Raising covenant children in Sodom...

Bloomington's city council recently passed a gender identity ordinance opposed by the testimony and public opposition of a number of the members and officers of Church of the Good Shepherd. The ordinance was modeled after similar ordinances passed around the country in the past few years, all aimed at protecting an individual's right to identify his gender any way he chooses regardless of his biological sexuality. Among other things, such laws guarantee the individual's right to use whatever dressing room, locker room, or bathroom he'd like. So in public schools in Los Angeles, for instance, the law forbids teachers from stopping men from using the women's locker room. But it gets worse.

The New York Times reports that New York City's Board of Health now plans to allow individuals to go back and alter the sex marked down on their birth certificate. Yes, you read that right...

New York Plans to Make Gender Personal Choice November 7, 2006

By Damien Cave

Separating anatomy from what it means to be a man or a woman, New York City is moving forward with a plan to let people alter the sex on their birth certificate even if they have not had sex-change surgery.

Under the rule being considered by the city's Board of Health, which is likely to be adopted soon, people born in the city would be able to change the documented sex on their birth certificates by providing affidavits from a doctor and a mental health professional laying out why their patients should be considered members of the opposite sex, and asserting that their proposed change would be permanent.

Applicants would have to have changed their name and shown that they had lived in their adopted gender for at least two years, but there would be no explicit medical requirements...

"I've already heard of a 'transgendered' man who claimed at work to be 'a woman in a man's body but a lesbian' and who had to be expelled from the ladies' restroom because he was propositioning women there," Dr. Paul McHugh, a member of the President's Council of Bioethics and chairman of the psychiatry department at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in an e-mail message on the subject. "He saw this as a great injustice in that his behavior was justified in his mind by the idea that the categories he claimed for himself were all 'official' and had legal rights attached to them."

(Thanks, Dave..


This is utterly astounding. Though egalitarianism leading to acceptance of homosexuality as "normal" was fairly easy to forecast, I honestly never even considered anything like this.

What are "covenant children"? Why do you use that particular term?

Did Bloomington's city council also vote to change city's name to Sodom? What is exact text of the legislation that your city council adopted? Not posting the text or a Web link to the text intentionally leaves your readers in the dark.
Finally, you really are making an inequitable comparison of a Small Mid-Western town (Bloomington - 2003 US Census Pop of 70,642, 2000 racial make-up is 87% White, 4.2% Black, 5.2% Asian ) to a Large International City that's Diverse, Multi-Cultural & Racial (NYC - 2003 US Census Est Pop of 8,085,742 of which 35.9% is Foreign Born, 2004 racial make-up is 44.7% White, 26.6% Black, 27% Hispanic, 6.5% Asian, 26,402 people per square mile)

I hope this is not too flippant, but a bright side of allowing one to change one's sex on one's birth certificate is that it'll make it harder to implement affirmative action programs.

But sigh--letting men use the ladies' locker rooms? Had I only had the good sense to become a lawyer instead of an engineer--one could become a billionaire suing the victims of this kind of ordinance. Doesn't anyone consider the idea that such an ordinance basically allows any pervert to play the peeping tom with the full protection of the law? Haven't they ever heard of laws to protect children?

Here are a couple of documents related to Tim's comment:

http://bloomington.in.gov/egov/docs/1147121195_659220.pdf (this is the amendment.)

http://bloomington.in.gov/egov/docs/1160748973_867181.pdf (recommendations from the city regarding the amendment.)

reading this makes me feel dirty.

Paul, a covenant child is a child born into, or adopted by, a Christian family. As such, these children are the subjects of these covenant promises given by God:

***The LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed? For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him." (Genesis 18:17-19)***

***Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." (Acts 2:38, 39)***

***...and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household. (Acts 11:14)***

***They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." (Acts 16:31)***

I believe we should not only work towards (through discipline, instruction, and love), but also pray towards these promises, claiming them over our children today as did the godly fathers and mothers of old. I use the term "covenant children," then, to reinforce God's promise and our godly response to that promise.

Actually, this particular legislation invites ridicule. I doubt that it makes things worse; it only shows that there is no end to the nonsense. Bloomington already identified all kinds of ("protected classes"). And it already included "sexual orientation" as a defining criterion of such a class. This ordinance added "gender identity." We should have a contest for what they might think up next.


How about species orientation?

I would be willing to bet that some sort of "age orientation" would come next; especially as related to members of the same sex.

All I ask is that I be able to choose my own income. Is that really so much to ask? I am a billionaire in a thousand-aire's body, and I yearn to be free. Society, why must you oppress me so!?!

Add new comment