How radical is the homosexual rights agenda? The answer will surprise even those who think they know all about the homosexual rights movement. A recent decision by the Maine Human Rights Commission shows that a law passed several years ago is beginning to be felt in ways far beyond what even radical homosexual activists imagined.
 
When Governor Baldacci's sexual orientation law passed in 2005, many in Maine warned that the law would have unpredictable consequences. The law led to yet another hard-fought People's Veto, with the support of the Christian Civic League/Maine Family Policy Council. 
 
During the campaign which led up to the referendum, gay rights radicals accused religious conservatives of fear-mongering. Rev. Dallas Henry, the President of the Board of the Christian Civic League/Maine Family Policy Council, wrote at the time, "It is important for every citizen in Maine to become totally informed about the most liberal and most sweeping homosexual rights law ever seen. I don't want it to be legal in Maine for a man to be able to dress like a woman and to use a woman's bathroom, or a woman to use a man's bathroom."
 
Rev. Henry was correct. The sexual orientation law was the most radical of its kind ever passed. The law not only protected homosexuals from discrimination, it also prohibited discrimination on the basis of "gender identity" and "gender expression." "Gender identity" is the belief that one is either male or female, regardless of one's biological sex.  "Gender expression" is the dress, hairstyle, and the like which expresses one's perceived gender.
 
Simply put, the sexual orientation law forces society to participate in a homosexual's delusion that he or she is a member of the opposite sex. If a business or educational institution refuses to participate in the delusion, they are subject to action by the Maine Human Rights Commission, and a possible lawsuit.
 
That is exactly what happened at the Asa C. Adams Elementary School in Orono when a twelve year old boy, a fifth grader, wanted to use the girls' room. The school offered a compromise - the use of a unisex faculty bathroom -  and the boy's parents  then claimed the school was discriminating against their child, who thinks he is a girl.
 
The boy had originally been using the girls' bathroom, but a problem arose when another boy followed him into the girls' bathroom and asked to use the bathroom too. He did so at the suggestion of his grandfather, Paul Melanson, who wanted to point out the absurdity of the sexual orientation law. Melanson's grandson allegedly got into an altercation with a third student, and following the incident, the school told the transgendered boy to use the unisex faculty bathroom only.
 
Several months before the incident, a meeting was held with the transgendered student, the Special Ed Director, the Guidance Counselor and the boy's parents. It was agreed at the meeting that the boy would use the girls' room, with the unisex bathroom as a backup. In connection with the meeting, the school agreed that it would accept the boy's use of a girl's name and would agree to call 'him' 'her.' 
 
Incredibly, staff at the school received training from an Assistant Attorney General, and the State's Gender Resource and Support Service Director, Jean Vermette, an expert on transgender issues. The logo of the Maine Transgender Network is shown at left.
 
The Christian Civic League/Maine Family Policy Council became involved when The RECORD revealed that the school was allowing the boy to use the girls' bathroom under the sexual orientation law. 
 
The school stopped allowing the boy to use the girls' bathroom after the incident with Melanson's grandson, and the parents then brought the case to the Maine Human Rights Commission. On June 29, 2009, The Human Rights Commission concluded unanimously that the school discriminated against the boy. The HRC relied in part on an Investigator's Report which stated, "Respondents here have unlawfully discriminated against Minor Student in education and public accommodations by denying her the equal enjoyment of school facilities on account of and on the basis of her gender identity. Minor Student’s gender identity is female. She not only identifies herself as a girl, but she dresses as a girl and behaves as a girl. With the exception of Minor Student, the students at Respondent 2 are allowed to use common bathrooms that are consistent with their gender identities. Yet Respondents have not allowed Minor Student to use the common bathroom that is consistent with her gender identity. Understandably, Minor Student was very self-conscious when she had to go to the other end of the building to use the bathroom."
 
Of course, the decision by the Human Rights Commission is laughable, but it gets  worse. The decision goes beyond even what the homosexual rights lobby intended and specifically recommended in such cases.
 
 As part of an official comment on the changes to the Maine Human Rights Act, Mary Bonauto of GLAD, a leading homosexual rights organization, wrote the following, "… it would be unreasonable to require a female-to-male transsexual to use the women’s bathroom and that doing so would actually cause more disruption than allowing him to use the men’s bathroom. During a “real life” test period in which a person is ascertaining his or her certitude about a different gender identity, reasonable accommodations might include use of single stall bathrooms, which are commonly available, as well as curtains in dressing rooms. (There is) a great deal of room in negotiating over what is reasonable in the transition period with the touchstone being that the employee should not be required to use facilities that are inconsistent with the gender to which the person is transitioning."
 
Thus in the opinion of the homosexual rights lobby, it is essential only that a person not be required to use a bathroom inconsistent with his/her gender identity. Reasonable accommodations are a possibility, and that is just what the Asa C. Adams school did. It offered a unisex faculty bathroom as a 'reasonable accommodation'  required by law.
 
Instead,  the Human Rights Commission found that it was unreasonable to refuse the boy the use of the girls' room, and that no accommodation was possible once that was done.  When asked for a comment, Steve Whiting, attorney for the Christian Civic League/Maine Family Policy Council said that the decision was  'irrational,' and that the case would have 'far reaching implications when older transgendered students demand to use all the facilities used by the opposite sex.'
 
   
 
Related Stories
 
Twelve year old boy using girls bathroom in Orono public school
 
Grandfather's transgendered schoolchildren questions unanswered
 
From World Net Daily
 
District allows boy in girls' restrooms