to do the regular door-to-door knocking, phone calling, and other volunteer work and learn how to work in and through the political system. Then if they feel called to do so, they need to run for school board or city Council or further local state legislature. Everyone needs to help a little bit on the volunteer level.

DH:  How does this issue relate to hate crimes and workforce discrimination legislation, and how are these kinds of legislation dangerous?

JP: Well, we need to understand that bills like SB 200 often lead to a court action which impose these kinds of things upon us. But also, when a legislature passes these kinds of bills, and there is little or no outcry from the people, it only empowers them to take the next step and pass things like he crimes legislation.  Now here in Colorado, we passed workforce termination laws in the 2007 session. So SB 200 was in fact just the next step. And they moved very quickly to bring it forward in 2008 because they have such large majorities in the House and the Senate, and the governor willing to sign these kinds of bills. What we need here in Colorado and what is needed in many other states is for people to take a stand and elect more pro-family, pro-life legislators.

DH:  Jim, thanks for sharing with our readers about this crucial issue.  Stay in touch.

Note: The views of any interviewee do not necessarily reflect the views of AdvanceUSA.